How many of you here eat only Halal foods? It's healthy to, look it up.
What's your favorite thing to order at a Halal food truck?
They wipe with the left, right?
>>7207588
>praying over food makes it automatically healthier
Right... right.
>>7207588
the most liberal way of preparing halal meat is when a imam stood next to the animal when it was killed
it is most often practised in large meat companies
i dont see how that is gonna make the food any better
Kosher is the only way to know if the animal was healthy before it was killed. Halal is bullshit because anything can be halal if you just bless it which is why you see Muslims eat in fast food restaurants.
>>7207637
its like any superstition, no different than mormons refusing to consume caffeine, or Amish using modern stuff, or hippies with GMO food
>>7207641
Wait then how come there is a brand of frozen tv dinners called Saffron Road, which claims to be only halal? Is some guy in the assembly line praying over each prepackaged tv dinner?
>>7207646
>Doesn't everyone wipe with their left hand?
why would anyone do this unless you live somewhere without running water?
Goat rice with extra white sauce is GOAT
>>7207646
>Doesn't everyone wipe with their left hand?
No. You are not picking up what has been put down.
>>7207641
Yes... the Mexicans actually killing the animals are VERY in tune with the Jewish faith and it's customs...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZc-99NXnHA
>>7207650
You can never be too sure. There are probably good Halal butchers but there is no organized association that makes sure the products going into the food are fresh and of the best quality. Only thing you can really depend on is that you're not eating pork. Other than that like I said Halal is bullshit.
>>7207588
What the fuck is halal?
>>7207646
>No it's not, certain portions of the cow they won't use if it's kosher.
Which parts?
Also, explain why Glad brand plastic bags are certified kosher when Glad is not a food producer and there is no risk of contamination.
Why is Dawn liquid hand soap certified kosher when Dawn, an affiliate of Proctor and Gamble, is not a food producer.
Why does a Rabbi need to be present in factories when plastic products are produced?
What difference does it make?
Also, what is the difference between a kosher dill pickle and a regular dill pickle?
>>7207641
>Kosher is the only way to know if the animal was healthy before it was killed.
oh you actually meant having your animal checked by a veterinarian is the only way to know it is healthy
>>7207653
I do, because one it's the closest to the toilet paper and it's the closest to the running sink. I wet my toilet paper before using it to more aptly clean my ass.
>>7207678
Kosher is very strict and if you process an animal that shows clear signs of being sick or disease then you can lose your rights to label your food kosher.
>>7207668
it's when you unnecessarily torture the animals a little bit before killing them to satisfy an evil god that doesnt even exist and if you dont you will go to hell which also doesnt exist
>>7207685
Don't confuse Kosher being different than Halal slaughter, they're the exact same things promoted and practices by the same brown people from the wastelands of the planet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTukbjfcwxc
>>7207670
There are alot of fucking rules. Separate plates for dairy/meat, they can't touch or something idk I'm too lazy to Google and pulling the out of 10 plus year old memory.
I'm guessing these products hold food. There's no risk of these container being 'unclean' if they are kosher.
Am I rite jews?
>giving money to T*rks and kebabs
>ever
No thank you, I will stick with my Christian food
>>7207588
How is it more healthy than eating lean pork meat?
>>7207703
Better yet, how is halal more healthy than eating lean pork meat and other meats that have been slaughtered humanely?
>>7207699
ya there needs to be 2 seperate kitchens. One for meat and one for dairy.
>>7207713
90%+ of Jewish people are "reformed" and don't keep kosher...at all.
>>7207737
Yeah, I remember they showed how halal food was made in my country. Tey basically just hired some somalian to stand around shouting allahu snackbar while touching the meat (wearing plastic gloves) as it passed through.
>>7207737
Kosher is both a type of slaughter and religious ritual practiced by disgusting brown savages. They're really just overly tanned East European degenerates pretending to be Sabra's.
![hqdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/I7TlWrD.jpg "hqdefault[1].jpg")
>>7207718
>>7207748
Alot of the people from Israel I've met have been white as fuck, why are they called 'brown'??? Honest question, no snark
>>7207699
>I'm guessing these products hold food
They can. Yes.
>There's no risk of these container being 'unclean' if they are kosher
There's no risk because they are not produced within the vicinity of any food products. Plastics and foods are not processed in the same factories. "Kosher" is a complete scam.
Once again, can anyone point out the difference in preparation between kosher dill pickles and regular ones?
>>7207755
>>7207685
>it's when you unnecessarily torture the animals a little bit before killing them to satisfy an evil god that doesnt even exist and if you dont you will go to hell which also doesnt exist
a long time ago people used to just cut chunks off of animals while they were still alive, or beat them over the head with a rock or something. a quick cut to the neck was the most humane method of slaughter at the time, and they were told that if they messed up the slaughter they couldn't eat it, so they had another incentive to make sure animals didn't suffer too much.
we just need cultured meat now, there's no way a vegan could argue against it and it would help with a lot of other issues with large-scale farming.
Halal, Kosher, all just the oldest consumer protection acts that got intwined with religion. Much like Germany's reinheitsgebot it was to insure scummy shit wasn't going on, having the most trusted members of a community (your religious scholars) watch over stuff made sense.
Fedora tippers like to belittle it as superstition but I urge you to read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. Shit was pretty bad until recent. Hell England had Mad Cow Disease and that was because they were feeding the cows shit that you're not supposed to feed them like meat, Kosher especially forbids shit like that.
>>7207791
>a long time ago some methods were supposedly much worse than this one. So better just continue with this one because God said so. Don't use those man made methods that are more efficient.
>>7207804
>Kosher especially forbids shit like that
source
>>7207807
>Don't use those man made methods that are more efficient.
such as?
Why don't Christians eat blessed food?
>>7207814
Ok I was actually wrong on that, for some reason I thought Kosher laws were that you couldn't eat any land animals that were fed meat. Mad Cow was largely caused by feeding cows beef/bone from other cows and so I thought that'd be banned in Kosher raising. This site says that's false.
http://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/06-14.html
IMO if I lived in a third world country I'd eat Kosher or Halal, just because I doubt poorer countries avoid slaughtering sick animals.
