Because let’s face it, we can’t destroy this country with just Supreme Court rulings:
The Senate on Thursday rejected an amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders to let states require clear labels on any food or beverage containing genetically engineered ingredients. The vote on the amendment to the farm bill was 26 to 73. “This is the very first time a bill on labeling genetically engineered food has been brought before the Senate. It was opposed by virtually every major food corporation in the country. While we wish we could have gotten more votes, this is a good step forward and something we are going to continue to work on. The people of Vermont and the people of America have a right to know what’s in the food that they eat.”
I’m personally not someone who fears genetically modified food- basically everything you eat today has been genetically modified through selective breeding over centuries. Cows didn’t always look like that. Hell, all you dog lovers out there, your specific breed didn’t use to look like that. I’m far more comfortable with wheat that has been genetically modified to resist fungal diseases or livestock genetically modified to resist the various maladies they suffer than I am with spraying crops with DDT or shooting up cows with steroids, hormones, and antibiotics. And I think the real problem with GM foods is what Monsanto and companies like them are trying to do to anyone whose seeds are patented and then they try to destroy any farmer whose seeds are incidentally cross-pollinated.
But having said that, I have no problem with, and in fact think it is perfectly reasonable to require these labels. Let consumers make informed decisions- isn’t that how the alleged “free market” is supposed to work?
schrodinger's cat
Free market is an abstraction, it does not exist.
Just Some Fuckhead
Another victory for the No Labels party.
schrodinger's cat
We can has genetically engineered Tunch photos plz?
JPL
WE have a free market? The free market is what the lobbyists say it is. Plus I want a new stadium now and if I don’t get it, I’m taking my team and leaving. That’s the free market.
Baud
National companies hate state regulation even more than the normal hatred they harbor for regulation generally. I’m not surprised the vote was so lopsided.
schrodinger's cat
People tend to use perfect competition and free market as synonyms. Also firms do not like perfect competition, because the profit = zero. Firms would like to have either an oligopoly or a monopoly, where they are the price setters not price takers.
JPL
Sounds like a bi-partisan vote to me. It’s seldom they agree on anything.
beltane
I believe that in a “free market” all the freedom goes to the corporate party, not the consumer. Freedom demands that not should consumers be kept in the dark about ingredients in their food, but that manufacturers also be given the freedom to label products in any way they choose. If a drug manufacturer wants to sell strychnine under the name ibuprofen, you would be worse than Hitler in trying to stop them. After all, if consumers find that strychnine is not to their taste, they will not make repeat purchases which will give the strychnine manufacturer a sad.
Why are you trying to subvert our glorious capitalist paradise?
JPL
@beltane: Well at least they aren’t selling rat poison.
lol
the Conster
Maybe if we all ate a lot less of their processed crap we’d be healthier and then we would need less of their fucking pharmaceuticals, also too.
Violet
No, of course not. The way the free market is supposed to work is that companies can do whatever they want and consumers just have to deal with it. Companies should not be required by the evil soshulist government to do anything at all. Companies know best. Didn’t you learn all that when you got your wingnut education?
amk
The shite you eat is what you are./co-signed by corporatist dems
Cargo
There’s a difference between selective breeding, which takes years, and GMO frankenfood where dna has been modified directly to be pesticide resistant and to be sterile so you have to buy the new 2012 Weet(tm) or Kourn(tm) every year.
Weaselone
Corporations don’t want free markets, particularly those with a high degree of competition and information symmetry. As the boxed cat above noted, they are more interested in establishing a monopoly or oligarchy where they can extract rents from the system. It’s a bonus for most if they can sell crap for the price of a quality product.
John Cole
@Cargo:
I agree, and actually updated the post prior to you commenting on this.
Stooleo
Talking about GMOs with liberals is about the same as talking about abortion with fundamentalist Christians, facts and evidence get thrown right out the window. Its al screaming “killing babies” or “Frankenfood”. Its the politics of fear and nobody is going to change their mind.
danimal
The free market is working exactly as intended.
Our Senators were bought for a fair market price.
David Koch
Drones are genetically modified aircraft!
auntie beak
@Cargo:
too true. remind me the last time a farmer tried to cross a tomato with a flounder. there’s a reason species don’t easily cross, never mind entire kingdoms. can anyone say “law of unintended consequences?”
