I had this thought listening to the new one. But then I have trouble picturing what her happy music would sound like. Also, I think after this and Melodrama I don't really need any more break-up albums for a while.

After a couple listens I'm definitely liking it although I'm not sure I'd put it on the level of Ivy Tripp yet, much less Cerulean Salt. I'll need more listens to say anything for sure though.

Actually, now that I think about it, your comments that I liked in the past were pretty hostile and personal, but in that case the target was deserving and your invective was at least colorful. So, I guess maybe take some care to check those boxes in the future. Cause I would submit that the comment above is in no way…

I know I've liked some of your comments before and you have some good thoughts but you seem to get really hostile at times in a way that is totally unnecessary and personal and uncalled for. Consider toning it down a bit.

Yeah I thought that paragraph was pretty cringey but the rest of the column was thoughtful and good, especially for a Brooks column. Was kind of sad to see this too.

Well there is a slight possibility that the right sort of Democrats could win and actually not be fucking terrible at governing. I know it's been a while but it could happen.

Oh ok, that is not what I had in mind. You mean like a single dose. Nothing to do with whether it is toxic in the sense of carcinogenic. Maybe those two words have a different meaning that I was conflating.

This article indicates that a scientific panel found that the EPA did not follow its own guidelines in reaching that decision and that the chair of the agency's Cancer Assessment Review Committee had a (documented) cozy relationship
with people at Monsanto while key decisions were being made. So, it appears that you…

Your point here is also a very bad one considering how much GMO foods are processed into packaged products. Should people be rinsing their bread, soy sauce, tortilla chips, and cooking oil?

To state my point more succintly, purposeful changes to the genes of the plant that are often accompanied by random mutations to other genes mean that a GMO is at least potentially a materially different product than the one you are used to and are seeking. Because we may have very little understanding of the…

Making a distinction between the "technology" and the "practices that it allows" is pretty specious if the concerns go hand in hand. And at best the jury is still out on safety which makes your "proven safe" comment earlier, again, a load of bullshit, although you seem to walking that back now.

Well I'm very skeptical of that last claim. I can understand, even if I don't accept, the argument that it is present in too small of amounts in food to have much effect. But as toxic as table salt is quite a claim. Also, what are your thoughts on why California decided to declare it a carcinogen? I was thinking that…

Fair enough. "Proven safe" is simply untrue though, as I think you'd admit. (And apart from that, why is safety the only concern? Clearly the plant is being changed. What if I want to compare flavor?)

Well I appreciate your perspective and thoughtful response. I do think that one of the big promises of GMOs was increased crop yields and that has not really happened. I also remain somewhat skeptical of their environmental benefits, although I am open to further reading if you have any non-biased sources you can…

I think the way you describe it is technically true but the big companies do try very hard to foster a relationship of dependency, and they are not above using tactics of intimidation to accomplish that. In practice it can look a lot like sharecropping:

In fact I think the case of glyphosate shows pretty clearly that the reason producers are against labeling is not because of irrational fears of GMO, its because they know that such fears are indeed rational with regard to a huge percentage of GMO crops on the market. They are against anything that will get people to…

Glyphosate is a proven carcinogen and any plants that have been genetically modified to withstand large amounts of it are less safe to the extent that there is a residue remaining on the food (and there is). That alone refutes everything you're saying about being proven safe or any implication that the FDA is doing…

It puts the onus on the producer/seller to provide more information. If they don't, well that says something in itself. And you still have more info. Without the first part, you're completely in the dark.

That totally ignores where all the resources and capability is at. If you are just an individual that wants to know what you're eating, you have to first prove scientifically that it makes a difference? You can't even test on yourself unless you can tell one from another, which you can't do without labeling.

Well this discussion has certainly veered off into the weeds!