Issues you kinda sorta side with the Conservatives on

[Taverner]

For me it's GMOs.

The research shows they're not anywhere as dangerous as the anti-GMO crowd says they are

That being said, I do believe in labeling. I think the flavor folks in NJ should be listing their ingredients as well.

[Brainstormy]

1. Don't know where you're getting your research

but try here, for starters.
http://www.greatamericanfoodfight.com/#/gmos/

[BigL]

6. Scientific Research Databases

They provide a much less biased account on both sides. There are studies that link GMOs with health issues and also raise environmental concerns; but there are also studies that conclude there is no detrimental health or environmental effects from GMOs.
It's best to get your data from a source that provides an objective array of studies. Besides, you actually get to examine the studies! Look for who's funding it, who the researchers are... it's truly wonderful

[LisaLynne]

10. Who is funding the research ...

is pretty important and good information to have. Welcome to DU!

[Berlum]

37. Alzhieimers, MS and Parkinsons rates have skyrocketed

[BigL]

50. Not necessarily in relation to GMOs

As life expectancy increases, more people are able to live to an age where they are affected by dementia-causing diseases. In addition, our ability to keep people alive is only improving with time, so we have to factor that in. Hell, even the first of the Boomers are reaching an age where they are at increased risk for these diseases.
I'm not saying the link does not exist and research should be conducted to explore this phenomenon, but we can't just jump to conclusions =D

[etherealtruth]

56. Nothing to add ...

Just want to welcome you to DU!

[mstinamotorcity2]

64. Welcome BigL

That's one of the first rules I got taught round here. Follow the Money. It usually leads to the culprit

[Taverner]

9. Could you give me a version with links to studies?

[Brainstormy]

15. Version?

Everything under "articles and research" is a link to a pdf you can open and read or download.


http://www.greatamericanfoodfight.com/#/gmos/

[Taverner]

16. That article didn't have any links to studies - that's why I asked

All the studies I see in the "learn more" section look academic, but when you read them they are more or less opinion pieces that point out what I already know: the USDA and EPA are on the take

We ALL can agree with that

[Motown_Johnny]

17. Have you read any of that stuff?

The first few I checked out could easily be from The Onion.

The only one I found (so far) that isn't laughable is the Union of Concerned Scientists and even they are clearly bias.


http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/


^snip^




Health and Environmental Risks

While the risks of genetic engineering have sometimes been exaggerated or misrepresented, GE crops do have the potential to cause a variety of health problems and environmental impacts. For instance, they may produce new allergens and toxins, spread harmful traits to weeds and non-GE crops, or harm animals that consume them.

At least one major environmental impact of genetic engineering has already reached critical proportions: overuse of herbicide-tolerant GE crops has spurred an increase in herbicide use and an epidemic of herbicide-resistant "superweeds," which will lead to even more herbicide use.

How likely are other harmful GE impacts to occur? This is a difficult question to answer. Each crop-gene combination poses its own set of risks. While risk assessments are conducted as part of GE product approval, the data are generally supplied by the company seeking approval, and GE companies use their patent rights to exercise tight control over research on their products.

In short, there is a lot we don't know about the risks of GE—which is no reason for panic, but a good reason for caution.







So, even in this analysis, from a bias site that is set up to attack GMOs, the best it can come up with is that there are now some weeds that are also resistant to herbicides. No claims of causing cancer or growing gills. Nothing about a direct impact on our health at all outside of possibly allergies.

[Brainstormy]

22. Laughable?

would you be so kind as to point out which links were funny? Where's the bias in the site? What's the bias for the Union of Concerned Scientists? Science?

You know, if you just want one, simple, easy to wrap your head around idea, how does Monsanto controlling the world's food supply work? Or the fact that GMOs have NOT increased crop yields, but DO require more pesticides after the first few years. Or the fact that GE hormones for dairy cattle were responsible for increasing the allowable use of antibiotics 100 fold and we're now paying the price. I(In addition to all the other problems: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/factsheet/what-research-shows/


I could go on, but I won't be able to find anything funny.

[Motown_Johnny]

52. Yes, laughable.

I hope you understand that the use of hormones in cattle is not the same as a GMO. If not then you need to just start over. I am not going to fall for your "bait and switch" since we started talking about GMOs and are now talking about the use of hormones in cattle.

