Why I do not like supporters of GM foods and the term anti-science

[SoLeftIAmRight]

I like food. I can taste. I know good food when I taste it. Some times it cost much more than I like and sometimes it is free. I pursue good food.

How often do you get a crappy strawberry? Good God I have eaten strawberries that literally made me shiver with delight. Melons that made me swoon. Tomatoes that you want with every meal. I have eaten a dozen varieties of peas and beans picked and hulled the same day.

New paragraph for the butters. Real butters change flavors with the seasons. I would pay one hundred dollars for just a taste of the bitter-weed butter that my grandmother would get so pissed about. It was an explosion of complex flavors that coated your mouth and lingered. Sweet Jesus.

The GM food folks drink the Budweiser. Shop at the walmart. And think all is well.

I think the agricultural system in America sucks. The GM food supporters do not have enough brains to fight for real food. They waste their lives in support of a system that is not sustainable and produces shit that taste like crap. All I see is stupidity.

Science, real science is never satisfied. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent trying to prove Einstein wrong. Physicist poke and prod ceaselessly looking for a flaw. Yet, when one suggest that there might be a problem with GM food one is declared anti science.

BULLSHIT! Einstein himself said that all we can make are tentative deductions. When it come to the complexity of biological system we just have learned the alphabet. Test my ass. We are still wandering in the dark. The rats were not born with two heads and tumors did not spring up over night – we call it safe.

Not me. Forever question. And EAT WELL.

[Major Nikon]

1. Nice self-rightenous rant you've got going there

Just sayin'

[SoLeftIAmRight]

3. It does make me sad to see you work so hard for such a low cause

You are smart. You have passion. Work for something that is a good as you are.

Be well

[G_j]

4. perhaps, but as in physics,

to every action there is always opposed an equal reaction. I think the post reflects a reality.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

5. reality?

Reality is not only stranger than we suppose but stranger than we can suppose.
- J. B. S. Haldane

[G_j]

6. the reality

of your reaction to the derision (contemptuous ridicule) sometimes sensed here concerning the GMO debate. I think you stated it well.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

7. thanks

hope you liked the quote - keeps me grounded

[G_j]

8. I think Einstein would have

liked it too

[SoLeftIAmRight]

9. he said

I have spent 50 years pondering light quanta and still have nothing

[Voice for Peace]

11. he had wonder and that's a whole lot more than many scientists.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

13. paraphrased

when one can no longer stand in awe one is as good as dead.

I keep a copy of his book "Ideas and Opinions" out all of the time.
Many great thoughts on many subjects.

[G_j]

12. science is about trying to know the unknown

You can't have a "debate" when your premise is that you've already won. Great scientists are usually in awe of how much they don't know.

[Voice for Peace]

10. I didn't read a drop of self-righteousness in the post.

And moreover, it made me hungry.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

14. Eat Well

Live Well

BE well

[Art_from_Ark]

28. You know, the best cantaloupe I ever ate

was cantaloupe that I grew myself with legacy seeds (Rocky Ford) that I bought from the local seed store. The best pumpkins I ever ate were also grown with legacy seeds, not to mention the green beans and bell peppers that I could pick and eat straight from the stalk because I used no pesticides or herbicides to grow them. I had a bumper crop of tomatoes as well, and the taste was remarkable. All fertilized with manure, with a tiny bit of MiracleGro.

And we had a strawberry pyramid when I was a kid. It was always a treat to run out there on a summer morning and pick the ripest ones for breakfast.

[NuclearDem]

32. No kidding.

With a strawman to boot.

[zappaman]

2. I like strawberries.

[Art_from_Ark]

15. I agree

I think some people here are so fanatic about science that it is like a fundamentalist religion to them. I have been involved with the scientific community in Japan for close to 20 years and am proud that I have been involved in some way with research that seeks to provide better defenses against tsunamis, enhances seismic reinforcement of buildings, and other studies that are aiming to prevent or at least mitigate disasters, among other themes. At the same time, however, I do not hold either "science" or "peer review" as sacrosanct, especially if it involves corporations doing whatever they can to foist their products upon a reluctant public that essentially serves as their guinea pigs.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

17. Many thanks

I hope for a long future for humans. We will need many people like you working to make that possible.

Eat Well

Be Well

[ND-Dem]

20. +100

[G_j]

24. "science" deserves to be put into quotation marks.

There is no possible way we will ever completely understand, never mind predict, earthquakes and tsumamis. We just improve upon our knowledge. For everything learned, down to the knowledge of the smallest cosmic particles, there is always more we really don't understand.

[closeupready]

55. DU's "scientists" have jumped the proverbial shark when they set out not to prove their claims,

but rather, to deride and mock their adversaries. That won't win you in a court of law, nor in the court of public opinion, but I guess it makes them feel better, lol.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

63. Thank you - well said

Eat Well

[pnwmom]

153. I doubt that many actual scientists hold scientists to be sacrosanct because

they're able to see all the warts.

It's the wannabe's who are worshipers.

[DonCoquixote]

16. The problem with both scientists and artists

Is that they can be bought outright, or worse,charmed into thinking that the bags of gold they are given are actual acceptance, the payoff for being hated by the admittedly stupid masses. The problem is, corporations are just our eras nnew royalty that knows they need to get t
He Intellectual types on their side.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

18. Our new rulers

scoop the cream off the top of everything even our best and brightest minds.

[alarimer]

35. Evidence?

Do have any fucking evidence for this pig-ignorant claim??

Science is a fucking METHOD. Nothing more.

[Glassunion]

50. There is a difference between "science" and "scientists"

The poster was referring to the scientists, not scientific methods.

[DonCoquixote]

94. my claims was about SCIENTISTS, not science

Albert Einstein was a scientist, but so was Werner Von Braun. Scientists can be as biased, weak and decpetive as any other human can be.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

19. Like I've said before. It's nearly impossible to find Concord grapes anymore....

The guys in the grocery store give you a deer in the headlights look when you tell them the red ones aren't it. Neither are the "globes".

