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: Dr Jane Goodall: supporters of GM food deluded & ‘anti-science’ (backs new anti-GM book) [View all]sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)18. You're absolutely correct. Not that long ago 190 countries had not yet realized how
harmful GMOs were to their populations. The tide on that has now turned, and 30 of those countries having done their own scientific studies, have now banned GMOs.
That's all it takes, a turning of the tide, starting with the first country to do so, and before long there were more, and there will be more.
When a Corporation doesn't want you to know what they producing, that is all one needs to know before doing their own investigations.
If they have done nothing wrong, they have nothing to hide.
Clearly they are afraid that if they were to label their products, they would go out of business.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
385 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
Dr Jane Goodall: supporters of GM food deluded & ‘anti-science’ (backs new anti-GM book) [View all]
JohnyCanuck
Mar 2015
OP
I'm not. I'm pointing out you need more information to make a rational decision.
jeff47
Mar 2015
#27
Err, it's the San Joaquin Valley, unless there's another one I don't know about.
LeftyMom
Mar 2015
#183
A gene coming from an octopus or spider isn't relevant. You're looking for what the gene does
jeff47
Mar 2015
#262
No one's suggesting they can't add ADDITIONAL information -- just that there should be a MINIMUM
pnwmom
Mar 2015
#80
It should be up to the food producer how much additional information they wanted to include
pnwmom
Mar 2015
#136
Just because you don't want the information doesn't mean others don't. Just because you
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#173
You haven't presented any science. In fact, I'm pretty convinced you don't even know what it
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#349
And I don't understand why any DUer would object to the labeling that would help people
pnwmom
Mar 2015
#82
Yeah, right. You can try and piggy-back the popularity of vaccines onto GMO's all you want.
pnwmom
Mar 2015
#133
and you pushed a clip by a far right winger associated with the kochs and the fraser institute.
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#237
of course people are forcing others to eat things. when people don't know if the food supply
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#232
Yes; when food is made or processed via techniques and processes, or with ingredients that
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#344
So, all you have to offer is forced propaganda, based on fear mongering fictions?
HuckleB
Mar 2015
#345
like amateur psychoanalyst who tells 93% of us "Since you don't believe as I do, you are crazy"
GreatGazoo
Mar 2015
#121
You not understanding there are different GMOs is not a terribly useful metric. (nt)
jeff47
Mar 2015
#50
Then why would you ever oppose it? Let other smart people, like Dr. Goodall, make up their own minds
pnwmom
Mar 2015
#76
It's very meaningful to millions of people who do not wish to eat genetically altered 'food'.
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#383
I like Jane, but... I think people on both sides need to quit throwing around
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
Mar 2015
#2
She's responding to all the pro-GMO people who accuse people like her of being anti-science.
pnwmom
Mar 2015
#87
You're absolutely correct. Not that long ago 190 countries had not yet realized how
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#18
Yes, we don't buy commercial dog food anymore. Our puppy as it turned out, was allergic
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#56
Am I a public figure? No, but if I were, that standard would be okay with me. In fact I would
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#127
That logic would apply if we were asking them transcribe their spouses' pillow talk onto the
GoneFishin
Mar 2015
#165
That's logical gibberish couched in grammatically well constructed sentences.
GoneFishin
Mar 2015
#250
"if they were to label their products, they would go out of business" = precisely.
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#176
Also important to remember that at least 64 countries require labeling
nationalize the fed
Mar 2015
#31
"there's no compelling reason" = except most americans want it. the EU already does it,and
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#249
there was "no compelling reason" for previous labeling in the eyes of the industry either.
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#258
let me know when you have something other than personal attacks to make your points with
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#263
(3) The term natural flavor or natural flavoring means the essential oil, oleoresin, essence or
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#230
In other words some part of some animal, plant or processed part of them?
uppityperson
Mar 2015
#280
i think you don't know much about how flavorings are made. the language is very specific.
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#307
Let me pull a box out of my pantry. "natural flavors" is listed. So what is it specifically beyond
uppityperson
Mar 2015
#330
it would help if you listed a brand and exact name, but you're eating some plant flavor extract,
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#337
And what plant would it be? You know, allergies and just because I want to know exactly
uppityperson
Mar 2015
#338
fda lists the allowable plants. linked at the same place the definition is. the allowable
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#340
So they won't tell me what it is. Thanks for your help in trying to figure out
uppityperson
Mar 2015
#354
Speak for yourself. If you don't care what you feed yourself and your family, that's your business.
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#365
Typical response from someone who wants to decide for the rest of us, what rights we have
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#367
"Anyone that says, 'Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,' I say is either unbelievably stupid,
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#193
that's a post by someone called "orac," not a "consensus of science." and that's a stupid phrase
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#202
1. i don't know who "orac" id or if he's the same person as the "skeptical raptor". 2. The "SR's"
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#225
if the content is what matters, what makes yours better than mine if all are written by
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#303
Here's what happens when Suzuki faces people doing actual science in this area.
HuckleB
Mar 2015
#195
that clip is laughable and it's not suzuki i'm laughing at. The person who spoke most often was:
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#226
I watched it all the way through. I guess you didn't bother to ready my comments all the way
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#229
In other words, the scientists who questioned Suzuki showed that Suzuki doesn't know anything.
HuckleB
Mar 2015
#293
Like that right wing lobbyist has anything to do with science. He's a joke, and all your links
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#311
Like that guy had anything to do with the scientists who were discussing things.
HuckleB
Mar 2015
#312
He talked more than either of them. He excerpted and edited the clips he wanted and laid them out
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#318
I didn't quote any Koch-funded organizations, nor any right-wing lobbyists. It's you who keeps
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#322
My evidence is: I, like 80-90% of the population, want labeling. I don't have to prove anything.
