Marin School District Goes GMO-Free, Fails Basic Science

[HuckleB]

http://groundedparents.com/2015/08/24/marin-school-district-goes-gmo-free-fails-basic-science/

"...

I don’t want to diminish the importance of a nutritious, fresh and delicious school lunch. The pilot school — Bayside MLK — is located in Marin City, where many residents live below the poverty line and 93% of students qualify for free and reduced government subsidized lunches. I applaud Conscious Kitchen for serving its students fresh seasonal meals.

Unfortunately, that food comes with a giant serving of false propaganda — that a healthy diet must be an organic, GMO-free one.

Conscious Kitchen’s agenda relies on fear and chemophobia. “Students everywhere are vulnerable to pesticide residues and unsafe environmental toxins,” argues Judi Shils, executive director of Conscious Kitchen’s parent organization Turning Green.

Actually, pesticide residues are present in both conventional and organic produce (at perfectly safe levels, by the way). Conscious Kitchen also questions the safety of GMO foods, even though the overwhelming evidence shows that these foods are safe.

..."

[Trajan]

1. Not a big fan of the Huck ...

I would just as soon get the labels, thanks ...

[Silent3]

2. "If GMOs are so safe..."

[Trajan]

5. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112790641

[HuckleB]

8. First, that source is crap.

Second, such issues come up with all types of plants, regardless of the breeding method. Second, your source posts this piece today, but it sources various unrelated links that are months and more old. It tries to connect very different topics into its preconceived propaganda. It's really, really obvious.

http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2013/05/superweed/

And for a science-based discussion of rootworms: https://www.facebook.com/search/str/GMO%20Skepti-Forum%20rootworm/keywords_top

[Silent3]

13. Way to miss the point

Others have addressed the quality of the info you linked to, so I won't bother with that.

The point I'm making is about anti-GMO people trying to pretend that a label like "Contains GMOs" is purely informative, and that putting such labels in place is nothing but a "right to know" issue.

It's clear that such labels will be perceived as warning labels, as indicative of danger, as the government conceding to and promoting the idea the GMOs are dangerous.

So OF COURSE people selling GMO products don't want such labels to be required. Regardless of whether GMOs are bad or not (which is a stupid way of looking at the issue anyway -- each and every different GMO needs to be evaluated independently because there's no reason any one GMO would share any common risks with another) such labels make them look bad.

If that's your goal, to make all GMOs look bad, at least admit it. Don't play a disingenuous game of pretending it's nothing more than "providing information" so that consumers can make "informed decisions".

[progressoid]

3. Yaeh, me too. I want to know if my food has any pixie dust on it.

[Trajan]

6. Pixie dust is imaginary

Kind of like GMOs having absolutely no unintended consequences, ever ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112790641

[progressoid]

11. GMO threat is Imaginary too.

As for your link, huckeB nicely summed up how lame that is.

[HuckleB]

4. And what would those labels tell you, exactly?

And why do you not ask for labels on MBOs?

And why make things personal?

[Trajan]

7. I make things personal. .

Because I have watched you and others SAVAGE anyone and everyone who disagree with you here ...

Someone disagrees? ... Insult them ... That is what I see here ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112790641

[HuckleB]

9. So you find it insulting for people to bring the actual science to the table.

I find it insulting for people to repeatedly push debunked, anti-science posts. It's not only insulting, but it is unethical.

Your cherry picked bit from an anti-GMO source does not change reality. Your source is blaming GMOs for a problem that occurs with plants of all types, regardless of breeding technology. Second, your source posts this piece today, but it sources unrelated links that are months and more old. It tries to connect very different topics into its preconceived propaganda. It's really, really blatant, anti-science propaganda.

For an actual discussion of the rootworm "issue." https://www.facebook.com/search/str/GMO%20Skepti-Forum%20rootworm/keywords_top


Try to be honest, please.

[HuckleB]

10. How about those labels?

What would they tell you?

PS: http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/will-gmos-hurt-my-body/

[HuckleB]

12. BTW, you might want to look at what the EPA is actually recommending.

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/corn-rootworm.htm

[HuckleB]

14. Senator McCaskill Stands Up For Science.

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/higher_education/anti-gmo-movement-ag-research-funding-strike-nerve-with-mccaskill/article_55bebc84-50d2-11e5-b288-470b14909303.html

[HuckleB]

15. Why ‘GMO-free’ is a marketing ploy you shouldn’t fall for

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/09/02/why-gmo-free-is-a-marketing-ploy-you-shouldnt-fall-for/