Tell them there's a grape that tastes like grape jelly and they think you're nuts.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

21. Have you tried the new Cotton Candy grapes

Got some when I was in Houston last summer. Very nice. Hope they were not GM might change my mind!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

22. Gene spliced with jellyfish ain't the same either.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

23. The Cotton Candy Grape: A Sweet Spin On Designer Fruit

Now, plant breeders in California have created a grape that tastes like — well, spun sugar and air.

"When it pops in your mouth, the first impression is a rush of cotton candy flavor," says Spencer Gray, a personal chef in Culver City and blogger at Omnivorous who has sampled the grapes. "The green grapes don't look or smell like cotton candy," he tells The Salt, "but they will remind you of a circus." His son, he says, loves them.

At about $6 per pound, this sounds like a lucrative gimmick that takes a perfectly pleasant fruit and jazzes it up into junk food. But when we dug deeper into the grape's origins, we found that its creator is actually trying to do the opposite.

Horticulturalist David Cain wants to bring back the natural flavors of our grapes, which have been stripped away by decades of breeding fruit to withstand shipping and storage — not to please our taste buds.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/08/05/209222126/the-cotton-candy-grape-a-sweet-spin-on-designer-fruit

[Pooka Fey]

111. I'm glad this guy is using Horticulture to experiment with grapes - a good example

Good thread.

[bananas]

154. Thanks for that article! nt

[Retrograde]

100. plenty pf them in western new yprk

I have no trouble finding them in the Buffalo area farmers' markets when I'm there in the fall: too bad I don't like them. they are grown extensively around Fredonia: most of them go into jelly and juice. Concords were developed from native grapes that could take the area's winters: most table grapes are European in origin and are grown in milder regions like California.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

133. I'm going to look around. There's GOT to be Concords SOMEWHERE in Vegas.

[DeSwiss]

25. K&R

- In monetary systems you can never trust. Never. Because everyone can be bought and almost always are.

K&R

[center][/center]

[imthevicar]

26. My Favorite Quote From Fresco.

"This shit has got to stop."

[ybbor]

27. My household is almost completely GMO-free

I am just willing to take the risk. We have a young daughter and are concerned about her health in the long term.

Plus, we love good food. "Real" food does taste better. There are still a few things that we haven't changed yet, tried but still have gone back and forth. I still use Simply Heinz ketchup, no HFCS but still I assume GMO tomatoes. And one food you mentioned, butter. My daughter won't eat the organic butters we have tried, so we still have been getting Land o' Lakes. We keep looking for better ones and we'll find it.

This discussion reminds me of my two favorite bumper stickers:

No Farms
No Food

And

Know Farms
Know Food

If we return to the society where you know the producers of the things that you put on your table, you are so much better off. I fortunately live in a community that has a great farmers market, where the majority of the vendors are organic, or simply uses sustainable methods and are consciously using natural methods, but haven't paid out the cash for the organic label. We have good local dairies and and ranchers doing the same.

When you see these people on a regular basis, and maybe more importantly, when they see you, there is a shared feeling of responsibility to one another. My family has made the choice to spend a little more for a better product that is more than worth it. And we are supporting a small local farmer at the same time. It just all around feels good, biologically and mentally.

Now I am also done with my rant.

Eat well all of you. We deserve it! Plus the experience of eating good food is awesome!

Bon appetit!

[HuckleB]

98. There are no gmo tomatoes on the market

Do you eat any foods derived from mutagenesis? Many organic products are developed that way.

[ybbor]

103. I just googled mutagenesis

So I am not sure. I will ask the farmers at the market tomorrow.

[mmonk]

29. I'm with you. The burden of proof should lie with them, not us.

If they want to hide it, prove it is no different from what we seek.

[leftofcool]

30. I agree! No GMO's, no canned food, no packaged foods in my home

I buy locally grown fresh fruit and veggies, get my eggs from a local lady who raises chickens, purchase bison from a reputable company and any meat we eat is locally raised by the Amish. I make my own bread when we eat it, make my own pasta, do not drink canned pop, get milk from the Amish etc...

[Adrahil]

31. That's awesome that you do that... I do a lot of that too.

But do you know that foods produced as you would like would not come close to being able to to feed to world's population?

We live in a world of privilege, where we can afford to reject good because because it's not up to snuff. Some people in world, eat whatever they can get and drink water from foul ditches.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

38. Those are talking points

please do not spread that stuff in this thread

[Adrahil]

42. It's reality. Sorry you don't want to address that. And I will bring up what I think relevant...

Last edited Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:38 PM - Edit history (1)

... I don't need your approval for that.

[Brickbat]

41. Exactly.

Many who talk about changing the way we produce and consume food don't realize or refuse to acknowledge the privilege around such a conversation. Including the OP.

[leftofcool]

54. Yes, I do know that and it is a shame that we can't.

I have no objection to GMO's but they are not for me. I am not convinced yet that they are healthy for anyone and I sure don't like what they are doing to small farmers but everyone needs to eat and drink.

[Adrahil]

69. That's reasonable, and I agree.

I definitely oppose much of what Monsanto is doing with regard to royalties, etc.

I'm not so worried about health implications for humans, as I am about potential unforseen impacts on environment.

[SidDithers]

33. Dude, you think naturalnews is a credible science site...

you presented a link to naturalnews as part of a scientific "debate".

naturalnews is the the epitome of anti-science, and anyone bringing naturalnews to a scientific discussion can immediately be laughed out of the room.

If you're getting any fucking information at all from naturalnews, then you've shown you're part of the same crowd that thinks you'll get cancer from your smart meter, that water fluoridation is a government plot, and that vaccines will give you teh autism.

Sorry, but as soon as you used naturalnews as a source, everyone at DU knew what kind of "argument" you were bringing to the table.



Edit: Oh, and the Seralini study was shit science.

Sid

[SoLeftIAmRight]

36. you have shown your colors - I HAVE ASKED YOU TO AN OPEN DEBATE

NO ANSWER

we all know you

do you like good food?

got thin skin

something seems to be getting under it

I

[Major Nikon]

39. I took your challenge, answered your question, and you refused to answer mine

Instead you simply flooded my replies with anti-science gibberish including referencing woo sites like NaturalNews

So let's not pretend you are all about the "open debate", when it's clear you have no interest in that.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

43. THAT IS NOT TRUE

I cut a paste a dozen sites with out even looking to see which ones they are and you ZOOM in on one and claim that all I say is bad. THAT IS NOT HONEST.