The truth is, I have more of a problem with hormones in cattle than I do with GMO crops or fish. There is a difference (IMO) since the hormones are something that can cause reactions within people/animals in the food chain. There is even some real evidence that this can cause problems, but since we have been consuming milk and beef that has had hormone injections for decades now, it would seem that the impact is minimal, or possibly less than minimal.

GMOs are different. Our bodies do not react to the DNA that we consume, unlike chemicals such as hormones. If we eat a lot of fish we do not grow gills. If we eat a lot of chicken we do not grow feathers. We simply do not break down the molecules that we consume in that way.



Now as for the laughable part.. here is just one:

The page you linked to has a link labeled "New study links GMO Food to Leukemia"


I clicked on this one first since a coworker/friend of mine has leukemia and I tend to read all I can about it. It isn't that I find Leukemia funny, I don't. The guy has been struggling for years and we can all tell when he isn't doing well. We also all see what he goes through after Chemotherapy. I just want to make clear that this is an issue I take seriously.. but this title is freaking hilarious.


Go to that page and you will find it talks about Roundup and crops sprayed with Roundup. Hell, I don't think anyone doubts that if you drink water with Roundup in it, or have rats do so, that the chances of cancers skyrocket. The same is true for food sprayed with Roundup. OK, fine.. we shouldn't consume Roundup. I get it.

This has nothing to do with so called "Frankenfood"! Even these sites can't come up with any evidence, or even any reasonable theory, linking altered DNA to health problems in humans.

This is Onion material.



Oh, and I consider the Union of Concerned Scientists article biased because of the one sided view it presents.


^snip^


Benefits of GE: Promise vs. Results


Supporters of GE in agriculture point to a multitude of potential benefits of engineered crops, including increased yield, tolerance of drought, reduced pesticide use, more efficient use of fertilizers, and ability to produce drugs or other useful chemicals. UCS analysis shows that actual benefits have often fallen far short of expectations.

Learn more:
Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops (2009)
No Sure Fix: Prospects for Reducing Nitrogen Fertilizer Pollution through Genetic Engineering (2009)
High and Dry: Why Genetic Engineering is Not Solving Agriculture's Drought Problem in a Thirsty World (2012)





WOW!!!! Look at all the benefits these "concerned scientists" found. None! They only say "that actual benefits have often fallen far short of expectation" but fail to explain just what those expectations were or who was expecting them. They even say often because even they must admit that some of the benefits have met expectations.

Now, can they spare a couple of lines to point out where GMOs have met expectations? I guess not. That would approach being fair and this article clearly will have none of that.

[Brainstormy]

73. Ok, let's do this one at a time

First, the rBGH hormones initially approved for diary cattle were the first "breakthrough" genetically modified food. So that's not a "bait and switch." The hormone, a genetic manipulation of bacteria, engineered and patented by Monsanto, was sold under the trade name Prosilac. Since you seem to concede that the hormones in milk are at least suspect, I'll not belabor this point beyond saying that milk, and now, to a much greater extent, cheese, is a GE food. You concede: "There is even some real evidence that this can cause problems, but since we have been consuming milk and beef that has had hormone injections for decades now, it would seem that the impact is minimal, or possibly less than minimal. "

To return to our starting point: Where are you getting YOUR research? And how does "real evidence that this can cause problems " jive with "the impact is minimal, or possible less than minimal." The fact that every developed nation in the world besides the US has banned rBGH would seem to suggest that somebody, somewhere, thinks the risks are more than minimal.

As for your next point: "GMOs are different. Our bodies do not react to the DNA that we consume, unlike chemicals such as hormones. " You've got me here, since I have no idea what you're talking about or even what your point is. I'm open to some refinement on this topic.

Your third point is a little fuzzy for me, too. You acknowledge that the articles cited have pointed to a failure in GMO crops to deliver on some of the hyped promises of genetic engineering. (Most of these can be subsumed under the "GE crops will feed the world" hypothesis. ) But the fact that these articles suggest that these promises (crop yield, environmental damage, etc.,) appear false bothers you less than wanting to know who made such promises. Well, Monsanto, for one. But I wish I could get to the seat of your antagonism. Do you work for Monsanto?

My questions are all posed in good faith. For me, these are life or death issues and I'm eager to understand how best to communicate them.

[NightWatcher]

2. The 1st rule of being a conservative, take the asshole position

Environment....fuck it, lets pave it and dump shit in it.

Hungry Kids...fuck em, let em get a job.

Women's Rights...ain't got none, go make me a pot pie.

Sick people...fuck em, let em die.