>>7207804
wow. and if you stick to kosher, you dont eat any cheeseburgers, and you won't turn into a fatass. it'd be like pottery if it made any sense. the one has got nothing to do with the other. you can live in perfect health if you disobey both halal and kosher, even more perfect to be honest, but then you would have to learn some rules about food that are a bit more complex than those ancient texts. those ancient rules are obsolete nowadays.
>>7207804
>Much like Germany's reinheitsgebot it was to insure scummy shit wasn't going on
No, it was to prevent brewers from using delicious rye and wheat in order to keep the price of bread down, it was terrible for German beer quality is it resulted in everyone making a narrow style of very similar weak beers
>>7207840
if modern people actually sticked a bit to traditional animal-farming, they would never get the idea of feeding bone powder to cattle. kosher/halal wouldnt help you there, but a bit of medieval peasant's cunning would have prevented it. in old times, nobody did that, as every piece of animal had to be used for something. our modern over-production is causing the problems, and kosher/halal rules do not cover that.
>>7207841
not mixing meat and dairy doesn't have anything to do with physical health. people used to boil baby animals in the milk of its mother, and they found this reprehensible.
>>7207817
Mechanical and gasous are both known to be more humane and effective ways of slaughtering an animal.
>>7207875
you are confusing it with brasilian cities and the germans who migrated there long before the war
>>7207841
I'm more talking about the laws that say you can't eat the meat of sick or injured animals than about cheeseburgers m8.
Also with the exception of Pigs & Shellfish I do personally agree with the Kosher rules that you shouldn't eat shit like dogs and sharks. That feels like common sense to any westerner but you live in parts of Asia and well they think differently.
>>7207884
>sharks
Why not sharks? I tried shark fin soup. Wasn't good, but I didnt feel disgusted either.
>>7207882
No I'm not.
Plenty of high level Nazis were traced to Argentina post war.
>>7207884
guess you can always pick something that will provide basis for a thesis. not eating shark is retarded sorry. btw dogfish (pic related) is a shark and it's absolutely delicious.
at least the reinheitsgebot keeps companies from using GMO yeast, makes more sense nowadays than useless kosher/halal.
>>7207873
>Mechanical
like having a machine cut their necks? how is that different? suffocating them first is more humane?
>Pop in to Sainsburys for some plain old boneless, skinless chicken breast
>£4 for some chicken breast
>£3 for some Halal chicken breast
>Halal breasts are larger, pack is the same weight, why is it cheaper for the same amount of chicken?
>Look at the nutritional information
>Sainsbury's chicken protein per 100g = 31g
>Halal chicken protein per 100g = 20g
You can keep your dirty mudslime chicken with extra injected water, thanks.
>>7207903
>at least the reinheitsgebot keeps companies from using GMO yeast
lol
>>7207898
yeah sure but they didnt build any german-looking villages. they tried to live secretly.
>>7207892
Because that's literally the one thing you can use a shark for, which is why those fucking fishers cut the fins off and then throw the shark back into the ocean to die horribly.
It's cruel and has caused many sharks to be endangered. And yes it's a shitty soup that fin is just cartilage.
>>7207903
Do you see how the lemons are the eyes, the mysterious meat is the mouth and the alfalfa sprouts are the hair.
>>7207903
Not the person you were respoinding to, but the Rheinheitsgebot was implemented to save the more edible grain.
That said, I do prefer a barley pilsner over some corn/rice brewed shit.
>>7207903
Your pic looks like fried penises mate.
>>7207904
a captive bolt pistol is more humane than cutting the throat. it's much faster and less painful and less stressful.
ด็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็
>>7207904
it works like a gun to their head. Doesnt cut their necks.
And when suffocating in a gasous environment they will not feel a thing. Its why humans added smell to gas.
>>7207912
>Because that's literally the one thing you can use a shark for
I dont believe that.
>>7207918
>Penetrating type... One disadvantage of this method is that brain matter is allowed to enter the blood stream, possibly contaminating other tissue with bovine spongiform encephalopathy
>Non-penetrating... This type of stunner is less reliable at causing immediate and permanent unconsciousness than penetrating types
the way sikhs do it might be better, a single strike to the neck to decapitate the animal
>>7207928
I'm no expert is backwards culture but I think they wouldn't be throwing them back in the water otherwise.
>>7207923
>it works like a gun to their head. Doesnt cut their necks.
they fail and contaminate the meat.
>And when suffocating in a gasous environment they will not feel a thing. Its why humans added smell to gas.
you can definitely feel a change when you aren't getting enough oxygen, which can cause stress... it's not like a light suddenly turns off. they're suffocating.
>>7207914
>>7207916
it's shark
>>7207934
You can obviously find some drawbacks to any method, but it's a fact that modern slaughtering methids are more humane and effective at killing the animals than bleeding them out.
>>7207952
looks like women's tennis
>>7207940
>it's not like a light suddenly turns off. they're suffocating.
They are breating a high concentration of carbon dioxide, become drowsy and goes to dark within half a minute.
As opposed to: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=703_1309045039
>>7207903
>at least the reinheitsgebot keeps companies from using GMO yeast
Why would that possibly be a beneficial thing?
>>7207915
>That said, I do prefer a barley pilsner over some corn/rice brewed shit.
yeah, but rye and oats make for some awesome beers (and wheat too to a lessr extent)
>>7207974
for the customer or the company?
>>7207987
All around. It literally is beneficial to no one
>>7207982
I'm a big grain beer fan, so wholeheartedly agree.
>>7207991
To butt into this discussion, I definately enjoy eating food that is not genetically modified.
>>7207998
>I definately enjoy eating food that is not genetically modified.
You can't even tell the difference unless you are told
and with yeast its another step removed
Do you like cheese? The vast majority of it uses enzymes from GMO yeast.
I don't think there are any commercially used GM brewing yeast, but there is absolutely no logical reason to be opposed t the concept. Would be cool to create some that are better at surviving in higher ABVs and see if we could make some super strong beer or something, the possibilities of what a craft brewer could do with some scientists designing yeast for them are pretty interesting
>>7207986
bwahahahaha
>>7208012
>You can't even tell the difference unless you are told
same with sarin
>>7208012
>You can't even tell the difference unless you are told
Yes, I know. But I am not pro-monsanto. And if given the choice, I would rather eat natural food than the tampered kind.
So, I enjoy there is awareness on it. And I will most certainly buy the organic version if it is available and I can afford it.