You have shown your colors. Everyone knows you.

Beat any dead horses lately?

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU

I went to that site - I can see why you hate it

[Major Nikon]

45. Exactly

Your only intent was flooding my replies with bullshit from sources you didn't even check rather than answering virtually the same straightforward question you asked of me. The fact that you now admit you didn't even check your own sources certainly shows your true colors. I can see why you like the site, also. AIDS denialism, anti-vax, cancer miracle cure quackary, etc.

Still waiting on that answer, BTW.

Just sayin'

[SoLeftIAmRight]

48. Who are you?

What do you like?

Thank you for having me take a look at that site.

[Major Nikon]

51. No problem, here's some other great finds for your anti-science viewing pleasure...

http://www.naturalnews.com/022289_vibrational_medicine_water.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/027922_AIDS_David_Icke.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/047072_MMR_vaccine_autism_government_coverup.html

Goes a long way toward explaining who you are. Just sayin'.

[SidDithers]

52. +1...nt

Sid

[SoLeftIAmRight]

64. THIS IS WHAT I FOUND AT THAT SITE - I CAN SEE WHY YOU DO NOT LIK IT.

I have found a gold mine. Do you want easy access to this type of information?

Diurnal and seasonal variation in the carbon isotope composition of leaf dark respired CO(2) in velvet mesquite (Prosopis velutina).
Publication: Plant, cell & environment
Publication Date: 2009
Study Author(s): Sun, Wei;Resco, Víctor;Williams, David G;
Institution: Department of Renewable Resources, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, USA. [email protected]
We evaluated diurnal and seasonal patterns of carbon isotope composition of leaf dark-respired CO(2) (delta(13)C(l)) in the C(3) perennial shrub velvet mesquite (Prosopis velutina) across flood plain and upland savanna ecosystems in the south-western USA. delta(13)C(l) of darkened leaves increased to maximum values late during daytime periods and declined gradually over night-time periods to minimum values at pre-dawn.

Another one of thousands

Flight take off performance of Colorado potato beetle in relation to potato phenology.
Publication: Journal of economic entomology
Publication Date: 2008
Study Author(s): Mbungu, Nsitu T;Boiteau, Gilles;
Institution: Department of Natural Resource Sciences, Macdonald Campus of McGill University, 21,111 Lakeshore Blvd., Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC, H9X 3V9, Canada
The flight take-off frequency of adult Colorado potato beetles, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say), from potato plants, Solanum tuberosum L. 'Red Pontiac' at the bloom stage of development was 2.2-2.5-fold that of Colorado potato beetle from plants at the vegetative stage. Tests were conducted in a flight chamber over a period of 3 h. Prefeeding Colorado potato beetles for 48 h on potato plants at the bloom or at the vegetative stage before placing them into the flight chamber resulted in the same significantly higher flight take-off frequency from potato plants at the bloom stage than from plants at the vegetative stage

Another one

Enzymatic hydrolysis of fructans in the tequila production process.
Publication: Journal of agricultural and food chemistry
Publication Date: 2009
Study Author(s): Avila-Fernández, Angela;Rendón-Poujol, Xóchitl;Olvera, Clarita;González, Fernando;Capella, Santiago;Peña-Alvarez, Araceli;López-Munguía, Agustín;
Institution: Instituto de Biotecnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico.
In contrast to the hydrolysis of reserve carbohydrates in most plant-derived alcoholic beverage processes carried out with enzymes, Agave fructans in tequila production have traditionally been transformed to fermentable sugars through acid thermal hydrolysis. Experiments at the bench scale demonstrated that the extraction and hydrolysis of agave fructans can be carried out continuously using commercial inulinases in a countercurrent extraction process with shredded agave fibers

another one



Influence of cabbage processing methods and prebiotic manipulation of colonic microflora on glucosinolate breakdown in man.
Publication: The British journal of nutrition
Publication Date: 2007
Study Author(s): Fuller, Zoë;Louis, Petra;Mihajlovski, Agnès;Rungapamestry, Vanessa;Ratcliffe, Brian;Duncan, Alan J;
Institution: Macaulay Institute, Aberdeen, UK. [email protected]
Glucosinolate consumption from Brassica Vegetables has been implicated in reduction of cancer risk. The Isothiocyanate breakdown products of Glucosinolates appear to be particularly important as chemoprotective agents. Before consumption, brassica vegetables are generally cooked, causing the plant enzyme, myrosinase, to be denatured, influencing the profile of glucosinolate breakdown products produced

Another one of thousands
Effects of application strategies of fumigant and nonfumigant nematicides on cantaloupe grown in deep sand soils in Florida.
Publication: Journal of nematology
Publication Date: 2005
Study Author(s): Hamill, J E;Dickson, D W;
A 2-year study was conducted in which three treatment tactics of Oxamyl (at planting application, application every 2 weeks, and rescue applications, as determined by crop symptoms) were compared to fumigant treatments with methyl bromide, 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D), and 1,3-D plus chloropicrin for management of Meloidogyne spp. In 2002, treatments that included 1,3-D produced higher yields as determined both by number and weight of marketable fruit

Another one of thousands
Specific detection of banana residue in processed foods using polymerase chain reaction.
Publication: Journal of agricultural and food chemistry
Publication Date: 2010
Study Author(s): Sakai, Yumiko;Ishihata, Kimie;Nakano, Shigeru;Yamada, Toshihiro;Yano, Takeo;Uchida, Kouji;Nakao, Yoshiki;Urisu, Atsuo;Adachi, Reiko;Teshima, Reiko;Akiyama, Hiroshi;
Institution: Nagahama Branch, Oriental Yeast Co., Ltd., Nagahama, Shiga, Japan.
Specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods were developed for the detection of banana residue in processed foods. For high banana specificity, the primer set BAN-F/BAN-R was designed on the basis of the large subunit of ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase (rbcL) genes of chloroplasts and used to obtain amplified products specific to banana by both conventional and real-time PCR.