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#342
I think you don't know what a logical fallacy is. I want labeling. As does most of the population.
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#347
80-90% of the population has the same "baseless desire": hardly the "epitome of selfishness";
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#362
If you ask people if they want gmos labeled, they say yes. GMOs aren't on most ordinary
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#375
Ironic, considering it comes from the person repeatedly posting right-wing PROPAGANDA.
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#378
Why are they afraid to label their products? If THEY are even afraid to tell us what they are
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#369
Label the food. The people have a right to know what it is they are hiding. Period!
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#371
I want a label on ALL food, I want to know what food is genetically altered and what is not.
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#381
Ireland, Austria, Hungary, Greece, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Japan, New Zealand, Germany,
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#117
The studies do exist, lots of them. I mentioned one linking GMOs to cancer, another that links Rat
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#124
Am I on your payroll or something? Google is a marvelous tool for those who actually want
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#132
Many of thoseThird World countries would profit healthwise from golden rice
uppityperson
Mar 2015
#213
Yeah, africa is vitamin deficient because of a lack of genetically modified rice. Such bullshit.
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#227
You seem to have cause and treatment backwards. Golden rice can help treat vitamin deficiency.
uppityperson
Mar 2015
#282
I know all about golden rice, and have for years. it's bullshit. If anyone wanted to heal
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#364
I'd be satisfied if GM foods were subjected to the same types of tests as pharmaceuticals
PaulaFarrell
Mar 2015
#58
So, you think everything should be labeled, for whatever reason you can conceive.
HuckleB
Mar 2015
#220
"What's enough?" is exactly the question. Apparently Jane Goodall doesn't think that what's been
DanTex
Mar 2015
#110
I have nothing. I'm just asking. It's a valid question, how much testing is enough?
DanTex
Mar 2015
#161
Do you realize that the "concerns" about GMOs are multiplied if one discusses mutagenesis?
HuckleB
Mar 2015
#180
Fine. So let's be concerned about both. That doesn't begin to answer my previous question.
DanTex
Mar 2015
#184
Well, until we get an answer to my question from two posts ago, we can't dismiss any concerns as
DanTex
Mar 2015
#186
I'm asking how much is enough? What is the standard for concluding that something is safe?
DanTex
Mar 2015
#190
Pretending that you wouldn't be laughed at is not a substitute for an intelligent response either.
HuckleB
Mar 2015
#313
Well, I guess we're done. I was hoping you would address some of the issues I brought up.
DanTex
Mar 2015
#314
Meh. Maybe next time we'll have a scientific discussion. I'd be interested in that. Too bad.
DanTex
Mar 2015
#319
Yes, they should be labeled. It's outrageous that a corporation gets to force food on the public
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#22
No, my point is that I'm tired of our relatively small state being flooded by money
LittleBlue
Mar 2015
#97
Actually, you should be tired of fear mongerers pushing BS initiatives to promote their business.
HuckleB
Mar 2015
#98
And now everyone knows that feigning that you are ok with GMOs, as you did here and elsewhere is BS.
HuckleB
Mar 2015
#96
Do you know who stands to profit from labeling? Organic food manufacturers and food coops/health
uppityperson
Mar 2015
#214
You mean this one that tells me nothing beyond made of plant and/or animals or processed them?
uppityperson
Mar 2015
#281
Once you turn off an RNA structure somewhere, you have effectively altered it's outcome in some way.
mmonk
Mar 2015
#9
I don't think those pushing rapid expansion of GMO's are too interested in that approach.
mmonk
Mar 2015
#20
You free to use your brain. Find me one post anywhere on DU where I've suggested otherwise.
Orrex
Mar 2015
#114
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000...where's the infinity symbol on my keyboard?
Dont call me Shirley
Mar 2015
#52
In the voice of Sheldon, "Anthropology is not a real science anyways." good luck with your quackery
dilby
Mar 2015
#24
After having some difficulty in demonstrating the "go ahead" in RNA manipulation might have risks,
mmonk
Mar 2015
#45
And instead you found some people who disagreed with her, and some who agreed with her.
HuckleB
Mar 2015
#71
I didn't. Check my posts. I think it has been pretty civil but I do stand with Jane in a proper
mmonk
Mar 2015
#85
I believe persons who may be incorrect in one subject are always incorrect in any subject.
mmonk
Mar 2015
#128
How about Goodall producing a consensus of science to support her claims on GMOs?
HuckleB
Mar 2015
#129
What is your specialty? is it in biology and genetics and DNA and RNA strands as well as
mmonk
Mar 2015
#138
says the guy who posted the video moderated by a guy paid by the Kochs and various other
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#238
Thank you all knowing god. I will throw away any contrary questions or evidences
mmonk
Mar 2015
#145
Well when I want a authority on GMO's, a anthropologist is not on the list.
EX500rider
Mar 2015
#150
I'm bowing out to tackle this issue another day. Yes, I know it looks like a nerd foodfight.
mmonk
Mar 2015
#157
Want a fact? The burden of proof should lie with those that tamper with a consummable product
mmonk
Mar 2015
#243
"You can't prove that what you don't know will hurt you. So eat whatever the fuck we trick you into
GoneFishin
Mar 2015
#251
AAAS Scientists: Consensus on GMO Safety Firmer Than For Human-Induced Climate Change
HuckleB
Mar 2015
#291
First you quote an organization funded by the Kochs, now you quote Sense about Science.
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#316
Look, why should I pay any attention to non-scientific sources? The right-wing crap you're
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#321