General Discussion

WestMichRad

(1,360 posts)

22. This debate is not about science

Sat Mar 26, 2016, 07:34 AM

Mar 2016

It's about government policy that has been hijacked by corporate interests.

The promise of GMOs in agriculture is they'll provide desirable traits such as improved nutrition, but the reality is they're being used to help corporations sell more herbicides, and only for that purpose. The other potential uses of GMOs are, at least so far, not in commercial production.

I would prefer to buy foods grown in soils that have not been drenched in glyphosate or other toxins and would like to know that from labeling on the food. This is really no different than wanting to buy a car or appliance made in the US instead of who knows where.

Large agricultural corporations don't want us to have that choice because they want to force the consumer to buy products produced using their chosen commodity production techniques so they can dominate the agricultural marketplace. It's as simple as that. The thousands of published scientific reports that conclude they are safe for consumption are not relevant.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

282 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The organic industry’s GMO hoax [View all] ZombieHorde Mar 2016 OP

I just don't see how providing consumers with more information is bad. Socal31 Mar 2016 #1

Every law is a threat. ZombieHorde Mar 2016 #3

Food labeling laws aren't a threat to anyone except businesses. Socal31 Mar 2016 #4

If there's one thing the left and right agree on in the US, ZombieHorde Mar 2016 #7

So you admit that laws like nutritional information are OK. Socal31 Mar 2016 #8

Nutritional information labels have a scientific reason. ZombieHorde Mar 2016 #9

GMO labeling is coming to the US nationally. Socal31 Mar 2016 #11

So true & the good news is - Vermont wins manditory GMO labeling womanofthehills Mar 2016 #90

Honestly, I'm neutral on the GMO labeling issue unless its a big, obvious "warning" label that... Humanist_Activist Mar 2016 #95

One industry using the power of government to adversely affect another is a threat to everyone Major Nikon Mar 2016 #118

At least one does. Socal31 Mar 2016 #121

... Major Nikon Mar 2016 #122

Requiring labeling enables choice. "Cancer!!!" isn't the only concern about GMO's. MH1 Mar 2016 #30

Labeling laws informed by what corporations want aren't about giving consumers choice. kcr Mar 2016 #50

It would allow people like you to buy those "superior" GMO food CentralMass Mar 2016 #48

HA! Touche! SusanCalvin Mar 2016 #70

I just want science-based policy. nt ZombieHorde Mar 2016 #146

Foods are either genetically modified or not. It's very simple. The public has a right to know. CentralMass Mar 2016 #166

The public has a right to not be disinformed. HuckleB Mar 2016 #168

Public opinion strongly favors labelling. CentralMass Mar 2016 #169

Let's play "name that logical fallacy." HuckleB Mar 2016 #170

Your corporate funded studies are irrelevant. Public opinion strongly favors labelling.. CentralMass Mar 2016 #172

Hundreds of them are not funded by any corporation. You are choosing ignorance. HuckleB Mar 2016 #230

Do you think we should use the scientific definition of gmo, ZombieHorde Mar 2016 #175

Well, no, that's precisely the issue Recursion Mar 2016 #207

WTF? Monsanto trolls lagomorph777 Mar 2016 #235

Conspiracy theory nutcases, yes, we are all paid by Monsanto, but the benefits suck. Humanist_Activist Mar 2016 #242

Bullshit. Allowing me to know a food contains GMO is deceptive? lagomorph777 Mar 2016 #243

You're allowed to know it. HuckleB Mar 2016 #244

"Seed development technology?" lagomorph777 Mar 2016 #245

Oh, goodness. HuckleB Mar 2016 #246

Now you just sound silly. lagomorph777 Mar 2016 #250

In other words, you prefer to ignore the actual content of my posts, not to mention science. HuckleB Mar 2016 #252

So I had a look at your posts, and I see you are pro-pesticide, pro-GMO, and anti-organic lagomorph777 Mar 2016 #254