On and on it goes... So very much information.

SAMPLES:


Horseradish (23,053 occurrences)
Huckleberry (50 occurrences)
Imbe (933 occurrences)
Indian gooseberry (28 occurrences)
Indian mustard (944 occurrences)
Jaboticaba (41 occurrences)
Jabuticaba (11 occurrences)
jackfruit (383 occurrences)
Jalapeno Peppers (5 occurrences)

More samples


lamb (86,109 occurrences)
Lamb's lettuce (32 occurrences)
Lapsi (143 occurrences)
Lardizabala (8 occurrences)
Laver (400 occurrences)
leek (1,075 occurrences)
lemon (5,124 occurrences)
Lemongrass (410 occurrences)
Lemons (299 occurrences)
Lentil (3,165 occurrences)

Many hundreds of of items. Thousands of links.


HOW DID I FIND THIS? I must thank Sid. He said this site sucks.
While it might be true that the site sucks it does have a lot of good info.
In honor of Sid we should all go take a look.

http://science.naturalnews.com/index-Foods_and_Ingredients.html

[SidDithers]

66. Just to be clear...

You're defending naturalnews?

Sid

[SoLeftIAmRight]

67. NEVER said anything like that - BABY / BATHWATER

I know nothing about the site other than the vast number of links that I found to food research.

Thank you very much.

[SidDithers]

68. You know nothing about the site, yet you linked to them in your last thread...

so it was intellectual laziness, rather than conspicuous foreknowledge, that led you to use naturalnews as a source.

OK, glad we settled that.

Sid

[SoLeftIAmRight]

71. Answer your DU mail

Lets take this private

Much love and respect...

[SidDithers]

74. No, I don't "debate" in private...

Actually, I'm not in the least bit interested in "debating" you at all.



Sid

[SoLeftIAmRight]

75. NOT asking for debate

You know that.

Just want to get to know you - don't be afraid.

[SidDithers]

77. Again, not interested in getting to know each other better...

DU ain't beanbag. I'm not at all interested in joining hands and singing Kumbaya with those promoting medical woo sites at DU.

You post whatever dreck you want, and posters may or may not comment. That's how DU rolls.

Sid

[SoLeftIAmRight]

78. Yep...

roll on...

[SidDithers]

91. Huh...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3734374


Well, there's a shocker.

One could almost say that you're left of left.

Sid

[Major Nikon]

85. Yep, he's actually promoting an AIDS-denialist shitbaggery web site

Very telling that.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

134. Baby / Bathwater - even very young children can grasp that concept

can you?

[Major Nikon]

147. By that 'logic' it's OK to promote Stormfront.com here if they had a post you liked

Only a child would think your 'logic' makes the least bit of sense.

People who promote AIDS-denialist sites suck, period.

Just sayin'

[SoLeftIAmRight]

148. no

if the site you are talking about had a good recipe for grilled fish I would not reject it

Baby Bathwater

[Major Nikon]

149. You are right. Only a child could understand that kind of 'logic'

If you are going to promote an AIDS-denialist site, someone is going to call bullshit. So please don't cry about it.

Cheers!

[muriel_volestrangler]

158. Was that accurate, then? You linked to naturalnews?

And you then write an OP calling other people 'stupid' and having 'not enough brains'?

[SidDithers]

162. Yup...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026311792#post112

Then proceeded to edit the OP of the thread, doubling down, saying what a wonderful source naturalnews is.

Unbelievable, eh?

Sid

[mopinko]

34. i support both.

i dont support monsanto, but "gmo" is not their sole property. there are, in fact, foods that are bring modified to improve human health. the safety testing that is required of gmo's is rigorous. i trust it. studies from the other side are so obviously flawed that the intent behind them is clear, and the results are garbage.

at the same time, obviously, i believe in small food and local systems, and keeping heirloom strains alive.

i find no contradiction in this. i think we have been forced to eat food that has lost all taste, either by commercial, old fashioned selective breeding, or just because it was shipped a thousand miles and stored for months before we get it.

and yeah, natural news used to be banned here because it is such a bullshit site. if you even click on that shit, i wont believe a word you say.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

37. I am VERY interested in this "safety testing that is required of gmo's is rigorous"

Would love some details on that means.

Also " keeping heirloom strains alive" does no good when they get cross-pollinated with the GMO's.

[mopinko]

60. not any gmo's being grown close enough to my little farm.

the fda requires testing. it seems to be a deep dark secret.

[Art_from_Ark]

142. The FDA also requires testing of new drugs

And yet, a lot of the new drugs coming onto the market have potential side effects that are worse than the conditions they are supposed to treat.

[mopinko]

145. for one person in how many?

i have had a couple of those from pain meds, but those laundry lists are rare events. most are discovered in the testing process. and when it turns out that there is a serious one that was not knows, guess what? it gets recalled, people sue.
or they figure out why, what made that particular thing happen. doctors arent stupid. they watch that stuff.
"alternative medicine" nobody is watching. people die from the stuff at the health food store, also.

[crazylikafox]

40. Thank you. Well said.

[FLPanhandle]

44. You do realize that almost everything you've eaten and praised is basically genetically modified?

It's just that genetic modification used to take many generations of human intervention and selection.

The type of strawberries you praise didn't even exist 300 years ago.
Corn from 500 years or longer ago, you would find unrecognizable.
That butter you want was produced by a species of domesticated cow that also was genetically selected by humans.

The reason some of us aren't freaking out about GMO crops, is that humans have been doing the same thing since the invention of agriculture. (Although I do have to agree with you that many mass produced strains of food today lack the flavor and texture of their predecessors)


The bottom line is that even 100 years ago, we were eating a diet of human directed genetically modified plants and animals. What's different now is the speed we can do it.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

46. What's different now is the speed we can do it.

Talking point bad move

And not true

[FLPanhandle]

47. Well, that made no sense.

And reading your other posts in this thread, I don't see any sign of logic in your "debate", so good bye.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

79. What do you know about logic?

Do you know Russell - Godel - Kant - I would love to talk about logic

Got game?

[KittyWampus]

59. Everything I've ever eaten that isn't GMO has slight genetic variations. GMOs do not have that.

GMOs have no genetic variation within a crop.

