(GIG.ul test) n. A symbolic test used to determine whether something is legitimate or serious.
Example Citation:
Another lawyer, who handles a high volume of welfare cases, put it this way: "there used to be a 'giggle test' — the court could be counted on to reject arguments made by government lawyers that were laughable — but now members of the panel will pick up on those arguments."
—Daniel Wise, "First Department's Image Shifts," New York Law Journal, April 24, 2001
Earliest Citation:
They are trying to convince U.S. agricultural officials that their products are perishable, which would allow their workers to meet more lenient rules to become legal immigrants. "We have scientific evidence on our side," says Richard Douglas, vice president of the Sun Diamond Growers of California, a walnut-growers cooperative. "But walnuts can't pass the giggle test. When you talk about perishable commodities and mention walnuts, people start giggling."
—"Perishable Designation Coveted by Farmers," Journal of Commerce, March 31, 1987
Notes:
This phrase has a much more common variant: the laugh test. This dates to at least 1983 and, judging by the media citations generated by both phrases, is about 10 times more popular. So why not post laugh test, instead? I guess there's just something irresistible about the word giggle. (Here's a word request: What do you call a word that makes you do what the word itself means? Giggle, which, for me, is giggle-inducing, is an example. Reader jMorgan suggests performative, a term linguists use to refer to speech that constitutes some kind of act.) Almost as popular is the similar phrase straight-face test, which goes back to about 1987.
Other synonymous sightings that only make rare appearances are chuckle test and guffaw test.
Bron
06 augustus 2010
.JPG)
Monsanto Terminator Technology
Monsanto is in the process of acquiring and patenting their newest technology, known as "Terminator Technology." This technology is currently the greatest threat to humanity. If it is used by Monsanto on a large-scale basis, it will inevitably lead to famine and starvation on a worldwide basis.
Billions of people on the planet are supported by farmers who save seeds from the crops and replant these seeds the following year. Seeds are planted. The crop is harvested. And the seeds from the harvest are replanted the following year. Most farmers cannot afford to buy new seeds every year, so collecting and replanting seeds is a crucial part of the agricultural cycle. This is the way food has been grown successfully for thousands of years.
With Monsanto's terminator technology, they will sell seeds to farmers to plant crops. But these seeds have been genetically-engineered so that when the crops are harvested, all new seeds from these crops are sterile (e.g., dead, unusable). This forces farmers to pay Monsanto every year for new seeds if they want to grow their crops.
(Bron, Ethical Investing)
In June 2007, Monsanto acquired Delta & Pine Land Company, a company that had patented a seed technology nicknamed Terminator. This technology, which was never used commercially, produces plants that have sterile seeds so they do not flower or grow fruit after the initial planting. This prevents the spread of those seeds into the wild, however it also requires customers to repurchase seed for every planting in which they use Terminator seed varieties. Farmers who do not use a terminator seed could also be affected by his neighboring farmer that does. In recent years, widespread opposition from environmental organizations and farmer associations has grown, mainly out of the concerns that these seeds increase farmers' dependency on seed suppliers.
In 1999, Monsanto pledged not to commercialize Terminator technology.
(Bron, Wikipedia)
In 1999 Monsanto called the program off, even pledging "not to pursue technologies that result in sterile seeds". In 2000, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity "Conference of the Parties" recommended a de facto moratorium on field testing and commercial use of Terminator seeds (paragraph 23). The moratorium was re-affirmed in 2006.
Monsanto later reversed their promise not to pursue Terminator in a revised pledge which caused an uproar. In any case, the messages from Monsanto on Terminator has been mixed and confusing - simultaneously "making a public commitment not to commercialize sterile seed technologies", even stating "We stand by our commitment to not use genetic engineering methods that result in sterile seeds. Period" whilst also stating "we 'constantly re-evaluate this stance as the technology develops'" and "we do not rule out their future development"
(Bron, SourceWatch)
Monsanto has never developed or commercialized a sterile seed product. Sharing many of the concerns of small landholder farmers, Monsanto made a commitment in 1999 not to commercialize sterile seed technology in food crops. We stand firmly by this commitment. We have no plans or research that would violate this commitment in any way.
(Bron, Monsanto, Last Updated: 07/16/2009)
Billions of people on the planet are supported by farmers who save seeds from the crops and replant these seeds the following year. Seeds are planted. The crop is harvested. And the seeds from the harvest are replanted the following year. Most farmers cannot afford to buy new seeds every year, so collecting and replanting seeds is a crucial part of the agricultural cycle. This is the way food has been grown successfully for thousands of years.
With Monsanto's terminator technology, they will sell seeds to farmers to plant crops. But these seeds have been genetically-engineered so that when the crops are harvested, all new seeds from these crops are sterile (e.g., dead, unusable). This forces farmers to pay Monsanto every year for new seeds if they want to grow their crops.
(Bron, Ethical Investing)
In June 2007, Monsanto acquired Delta & Pine Land Company, a company that had patented a seed technology nicknamed Terminator. This technology, which was never used commercially, produces plants that have sterile seeds so they do not flower or grow fruit after the initial planting. This prevents the spread of those seeds into the wild, however it also requires customers to repurchase seed for every planting in which they use Terminator seed varieties. Farmers who do not use a terminator seed could also be affected by his neighboring farmer that does. In recent years, widespread opposition from environmental organizations and farmer associations has grown, mainly out of the concerns that these seeds increase farmers' dependency on seed suppliers.
In 1999, Monsanto pledged not to commercialize Terminator technology.
(Bron, Wikipedia)
In 1999 Monsanto called the program off, even pledging "not to pursue technologies that result in sterile seeds". In 2000, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity "Conference of the Parties" recommended a de facto moratorium on field testing and commercial use of Terminator seeds (paragraph 23). The moratorium was re-affirmed in 2006.
Monsanto later reversed their promise not to pursue Terminator in a revised pledge which caused an uproar. In any case, the messages from Monsanto on Terminator has been mixed and confusing - simultaneously "making a public commitment not to commercialize sterile seed technologies", even stating "We stand by our commitment to not use genetic engineering methods that result in sterile seeds. Period" whilst also stating "we 'constantly re-evaluate this stance as the technology develops'" and "we do not rule out their future development"
(Bron, SourceWatch)
Monsanto has never developed or commercialized a sterile seed product. Sharing many of the concerns of small landholder farmers, Monsanto made a commitment in 1999 not to commercialize sterile seed technology in food crops. We stand firmly by this commitment. We have no plans or research that would violate this commitment in any way.
(Bron, Monsanto, Last Updated: 07/16/2009)
Seed Annual for 1890
