Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: If you are in California, please vote YES on 37. -Updated [View all]Duer 157099
(17,742 posts)69. I'm certainly voting yes, but I have a question:
Wouldn't standard mouse chow already contain GMO corn? I mean, what animal chow *doesn't* contain GMO corn/HFCS already?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
170 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Best and saddest expert analysis I have encountered on GMOs ever - discovered yesterday.
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#158
I have a scientist acquaintance whom I respect a great deal who advocates voting no for these
Brickbat
Nov 2012
#11
I strongly suspect a lot of people would turn down a product with a label that said:
jeff47
Nov 2012
#14
The public doesn't care about Hydrogen in food, they care about Genetic manipulation of their food
blazeKing
Nov 2012
#22
So your cited article shows that the toxin is lasting in the soil for 180 days vs 24 hrs
Tumbulu
Nov 2012
#129
I saved you the time of reading to the end of the thread so you can read this full article.
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#130
Related material here:“No studies to date have experimentally examined the causal relationship btwn"
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#132
Well the British people and people from Europe that I knew asked me how Americans could be misled
Tumbulu
Nov 2012
#106
if by nature, you mean Man...then yes...man has engineered corn for thousands of years...
yawnmaster
Nov 2012
#42
Because the very process of genetic modification itself creates unintended ancillary consequences.
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#155
As an aside, for health reasons the future of food is not the biotech pseudo-food variant.
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#93
Harvard, man, both of 'em. Do not mock their training, expertise, research, or integrity.
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#107
This, too (and upon reflection not my call to say which is worse re:post #75).
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#81
Exactly. The only reason for lying is because they have something to hide. nt
Live and Learn
Nov 2012
#29
I'm not decided. I'm in favor of labeling, but I'm not convinced this prop is well written.
LeftyMom
Nov 2012
#39
Monsanto have been a pestilence world-wide, suing farmers out of existence,
Fire Walk With Me
Nov 2012
#54
why not just put the chemical compounds found in the food? well...because labeling can become...
yawnmaster
Nov 2012
#43
The animals in the OP picture were fed IIRC, check the articles, 100% GMOs.
Fire Walk With Me
Nov 2012
#70
If you want to be up-to-date, you'll peruse the thread below and find your links debunked.
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#154
Scientists from AAAS - Yes: Food Labels Would Let Consumers Make Informed Choices
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#113
Check out this definitive article written twelve years ago. The argument for labeling is compelling.
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#117
doing what a majority of Californians want gives liberals a bad name?
DisgustipatedinCA
Nov 2012
#134
They've spent over $7 million dollars to block this measure in just one state, they've purchased an
Fire Walk With Me
Nov 2012
#135
Statement on Election Results from the California Right to Know Campaign
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#166
Samples of three fraudulent mailers sent to California voters provided at link below (will not C+P).
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#169