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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BadgerKid

(4,541 posts)
19. "In combination with"
Sat Nov 30, 2013, 09:32 AM
Nov 2013

Hence, the underlying cause of the "problem" can already be there without the glyphosate.

Still, I'm not particularly a fan of Big Ag.

I remember asking my microbiology instructor if GMO crops are dangerous to humans darkangel218 Nov 2013 #1
Or a far simpler explanation. Archae Nov 2013 #2
DO YOU LIKE ROUNDUP READY GMO'S SoLeftIAmRight Nov 2013 #10
I think everything should be labeled with how its made and where its from and whats in it. 7962 Nov 2013 #24
I assume that I already eat it Peregrine Dec 2013 #51
FYI. proverbialwisdom Nov 2013 #4
Yes, the very notion that there could be a "scientific consensus" that GMOs bemildred Nov 2013 #15
Many studies of biotech food suggest problems more widespread than the role of glycophosphate. proverbialwisdom Nov 2013 #21
We are meddling with stuff we still understand quite poorly in biology. bemildred Nov 2013 #23
If That's what she really said, she shouldn't be teaching microbiology PaulaFarrell Nov 2013 #13
She was reffering to geneticaly modified crops darkangel218 Nov 2013 #14
Right, and that is not the question that needs to be addressed, bemildred Nov 2013 #17
If the combination of mutation plant DNA with our DNA is not the cause of concern, than what it is? darkangel218 Nov 2013 #31
It's not just about cancer either. bemildred Nov 2013 #32
I see. Thanks for the info. darkangel218 Nov 2013 #34
My pleasure. bemildred Nov 2013 #35
I agree 100%. darkangel218 Nov 2013 #39
Indeed. nt bemildred Nov 2013 #16
Anti-GMO folk have a few different rationales. Igel Nov 2013 #30
I just love it when.... BronxBoy Dec 2013 #61
All creatures of biology use the easiest and quickest routes to acquire building blocks for growth nolabels Dec 2013 #56
GM WATCH Press Release: Journal retraction of Séralini study is illicit, unscientific, and unethical proverbialwisdom Nov 2013 #3
Those rats... CSStrowbridge Nov 2013 #5
Don't miss this documenting the tremendous support garnered by the study among many scientists. proverbialwisdom Nov 2013 #7
Well, flawed methodology is generally not "woo." Deep13 Nov 2013 #6
Could it be bad for us? Sure but we eat alot of foods that are toxic. cstanleytech Nov 2013 #8
Watch out for the strawman SoLeftIAmRight Nov 2013 #9
Study: Monsanto's Roundup Herbicide Linked to Cancer, Autism, Parkinson's CountAllVotes Nov 2013 #11
YES! the stories of miracle GMO's just hide the damage done by roundup SoLeftIAmRight Nov 2013 #12
"In combination with" BadgerKid Nov 2013 #19
It says there are synergistic effects, things don't in general have single causes. bemildred Nov 2013 #20
^^This!^^ BrotherIvan Nov 2013 #37
Hopefully they can explore no till farming. Many farrmers are seeing KurtNYC Nov 2013 #22
There is a significant effort being undertaken. BronxBoy Dec 2013 #63
Finally. Can't believe it was published to start with. Junk 'science' at it worst idwiyo Nov 2013 #18
Monsanto got to them arikara Nov 2013 #25
Right. Sure. "It's a conspiracy! They got to them!" Yibble yibble yibble... Archae Nov 2013 #26
Recommend for the Replies on thread with other studies and discussion. KoKo Nov 2013 #27
Shrug. I just skip corn, and any foods that have corn products in them. djean111 Nov 2013 #28
Shrugging ain't enough, as GMOs are in at least 8 classes of food and now the "creators" of GMO fish drynberg Nov 2013 #29
I am shrugging at the attempt to make light of doubts and fears about GMOs. djean111 Nov 2013 #42
the faithful woo believers will continue to cite it forever, though.... mike_c Nov 2013 #33
MUST READ. Bottom, retraction letter; top, gmwatch press release (irrefutably measured/reasonable). proverbialwisdom Nov 2013 #36
LOL.... mike_c Nov 2013 #38
To be honest I am more interested in what the science says but hey if it floats your boat cstanleytech Nov 2013 #40
Projecting much? Or maybe you forgot the sarcasm smilie. proverbialwisdom Nov 2013 #41
There is a glaring conflict of interest ronnie624 Dec 2013 #49
Oh its always good to question something like that dont get me wrong cstanleytech Dec 2013 #54
CT group is that way -----> idwiyo Dec 2013 #46
Transparency is bad? If that's what you really think, it's s a glaring blindspot in judgement. proverbialwisdom Dec 2013 #47
As I said, CT group is that way -----> idwiyo Dec 2013 #48
Your skill at employing the "CT" meme needs lots of honing. n/t ronnie624 Dec 2013 #50
Once again what?! JackRiddler Nov 2013 #43
GM = big fat corporations Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #44
Those with the deepest pockets censor science SpcMnky Nov 2013 #45
The experiment failed to take into account the feng shui of the laboratory. Ian David Dec 2013 #52
Sorry for my ignnorance Phlem Dec 2013 #53
Generic term, used most often for describing quackery. Archae Dec 2013 #55
They're full of SHIT DeSwiss Dec 2013 #57
You really don't get it, do you? OrwellwasRight Dec 2013 #58
Bwaaa ha ha ha - this is So Bogus Berlum Dec 2013 #59
Funny how that shouldn't be considered..: BronxBoy Dec 2013 #62
IOW, you go with BS faith, and ignore evidence. HuckleB Feb 2014 #64
An interesting take on this...... BronxBoy Dec 2013 #60
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Journal retracts genetica...»Reply #19