I am pro-science, pro-environment, pro-earth. HuckleB Mar 2016 #255

This is entirely too fucking funny Major Nikon Mar 2016 #269

Is Neil deGrasse Tyson a Monsanto troll? ZombieHorde Mar 2016 #259

Sure Major Nikon Mar 2016 #267

Yeah, MSG is one of the most prolific amino acids that is present in foods, if its poison... Humanist_Activist Mar 2016 #14

If it's already in the food. Then why add more? Hugin Mar 2016 #45

Why add more? For the taste, maybe? Thor_MN Mar 2016 #49

Taste is subjective. Hugin Mar 2016 #54

In other words, you don't understand it, so you fear it. Thor_MN Mar 2016 #56

No, no fear at all. Hugin Mar 2016 #57

So you don't use salt, or sugar, or any of a hundred spices then? Thor_MN Mar 2016 #58

I see nowhere in my replies that I've said or even implied such a thing. Hugin Mar 2016 #60

Your selective reading due to your bias will never let you see anything you don't agree with. Thor_MN Mar 2016 #61

Yes, I am biased. I'm just not into woo. n/t Hugin Mar 2016 #63

What woo? Seeing this little conversation thread... Humanist_Activist Mar 2016 #69

Funny you should bring that up... Because, I've done that very thing. Hugin Mar 2016 #108

I'd prefer to buy it locally if possible, I am curious if your observations are accurate... Humanist_Activist Mar 2016 #112

The spice industry INVENTED deceptive marketing centuries ago. Hugin Mar 2016 #147

True - dump MSG into low quality food womanofthehills Mar 2016 #197

+1 Hugin Mar 2016 #200

Sorry, denial. You are precisely spouting woo. Thor_MN Mar 2016 #73

It's amazing to find that some people are so emotionally invested in defending MSG. n/t Hugin Mar 2016 #109

There's nothing to defend really, you are just being silly. n/t Humanist_Activist Mar 2016 #110

I'm not defending MSG. I'm arguing against woo. Thor_MN Mar 2016 #111

It adds a 'savory' flavor to food. Vaguely equivalent to adding meat. (nt) jeff47 Mar 2016 #65

It adds a flavor to food that has no flavor womanofthehills Mar 2016 #198

MSG will close up my throat womanofthehills Mar 2016 #85

So you don't eat tomatoes, most Cheeses, mushrooms, etc. Humanist_Activist Mar 2016 #88

By the way - glutamate has nothing to do with gluten womanofthehills Mar 2016 #98

Nothing to do with intelligence, just education, there's nothing in MSG to cause the symptoms... Humanist_Activist Mar 2016 #103

When I found out that the fear of MSG was based on nothing, I was pissed off Blecht Mar 2016 #127

Did you know MSG is a good weed killer womanofthehills Mar 2016 #190

I didn't know that because I'm pretty sure it's complete nonsense Major Nikon Mar 2016 #270

I believe some people have nasty allergies to MSG. ZombieHorde Mar 2016 #248

I believe some people claim to have nasty allergies to MSG Major Nikon Mar 2016 #271

Huh, that's interesting. ZombieHorde Mar 2016 #278

They don't seem to like MSG in Sri Linka womanofthehills Mar 2016 #192

Well, what they "don't like" is East Asian cuisine taking over traditional Sinhala and Tamil cuisine Recursion Mar 2016 #208

MSG is a weedicide in Ceylon because glyphosate is banned womanofthehills Mar 2016 #193

And? Its interesting that it has more than one use. Not relevant to the argument... Humanist_Activist Mar 2016 #209

Hydrogen hydroxide is a commonly used food additive that's also used as an industrial solvent Major Nikon Mar 2016 #272

Then you should only buy foods that... meaculpa2011 Mar 2016 #17

Define genetically modified mythology Mar 2016 #36

If providing more information was the goal, they'd be pushing a GMO-free label. jeff47 Mar 2016 #64

Can you provide a source for your claim? Blecht Mar 2016 #128

Not conveniently. jeff47 Mar 2016 #135

Actually it will also kill you weeds womanofthehills Mar 2016 #195

So I take it you don't eat salt or vinegar Major Nikon Mar 2016 #277

I need to know if MSG is in my food womanofthehills Mar 2016 #91

You do realize that foods with MSG in it aren't all labeled as such, correct? Humanist_Activist Mar 2016 #93