Their seeds can't be saved and must be bought year to year.

Those developed to withstand weed killer contribute to ground water pollution.

[FLPanhandle]

73. All true, but that isn't the argument most anti-science anti-GMO people make

They claim GMO crops are unsafe to eat because they aren't "natural", ignoring the fact they most of the foods humans eat have been genetically selected over many generations by humans and bear little resemblance to their true natural genetic ancestors.


Pesticides should be restricted and their use limited even if it makes food more expensive, but that is a different issue and one we agree on.

[HuckleB]

96. Actually, GMOs make tiny changes, while other plant technologies make massive genetic changes.

Farmers haven't saved seeds for decades, of any kind.

And GMOs have led to the use of much safer herbicides.

Next.

[Motown_Johnny]

49. that is completely insane, seek help

Just FYI, I have a degree in Culinary Arts. When I earned it, back in '91, it was the highest degree available from the top rated school in the world. Things have changed since then and my GPA was only about a 3.5, but still.. I am not ignorant about good food.

Next, Einstein was sometimes wrong. Go Google "Cosmological Constant". He flip flopped on it so there is no way he could be right when having two different opposing opinions. At first he believed that the universe was static. Hubble proved him wrong, the universe is expanding.

Now, maybe all you see is stupidity but that is just your perception, it is not reality. Science, real science, is based on evidence. Those who claim GM foods are harmful have no evidence and therefore fit the definition of "anti-science".

Of course we should keep looking into GM foods and make sure that we have not missed anything. The quest for knowledge never ends and this is no exception. If you want to claim to be on the side of science and not on the side of "my fears outweigh all evidence" then you need to admit that there is no credible evidence that GM foods are harmful.

If you can't grasp that then seek help, you have lost it.

[closeupready]

56. Well now that was a whole lotta nothing, lol.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

57. Thank you for your words.

What are your favorite foods?

[mopinko]

62. damn skippy.

and when science is wrong, it changes.
those that fall for the naturalistic fallacy are still taking herbs for treatable diseases because the plant looks like the affected body part. cuz ancient wisdom and all that.

the pathetic nature of the "science" that antis point to shows that they are full of it. they know they cant prove their point, so they cook up "experiments" that look like they do.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

76. Have you seen C-Herb work?

I have...

[mopinko]

146. the plural of anecdote it not data.

[Orrex]

113. That's the big difference, in fact

when science is wrong, it changes.

Yes indeed.

And when pseudoscience or anti-science is shown to be wrong, its advocates will shift the goalposts, or issue impossible demands, or directly insult the proponents of science, all while clinging to their anti-science belief system.

This is true of "alternative" "medicine," of anti-vax idiocy, and anti-GMO propaganda.


There is nothing new under the sun.

[closeupready]

53. K&R, Big Time. Welcome to DU, amigo!

[SoLeftIAmRight]

70. Many Thanks

I have been here since the very beginning. Dumped several time for these kinds of fights.

[KittyWampus]

58. My main issue with GMO's are the agricultural/corporate system most of them force onto society.

I am not against all GMO's.

Putting a gene from spinach into an orange isn't objectionable to me.

Putting a gene into a soybean plant so it withstands a weedkiller is highly objectionable to me because that puts a lot more weedkiller into our ground water & total lack of weeds disturbs natural pollinators.

Furthermore, genetic seeds are all exactly the same. Genetic crops have zero diversity which cannot be said of plants genetically altered using natural selection. Should some new strain of bacteria arise to infect GMO plant X then every single GMO plant X will die.

Lastly, there's the idea of corporations owning the rights to seeds, not allowing seed saving and forcing farmers to buy seeds every year.

And this circles around to industrial farming. Mono-cropping, industrially manufactured fertilizer/pesticides/fungicides and what it is doing to us and our environment.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

61. Good thoughts

Eat Well
Live Well

[dhill926]

65. well said….

you hit the real issues...

[edhopper]

72. My thoughts exactly

GMOs might be safe, at least the scientific consensus right now is they are.
But corporate control of the food supply, corporations patenting crops, lack of agricultural diversity, etc...
scare the hell out of me.

[F4lconF16]

87. This x1000. Exactly why I'm opposed to them. nt

[guillaumeb]

80. loved the post and agreed with the idea

the passage:
How often do you get a crappy strawberry? Good God I have eaten strawberries that literally made me shiver with delight. Melons that made me swoon. Tomatoes that you want with every meal. I have eaten a dozen varieties of peas and beans picked and hulled the same day.
sounds a little like food porn. But good porn.

There is nothing like picking a fresh, warm from the sunlight, strawberry from my garden and slowly eating it. Tastes like wine. Same for my Montmorency cherries. And my mulberries, my granny smith apples, my Krim and Arkansas Traveller "real tomatoes" as opposed to the crap that we are sold as tomatoes. My Krims were 6 foot plus tall by July 1 last year and were loaded into October with fruit. This in the Chicago area.

Nothing like fresh, fuzzy green beans eaten raw. Same with peas. Also had a ton of eggplant last year.

I have been gardening organically for 30 years. Nothing beats organic.

Did I mention fresh raspberries? My children would walk barefoot and in short pants through our raspberry patch with no regard for the thorns.

Soon it will be warm. I can hardly wait.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

81. when i lived in the south

I had an asparagus bed. Raw - So good - It never made it to the kitchen.

[zappaman]

82. I once ate a tomato so delicious

It literally made me soil myself.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

83. It is not just the taste

texture is so important

So people just do not know good food

[zappaman]

84. Did I win?

[guillaumeb]

86. peas stop with the silliness

[F4lconF16]

88. Carrot you take a joke?

[guillaumeb]

93. only one response possible to that

corny, very corny.

[SidDithers]

92. I literally laughed out loud at this post...

Well done.

Sid

[HuckleB]

89. How Scare Tactics on GMO Foods Hurt Everybody

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/528331/how-scare-tactics-on-gmo-foods-hurt-everybody/

[Generic Other]

104. Your pro-GMO activist has retracted three of her studies

She's under fire. Apparently, she's not infallible.