UPDATE: dang you, quicksand! you’re 1 step ahead of me!
Quicksand
JC@Top:
True, but I don’t think corn has been cross-breeding with, I don’t know, slugs or fireflies or chupacabras during that time.
EDIT: beaten like a patent-infringing family farmer
David Koch
Measure failed because Bernie didn’t use the Bully Pulpit.
blahblah
Foraging is fun and healthy!
Farmers only have to buy and use GMO seeds if they want the ridiculous increase in yields that come with them.
Our factory farms suck but they feed a whole country full of lazy people who don’t care about their quality of food.
I live in a “food dessert” and I still only have to take 2 buses to get to a grocery store, or I can forage even in a city. Just found a nice stand of passion fruit growing on an abandoned lot.
Weaselone
@Stooleo: You do realize that their are issues with GMO crops that don’t require one to be shrieking moonbat to take issue with, right?
For example, the majority of GMO work is on creating plants that can resist new and higher doses of pesticides. The question that emerges is whether you should really be feeding people food that had to be specifically modified so that it could survive the chemicals it was marinated in while growing.
Another issue is that the infertility gene finds its way into the non genetically engineered crops and impacts the ability of farmers to replant using their own seed crops.
And lastly, there’s the issue of Monsanto suing the posteriors off farms unlucky enough to be downwind of someone using GM crops and who as a result collect seed that has a patented gene in it whether they want it or not.
beltane
@Weaselone: Capitalism requires vigilant government oversight to avoid degenerating into un-competitive monopolies. Adam Smith recognized this, but today’s so-called capitalists have chosen to follow the embittered refugee Ayn Rand over Adam Smith. If anyone has an example of an oligarchy being overthrown I’d like to hear it because I’m not aware of any examples.
agorabum
@Baud: Yeah. A bit torn on that one…when you have a national market for these things, a requirement that you comply with particular labeling details for 50 different jurisdictions, with consumer liability / class action exposure if you do not (from folks in each state), can be a real headache.
Hurts smaller companies the most; the big ones can devote more personnel to legal compliance but for smaller ones, in practice, it could lead to a reluctance to sell across state lines.
It’s one of those things where the FDA ought to be doing this (but I assume the Fed.gov won’t give it the authority).
beltane
@danimal: Their fair-market price turns out to be rather low in most cases. High-end hookers rake in far more money on a per hour basis. Then again, high-end hookers are always far more attractive than the average Senator.
Mojotron
There’s a bunch of shitty practices put in place by factory farms that labeling doesn’t really solve because it can’t really solve them, though it does at least give the customer some additional useful information. A large number of the US’s cash crops are genetically modified to be “Roundup resistant” or something similar (Roundup, a Monsanto product, is the most popular herbicide worldwide) which means not that they’re using less chemical hoo-ha, but they’re actually dumping it all over the crops because they know they’re immune to the stuff while it kills everything else. Same with antibiotics and cattle- if you’re raising cattle in normal conditions they’re still prone to the occasional health problem which can be treated best with antibiotics, but when you crowd them and prevent them from moving they’re bound to develop infections, so as a cheap & easy precaution factory farmers just load their feed with antibiotics preemptively. How do you differentiate between the “sound” farming practices and the lousy ones with a label? The only way to do it is to (ahem) beef up the USDA inspections and have that mean something again.
edit: and if labeled “GMO Modified: Roundup Resistant” you’d know to wash the bejeebus out of it.
murakami
Can states require non-GMO food to be labelled ? Seems like a possible solution.
Ameziah
I read some scientific paper for the layman on the non gmo project website a few weeks ago and as it was trying to argue against gmo, it seemed to be saying that nothing has proven that this new gmo stuff in general is actually a problem. It’s just that we don’t know, which is apparently why we’re supposed to be afraid. I don’t mean this as an argument for anything goes mutant food, just wish it was something that was discussed a little more rationally. Right, I know, good luck with that. Plus it’s hard to trust these assholish mega corps to not kill us for profit.