Civil Rights...fuck em, straight white males über alles.

GMO food, let the corporations fuck with the DNA of food with super antibiotics and pesticides built in. It'll save us a few bucks. If it is unhealthy the free market will dictate what's good.

[Taverner]

13. That's why I think they should label GMOs

And the flavor enhancer folks in Jersey, who make McDonalds taste like McDonalds, and Simply Orange taste exactly the same every time - they should list their ingredients

For me, GMO isn't scary, not knowing is

[Taverner]

14. Lemme add that I think antibiotics are WAY more dangerous than GMOs

We know exactly what will happen with antibiotics, and it IS happening

If anything, we should be up in arms about the antibiotics

[Brainstormy]

18. YES, but

I believe that in the long run, GMOs and the whole problem of patenting our genetic resources is more dangerous, but right now, you're absolutely correct. Antibiotic over-dosing is an immediate, an URGENT and critical public health issue. PAMTA is a start, but it doesn't go far enough. More of us are dying from MRSA now than from AIDS. There's every reason to be very afraid.

[KG]

3. there be might some, but I'm pretty damn sure it's not for the same reasons...

[LisaLynne]

12. That's a good point.

There are times when everybody will be pretty much against A, but the reasons why are what makes the difference.

[Blue_Tires]

32. +1

[Brewinblue]

4. Wow!

I truly cannot think of anything. Not a single fucking thing.

[Ian David]

5. I think we need GMO food, but we're being very irresponsible about how we're doing it.

And I don't trust Monsanto to hold us by our GMO balls.

[Taverner]

7. Agreed

[Pelican]

8. Prediction...

This thread will rapidly devolve...

Shame though...

[Taverner]

11. Then it is our task to...DUH DUH DAH! KEEP IT CIVIL!

We're neighborhood watch here.

[Brainstormy]

23. you're correct

I just don't think I'm tough enough for DU.

[Socal31]

19. I think this thread would have better potential if "conservative" were defined.

Liberal/progressive and Conservative are terms that are fast moving targets, varying greatly between countries, states, and even counties. Besides geography, the progression of time causes generational gaps with how the terms are defined.

Then you can break it down by what "brand" of conservative.

Religious/social conservative is easy for me. Screw them if they try to sway public policy, no matter the religion.

Fiscal conservatives....I'll say that would be the closest for me. I am uncomfortable with the ballooning debt and QE, and I am ashamed at what the next generations will have to face. However, unlike the libertarian/anti-government nuts, I would just shift the money from the MIC/War on Drugs/Bribe money to Pakistan, Egypt, etc and put it into programs and infrastructure here in the US. You know, invest. Novel idea.

[Brainstormy]

24. Why food safety, GMOs, climate change, LOTS OF LIFE AND DEATH ISSUES . . .

should come down to partisan politics will always escape me.

[HardTimes99]

61. I agree 100% with the absolute need for definitions. Today's Republicans are at best

'reactionaries,' i.e., to the right of conservatives, and at worst, openly fascist.

It should go without saying that I agree with NONE of the reactionary\fascist positions on issues.

So tell me what 'conservative' issues are and I will tell you whether I agree with them.

[tularetom]

20. How about government intrusions into privacy?

To me that's an issue that cuts across the usual fake "liberal/conservative" narrative constructed by the news media.

Although there are plenty of authoritarian right wing republicans that probably believe that the government should have the right to know every detail of your life, it seems there are a lot of Democrats who feel the same way, now that a Democratic administration is the one doing the snooping.

Conversely there are more than a few tea party libertarian types who share their disapproval of big brother spying with progressive democrats.

[Taverner]

21. I side with the Libertarians on this one too

I don't like authoritarian police states

[Blue_Tires]

30. I'd argue that's not a "conservative" standpoint

Since the amount of "outrage" is completely dependent on who's getting spied on and who's doing the spying...

And even though it's something I fight against, I'd want nothing to do with the pseudo-libertarian teabagger Ron Paul nutbar crowd...It's not like any of them have the intellect to properly comprehend the full issue in the first place, and even if they did, my skin is too uncomfortably dark for them...

[LuvNewcastle]

25. I think we should be strict with immigration.

I'm not sure that's altogether a conservative issue, though, especially the reasons I'm concerned about it. It's a labor issue for me. I don't want too many people coming here and driving down wages; we have enough of a problem with that as it is. Companies will always choose to import cheaper labor rather than pay Americans a living wage. It isn't too much of a problem where I live, but I think it could easily get out of hand in some areas of the country. Maybe we could allow more immigration when we're in a boom cycle, but that would depend upon more worker protections and better pay than people have now.

