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

uppityperson

(115,677 posts)
25. I have come around on the GMO issue over the last couple years. It appalled me, then I read more and
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 01:41 AM
Mar 2015

learned more and while still in some ways appalling, it is also amazing. There is so much potential there and as far as I can tell no harm to people but many good things (gold rice, if I recall the term correctly, for one).

At first the thought of sticking fish genes into plants was awful, too many bad science fiction movies as a child. Corn that breaths under water?

Also I trust Monsanto extremely little. And wonder what effects this will have on the larger environment, of whom humans "should" be good stewards. Then there is the open pollinated seeds, saving seeds for replanting vs buying commercial ones every year (I lived near and knew many who worked with one of the big open pollinated seed places in the 80's) (and save seeds myself from my home garden which is not commercial).

But.

There needs to be oversight but reading the science, I see no harm to humans. I see no need to label, indeed the idea of labeling serves a couple groups mightily as they would make gobs of money off it.

Those groups? Organic food companies and food coops/health food stores. They stand to profit off labeling in a huge way.

ETA, I just tried looking through the other Jane Goodall post which I think you mean and tire of the sniping back and forth so figured I'd answer you in depth more here.

The Jane Goodall Book Scandal: Most Journalists Hold Back but One Doesn’t Shy Away from Criticizing HuckleB Mar 2015 #1
And another 2 yr old article. I am wondering what happened when they pulled the books, if uppityperson Mar 2015 #17
If accurate, that is inexcusable. n/t Jefferson23 Mar 2015 #2
Maybe. Unfortunately, it's not unusual for scientists late in life. HuckleB Mar 2015 #3
That is sad and quite frankly, dangerous. n/t Jefferson23 Mar 2015 #4
All too true, though it does make the biographies more interesting! HuckleB Mar 2015 #5
Their legacy, well at least in the gentleman's case, does demonstrate how anyone can Jefferson23 Mar 2015 #6
We can hope that she'll go with science, as Bill Nye has done. HuckleB Mar 2015 #7
Yes, no doubt about that and thanks for the OP. n/t Jefferson23 Mar 2015 #8
You two have cubicles next to each other? brentspeak Mar 2015 #15
hahaha, my thoughts too, exactly. nt laundry_queen Mar 2015 #18
You would have to stop promoting scams, first. HuckleB Mar 2015 #31
What scam am I promoting? laundry_queen Mar 2015 #33
Anti-GMO propaganda. HuckleB Mar 2015 #37
AAAS Scientists: Consensus on GMO Safety Firmer Than For Human-Induced Climate Change HuckleB Mar 2015 #41
This message was self-deleted by its author closeupready Mar 2015 #26
Are you incapable of thought? HuckleB Mar 2015 #30
No. You found two people who don't appreciate plagiarism. I suspect you already Jefferson23 Mar 2015 #34
Just read the Daily Beast and MIT pieces ... REP Mar 2015 #9
I don't know about generations, but... HuckleB Mar 2015 #10
That seems to jibe with my untested, wildass theory REP Mar 2015 #13
You do know that you can test those theories against actual evidence, right? HuckleB Mar 2015 #20
She lost her fastball. maybe this book should be put aside. AngryAmish Mar 2015 #11
Indeed. Unfortunately, she's still pushing anti-science, anti-GMO silliness. HuckleB Mar 2015 #12
Based on this, and her unabashed promotion of a woo book... Archae Mar 2015 #14
It's bizarre. One has to wonder how this happens. HuckleB Mar 2015 #42
Link is nearly 2 years old, why post it now? Here's a newer article, seems to imply they pulled the uppityperson Mar 2015 #16
Are you saying that she has changed her stance? HuckleB Mar 2015 #19
I did post a recent link about her book. Or do you mean the anti-GMO stance? I think that's current uppityperson Mar 2015 #21
So, no, she hasn't change her stance. HuckleB Mar 2015 #22
I was just asking why you posted a 2 yr old story about her, and added in a newer one on her book. uppityperson Mar 2015 #23
Why does a post on her old position, which she is repeating, get so many likes at DU? HuckleB Mar 2015 #24
I have come around on the GMO issue over the last couple years. It appalled me, then I read more and uppityperson Mar 2015 #25
I don't know anyone who trusts any corporations. HuckleB Mar 2015 #27
And after taking a look at that other thread, I understand this one better. uppityperson Mar 2015 #28
I really wish she had not gone down this road. HuckleB Mar 2015 #29
Why is it OK for Monsanto to profit from GMOs, but not organic food stores for labeling? immoderate Mar 2015 #32
I'd like labeling laundry_queen Mar 2015 #35
I agree. The ecological and economic factors are also considerable. immoderate Mar 2015 #36
Why is it ok to try and put words into my mouth? hmmm uppityperson Mar 2015 #38
It would be wrong for me to do that. immoderate Mar 2015 #39
How Scare Tactics on GMO Foods Hurt Everybody HuckleB Mar 2015 #40
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Jane Goodall’s Troubling,...»Reply #25