Raya
I don’t know. There is something to be said for the Law of Unintended Consequences. Cross-contamination of regular crops with GMO ones doesn’t just screw the farmers who are then on the hook for “pirating” the patented GMO seeds, it also means farmers are unwittingly growing sterile crops that won’t work as seed for next year. And the genes inserted to make corn “naturally” do the work of DDT (e.g., by altering the gene expression of the pests who ingest it) are not necessarily friendly to humans, nor is there much incentive for rigorous research into the matter to be carried out given where all the money is (and Monsanto explicitly opposes all such research).
There are also ethical issues involved: too often, genetic modification is practised as an easy, sleazy around what are not really scientific but rather ethical problems (e.g.: how to grow 8 million times more corn to feed to the cattle that aren’t supposed to eat that much corn but they grow bigger when they do and Americans want MOAR MEAT? How to feed the Africans who have exported all their edible crops and have only poisonous yams left to sustain themselves? Etc.).
Finally, even if GMOs don’t bother you at all from an ethical or “potential for as-yet-unknown unintended consequences” standpoint, there is something to be said for being able to avoid GMO foods PURELY in order to AVOID GIVING MONEY TO MONSANTO, which has to be one of the evillest corporations on the planet.
blahblah
I don’t see what regulations or fair labeling accomplish. Why get all worked up about it?
The problem is so much larger; factory farms make our society possible. Farming more than the population can eat is the cornerstone of our way of life. If we don’t introduce GMO foods, hydroponics, and other next-generation farming practices then our society will stop growing and even more people will starve.
If you’re eating something from a package I think it should be assumed that it’s GMO/processed/unsustainable, just because that’s what makes packaged foods possible in the first place.
Tonal Crow
@Violet: This. The “free market” is free for Big Business, and everyone else can go straight to Hell.
Tonal Crow
It’s my body, not Monsanto’s, so it’s my right to know what’s in the stuff I put into it.
End of story.
Tonal Crow
@JPL:
Do you know that?
JP
Any food that uses cottonseed oil — e.g., snickers, triscuits, potato chips (ie, a wide variety of things you might not expect) is likely to use GMO cotton (likely Round-up Ready). So a Snickers bar would have to be labeled as genetically modified. It’s hard to imagine getting past a lobby of virtually every processed food producer…
blahblah
@Tonal Crow: You sound so entitled. If you want to know exactly what you put into your body, then it seems to me like you need to take the time to grow it yourself.
You live in a society entirely created by huge farming. The reason that you can sit on the internet and tell us what you think is because some farmer breaks his back every day to feed you.
If you aren’t willing to trust the people who grow the food that you eat then it seems to me that there are much, much larger problems.
fuckwit
I don’t want free markets.
I want free people.
Markets can be in bondage up the wazoo, fine with me. Markets are artificial constructs, created by people, supposedly to serve PEOPLE.
But that’s not how it works now. People– and especially governments of people– are in bondage to serve markets. This is exactly backwards, and needs to be put right again.
Cluttered Mind
SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!
Grung_e_Gene
No! The Free Market works like this; anything, ANYTHING which hapmpers the massive collection of wealth by the 1% is evil. The Plutocrats are good because they have money.
Poverty belongs to the Poor, Capital belongs to the Capitalists.
Government exists to defend the wealth of the 1% and crush the 99% to keep them in line.
Now you know what the Free Market is…
Steeplejack
@beltane:
And they’re better at their jobs.
Tonal Crow
@blahblah: Hard to tell whether you’re arguing that garbage seriously or are simply trolling. In any case, feel free to trust (or not) whomever you wish, and I will do likewise. Oh yeah, I don’t trust you at all.
Weaselone
@blahblah: Yeah, just as if you want to make certain that the medical treatment you receive is top notch, you should go out and get your own medical degree, or if you want to make certain the drugs you take are good, you should get a biochemistry degree and synthesize them in your own lab, or if you want to guarantee your car is top notch you should mine your own ore, smelt your own steel, drill your own oil wells, synthesize your own plastic, fabricate your own parts and assemble the vehicle in your garage.
Lazy, good for nothing bums. Self reliance all the way, I say.
kc
So much for states’ rights.
blahblah
Some self-reliance is a good thing, and getting a medical degree is a lot harder than growing a garden or using CSA. Are you willing to expend any amount of effort, over and above going to the grocery store, to feed your lazy asses? The amount of effort you expend is directly correlated to the quality of your food.
I’m not trolling, but if the system is so untrustworthy as to be in the shape that it’s in, why do you think more regulation will help?