[Taverner]

27. That's actually a quite reasonable stance

What are you doing here????

[jberryhill]

29. It's not entirely a zero sum game, though

I do understand your position, and I am not an economist. But it is not as if immigration is not also, to an extent, a driver of economic growth from my limited understanding.

[LuvNewcastle]

41. I'm not an economist either, but the economic growth we've seen for

the last 30 years or so hasn't helped the average person a bit. Americans are in constant fear of losing their jobs where they never see raises. It just makes sense that throwing more people into the labor pool isn't going to be beneficial to the average worker.

[polichick]

36. I think we should be strict with immigration...

AND with citizen birth rates (taxing Americans who have more than one or two kids) - because we are overwhelming our resources.

[LuvNewcastle]

44. I don't know how much longer people can continue to breed at

the same rate and use the same amount of resources. It can't be too much longer. It really bothers me when I see a really big family. I want to go up to the parents and shake them.

[polichick]

45. I'm with you - such selfish, ignorant people...

Last edited Wed Jul 17, 2013, 03:34 PM - Edit history (1)

On edit: I don't mean to be hateful toward those with large families, but it's way past time for people to think about the bigger picture and our resource situation.

[Blue_Tires]

40. Free-market conservatives absolutely LOVE undocumented immigrants

they need the cheap, easy-to-exploit labor pool...

It's only when those immigrants finally scrape and save enough $$$$ to move into a decent home, get educations for their kids, start their own communities and one day Mr. Conservative Blowhard sees a bilingual menu at Burger King does he go apeshit on a biblical scale...

[LuvNewcastle]

46. Yeah, they like it as long as the peons know their place.

They have it easier than the slaveholders did. They get all these poor people to work their asses off for them and they don't even have to pay them enough to feed, clothe, and house themselves.

[bowens43]

26. opposing government domestic spy programs

[Taverner]

28. Yep. Same here. 100%

[allin99]

33. those are mostly libertarians (and the left), not conservatives.

[polichick]

35. Beat me to it!

[spooky3]

31. That tattoos are ugly! Now you kids get off my lawn!

[Blue_Tires]

34. Guns are fine

my difference from the conservatives is that I only want SANE people to be permitted ownership...

[sagat]

38. I support gun ownership.

[Socal31]

65. That really isn't a wedge issue, as most people do support it.

People rightfully hate the NRA and those who impede common-sense type legislation, but gun ownership is far from a Tea Party type issue.

[eissa]

39. Voter ID laws

Before you fling eggs at me, let me explain!

I think our entire electoral process needs a complete overhaul. I believe it should be standardized across the board. It makes no sense to me that in one district voters are using pen and paper to vote, while in another it's computerized; some districts have early voting, while others have none; voters in some districts wait 7 minutes to vote, while in others they must wait 7 hours; you have to show ID in one district, none in the other.

If we're going to implement voter ID regulations, then they must be instituted across the board, and go into effect at least 2 election cycles ahead to allow elderly/poorer voters enough time to obtain the necessary documents.

[Bluenorthwest]

70. Election standards are set by States and I don't care to see your State's problems

imposed upon my State, which has no such problems. Perhaps you should consider looking at States that don't have long lines or inconsistent regulations from district to district and think about taking up some of those methods in your State.

[eissa]

72. Actually, my state is pretty awesome

CA election system is quite efficient. I've never waited more than 10 minutes to vote, absentee ballots are available for anyone weeks in advance of election day for those unable to make it to the voting booth. I find it very disturbing that certain states are reducing/eliminating early voting, and I think waiting hours in line to vote is simply unconscionable. If the repubs want voter ID laws, then I think they should be tied to the operation of more voting precincts and earlier voting opportinities.

[Eddie Haskell]

42. Illegal immigrants

Plenty of construction workers have lost their careers to illegals and don't tell me these are jobs nobody wants. The illegals are here because rich Republicans want cheap labor. Unions are against illegals because they recognize the threat.

[datasuspect]

63. yep, those irish and poles

do all the work white people here could be doing.