>>7207986
that's just like saying stunning isn't more effective because it fails too
Why do people deliberately put an asterisk in place of the U in "turk"? That can't be a filter, right?
>>7208029
I guess I would eat a GMO cow if it was raised with organically-made fodder, and in species-appropriate keeping, and if it was killed humanely.
>>7208038
Not at the same rate. Clearly these innovations are used because they are easier, more effective and more human than swinging a blade at an animal.
>>7208041
it's because the Turkish goverment denies the Kurdish minority their identity, claiming they 'are all Turks'
>>7208029
>But I am not pro-monsanto
Does Monsanto even market any GM yeast strains?
What does a law preventing brewers from using GM yeast have anything to do with Monsanto?
>>7208045
By all means, I'm not proposing to ban it. I am just very skeptical of GMO food.
>>7208029
>I would rather eat natural food than the tampered kind.
Yeah, unless you are gonna become a hunter gatherer you are not going to find any 'natural food'. Humans have been messing with the genetics of their crops since the dawn of agriculture, sure we can do it much more efficiently now, but no crop or livestock resembles their 'natural' ancestor anymore
>>7208053
I was talking about GM in general. Monsanto has had their hands in about every other kind of food production, so wouldnt surprise me if they did yeast too.
And monsanto is a flagship of GM gone wrong, which is why I mentioned them. Although, there is no direct link to brewers. And brewers can use GM yeast if they want to. I'd just rather not drink it.
>>7208057
There's letting nature evolve in a controlled manner, and there's just doing it in a lab.
I'd like to see the long terms effects from GM food before I embrace it.
>>7208061
>And monsanto is a flagship of GM gone wrong
Thats pretty much just a myth
>And brewers can use GM yeast if they want to. I'd just rather not drink it.
But why? Cheesemakers do it, and can sell their cheese as natural and organic none the less, much better to use GM yeast than to slaughter a calf for every batch of cheese
when it comes to GMO food, they way it is modified is most important to know wether you should eat it or not. additional genes inserted for higher yield (e.g. vitamin content, bigger fruit size) are alright, additional genes inserted for pesticide resistances are not. this why we need precise labeling.
>>7208057
yeah but the traditional modifications gave us generations and generations of time to find out wether they are beneficial or not. modern day GMO is often largely untested.
>>7208067
>and there's just doing it in a lab.
because scientific laboratories are known for being wild and uncontrolled, right? if anything, GMO food is more controlled...
>>7208069
modern bread makers do it too, and their products are more or less disgusting.
>>7208067
>There's letting nature evolve in a controlled manner, and there's just doing it in a lab.
How is humans selectively breeding things more controlled than a lab? Mutagensis techniques specifically are much more reckless and crops made from this are allowed to be marketed as 'organic'. Doing it in a lab is the ultimate form of control
>I'd like to see the long terms effects from GM food before I embrace it.
How long term do you need, there is over 30 years of data and they tend to be even healthier than the wild type
>>7208073
>if anything, GMO food is more controlled...
for certain parameters, yes. but overall not more than standard food.
>>7208069
>Thats pretty much just a myth
thats pretty much reality.
>and can sell their cheese as natural and organic none the less,
IMHO they shouldnt be able to do that.
>>7208073
Certainly it's controlled. But it's not a natural evolution. Which as I said, I'm not willing to embrace before I see the long term effects.
This is how pathetic muslims are. They won't even go near food that's associated with pork. Funny, because pigs are infinitely cleaner than any of them.
I also find it ironic that they're above eating pigs, but not above shoving their dick in goats and 10 year old boys.
>>7208079
>there is over 30 years of data and they tend to be even healthier than the wild type
the early GMO food was not very successful
>>7208071
>yeah but the traditional modifications gave us generations and generations of time to find out wether they are beneficial or not
Not really, as most people had no idea what the fuck was going on, and would never have been able to document any side effects beyond near instant sickness
>modern day GMO is often largely untested
This really is not true, the FDA puts a rather large burden on scientists trying to bring GM crops to market. Meanwhile mutagenicly derived crops are far more dangerous because we have no fucking clue which genes we have altered and have no testing requirement and can be marketed as 'organic' and 'natural'
>>7208085
I bet the muslim priest did it himself so he could charge the supermarket for preaching it clean.
>>7208083
>But it's not a natural evolution
Natural is an arbitrary state, being natural is neither good or bad, its a meaningless way to describe something and should not be used to advise any decisions you make
>>7208085
that story is actually fake
>>7208083
>I'm not willing to embrace before I see the long term effects.
Seriously though, how have we not already met that burden? There has been an incredible amount of research on this overwhelmingly showing there is no need to worry
>>7208081
>for certain parameters, yes. but overall not more than standard food.
I disagree completely
Traditionally bred plants rely on random mutations, often induced by chemical means, to advance the crop. We are just hoping some of the changes will be good. With GM techniques we sequence the entire genome and induce very specific changes so we know exactly what is going on.
>>7208095
Story might be fake, but as soon as that shit hit the internet people started doing it in my local grocery stores. I even did it with some bacon, it's so easy. And it's true, you watch for like 5 minutes and the muzzies get all paranoid and literally will not take food that is touching the pork.
My friend works at a distribution centre for the grocery store in question, he said the pre-packed meats all get packed together anyways. The halal shit is right next to the pork chops and chicken wings.
I really want to see an outburst one of these times, just some muzzie go insane in a store and start throwing shit.
>>7208087
>the early GMO food was not very successful
In what sense? They surely did not harm any people from eating them
>>7208100
>implying mutations are random
>implying organisms were not designed to mutate
Holy shit it's the 21st century, are you actually still clinging to that Darwinian bullshit?
I bet you're an "atheist" too.
>>7208083
>thats pretty much reality.
The whole Monsanto is evil thing is entirely fabricated by conspiracy theorists. Sure they want to make money but the amount they spend on research, and the new breeds that have been and will be developed from it is undeniably moving the human race forward
>>7208093
Be that as it may, the non GM food has been around for a long time, whereas the GM food is a pretty recent invention.
And to bring it back to monsanto, I prefer farmers to be able to use whatever grain they like, without being put in legal battles because monsanto grain contaminated their fields.
>I dont like the idea of copyrighting life from nature
>I dont like the idea of GM food
>I don't support it
>I want to see the long term effects, preferably BEFORE it hits the market.