I have dedicated over two decades of my life to learning about our food and where it comes from and how the system is broken. In that time I’ve learned that in order to feed over 300 million people some tradeoffs need to be made. One of them is GMO crops.
When our food supply is 100% GMO, as it will be eventually, what are you going to do then?
Weaselone
@blahblah: I have a postage stamp for a yard that receives too much shade. I grow some things in containers, but certainly not enough to feed myself. I also participate in a CSA and go out and self pick food from time to time. Not everyone has those options available to them for a price they can afford. I’m fortunate.
I’m also not certain what exactly your point is. Because growing stuff is simpler than getting medical degree, we shouldn’t expect too have access to information on the food we buy? Big agriculture is a massively complex endeavor. It’s not just me, the farmer and the seeds he grew using rain, soil and sunshine. As the agents growing, processing and providing a portion of the food I purchase, what makes them exempt from providing information relevant to my purchasing decision?
blahblah
I don’t see how that information is relevant, frankly. It should be assumed that if you take part in modern society you are eating GMO food. If not directly, then through the meat that we eat that has been fed GMO grains.
Not only is GMO everywhere, it enables our way of life. If we didn’t have it, either through direct genetic manipulation or selective breeding and hybridization (which also produces unusable seeds) then a lot of people would starve.
Adding a sticker to our food doesn’t do a thing. All it does is demonize the progress that we need to make in order to feed ever larger populations.
Edit: And a postage-stamp yard doesn’t mean a thing. I live in urban St Louis and manage to feed myself pretty well. Some things are purchased, a lot are foraged, some are grown. If you have the desire to eat better that’s really all it takes. That and a lot of time and hard work.
If it’s important to you then you’ll find a way. Otherwise you will spend your life outraged at all of the ways that large corporations manipulate a system.
Brachiator
There is no real informed decision involved here. The label issue is just nonsense. It would be like wanting to know whether the McDonalds employee who put your burger in the bag was left handed or right handed.
Paula68154
Yea, free market. We have no free markets.
almacote
@Stooleo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixyrCNVVGA&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Yutsano
@murakami: I don’t know why the states can’t just enact their own labeling laws. It would increase the food costs but if the state thinks it’s important then do it and mazel tov.
Gretchen
Consumer Reports just did a study that found that something like 70% of consumers would prefer meat to be labeled as to whether antibiotics and hormones were used, and are willing to pay a bit more for it. Manufacturers fight this because they don’t like the choices consumers make.
blahblah
I honestly think that manufacturers fight it because they raise their meat in the cow version of a pure culture, and if you know much about biology you know that all it takes to wipe out a pure culture is one pathogen getting a foothold in the population. Antibiotics are cheap insurance against that.
Hormones are another story, but they are just another way to squeeze out every last drop of meat from each cow.
This system sucks, and I hate it so much that I changed a lot of my life. I really do agree with most of you. But the realities are what they are. A lot of people eat a lot of meat and want it cheaply. Same with grain and veggies.
If you want good meat then buy it from the Amish if you can, or online. You’ll see just how much extra it really costs to get antibiotic and hormone-free grassfed pastured beef. I don’t have the money for it so I just eat a lot less meat.
I am thinking about raising and slaughtering meat rabbits too. They work pretty well in a shady postage-stamp sized lawn, and produce a lot of good fertilizer.
Edit: The place I get my meat from has ground beef at the bargain of ~$9/lb
http://www.americangrassfedbeef.com/grass-fed-beef.asp
Chet
The “informed consumer” justification applies just as easily to labeling crops that were picked by Mexican immigrants, but I suspect you wouldn’t apply your “let the consumer decide” philosophy that far. Not every irrational prejudice needs to be catered to.
Gex
This was the most maddening part of Sullivan railing against restaurants having to give menu item nutrition information and ingredients. The idea that consumers have a right to know what they are purchasing was never a consideration to him. The idea that people with nearly fatal allergies to peanuts have no right to know if there are peanuts in a meal. I mean, even though he’d be the first to bitch about American’s weight being a driver in health care costs, he’s the last to think that giving consumers information that could help them not become obese is something that corporations should do. They already print labels, there’s no additional cost. The only thing he’s objecting to is one party having adequate information.
ornery_curmudgeon
@blahblah: If you aren’t willing to trust the people who grow the food that you eat then it seems to me that there are much, much larger problems.