I eat mostly fresh foods womanofthehills Mar 2016 #99

Uhm, those aren't all other names for MSG, MSG is Monosodium Glutamate... Humanist_Activist Mar 2016 #104

What if it doesn't? HuckleB Mar 2016 #251

Yup! longship Mar 2016 #2

You disagree with Obama nationalize the fed Mar 2016 #5

See, this belies what should be the purpose of labeling, you want GMOs banned, for no better... Humanist_Activist Mar 2016 #15

Candidate Obama was pandering rjsquirrel Mar 2016 #27

Personally Geronimoe Mar 2016 #6

Should the label include soil content? ZombieHorde Mar 2016 #145

You want to keep people from getting information they say they want. It's as simple as that. DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2016 #150

The information they want isn't the information they would be getting from a gmo label. ZombieHorde Mar 2016 #173

I disagree with the basis of your argument. DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2016 #174

GMO labeling in the US isn't currently mandatory, so of course there's no harm there. ZombieHorde Mar 2016 #176

I meant that I don't believe you or anyone could show harm if this became a law. DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2016 #179

The exact same labeling argument can be made for "fertilized with cow shit" Major Nikon Mar 2016 #184

Ah. I should have guessed your intent, but I was posting right before leaving for work and ZombieHorde Mar 2016 #205

Examples from Europe nationalize the fed Mar 2016 #210

I would say I have less of a problem with those labels, most people will end up ignoring them as... Humanist_Activist Mar 2016 #211

There's also a good chance in Europe your hamburger contains horse meat Major Nikon Mar 2016 #275

GMO labeling is about to be mandatory in Vermont womanofthehills Mar 2016 #187

I think food should be labelled rpannier Mar 2016 #10

This message was self-deleted by its author AxionExcel Mar 2016 #12

Hah! The magazine writer got suckered into parroting a standard GMO industry lie. Foof. AxionExcel Mar 2016 #13

And only 97% of scientists believe in climate change mythology Mar 2016 #41

the author is a conservative, so her facts come straight from her ass yurbud Mar 2016 #52

Is Neil deGrasse Tyson a sucker on the subject of science? ZombieHorde Mar 2016 #260

I think they should have to label Eko Mar 2016 #16

Certified Organic vegetables, particularly low to the ground ones, should have a... Humanist_Activist Mar 2016 #18

If we are going Eko Mar 2016 #20

Organic does label itself organic WDIM Mar 2016 #181

Non GMO doesnt mean organic at all. Eko Mar 2016 #194

Some organic food is also GMO. ZombieHorde Mar 2016 #257

Selective breading is not GMO WDIM Mar 2016 #264

Let Neil deGrasse Tyson explain GMOs... ZombieHorde Mar 2016 #265

Thanks for the after school special. WDIM Mar 2016 #266

Neither is hybridization, cell fusion, mutation breeding, polyploidy, or several other methods Major Nikon Mar 2016 #276

I only eat organic womanofthehills Mar 2016 #188

The plural of anecdote is not data. HuckleB Mar 2016 #236

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, real energy going to GMOs should be harnessed to LuckyLib Mar 2016 #19

How does that work? We are living longer and healthier lives than... Humanist_Activist Mar 2016 #23

that could be because of or in spite of any one particular factor yurbud Mar 2016 #33

Uhm, non-smokers live longer than smokers, generally due to complications from smoking.... Humanist_Activist Mar 2016 #74

Lots of communities. Here are a few. LuckyLib Mar 2016 #114

Of course, but these are, generally, localized events affecting few people... Humanist_Activist Mar 2016 #212

Agreed - Check this recent report on France banning neonicotinoid pesticides womanofthehills Mar 2016 #102

well.... ellennelle Mar 2016 #21

I'd like to Rec your post... druidity33 Mar 2016 #32

Well said lagomorph777 Mar 2016 #268

And that's why the vast majority of scientists also understand that GMOs are safe. HuckleB Mar 2016 #273