>I choose non-GM over GM any time I can afford it.
>>7208097
>how have we not already met that burden?
Not to satisy me, obviously.
>>7208111
I don't even know what you are trying to advocate. Mutations are random, sure every loci does not have an equal probability of mutating, but we have no means of predicting what mutations will arise
>>7208112
>The whole Monsanto is evil thing is entirely fabricated by conspiracy theorists.
Yeah, no. I've seen enough evidence that they are a company I would never support in any way, shape or form if I can avoid it. I think the human race would benefit if monsanto disappeared tomorrow.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670
>>7208118
God designed us to mutate, it's a survival mechanism.
>>7208113
>I prefer farmers to be able to use whatever grain they like
They can do that. No one is saying the government should force farmers to use Monsanto, or even GM, that is up to the people growing the food. GM is just usually the better choice so most farmers will use it. Its like comparing broadband internet to dial up. Dial up got the job done at the time, but broadband is way the fuck better
>without being put in legal battles because monsanto grain contaminated their fields.
This has literally never happened, its a completely unfounded fear. There was one case where a farmer alleged it was contaminated and it was proven to be a hoax
>>7208126
So you are saying that any mutation that arises in a crop was picked by god to occur at that moment, but at the same time god did not place the scientists in the lab and compel them to make these GM crops?
Surely these scientists are not outsmarting your god, the only possible conclusion is that they are doing exactly as he intends
I think OP is referring to the halal carts in NYC. I suppose they're healthy if you are living off $10 a day and need all the calories/protein/vitamins. $5 for a big platter of rice, salad meat of your choice and numerous sauces so fuckin good
>>7208122
Note that demonstrating that pesticides associated with a few specific GM crops is not an indictment on GM crops in general. If glyphosate is bad for use you should be advocate its ban, not the ban of all GM crops
Also that study has a tiny sample size and does nothing to demonstrate that these levels are harmful
>>7208128
However, monsanto are using methods that force the farmers to use it in many cases. If their crops are contaminated by monsanto grain, the monsanto people will drag people into long winded legal battles. If you think all the farmers started using monsanto because they love paying for their GM grain every fucking year instead of dusting it, you are delusional.
>>7208143
>monsanto are using methods that force the farmers to use it in many cases
How?
>If their crops are contaminated by monsanto grain, the monsanto people will drag people into long winded legal battles
When has this ever happened?
>If you think all the farmers started using monsanto because they love paying for their GM grain every fucking year
Most were buying ever year before GM was even a thing. They are choosing GM because it allows them to grow more crops on less land an/or less labor
>>7208128
>This has literally never happened, its a completely unfounded fear. There was one case where a farmer alleged it was contaminated and it was proven to be a hoax
again, their seed patenting is controversial. And many small farmers have felt that this company is basically using mafia tactics. I have no reason to distrust the farmers who have come forward with this.
>>7208144
great...now I have a new fetish and I don't even know what it's called
>>7208151
>and I don't even know what it's called
stupid? mindless? easily manipulated and controlled? you're a tool
>>7208148
>again, their seed patenting is controversial.
Sounds like an issue with the government's intellectual property regulations and nothing specific to the safety of GM crops
> And many small farmers have felt that this company is basically using mafia tactics
Any accounts of this?
>I have no reason to distrust the farmers who have come forward with this.
What about the 99.9% of farmers who are choosing to buy GM seed because it makes their lives better?
>>7208146
I enjoy this documentary a lot
https://youtu.be/EKqdL7A_aUI?t=1h5m31s
This and similar stories I've seen (which I have no reason to distrust) have pretty much convinced me that monsanto is a company I would never spend any money on. And be highly skeptical of.
>>7208132
No because free will.
Jesus died for our sins.
Stop questioning the bible, it is infallible.
420 blaze it.
>>7208159
>Sounds like an issue with the government's intellectual property regulations
Sure, and monsanto have been very active as lobbyists.
>What about the 99.9% of farmers who are choosing to buy GM seed because it makes their lives better?
Again, Im not proposing a ban. I just want their food marked as GM so I can avoid it.
to the guy who's defending monsanto in every post ITT: how can there be something without negative side effects? that's impossible. now name one yourself please.
and what about that yellow rice that would better eyesight problems in poor asian countries but the gmo rice is so expensive, the poor villagers cannot afford it. why doesnt monsanto give it to them for free since they are not evil as you say?
>>7208133
all made by the filthiest fuckers who want to blow you to pieces
>>7208164
feel like basing your opinions off of some anecdotes in an obviously biased documentary is not a good thing
Regardless though, it seems all your concerns have little to do with GM crops in general, their safety, or the science behind them. You just sound opposed to one of many companies working to create and market them (on top of a bunch of universities). All of your issues are peripheral to the actual topic
>>7208170
Well, when he wrote:
>What about the 99.9% of farmers who are choosing to buy GM seed because it makes their lives better?
I pretty much decided to leave the whole discussion with this person.
>>7208170
>why doesnt monsanto give it to them for free since they are not evil as you say?
>why doesn't a company turn into a charity and put itself out of business
i'm not really sure anon
>>7208175
>your opinions off of some anecdotes in an obviously biased documentary
I've seen plenty of similar accounts from other farmers that makes up a pattern. Not going to find them, because you dont seem veyr interested in listening.
>t seems all your concerns have little to do with GM crops in general, their safety, or the science behind them
No, as Ive said multiple times, I avoid GM food because I am skeptical of it. I don't know enough of the long term effects, even though you insist that I do.
>You just sound opposed to one of many companies
The main company yes. But there are many other like them, certainly.
>>7208168
>and monsanto have been very active as lobbyists.
No more active than any company their size has to be. There are literally hundreds of companies that spend more money lobbying, Monsanto is pretty typical for the mid-high sized company they are.
Its no different than the laws governing drug development and their ownership, maybe there is a better way to handle it but none is really apparent
>I just want their food marked as GM so I can avoid it.
Sounds like you really just want your food to be labeled if any of its ingredients come from Monsanto. The only logical labeling law would be one to require the specific strain of a crop to be labeled rather than just the species as simply knowing it is a GM variety tells us nothing. This would be quite cumbersome though, especially on small labels, it makes much more sense just to require companies to post what strains are used in their production on their websites
>>7207588
Beef chicken rice mix
drowned in white sauce
2 cokes
Only truck that matters is on 56th and 3rd
>>7208184
>No more active than any company their size has to be
Too many of their methods have been underhanded to claim it's like any other company.