[HuckleB]

105. She's a geneticist and a researcher, and she is not under fire.

Anti-GMO goofballs don't know what that means. They just bash away, and think that they're attacks matter.

She retracted two studies because she is a good scientist.

Her husband, by the way, is an organic farmer. They wrote a fantastic book together.

Let's also note that, yet again, an anti-GMO poster has failed to deal with the science of the matter, and, instead, made ludicrous attacks against an individual. This is typical behavior for the anti-GMO crowd. Why DU hasn't figured that out is a question we should all ponder for a while.

AN ORGANIC FARMER AND A GENETICIST WALK INTO A FIELD
http://ensia.com/articles/an-organic-farmer-and-a-geneticist-walk-into-a-field/

[Generic Other]

106. I simply read your link

Her studies are flawed. Calling me a "goofball" doesn't change this.

[HuckleB]

107. And then you fomented unethical propaganda aimed at an ethical researcher.

You are misrepresenting the reality of the situation. That is dishonest, and it characterizes the ridiculousness of the anti-GMO movement. You even added to the number of studies in question. It's amazing that you can't see that, and acknowledge it.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/food-matters/2013/10/10/lab-life-the-anatomy-of-a-retraction/

http://retractionwatch.com/2013/10/10/ronald-science/

[Generic Other]

110. Unethical propaganda?

You provided the link. I simply read it.

[HuckleB]

114. The link is not the problem.

The unethical propaganda you pushed in response to it is.

Why do you keep making things worse? Is it that hard for you to be honest?

[Generic Other]

117. I have made "things" worse? By citing your facts?

In the last year Ronald’s laboratory at UC Davis has retracted two scientific papers (Lee et al. 2009 and Han et al 2011) and other researchers have raised questions about a third (Danna et al 2011). The two retracted papers form the core of her research programme into how rice plants detect specific bacterial pathogens.

All I said was she was not infallible. Just like you and me.

[HuckleB]

118. No one ever said she was infallible.

If you had read anything about the process that she described regarding the retractions, you would know that she fully acknowledges that, and that's what makes her a good scientist. Your language attacked her in ridiculous and ugly ways. The fact that you fail to own up to that is insane. You've now quoted something from a response to the piece, or some other nonsense, as if it's gospel. That's dishonest. Meanwhile, Ronald showed what honesty is all about, and you are working to hang her for that.

It's absolutely stunning to see the disconnect. You want the world to be one where GMOs are bad.

The reality is that they are not. You can't make it so, and that makes you angry, so you act in bizarre and unethical ways. Your responses to me are not to the content of my posts, over and over again. Your attacks are illogical and fiction based, and it's time for you to apologize and move on. You messed up. You can't cover your tracks.

Do the right thing.

[Generic Other]

119. I am sorry you sound so foolish

end of message...

[HuckleB]

120. ROTFLMAO!

[Generic Other]

121. There there

If you bully and badger enough of us long enough, you'll certainly make us acquire a taste for GMOs.

[HuckleB]

122. Now the people who attack others with incendiary language are magically being bullied.

This just keeps getting better and better.

WOW!

[Generic Other]

123. You are not going to convince Snow White to take a free apple with your tone

Do you really think you will ever convince your opposition of anything with your persuasive abilities?

I have said nothing in this thread other than repeat that your source has retracted her work. I just repeated what I read. I didn't expect to strike a nerve. Maybe you should brew a cup of non-GMO green tea. My granny swore by it.

[HuckleB]

124. Many good people, who understand how to question the world, have changed their stances.

Including me.

No, I don't think anyone is going to change your mind. You are a believer in a very fundamentalist way. The lack of honesty that you show is simply astounding. You want the world to be what you want it to be, and the world just doesn't work that way. However, you're going to pretend otherwise.

I get it!

[Generic Other]

125. You have now called me a liar or unethical 4 times in this thread

simply for stating a fact you do not even refute. And you seem rather hostile without cause as far as I am concerned. I wonder if it is something in your food.

[HuckleB]

126. I believe I have used the term unethical.

I also believe that use of the term is very kind. Your behavior in this discussion is ugly and out of hand. I have given you several chances to acknowledge what you have done, and to move on constructively. You have chosen to double down every time.

This attack is only another version of that routine.

[HuckleB]

90. Antiscience Beliefs Jeopardize U.S. Democracy

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antiscience-beliefs-jeopardize-us-democracy/

[FLPanhandle]

95. +1

Great article.

[etherealtruth]

99. Using a "nonscientific" term: AMEN!

[HuckleB]

97. AAAS Scientists: Consensus on GMO Safety Firmer Than For Human-Induced Climate Change

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_8915_b_6572130.html

Also see:

Infographic: Climate change vs. GMOs: Comparing the independent global scientific consensus
http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/07/08/climate-change-vs-gmos-comparing-the-independent-global-scientific-consensus/

[GreatGazoo]

101. The present strategy of GMO marketing is to NOT debate the science

Perhaps they have focus-grouped it and decided that any discussion of the benefits versus risks doesn't win people over. For example, JR Simplot has a GMO potato that is LESS cancer-causing when french fried than conventional hybrids. Any open debate about this product is a loser for those who sell french fries because such a debate would cite lots of statistics linking french fries to cancer. To the consumer this kind of debate underlines a link between certain foods and cancer. That is a no-win for the retailers. So that is a debate that McDonald's has chosen not have:

http://modernfarmer.com/2014/11/mcdonalds-refuses-buy-genetically-modified-potatoes-fries/

The strategy supported by Bill Gates and others GMO investors (see article) is to declare (erroneously) that the science around GMO foods is settled and therefore anyone who questions it or asks for proof is "anti-science." Problem is...

The consensus on the safety of GM food is perfectly clear: there is no consensus. That’s what the independent peer-reviewed literature says. And that’s what the National Geographic’s beautiful exhibit on its food series, in its Washington headquarters, says: the “long-term health and ecological consequences are unknown.“ And that is an accurate statement of the consensus, or the lack of it.

http://foodtank.com/news/2015/02/the-war-on-genetically-modified-food-critics-et-tu-national-geographic

Their strategy is avoid debate at all costs and substitute ad hominem attacks, strawman fallacies and to call those who want to proceed with caution "anti-science" or "brainwashed."