[Eddie Haskell]

68. Illegal has no ethnicity

[sinkingfeeling]

43. I can't think of anything I agree with them on.

[Taverner]

47. Surely you must think Bow Ties look neat?

[sinkingfeeling]

48. Nope, bow ties look like clown clothes.

[Taverner]

49. LOL

I dunno, one of these days I want to wear a straw hat, a seersucker suit and a bow tie

Exactly where and why, I have no idea

[Crunchy Frog]

71. Bow ties are cool.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

51. I suppose that I think that people have to take some measure of personal responsibility

for themselves. Don't know if that's really a "conservative" perspective or not but sometimes I feel like sometimes some people spend more time blaming others for their situation than they do assuming responsibility for their part in their situation and get stuck instead of getting themselves together and doing what they need to do in order to move forward. I don't believe, like some "conservatives" do, however, that that means that people aren't (sometimes) at the mercy of forces beyond their control or that government shouldn't try to step in to assist them.

[Taverner]

62. I think all parties believe in personal responsibility

Even the scary white supremacists do

I guess the devil is in the details insofar as how that is defined, personal responsibility

[Proud Liberal Dem]

66. Yeah, like I said I'm not sure it's really a "conservative" thing or not

but when you hear them talking about it, usually, however, in a manner that suggests that if you screw up, don't come looking for help from government (or anybody else).

[Xyzse]

53. I kinda support being able to eat whatever and how much you want

The sugary drink ban larger than a certain size to me is ridiculous. All it does is make people buy more of it, which only really benefits the sellers.

However, I also advocate subsidizing more nutritious foods and trying to bring groceries to areas that need them, such as certain parts of DC.

I also fully support Michelle Obama's "Move" exercise program.

[Taverner]

54. Bloomberg is an idiot and a Republican

And yeah, that is a dumb ass law

It's grandstanding and its backfiring

SF banning happy meal toys, what the fuck?

Some kids don't even eat the fucking food - all they want is the toy!

They drink the milk, take a bite out of the burger and then keep the toy and throw everything else away

No these are silly solution to a big problem

How do you combat obesity?

Ever hear of this miraculous new invention called education? (not being snide to you, just talking to the invisible SF City Council sitting in that empty chair on stage)

People should know how many calories they eat each day

Once you know that, you know how to beat obesity

[Xyzse]

55. Agreed... Although I am also for subsidizing fruits and vegetables

Like, maybe give a percentage off, if buying such a thing with meal assistance.

[Taverner]

58. I would be for some way for ads to list the calories of the food they sell

Either by law or industry decision


And if Mad Men taught us anything, it is to turn a negative into a positive

Turn it into a calorie countoff - "BIG MAC - 130 less calories than that greasy WHOPPER!!!"

[Xyzse]

60. That's pretty funny

Though apt.

[Nye Bevan]

57. I support the Keystone Pipeline.

The oil will be transported somehow; at least with Keystone we get to maintain some control over safety and environmental standards.

But then again the ADL-CIO supports it too so it's not wholly a "conservative" issue.

[Taverner]

59. I am more worried about the fracking

But I have been to the tar sands of Alberta

Shit is fucked up out there

It seems localized, but MTBE seemed like it wouldn't seep out of its container and into the groundwater.


So I don't know

But fracking - that turns every town near it into Centralia, PA

[BlueCheese]

67. Less agreement with the conservatives but more on our own blind spots.

What really annoys me about the GOP is a penchant for simply ignoring facts that are inconvenient to them. Take climate change and evolution, for example-- they simply refuse to believe in things that have overwhelming evidence because it doesn't support their opinions. On economic issues, it's clear that Paul Krugman has been right about stimulus and austerity, but they simply refuse to believe it, even when confronted with evidence.

I think we on the left have our own blind spots, so in those cases you might say I "agree" with conservatives, or at least partially agree with some criticisms they have of us. One area is immigration-- I don't think there's any question that adding ten million or so workers drives down wages. This doesn't mean we have to oppose immigration, or paths to citizenship, but I think we need to be honest about how immigration affects employment and wages for people already here. Another area might be incentives created by assistance programs. I think government assistance for the poor are necessary and the hallmark of a decent society. But we should also be aware that subsidies can create disincentives for people to work, and guard against designing programs in that way.

[distantearlywarning]

69. Cultural Relativism

Some social norms are in fact objectively better than other social norms, regardless of the race/ethnicity/culture involved.

E.g., I don't see much ethical difference between the ways in which Christian Taliborn-agains in this country view and treat women vs. countries in which a certain radical brand of Islam is practiced view and treat women. I don't think a pass should be given to the second group while condemning the first, and vice-versa.