>>7208184
>Sounds like you really just want your food to be labeled if any of its ingredients come from Monsanto
Now you are just being silly. Marking the food clearly as genetically modified will suffice. It's a right for the consumers to know what they are eating.
>>7208170
>what about that yellow rice that would better eyesight problems in poor asian countries but the gmo rice is so expensive, the poor villagers cannot afford it.
Nascent technology is often expensive, and then becomes less expensive as its production is streamlined, just because it is expensive now does not imply it will always be so and the technology should be abandoned
>why doesnt monsanto give it to them for free since they are not evil as you say
Thats kind of a crazy sentiment, they are a company, not a charity. You could say this same argument about literally any company. Why doesn't apple give free iPhones to every poor person and set up more cell towers in the rural third world? Or why doesn't google extend their new fiber internet technology to the entire developing world for free. Thats just a silly argument to make
>>7208176
Are you saying the vast majority of farmers are being literally forced to buy from Monsanto, and are not doing it of their own free will because they think this strain of their crop makes their job easier or their land more profitable?
>>7207588
>33 square miles, thousands of the best most unique resteraunts on the face of the planet.
asking about dirty haji street food vendor.
Kill yourself.
>>7208178
>why does a company try to ruin rural communities
but i am sure anon
>>7208197
As i said, there seems to be a pattern that forces many farmers into buying their products, because of the underhanded methods they use and the way they have "lobbied" for laws that does not protect the common man.
Im not saying other farmers (99,9%????) arent buying into it because they read the same PR pamphlet you obviously have access to.
>>7208183
>I don't know enough of the long term effects
You may not, but scientists do, I strongly suggest you read up on it if you remain skeptical
>The main company yes
I still can't figure out why people love to overstate Monsanto's scale and influence. Dow and Conagra amongst a handful of others are just as significant, and GM technologies are being researched by all sorts of universities too. Monsanto is just a piece of the puzzle, but it gets a crazy amount of attention
>>7208194
why dont they try alternative ways of payment then? and when did monsanto pay for any of the century-old seeds they use?
>>7208192
>It's a right for the consumers to know what they are eating
Knowing whether something is GM does not provide consumers any meaningful information unless they also know what specific trait was added to the organism
>>7208203
>but scientists do
No, with new strains being made contiually that is an impossibility and you know it.
>I still can't figure out why people love to overstate Monsanto's scale and influence.
I guess it's their visibility on this issue.
>>7208207
>Knowing whether something is GM does not provide consumers any meaningful information
It does, it tells them wheter it is genetically modified or not.
>>7208142
your critics of the article are wishywashy and most flawed. if you looked below the abstract you'd see competent criticism, that is actually very different from yours.
>>7207588
I'll go up to halal foods and touch them with my left hand. Fucing terrorists with their halal shit.
>>7208202
I don't think it is plausible to assert that the majority of farmers know less about the subject than us. I think their overwhelming support of Monsanto says more than either of us can about who they trust to give them the current best product for their situations
>>7208204
>why dont they try alternative ways of payment then
I have no clue, but its a little ridiculous to assume they made this decision just to fuck with poor people
> and when did monsanto pay for any of the century-old seeds they use?
There are many strains conceived using non-GM techniques that have IP laws applied to them equally, but there are also some so ubiquitous that doing so wouldn't make sense
>>7208213
that's not enough
plz see: >>7208071
>when it comes to GMO food, they way it is modified is most important to know wether you should eat it or not. additional genes inserted for higher yield (e.g. vitamin content, bigger fruit size) are alright, additional genes inserted for pesticide resistances are not. this why we need precise labeling.
>>7208221
>doing so wouldn't make sense
neither would taking money from poor rural societies
>>7208221
>Don't think it is plausible to assert that the majority of farmers know less about the subject than us
Did I claim they didn't?
>I think their overwhelming support of Monsanto says more than either of us can about who they trust to give them the current best product for their situations
Yeah, many "God bless Monsanto" pictures floating around on facebook in farmer-groups? Or are you just talking out of your ass?
>>7208209
>No, with new strains being made continually that is an impossibility and you know it.
If we insert a gene we know to be safe into a crop we no to be safe, what possible effect is there to fear?
Every generation of crops is going to have their own random mutations which would be more likely to be harmful than something so well controlled. Avoiding GM crops from this fear is akin to avoiding flying for fear of crashing though even more ridiculously improbable
Also though, most of the commercially available strains have been on the market for quite some time though, and have had extremely thorough safety testing done, so a blanket "gm label" wouldn't really help you figure out anything about this
>>7208213
>it tells them wheter it is genetically modified or not.
But what does that give you? Literally no meaningful data
>>7208236
>what possible effect is there to fear?
unforeseen effects.
>>7208226
So your stance is that all companies should make their products they spent millions of dollars developing and researching available for free to all people in poorer countries?
>>7208240
It tells me whether it is genetically modified or not, something I would like to know so I can avoid it. So it's very meaningful. What are you not understanding here?
>>7208231
>Yeah, many "God bless Monsanto" pictures floating around on facebook in farmer-groups? Or are you just talking out of your ass?
They are speaking with their wallets
>>7208243
Not the person you wrote this to, but you know they could just keep their evil, moneygrabbing hands out of the poor peoples business and let them make a living.
>>7208242
>unforeseen effects.
Like what? Why do you think GM crops are more likely to develop unforeseen effects than any other crop, especially mutagenic ones?
>>7208246
>What are you not understanding here?
I understand that you care about this, but I don't understand your logic behind it
>>7208250
>you know they could just keep their evil, moneygrabbing hands out of the poor peoples business and let them make a living.
What do you mean? Its not like Monsanto goes around to poor countries with some sort of army and forced farmers to start buying their crops, farmers are perfectly free to ignore any crops Monsanto is selling
>>7208248
So your contention is that all the farmers who are speaking out against it are just biased and lack knowledge, whereas the rest who pay love it because they certainly cant be forced. And all the business practices are great because you just think they are lying.
OK, got bored of this whole conversation, you have a good day.