Gosh I’m not even ‘willing’ to trust that you’re not a BigAg troll paid to confound conversation about our OWN F*CKING FOOD supply. You talk in insane circles and advocate error.
Yes, we have a much, much larger problem … I would like this problem to rapidly become yours, too, blahblahfool.
blahblah
Oh, bullshit. I’m saying that if you aren’t willing to take responsibility for your own food, personally, then don’t be a bit surprised if you’re eating GMO.
Tough shit if you don’t like it, it’s what you’re eating right now.
BigAg doesn’t need to confound the debate, they already have a monopoly. You either play their game or you look out for yourself. I’m advocating the latter.
Stickers are bullshit if everything has one on it. And unless you can pull arable land out of your crazy old ass then one day everything will have a sticker on it. GMO is the way of the future.
Barry
John Cole: “I’m personally not someone who fears genetically modified food- basically everything you eat today has been genetically modified through selective breeding over centuries. ”
John, the concern I’ve heard the most is that you don’t know what elements have been added. Selective breed can do a lot, but it can’t do things like (e.g.) add peanut proteins to rice.
If ‘rice’ means ‘rice plus some other items from a wide variety of other plants’, then anybody with a food allergy is at risk.
Mino
@blahblah: WRONG! Ask Indian farmers about those increased yields. Ask about the rate of suicides among farmers in India. Jackass.
And unregulated GM in ag is the Frankenstein of the present.
And how come bovine hormones are not in cow milk anymore?
blahblah
@Mino: Just now reading about the suicides by Indian farmers I’d say that I’m not surprised. GMO crops need nutrients and pesticides to grow properly. It’s just one of the reasons they suck.
That sort of intensive farming doesn’t work so well in developing countries, but we do it every day here. And it’s not like there’s an argument that GMO crops don’t produce higher yields. They really do.
I don’t know as much about milk cows, but I do know that milk production per cow has risen sharply over the past 50 years. When we can’t sustain milk surpluses through traditional methods we will turn to biotech for further increases. Hormone shots might not work as well as transgenetic cows do. Count on Monsanto to use whatever works best for the least amount of money.
It really doesn’t matter whether you think GMO makes Frankenstein soybeans, biotech is the next step that humanity will take in order to feed itself. It’s a huge emerging field and there is a lot of promise as well as a lot of risk.
Populations can’t increase without food surpluses, so there will be surpluses by whatever means necessary. Bet on it — it’s been happening since the agricultural revolution and the smart money says that it will keep happening. It’s a hallmark of our society.
HelloRochester
I was a little on the fence about GM food for the same reason you listed (breeding plants changes their genes, too) until I read this. It’s a good piece, with good science to back it up. Even if it’s a goddang book.
http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/GMO_Myths_and_Truths/GMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.3.pdf
Mino
@blahblah: BGH did not drop the price of milk to consumers, though it burned through a lot of cows.
When producers were allowed to lable for it, it disappeared because consumers wanted no part of it. And the price of milk did not skyrocket, either.
Why are you so comfortable with sociopaths controling our food supply? You know plants need insects to replicate. Neonicotinoid pesticides (Imidicloprids)seriously damage bees, but Beyer has been able to do the disinfo dance for years while they racked up the profits.
There are a lot more examples of total disregard for side effects out there, as you well know.
Why do you think all the seed banks (and embryo banks) are being built? Catastrophy is in the cards for us.
blahblah
Oh, the seed banks are being built because biologists are awesome and they need something to do. I’d only give catastrophe a 50/50 shot until our population numbers really get up in the tens of billions. But that’s just speculation.
And anyway, I never said that I was comfortable with all of this. I do think there is value in seeing the world for what it really is, though. Biotech is inevitable, and we will need the food for even more babies that we don’t really have room for.
You don’t need to explain pollinators and declining bee populations to me. I can spot curly dock from a moving car and I hauled in 40lbs of morels this year from the Ozarks. My ass is covered, and I will eat well no matter what happens. Unless all the bees die I guess.
If you see GMO as the inevitability that it really is, and want no part of it, then I’d suggest getting some books by Samuel Thayer and learning about foraging.
