Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
5. I've got to say, I'm not 'against' biotech or GM in the general sense.
Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:55 AM
Jul 2014

I'm against the very notion of patenting any part of any DNA. I'm against GM designed specifically to be resistant to specific pesticides or herbicides, so that those can then be used to sterilize the earth around those crops. And I'm for open, long-term, longitudinal studies of GM that don't just look for the obvious sorts of detrimental effects, but also look for more subtle effects on metabolic pathways and biologic function. And I'm for labeling, so those who choose to do so can have the 'free market' information they need to avoid eating or drinking what they wish.

Studies on some of the pesticides found roundabout connections between minute amounts of them and colony collapse when exposed larvae developed incorrectly such that they were far more vulnerable to specific parasites in the midgut. So we need far more caution and 'measure twice, cut once' attitudes towards GM as well. (These were not pesticides linked to GM-resistance, btw, just using them as an example of how harmful effects aren't always the obvious ones for which you test.)

But we're still likely to want that technology as climate change worsens. We're going to need to develop far more drought-resistant crops, or ones that grow more quickly, or blight-resistant crops. And it's doubtful if we'll be able to do so simply with traditional breeding methods.

The problem with GM is not that it exists. As with every technology we develop, it's how we use it, and how we decide what 'safe' means in the long term.

HRC: the fed. govt. could help Biotech industry w/ "insurance against risk" Divernan Jul 2014 #1
The Hillary defenders have been loathe to address this issue. Good to keep it alive. Scuba Jul 2014 #4
I'd bet the farm that Big Biotech is covering up its own negative research results. Divernan Jul 2014 #6
Monsanto pays HRC; she "donates" fee to Clinton Foundation; Divernan Jul 2014 #2
Warren >>>>>>>> Clinton or Bush... nt NYC_SKP Jul 2014 #3
I've got to say, I'm not 'against' biotech or GM in the general sense. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2014 #5
. . . and she paid a friendly visit to Carlyle Group Jack Rabbit Jul 2014 #7
Seriously? LittleGirl Jul 2014 #8
She may NOT run. But big tax breaks are to be had from her current status. Divernan Jul 2014 #13
I just didn't like the way LittleGirl Jul 2014 #14
Not all politicians are so two-faced; HRC even made a deal w/Richard Scaife. Divernan Jul 2014 #19
good grief LittleGirl Jul 2014 #22
Is there no one willing to jump in with a hughee99 Jul 2014 #9
Hey, it's Sunday! Spinmeisters have the day off. Divernan Jul 2014 #12
this is short-term thinking on her part, corporate-sponsored short term thinking. Voice for Peace Jul 2014 #10
she needs the money roguevalley Jul 2014 #21
Maybe we the people can gang up on her and change her mind. Voice for Peace Jul 2014 #11
Hillary must play the politician to get Elected/ Idea logos never get elected. lewebley3 Jul 2014 #15
Huge, huge difference between gay rights and GMO Divernan Jul 2014 #16
I think you made an accurate assessment there cprise Jul 2014 #17
Thanks.I value your opinion;you've been A DUer since 2001! Divernan Jul 2014 #18
And in that, she isn't much different than the Koch brothers cprise Jul 2014 #20
Speaking of Koch brothers... HooptieWagon Jul 2014 #23
Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2015 #24
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Hillary Clinton Cheerlead...»Reply #5