>>7208243
if the company comes from a first world country with universities, I'd expect some moral standards. the company benefits from high moral standards (law system, high education, stable politics, etc) in its country of origin and doesnt propagate them into others.
every single major company is doing evil things. apple has foxcon sucides, disney pays 5 cent per tshirt and beats up their seamstresses and monsanto ruins small rural communities, maybe even with unesco money involved.
>>7208259
they destroy their markets and force them into submission
>>7208263
>So your contention is that all the farmers who are speaking out against it are just biased and lack knowledge
I think these farmers are so incredibly rare that it is unwise to pursue their agenda
>>7208278
No, that cant be? American farmers love them according to this guy. Not with actual words of support, but by buying their products that nobody is forced to buy (apart from the ones threathened with legal action).
>>7208263
>And all the business practices are great because you just think they are lying.
I think Monsanto's business practices are entirely unrelated to the safety of GM crops, and that they are vilified by anti-GM conspiracy theorists with little basis in fact
>>7208280
>I think
dont care anymore
I said good day.
>>7208267
>and monsanto ruins small rural communities
Where have they actually done this though?
>>7208287
>they are vilified
Kinda like ISIS is vilified
>>7207670
Garlic.
Garlic in the brine.
>>7208273
>key word, unforeseen. I could repeat "long term effects" if that would help you out.
So what burden do scientists need to meet to appease you? I think its telling that the vast majority of scientifically literate people agree that GM crops are of no safety concern
>To me it seems pretty logical to prefer food that is untampered
I don't know how to make it more clear that literally none of our food is untampered, modern GM technologies are just one of many ways of tampering with plant genes we have come up with, this way is more controlled and safe that any previous method
>>7208278
>they destroy their markets and force them into submission
What market did they destroy, what are you referring to?
>>7208295
you have posted the dumbest comment in this thread
>>7208291
in Mali and in India
>>7208285
>Not with actual words of support, but by buying their products that nobody is forced to buy
The fact that so many farmers buy their product tells us very clearly that they offer the best value for the current climate. Its a mutually beneficial arrangement as all business transactions between informed parties are
>apart from the ones threathened with legal action
Has this ever happened? Monsanto is suing farmers in order to compel them to buy Monsanto products and the courts are siding with Monsanto?
>>7208311
Can you narrow it down a little, thats a giant chunk of the world. Which communities has Monsanto destroyed?
>>7208304
>So what burden do scientists need to meet to appease you?
Well, as I said nearly HUNDRED TIMES ALREADY I want to see the long term effects. If the scientifically literate people are cocksuckers like you who just dont understand simple english, I'm not too concerned with what they agree on.
As Ive stated, I oppose it on the level the long term effects havent been assessed properly.
Nor do we know what it will do to the environment. Which could be labelled another unforeseen effects.
And of course I dont like the idea of being able to patent food and life.
>modern GM technologies are just one of many ways of tampering with plant genes
And it is a recent technology that we havent really properly assessed the long term effects of. Hence I prefer to no buy nor support it in any way.
I however think you should get it, since you seem to like the idea a lot.
>>7208314
>Has this ever happened? Monsanto is suing farmers in order to compel them to buy Monsanto products and the courts are siding with Monsanto?
yes, stories are told in documentaries you label biased and from farmers who you believe are rare.
>>7208318
↑ Karin Finkenzeller: Letzter Feldzug. Die Baumwollbauern von Mali drohen jetzt ihren Kampf gegen die Gentechnik zu verlieren. In Die Zeit Nr. 2 vom 3. Januar 2008, S. 25.
↑ K. Nagaraj: Framers Suicides in India
↑ Srijit Mishra: Risks, Farmers’ Suicides and Agrarian Crisis in India: Is There A Way Out? (PDF; 103 kB)
>>7208325
>Well, as I said nearly HUNDRED TIMES ALREADY I want to see the long term effects
Wat do you mean by long term? How do you not perceive us to have met this burden with many GM strains already?
>And it is a recent technology that we havent really properly assessed the long term effects of
This is just false, its not that recent and much research has been done on this subject with overwhelmingly positive results
Your stance is akin to saying the jury is still out on vaccines. Meanwhile there are all sorts of drugs that have been created an marketed with less research than GM crops have recieved
I think the patent on life bugaboo you have is a little misguided, especially if you want to increase the testing burden even more. How can we possibly expect a company to invest the incredible amount of money required to develop and test these if they are not allowed to make some money off of it eventually? I thin its fair to question some of the specifics of how the government handles patents, but to say no crops should be allowed to have patents is just not feasible
>>7208336
There is only once case ever on Monsanto taking a farmer to court for this, and Monsanto won that case because it became apparent the guy was actually stealing their product
>>7208363
↑ Guillaume and Sengupta, Debdatta(2011) 'Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India: An Evidence-based Assessment', Journal of Development Studies, 47: 2, 316 — 337; wörtliches Zitat von Seite 329
see page 329, they cannot rule out that it played a role during 2002, 2004 and 2006 and in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra.
btw four studies say there was an influence on suicides, only one says there wasnt
>>7208354
GM crops are objectively helping these communities. You people are no better than Jenny McCarthy, by fighting technological breakthroughs you are harming the very poor people you claim to be advocating for
>>7207588
Just fuck my shit up, Ahmed
>>7208372
The farmer suicide issue predated the introduction of GM crops to these regions, this is a nonsense claim
>>7208375
im just talking to you on the internet about what i've read on your employer, and i am not like jmc who actively does actual stuff, keep your ad hominem for yourself plz
>>7208379
>see page 329, they cannot rule out that it played a role during 2002, 2004 and 2006 and in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra.
>>7208386
Saying a situation cannot be disproven is way the fuck different than saying it caused the situation.
>>7208375
when i look at that graph it's pretty obvious you had something to do with it. however, these farmers are now dead and wont becloud your statistics any more. why doesnt your employer simply admit 'yes the new technique made some of the already poor and desperate farmers even more desperate and poorer and this has happened in the past and we will take more care in the future'. even the nazis could admit they did something wrong after they were confronted with it and they were much worse.
>>7208390
not if it was one of the causes that caused it. disprove it then. you can't.
that's exactly it, but more like in court english.