Anti-GMO activists are the ones practicing “tobacco science”. HuckleB Mar 2016 #274

This debate is not about science WestMichRad Mar 2016 #22

^^^THIS!!! U4ikLefty Mar 2016 #80

Actually, based on the content of your post, for you, it's about the propaganda of some marketers. HuckleB Mar 2016 #237

Maybe labeling soil content would give more information than a GMO label. ZombieHorde Mar 2016 #249

Monsanto's Zombies and Hucklesters lagomorph777 Mar 2016 #256

Your subject line made me smile. ZombieHorde Mar 2016 #258

Also included with those foods ... Autumn Colors Mar 2016 #24

One of the problems is: what exactly does "GMO" mean? Thor_MN Mar 2016 #37

Science isn't "scary" katsy Mar 2016 #115

Do you understand that most people don't know what a GMO is? Thor_MN Mar 2016 #134

I don't care if corporations suck at effectively katsy Mar 2016 #148

Required labeling is not corporations communicating, it's the goverment communicating Thor_MN Mar 2016 #149

If the communication isn't supported by a science-based justification, it's meaningless. HuckleB Mar 2016 #154

It's their fucking products katsy Mar 2016 #156

I'm one of the people speaking out against woo and anti-science... Thor_MN Mar 2016 #182

And I repeat katsy Mar 2016 #183

You don't get to play both sides of the coin. Thor_MN Mar 2016 #185

Childish. katsy Mar 2016 #204

Yes, you are being childish, trying to quote science while adovcating woo. Thor_MN Mar 2016 #217

I also am so sick of DU'ers using the word Woo womanofthehills Mar 2016 #222

Stop using woo, and others won't point it out. HuckleB Mar 2016 #231

No, no breaks, you use arguments from ignorance, discredited studies, and cognitive bias... Humanist_Activist Mar 2016 #240

Woo is an appropriate label when one can not support an argument. Thor_MN Mar 2016 #262

You say you wants science yet you seem to believe that there is a mass conspiracy against GMOs GreatGazoo Mar 2016 #25

I think it's a marketing ploy by big organic. ZombieHorde Mar 2016 #261

Do you work for Monsanto or are you just paid by them? classykaren Mar 2016 #26

Is this argument about Organic vs. GMO monicaangela Mar 2016 #28

If GMO foods are so good for us the industry should be happy to label them. Scuba Mar 2016 #29

Did she cite these 1700 studies? yurbud Mar 2016 #31

GMO modifications only serve one purpose randr Mar 2016 #34

You seem to not understand what "GMO"s are. Thor_MN Mar 2016 #38

We have been selectively altering plants and animals to our benefit randr Mar 2016 #39

Are you kidding? Thor_MN Mar 2016 #47

No, we have been altering nature for profit for centuries. jeff47 Mar 2016 #66

ROFLMAO Odin2005 Mar 2016 #78

you mean like mopinko Mar 2016 #46

the last thing on earth I would want to eat womanofthehills Mar 2016 #189

well the last thing i want to see is wasted food. especially food that is fine to eat. mopinko Mar 2016 #199

Your definition of "fine to eat" is womanofthehills Mar 2016 #223

that's just bull. mopinko Mar 2016 #239

This bit about science for hire sounds like something only a bigger industry than organics could do: yurbud Mar 2016 #35

I'm tired of this righteousness Trajan Mar 2016 #40

Yeah, but they are out there polluting the Intertubes relentlessly AxionExcel Mar 2016 #42

If I'm concerned about GMOs, I assume anything without the label "100% Organic% has GMOs. Hoyt Mar 2016 #43

"Organic" is not the opposite of "GMO" Thor_MN Mar 2016 #113

Organic is nothing more than a marketing term Major Nikon Mar 2016 #119

wow this could rank up with should we declaw our cats when they get circumcised dembotoz Mar 2016 #44

I've noticed that 'GMO' threads in GD look an awful lot like 'gun' threads petronius Mar 2016 #62

A) I don't care what anyone thinks, I still want the information. SusanCalvin Mar 2016 #51