They won't debate the science or the alleged benefits of GMO foods because they don't believe, perhaps for good reason, that they can win that way. Nonetheless the pro-GMO side is losing badly and rudeness and evasion aren't likely to win over many more than an honest and open debate would have.

[HuckleB]

102. Pushing anti-GMO pseudoscience pages is not an attempt to discuss science.

Also, pretending the science on GMOs is not profound is not honest.

AAAS Scientists: Consensus on GMO Safety Firmer Than For Human-Induced Climate Change

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_8915_b_6572130.html

Also see:

Infographic: Climate change vs. GMOs: Comparing the independent global scientific consensus
http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/07/08/climate-change-vs-gmos-comparing-the-independent-global-scientific-consensus/

[Pooka Fey]

109. Investors???

Investors, it's always investors looking for more "yield".

Thank you for your excellent post.

[Pooka Fey]

108. All American brands are produced non-GMO for the European market

Last edited Mon Mar 9, 2015, 06:19 AM - Edit history (1)

Love the OP. Bravo! Tasty home-cooked food is one of life's great pleasures.

All the brands that Big-Ag is screaming and crying that MUST USE GMO ingredients in the USA, well in Europe they just make the same identical products WITHOUT GMO ingredients. Does anyone besides me smell a rat?

This is what they can buy over in Europe, if they want:

Ben&Jerry's ice cream, Haagen-Daz all flavors

Special K, all Kellog's cereals - Corn Flakes, All the Kids sugar bomb cereals like Coco Puffs, Captain Crunch, Honey-Nut Cheerios

Oreos, Pepperidge Farm cookies, Special K cereal bars,

Pringles potato chips, Lays potato chips

Old El Paso Brand everything - Salsa, Corn Tortillas, Guacamole dip, packaged burritos, enchiladas

Coca-Cola, Fanta Cola, Pepsi

This is a very non-exhaustive list.

There is not a single GMO ingredient in these packaged foods because they are the EU version of these products, produced to be sold in Europe for the EU market. GMO ingredients are illegal.

Why is America Big-Ag forcing Americans eat GMO's when they clearly don't want them?

[HuckleB]

116. And those products cost more, for no good reason.

Thus, increasing food insecurity around the globe. The anti-GMO movement is deceitful, unethical, and without justification. You smell a rat? Yup. It's the anti-GMO movement.

[Pooka Fey]

143. Oh FFS. Those products don't cost more. Always fall back on saving the consumer 2 cents per box

while letting that person go into debt to pay own their healthcare costs from obesity and diabetes and whatever else eating crappy food gives people. Privatize the profits. Externalize the costs.

Some places have universal health care, so the government is stuck with the costs of Big Ag's crappy food rather than the individual. So it is logical that the governments there have banned GMO, until science can provide convincing proof about GMO safety for the population.

The decision of the EU about GMO is all very scientific, conservative and rational. Last I heard, Big Ag has given up on trying to force GMO on the European market.

When your arguments fail massively to convince consumers, your side just starts making shit up about "saving money for the consumer" I notice you didn't back up claim by presenting me with a detailed market by market analysis of the products I listed, so that puts a ding in your credibility. Regurgitated Monsanto propaganda doesn't back up your argument - another source that NOT CREDIBLE.

Those products don't cost more in Europe. The economy has been massively depressed there since even before 2008. Austerity, you've heard of it??

Do you think massively unemployed people are going to pay more money here to feed their kids? They won't.

Goodbye now.

[HuckleB]

150. Yes, they do.

Pretending otherwise is pure dishonesty on top of the dishonesty that pretends that organic or conventional foods are better than GMOs. They're not, and it's time to stop pushing that scam.

[Orrex]

112. Simply put, you are intellectually dishonest.

Literally everything you've written on this subject must be assessed with that fact in mind.

You issue preposterous demands and summarily call people "loser" if they don't kiss your ring.

You selectively misquote, and you wrongly attribute quotes.

And you claim that you are seeking "open debate."


Bullshit.

[HuckleB]

115. Exactly. And yet dozens of DUers love this brand of dishonest propaganda.

It's unbelievably sad and disheartening.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

135. LOL

thanks for the bump

[HuckleB]

159. Anytime.

Your OP has been torn to shreds, which was rather easily done. It's good that people get to see that your hyperbole has no basis in reality.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

137. Lets talk about being honest

Why does this issue mean so much to you?

Do you want all foods to be GMO?

Duck and cover

[Orrex]

144. Honestly? Those questions are ridiculous.

1. It is important to me because I find it abhorrent that pseudoscience and anti-science are used to justify so much dangerous ignorance and to drive so much idiotic public policy. That's true of bullshit "alternative medicine," anti-vax bullshit, climate denialist bullshit, and anti-GMO bullshit.

Inherent in your question is the implication that I stand to gain (financially or otherwise) from GMO products, but I do not, and in any case that's simply a red herring. You will likely deny that you have suggested any such thing, but that's because you are intellectually dishonest.

Frankly, it's none of your fucking business why this is important to me, nor is it relevant. You are attempting to distract from your own demonstrated intellectual dishonesty and from the demonstrated fact that GMOs are no more dangerous than non-GMO foods.

2. No, nor have I ever suggested anything like that. Of course, almost everything we eat, including those beloved "orgamic" foods, is hugely modified from its natural state, thanks to human tinkering, so this question is likewise a red herring.


Your response is entirely consistent with you well demonstrated intellectual dishonesty.

[HuckleB]

127. Anti-science advocates are freaking out about Google truth rankings

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/06/anti_science_advocates_are_freaking_out_about_new_google_truth_rankings/

[SoLeftIAmRight]

138. thanks for the bump

See you worship the google also

Any big business you don't like?

[HuckleB]

160. I like that Google is working to improve its search engine.

And therefore you pretend that I "worship the google."

Are you ever honest about anything? Sheesh.

[on point]

128. Great commentary. I may have to quote some lines from in future reference!

Last edited Sat Mar 7, 2015, 01:45 PM - Edit history (1)

[HuckleB]

130. You mean, "quote some lies," correct?

[G_j]

131. please point out the lies

You do manage to demonstrate the derisive attitude that the OP addessed though.

