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: The organic industry’s GMO hoax [View all]ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)205. Ah. I should have guessed your intent, but I was posting right before leaving for work and
I wasn't thinking your reply through. Your intent now seems obvious and I should have recognized that you slightly misspoke. I kind of feel like a dick now. I'm sorry.
And the label needn't take a side, as with the example you're trying to use. It can simply say that the food product was GMO.
There are different definitions for GMOs. The scientific definition is an organism that has been modified, such as cows. All cows are GMOs. All of the long, yellow bananas we see in stores are GMOs. Both of these products have organic versions, and even these organic versions are GMOs. You can buy non-GMO bananas, but they look different than the bananas we usually see. You cannot buy non-GMO beef, because cows are a human invention. We made them by modifying ox genes. The non-scientific definition of GMOS is an organism that has been modified using certain modern techniques. We figured out how speed up the process. This faster process is what some people are against. The sped up process creates the same results, and most geneticists don't differentiate between the two because the end product is the same. People who want labeling only want the sped up process to be labeled, because of the false belief that the end result is different. It's not worse, it's not better, it's just faster. Therefore, the label would actually give misinformation. The GMO label would be a lie because it would encourage people to think it was different. The label promotes anti-scientific beliefs.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
282 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
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
Labeling laws informed by what corporations want aren't about giving consumers choice.
kcr
Mar 2016
#50
Foods are either genetically modified or not. It's very simple. The public has a right to know.
CentralMass
Mar 2016
#166
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
Conspiracy theory nutcases, yes, we are all paid by Monsanto, but the benefits suck.
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2016
#242
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
Yeah, MSG is one of the most prolific amino acids that is present in foods, if its poison...
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2016
#14
Your selective reading due to your bias will never let you see anything you don't agree with.
Thor_MN
Mar 2016
#61
I'd prefer to buy it locally if possible, I am curious if your observations are accurate...
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2016
#112
It's amazing to find that some people are so emotionally invested in defending MSG. n/t
Hugin
Mar 2016
#109
Nothing to do with intelligence, just education, there's nothing in MSG to cause the symptoms...
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2016
#103
Well, what they "don't like" is East Asian cuisine taking over traditional Sinhala and Tamil cuisine
Recursion
Mar 2016
#208
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
You do realize that foods with MSG in it aren't all labeled as such, correct?
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2016
#93
Uhm, those aren't all other names for MSG, MSG is Monosodium Glutamate...
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2016
#104
See, this belies what should be the purpose of labeling, you want GMOs banned, for no better...
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2016
#15
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
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
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
Hah! The magazine writer got suckered into parroting a standard GMO industry lie. Foof.
AxionExcel
Mar 2016
#13
Certified Organic vegetables, particularly low to the ground ones, should have a...
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2016
#18
Neither is hybridization, cell fusion, mutation breeding, polyploidy, or several other methods
Major Nikon
Mar 2016
#276
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, real energy going to GMOs should be harnessed to
LuckyLib
Mar 2016
#19
Uhm, non-smokers live longer than smokers, generally due to complications from smoking....
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2016
#74
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
And that's why the vast majority of scientists also understand that GMOs are safe.
HuckleB
Mar 2016
#273
Actually, based on the content of your post, for you, it's about the propaganda of some marketers.
HuckleB
Mar 2016
#237
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
No, no breaks, you use arguments from ignorance, discredited studies, and cognitive bias...
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2016
#240
You say you wants science yet you seem to believe that there is a mass conspiracy against GMOs
GreatGazoo
Mar 2016
#25
well the last thing i want to see is wasted food. especially food that is fine to eat.
mopinko
Mar 2016
#199
This bit about science for hire sounds like something only a bigger industry than organics could do:
yurbud
Mar 2016
#35
If I'm concerned about GMOs, I assume anything without the label "100% Organic% has GMOs.
Hoyt
Mar 2016
#43
wow this could rank up with should we declaw our cats when they get circumcised
dembotoz
Mar 2016
#44
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
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
How about those produced by exposing seeds to mutagens including chemicals and/or radiation?
X_Digger
Mar 2016
#124
a big part of the modifying is to make it "Round Up ready" & that stuff is bad for you
yurbud
Mar 2016
#55
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
Because they publish everyone with only minimal oversight, anyone can get published....
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2016
#117
People are idiotically scared of GMOs in general when the actual issue is the fucking Glyophosate...
Odin2005
Mar 2016
#76
And they import 84 percent of their food as of 2007, not exactly a model for sustainability...
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2016
#89
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
Until the law requires that ALL GMO research be published, not just that favorable
pnwmom
Mar 2016
#125
There should be such a requirement for the pharmaceutical industry, too, and any other industry
pnwmom
Mar 2016
#131
I added another link. And it talks about how researchers conducting registered trials have NOT been
pnwmom
Mar 2016
#140
I'm sure you consider Consumer Reports a shill for the industry, but here's what they said...
Major Nikon
Mar 2016
#219
Never trust a huge conglomerate to have the clients best interest at heart. That is universal.
Rex
Mar 2016
#186
Actually I'm surprised it took this long for someone to channel Seralini in this thread
Major Nikon
Mar 2016
#218
You are correct, there is no claim of safety, which is why Blue Meany's assertion is strawman
Major Nikon
Mar 2016
#234