>>7208404
Proving a negative like something was not a cause of something else requires a lot of data, its just not feasible in many cases, that doesn't make it logical to assume two things are related in the face of all available evidence
Farmer suicides were an issue in India before GM cotton was introduced there and as it became mainstream suicides decreased, its pretty clear cut that GM technologies are helping these people
>>7208399
http://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-does-gm-cotton-lead-to-farmer-suicide-in-india-24045
>>7208419
My favorite part is where the introduction of GM cotton brings down the suicide rate of Indian farmers to be the same as that of farmers in France
>>7208416
it also pretty clear that some were overexerted with the new technology.
they are dead now and since it's india so noone will ever find them significant in any statistics. the devil lies in the details.
>>7208426
>it also pretty clear that some were overexerted with the new technology.
What does this mean? The new technology required less exertion from them by decreasing the labor and material costs of buying pesticide
>>7207588
Combo over rice with pita (if not included).
The Halal Guys' white and hot sauce are god tier. Their meat has great flavor but dry as fuck.
>>7208429
look i'm not gonna tell you what you can read already in wikipedia and what you dont WANT to understand anyway. my time on earth is limited and im not gonna waste it on that weird thing behind your dense skull. also you are avoiding the mali situation. good bye.
>>7208436
Wikipedia clearly summarizes that the evidence shows GM crops helped reduce suicides of Indian farmers overall
>>7207835
>Christians
>Blessed food
Unlike the Jews and Muslims, we can think for ourselves and not need some other person to guide what we eat
>>7207588
I've been to 1 halal meat market in my life
There were open containers & flies everywhere & an unclean floor
No thanks
>>7208356
>How can we possibly expect a company to invest the incredible amount of money required to develop and test these
I'd prefer it if they just didn't. I think it would be great if monsanto and people like you just take a gun to your head and stop bothering the world.
>>7208358
>There is only once case ever on Monsanto taking a farmer to court for this,
Oh right, they just intimidate and harass people to the extent these farmers are scared into line before it ever gets to court.
>and Monsanto won that case
Partially. The court ruled that the farmer didn't have any advantage of using the contaminatiion of monsanto seeds.
>>7208437
>Wikipedia clearly summarizes
stopped reading.
If a halal food truck ever opens up in my city, I am going to throw pork at them from my car.
>>7207588
>eat only Hala
hahaha
g8 b8 m8
I r8 it 8/8
well meme'd
>>7209504
So you are just generally opposed to investing in progress and technology? You think things are perfect now any any pursuit of improvement isn't worthwhile?
>>7209546
They determined that the farmer was clearly perpetrating a hoax
>>7207610
No the suffering from when a steel rod rips out the animal's throat and it bleeds out slowly is what makes it good.
>>7207688
>mfw that camel....
>>7207588
I don't support it at all. Many people think hala just means that an imam stood next to the animal and said some words, but that's not true.
The fact that they slit the throats of the animals and let them bleed out, mostly still alive and concious, makes it absolutely unappealing to me. I mean, if you want to eat meat an animal has to die anyway, but at least make it suffer as little as possible.
>>7208454
HAH
just fast like every week though and get ready to be banished to hell
>>7207588
I get it from their branch on 14th street. Honestly, since they stopped serving it out of a truck, the price went up and the charm went down and when I feel like halal food I get it from a guy next to my school
>>7208105
Early GMO was basically irradiating seeds with ionizing radiation (x-rays, gamma rays) to induce random mutations. And then hoping for the best.
>>7211271
>investing in progress and technology?
progress and technology is fine. Patenting, momopolizing and tampering with the world's food supply isn't progress. Seriously, fuck you you evil cunt.
>>7211277
No, not if it's the canadian case you're talking about. Or are there other cases that is the only time monsanto ever tried to legally pursue a farmer who got his field contaminated by their lovely product?
>>7207668
Instead of using a quick and relatively painless method to kill the animal you have to cut its throat and let it slowly bleed to death. Muslims feel that losing your blood is a clean and spiritually pure death.
You know, like what those "radical" Muslims have been doing to actual people over in the middle east.
>>7212463
>slowly bleed to death
Not really. The massive drop in blood pressure caused by slitting the throat renders a loss of consciousness quite quickly. It's not as clean as a bullet to the brain but it's hardly a "slow" death.
>>7207610
It's not a prayer, they use a different butchering method.
>>7212469
There are fucking YouTube videos of halal slaughter, go fucking watch them. The animals absolutely freak out.
Where I come from Halal and Kosher meats undergo more rigorous quality control than non-tagged meats. So they kind of are better.
>>7212478
If you chop off a chicken's head it can run around for quite a long time too, you know.
>>7212488
>If you chop off a chicken's head it can run around for quite a long time too
yet same cant be said about the animals who scream and run around with their throat slit, you fucking retard. Show me some footage of a headless cow walking around, I dare you. Better yet, decapitate yourself and make the world a better place.
>>7212712
not the dude you were talking to, but,
>Show me some footage of a headless cow walking around, I dare you.
Nobody decapitates cows, you fuckin' idiot.
>>7212730
>Nobody decapitates cows, you fuckin' idiot.
No so. If you watch the Hong Kong episode of "The Layover" with Anthony Bourdain he goes to a cutlery shop (Chan Chi Kee) and the clerk shows him a giant "knife" specifically made for chopping the head off a cow. I'd send you a youtube link but it seems they all got taken down for copyright.
>>7207688
Awesome. Camel probably tastes like shit though.
>>7212730
Yes they do, ghurkas are known for it.
Here is one example, although these people are incompetent. Do you notice the cow running around afterwards?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGizUeakNgg
>>7212413
>Early GMO was basically irradiating seeds with ionizing radiation (x-rays, gamma rays) to induce random mutations. And then hoping for the best.
Those are not considered GMO, and this is still common practice because according to the organic food lobby these are 'natural' so they are much easier to market to misinformed Luddites than GM crops
>>7212447
If you say, "no tampering with that" that means you are straight up against progress.
You sound like a horse salesmen at the advent of motor vehicles "we are fine how we are, lets not tamper with the current system because that would be unnatural and evil, God intended us to use horses, not technological abortions"
NYC here, that place is really awful. If I was an islamic I'd probably be joining Al Qaeda over the affront to allah, but as it is I just think it's fucking gross. There are plenty of foods that happen to be halal, that aren't terrible.
>>7207680
If you want to clean yourself use soap, and rinse afterward. Paper should only be the first step.
Walking around with feces ground into your skin is fine though. Go ahead and do that, it's fine. A lot of people do it. It's fine.