You have the information... meaculpa2011 Mar 2016 #53

Nope. I also want it labeled if is GMO. SusanCalvin Mar 2016 #59

Okay then... meaculpa2011 Mar 2016 #71

I'm not writing the law, so I hadn't thought about it in depth. SusanCalvin Mar 2016 #72

How about Tangelos... meaculpa2011 Mar 2016 #81

Are you telling me tangelos were created in a lab, by directly manipulating DNA? SusanCalvin Mar 2016 #83

Directly manipulating DNA means more control, unlike with mutation breeding, where the effects... Humanist_Activist Mar 2016 #92

Tested?? TESTED?? By the corporations pushing them?? SusanCalvin Mar 2016 #100

Uhm... Humanist_Activist Mar 2016 #105

Don't particularly trust them either. SusanCalvin Mar 2016 #106

I've been on feedlots, poultry breeders... meaculpa2011 Mar 2016 #94

I think a lot of this push for not just GMO labeling but food denialism in general is due to... Humanist_Activist Mar 2016 #96

I grew up in NYC where most people think that... meaculpa2011 Mar 2016 #97

I see your point. SusanCalvin Mar 2016 #101

How about those produced by exposing seeds to mutagens including chemicals and/or radiation? X_Digger Mar 2016 #124

You're right - I don't like those either. nt SusanCalvin Mar 2016 #151

Link us to your advocacy for labels for MBOs, then. HuckleB Mar 2016 #158

What's this "us," Bub? SusanCalvin Mar 2016 #160

Us = DUers. ... So, you admit your claim is false. HuckleB Mar 2016 #163

There are more GMOs than RoundUp resistant GMOs. (nt) jeff47 Mar 2016 #67

I am aware of this. I still want them labeled. SusanCalvin Mar 2016 #68

You have no justification for this "want." HuckleB Mar 2016 #143

OK, but I'm far from the only one with the "want." SusanCalvin Mar 2016 #153

Europe has nothing like the labels proposed for the US. HuckleB Mar 2016 #155

Whatever. SusanCalvin Mar 2016 #161

You are promoting something that can't be justified by logic or science. HuckleB Mar 2016 #164

It's a start in the US - Vermont will soon be labeling GMO's womanofthehills Mar 2016 #224

And you won't know any more about your food than you already do. HuckleB Mar 2016 #232

Um, the whole point of GMOs is to use less Roundup, not more. Deadshot Mar 2016 #130

No, they use more. SusanCalvin Mar 2016 #152

So you want harsher herbicides? HuckleB Mar 2016 #157

Don't want 'em at all. SusanCalvin Mar 2016 #159

That's not going to help you. HuckleB Mar 2016 #162

Growing organically keeps all those pesticides womanofthehills Mar 2016 #191

No, it doesn't. HuckleB Mar 2016 #233

I echo your dislike of Roundup phylny Mar 2016 #171

a big part of the modifying is to make it "Round Up ready" & that stuff is bad for you yurbud Mar 2016 #55

What is bad for you? And how? n/t Humanist_Activist Mar 2016 #75

Round Up? Google Round Up human health effects. NIH has one study that says it messes up embyos yurbud Mar 2016 #79

Gilles-Eric Seralini is a fraud who has been on an Anti-GMO crusade since 1999... Humanist_Activist Mar 2016 #82

I wonder why NIH would post his article then... yurbud Mar 2016 #116

Because they publish everyone with only minimal oversight, anyone can get published.... Humanist_Activist Mar 2016 #117

He also gets financed and paid by the organic/supplement industry Major Nikon Mar 2016 #142

You might want to know more about the story. HuckleB Mar 2016 #165

People are idiotically scared of GMOs in general when the actual issue is the fucking Glyophosate... Odin2005 Mar 2016 #76

Not sure why glyphosate would be the problem, the problem is with... Humanist_Activist Mar 2016 #84

Cuba farms without pesticides womanofthehills Mar 2016 #87

And they import 84 percent of their food as of 2007, not exactly a model for sustainability... Humanist_Activist Mar 2016 #89

Nonsense Major Nikon Mar 2016 #133

Actually that's not the issue that drives the irrational fear Major Nikon Mar 2016 #120