[HuckleB]

132. Let's start with "there are no GMO strawberries."

And if you go from there, and do the easiest of fact checking, you realize that the OP is completely fiction based.

The OP also says:

"The GM food folks drink the Budweiser. Shop at the walmart. And think all is well."

Well, I despise the anti-GMO movement, but I don't do any of these things.

NEXT.

Now, what's really frustrating is that DU should be a place where every poster checks the facts. I shouldn't have to do everyone else's homework. EVER.

[on point]

151. I found no lies. Perhaps you confuse the piece actually written with your GMO propaganda script?

[HuckleB]

152. The anti-GMO propaganda is based on nothing but deceit.

Your post here is another example of that type of deceit.

And all of this from the OP is pure hooey:

"The GM food supporters do not have enough brains to fight for real food. They waste their lives in support of a system that is not sustainable and produces shit that taste like crap. All I see is stupidity.

Science, real science is never satisfied. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent trying to prove Einstein wrong. Physicist poke and prod ceaselessly looking for a flaw. Yet, when one suggest that there might be a problem with GM food one is declared anti science."


Wake up.

Science supporters are fighting for real food, and for real sustainability. They don't buy into the anti-GMO, organic marketing lies pushed by this OP. His ad hominem attack is ugly and disgusting. And his suggestion that people use the term anti-science regarding actual problems with GMOs, or other things, is deceitful at its core. It's not happening. Pushing fiction based concerns is what the anti-GMO movement does. Calling those anti-science is simply being honest.

[Scootaloo]

129. Some problems...

How often do you get a crappy strawberry? Good God I have eaten strawberries that literally made me shiver with delight. Melons that made me swoon. Tomatoes that you want with every meal. I have eaten a dozen varieties of peas and beans picked and hulled the same day.

All of the "store ready" varietals were achieved through standard breeding / crossbreeding. Not through "GMO," as you are using it (technically every domesticated plant and animal has been genetically modified, but that's a semantics issue)

New paragraph for the butters. Real butters change flavors with the seasons. I would pay one hundred dollars for just a taste of the bitter-weed butter that my grandmother would get so pissed about. It was an explosion of complex flavors that coated your mouth and lingered. Sweet Jesus.

This is the result of uniform feeding of dairy cattle, and has nothing o do with genetics at all (except in that only one or two cattle breeds are used for dairy...)

The GM food folks drink the Budweiser. Shop at the walmart. And think all is well.

Interesting. You can't find a decent tomato or butter at your local roadside farm stand... or whatever smug hipsterville outlet you utilize?

[SoLeftIAmRight]

136. What is your favorite food?

You have shown that you have never been close to real food.

[Scootaloo]

139. That's hilarious

if you must know, it's a tie between grilled shark and these nagoonberry-glazed moose ribs I had once.

Don't give me this "don't know real food" shit, chief. I do food for a living. I've caught, killed and butchered my own meat, grown my own vegetables, the whole line of it. I've gone from subsistence to chef in my life.

Yeah, what I've grown is superior to (most of) what i can buy. and the reason for that is nothing to do with GMO. it has to do with the fact that the vegetables in your supermarket are varietals specifically bred for shelf life. They have tough skins to resist bruising, low sugar and high acid to discourage spoilage, and high water content to be plump or "crispy" even after sitting on a shelf that way. That's old fashioned breeding, not genetic tinkertoys.

The butter that tastes like a fucking condom is that way because of the feed given to the cattle. it's uniform grade, mostly grain with protein supplements. Your commercial butter tastes drab because of that. The cows don't go out and graze / brows seasonally, so there is no variety in the taste of the milk they provide. Again this is to cater to the supermarket; Milk naturally has an inconsistent taste, but "the consumer" wants consistency, and is it is delivered. Also it's just cheaper to warehouse cows than to pasture them - it's fucking terrible for the cows, and possibly us of course.. .but again, it's nothing to do with GMO and everything to do with industrial agricultural practices. Same reason why commercial beef tastes like greasy water compared to pastured beef. Again, it's not because they're "GMO"-ing cows to taste bad (who would fund that?) It's because industry practice makes cows taste bad.

If you've got a problem with giant strawberries that taste like watered-down kool-aid? Don't blame you, hate 'em myself. But at least know why they're there, dude.

(By the way, best strawberries on earth? Wild strawberries on Oregon's sand beaches, ahmahgahd)

[SoLeftIAmRight]

140. so why support something that keeps that system going?

GMO's are just another brick in the wall

[Scootaloo]

141. Are you a hunter-gatherer?

I ask only 'cause I've done it, and want to know if you've been there. If you're there right now. Snaring squirrels, collecting berries? ever leached a vat of acorns for meal, SoLeft? Y'know, there was a time where the only protein on our table was whatever fish I could pull out of the creek in Mobile? Hush puppies and bluegill. Try that for a few months straight, tell me if you mind grainy tomatoes so terribly.

Odds are your house is as full of crap you did not hunt or grow yourself, just as mine is. Why? Probably because you're shit at it, in specific, but in a more general sense because it's more convenient.

There are absolutely problems in the system. The solution is to identify and change those problems.

And I'm sorry, but GMO is not making your butter taste bad. No one genetically modified cows to disappoint your palate with inferior milkfat.

[HuckleB]

155. Those aren't the only problems, but they are problems. +1,000 ... 000 (eom)

[mmonk]

156. Man, I'm still amazed these threads are still going. Pro-choice is not anti-science

vis-à-vis food labeling. The anti-labeling movement is about protecting profits and Monsanto's paranoia.

[HuckleB]

161. Anti-GMO labeling isn't pro choice. It's pro baseless demonization, and it is anti-science.

There are many types of seed development technologies. If you want to pretend you want a choice, then push for labels on all of them. You don't. That's why your facade breaks so easily. That and the fact that GMOs are safe.

[bananas]

157. Great post! nt

[progressoid]

163. Oh!

[HuckleB]

164. If a poster links to Natural News, the term anti-science seems very appropriate.

So, I'm confused about the desire of the OP to have things both ways.