The saying isn’t “Tune in, turn on, whine about what congress does”. Stand up and take responsibility for yourself and your family. It’s a pretty fun hobby. Hunt, fish, grow organic hydroponic strawberries on your balcony, eat shit that grows in your yard. It beats watching TV.
Mino
@blahblah: You speak as if you think GM is purposed to feed people. Yuck, yuck, you innocent.
blahblah
If not, then what? Illuminati conspiracy? Did we used to date?
Mino
@Mino: Any more straw men you want to set afire?
There are even questions about the practicality of so-called Golden Rice, which was used to give GM political acceptance.
Why don’t you give me some examples where GM has proved superiior?
blahblah
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v28/n4/full/nbt0410-319.html
“Results from 12 countries indicate, with few exceptions, that GM crops have benefitted farmers. The benefits, especially in terms of increased yields, are greatest for the mostly small farmers in developing countries, who have benefitted from the spillover of technologies originally targeted at farmers in industrialized countries.”
Now why don’t you explain what you think the purpose of GMO crops is?
brantl
Cole, much as I like you (and I like you a lot), you don’t know what you’re talking about here, when minimalizing the risks. Slow, generationally minimal change in a species (even when humans are selecting for the traits) allows the whole rest of the biome to keep up in pace with the slightly-changed species. This is not the case with a genetically modified species. You can get genes into things that would have no natural way to get them. Frankenfood doesn’t miss what could happen in the worst cases.
Mino
I’ve been reading some of the literature extoling GM food and I have to say I have seldom seen such ignorant proslytizing, deliberate conflation, redefinition and outright lies. The winner in that category is Jane Brody of the NYTimes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/11/health/11brod.html?_r=1
Did you know that inter-species breeding happened in Nature? Neither did I. That kind of redefines species, doesn’t it?
She quotes the Hoover Institute writer, Henry I. Miller, who claims there has never been an ecosystem disruption from GM crops. As compared to other mono-crop disruptions, I guess. (And, for one, I guess they’ve never heard of the Monarch butterfly.) And he goes on to claim… “That is not something that can be said about conventional foods, where imprecise methods of genetic modification actually have caused illnesses and deaths.” Now, I don’t even understand what he’s getting at here since he gives no examples. Peanuts, perhaps?
Did you know that we expose ourselves to millions of foreign genes everytime we eat a new food? Duh, what the hell does that have to do with a defense of GM food.
Direct quote: “Without better public understanding and changes in the many arcane rules now thwarting development of new gene-spliced products, we will miss out on major improvements that can result in more healthful foods, a cleaner environment and a worldwide ability to produce more food on less land – using less water, fewer chemicals and less money.
I mean, healthful foods and a clean environment are such a legacy from our agricltural industries. Well, maybe they want to do better, but it costs too much. And cheap food, well, that is due to 16 different types of government subsidies, not the goodness of the market in commodities.
Frankly, I give up on you, sir.
brantl
@blahblah: Farmers haven’t been “breaking their backs” since the oil industry took off, not in this country. I was a farmer at one time, and you’re currently an idiot.
blahblah
@Mino: Oh lord, Mino. Different species breed all the time. Ever heard of a mule? And you dodged a pretty direct question, but that’s okay, the only possible answer would have embarrassed you. I give up on you too, no worries.
@brantl: Well as long as you used to be a farmer I’m sure you’re right.
The way to prove it, though, would be to refute something I said.
patrick
@blahblah:
a donkey and a horse are quite similar organisms, close enough to cross breed…but I get the willies when I hear of GMO wheat or corn with say, pig genes spliced in…
Legendary Bigfoot
@Stooleo: The disappearing bees and rapidly adapting to GM shenanigans pests are clearly liberals who won’t listen to your reason.
tones
I am vegetarian.
I do not like the idea that my tomato has some fish genes in it.
Doesn’t that mean that tomato is no longer truly vegetarian?No longer a vegetable?
It has fish in it.
Chet
Genes don’t come in flavors. There’s no such thing as a “fish gene” except when it’s in a fish. A plant and a fish have 40% sequence identity due to common evolutionary descent, so which of those thousands of genes in the plant are the “fish” genes and which of those in the fish are plant genes?
Species essentialism was discredited in the 1800’s. Shame to see it here from supposedly “pro-science” liberals.