A little "chemophobia" might protect our waterways womanofthehills Mar 2016 #225

Actually your link encourages more data, not more bullshit Major Nikon Mar 2016 #227

Some anti-gmo groups actually tried convincing diabetics... Lancero Mar 2016 #144

Umm. HuckleB Mar 2016 #167

I prefer organics from small local farms Marrah_G Mar 2016 #77

Yes they are, farming is one of the most environmentally destructive things we can do... Humanist_Activist Mar 2016 #86

Personally, I believe consumers should be provided with as much information as possible. OZi Mar 2016 #107

If it's such a great thing to fertilize food with cow shit, why not advertise that fact? Major Nikon Mar 2016 #123

So you prefer to poison the environment - sounds like a Republican thing to me womanofthehills Mar 2016 #203

Not sure of your argument, you do know the Organic industry uses pesticides as well, right? Humanist_Activist Mar 2016 #213

If you are going for the non sequitur award, you have my vote Major Nikon Mar 2016 #214

The label is going to tell you absolutely nothing. Deadshot Mar 2016 #132

Until the law requires that ALL GMO research be published, not just that favorable pnwmom Mar 2016 #125

Is there some other industry where such a requirement exists? Major Nikon Mar 2016 #126

There should be such a requirement for the pharmaceutical industry, too, and any other industry pnwmom Mar 2016 #131

You didn't answer the question Major Nikon Mar 2016 #136

It does for some drugs and biologics, but researchers apparently have been lax pnwmom Mar 2016 #137

No such requirement can be found in your link Major Nikon Mar 2016 #139

I added another link. And it talks about how researchers conducting registered trials have NOT been pnwmom Mar 2016 #140

Neither can the requirement be found there Major Nikon Mar 2016 #141

Follow the money. Deadshot Mar 2016 #129

From the USDA website: Major Nikon Mar 2016 #138

Prices from Whole Foods this week womanofthehills Mar 2016 #201

I'm sure you consider Consumer Reports a shill for the industry, but here's what they said... Major Nikon Mar 2016 #219

I only shop organic womanofthehills Mar 2016 #226

Sure, because anecdotal "evidence" always trumps data Major Nikon Mar 2016 #228

Grab your fire retardent clothing tymorial Mar 2016 #177

Oh wait, its already happened. tymorial Mar 2016 #178

Label it then if its so great! WDIM Mar 2016 #180

Actually organic foods are better for the planet/waterways womanofthehills Mar 2016 #196

Evidently you didn't even read your own source Major Nikon Mar 2016 #215

Never trust a huge conglomerate to have the clients best interest at heart. That is universal. Rex Mar 2016 #186

THERE HAVE NOT BEEN 1700 STUDIES ON GMO SAFETY Blue Meany Mar 2016 #202

"The biggest scientific fraud of our age" nationalize the fed Mar 2016 #206

Actually I'm surprised it took this long for someone to channel Seralini in this thread Major Nikon Mar 2016 #218

Perhaps you should... nationalize the fed Mar 2016 #220

So does this mean the book doesn't rely on Seralini's pseudoscience? Major Nikon Mar 2016 #221

You have no idea what you're talking about Major Nikon Mar 2016 #216

I went through it. It's a "hodgepodge of articles," like Blue Meany says. immoderate Mar 2016 #229

You are correct, there is no claim of safety, which is why Blue Meany's assertion is strawman Major Nikon Mar 2016 #234

Shit, you asked a really good question, in my opinion. ZombieHorde Mar 2016 #247

I have no problem, in theory, with GMO crops eniwetok Mar 2016 #238

Umm. HuckleB Mar 2016 #241

I share your prejudice. ZombieHorde Mar 2016 #253

Eat only gmo foods and you will become a zombie. Dont call me Shirley Mar 2016 #263

Shirley you don't mean that. nt ZombieHorde Mar 2016 #280

Evolution = GMO food = GMO people So Far From Heaven Mar 2016 #279

If I Were a Food Activist HuckleB Mar 2016 #281

Some good points in there. nt ZombieHorde Mar 2016 #282