>>7213377
Well, some people would say the advent of motor vehicles did bring about unforeseen effects on the environment.
In general I think many laws to protect against the "tampering" made by the motor vehicles have been for the good. I might also cite the Ford Pinto-case, where you would be the guy ranting "Ford is such a great company bringing good cars at a low price. You have absolutely no proof that the Pinto hasnt got a safe fuel tank! The scientific community is on my side! Everybody loves Ford because they buy it!"
>abortions
Aberrations, retard.
Also, I don't want to regurgitate this whole discussion where I tell you why I dislike Monsanto and GMO, and you say but why and we go through it again.
Here's a good reason to hate Monanto, they actively oppose labelling their poison sold to people so people don't know that they are buying GMO in the supermarket.
http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-gmo-labeling-96-approval/
"Oh but why would people wanna know if it's GMO or not?"
Well, I wanna know what I'm eating you fucking cocksucker, so fuck you and fuck your evil overlord monsanto.
Oh, and yes, I do drive a car.
>>7213741
>Here's a good reason to hate Monanto, they actively oppose labelling their poison sold to people so people don't know that they are buying GMO in the supermarket.
Thats because every proposed labeling law is just marketing bullshit by the organic lobby
You just cited a website called fucking "naturalsociety.com"
I think it would be perfectly good to require companies to provide which strains they use (though that would be pretty cumbersome on a label, would be better placed on their websites). Knowing just whether something is GMO does not tell you anything, even if you think it does. Hell, the very fact that you think it is meaningful tells us the public isn't ready for it to be on labels
>>7213753
>Thats because every proposed labeling law is just marketing bullshit by the organic lobby
Because people want to know what they eat. That's why it is proposed and that's why people are overwhelmingly for it.
I dont give a shit if some dickvacuumist (you) believes strains should be labelled. There's a much easier way to do it, label GMO-food.
>>7213773
>Because people want to know what they eat.
people want to make money convincing other people GMO food is bad so they'll buy their product*
>>7213773
>That's why it is proposed and that's why people are overwhelmingly for it.
No, it is 100% proposed for marketing purposes by the organic lobby
>There's a much easier way to do it, label GMO-food.
But this accomplishes literally nothing besides making the marketing department at organic produce lobby happy. Knowing only that a crop was genetically modified at some point tells us nothing with relevance to human healthy
If you are against glyphosate ask crops to be labeled as grown with glyphpsate, maybe that is a more sensible measure
The entire anti-GMO movement is a marketing campaign, it is quite sad that so many shills have bought into it. When people decide to ignore science and instead listen to marketers and conspiracy theory websites, we have a real problem, its like that creationism museum in Kentucky, it fucking blows my mind that people think like you guys
>>7213782
>people want to make money convincing other people GMO food is bad so they'll buy their product*
Yeah, so let them. We have the first amendment. People still have the right to know what they are eating. And they should know, even if cocksuckers like you are afraid they might make an informed choice.
>implying the organic food lobby are the evil ones trying to outmanouver lovely and nice Monsanto who doesnt use dirty tricks.
topkek, you actually made me laugh you faggot.
>>7213773
And who is going to pay for that label, you festering dick disease?
You are.
>>7213791
>muh constitution
>cocksucker
>faggot
typical anti-gmo witch hunter
i'm gonna sell a food product and label it "rat poison free", it won't make people think twice about food without that label or anything
>>7213789
>it is quite sad that so many shills have bought into it.
yeah, like most of the country thinks the consumers should have the right to be informed of what they are eating. It's crazy.
>But this accomplishes literally nothing besides making the marketing department at organic produce lobby happy.
It also makes consumers who want to make informed choices happy.
>If you are against glyphosate ask crops to be labeled as grown with glyphpsate, maybe that is a more sensible measure
Go ahead and propose it to your representative if you want, right now we are discussing GMO-labelling. I'm not saying I think that's a bad idea, but it doesn't have any bearing on whether or not GMO should be labelled as such.
>>7213791
>We have the first amendment. People still have the right to know what they are eating
Pretty sure the first amendment does not give you the right to know what you are eating. The constitution and bill of rights say nothing requiring companies to tell you this stuff, nor do they really give the government the right to compel them to do so (though this limitation has clearly been ignored for quite some time)
The problem is they are being tricked into making an uninformed choice, uneducated people like you do not have the mental capacity to process this information
>>7213795
As consumers pay for all labels. All in all, the costs will be smaller than your mom's dick.
>>7213796
>'m gonna sell a food product and label it "rat poison free"
Sure, and if you intend to sell a product with rat-poison, I think it should be labelled as containing that BY LAW.
>>7213791
>>implying the organic food lobby are the evil ones trying to outmanouver lovely and nice Monsanto who doesnt use dirty tricks.
They are.
Just look at this Chipotle E. Coli thing. In their desire to be organic and natural the sicken hundreds of americans. The very fact that things like 'natural' and 'organic' and 'gmo-free' are marketing terms commonly found on packaging despite having no relevance to human health or food quality, and often having no meaning at all shows how your beloved natural food lobby is more evil than a company that actually spends money advancing science and human knowledge instead of shunning it
>>7213801
>Pretty sure the first amendment does not give you the right to know what you are eating.
Yes, you are mixing it up. The first amendment was answering "people want to make money convincing other people GMO food is bad so they'll buy their product*"
Which is their right under the first amendment.
The right to know what you are eating should be protected by consumer laws.
So why don't you learn to read in context and stop pestering me you insufferable cocksucker?
>>7213798
>yeah, like most of the country thinks the consumers should have the right to be informed of what they are eating
Educated people agree that knowing simply whether something is GMO or not does not provide the consumer any meaningful knowledge. Knowing exactly which genes were added would, but the organic lobby has yet to advocate for such a measure as it would show how GM crops are qualitatively better than old fashioned ones
>>7213804
Well you see it with MSG and gluten currently
A lot of companies are labeling their products as MSG and/or gluten free because a lot of uneducated people such as yourself believe this to be a good thing. It is straight up disingenuous trickery
>>7213805
>Just look at this Chipotle E. Coli thing.
Everyone knows chicken is supposed to be cooked and store adequately, I don't see how this has any bearing on whether or not food should be labelled as what it is so consumers can decide what they want to buy.
