This message was self-deleted by its author

[HuckleB]

This message was self-deleted by its author (HuckleB) on Mon May 26, 2014, 08:13 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[hedda_foil]

1. And this is important to you exactly why?

[Major Nikon]

4. Probably because the GMO issue is not as cut and dried as some make it out to be

Golden Rice has the potential to save millions of lives and other GMO modifications may allow food crops to be grown in areas that now can't saving millions more.

[2naSalit]

10. Watch this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017194080

It clears up a lot of myths.

[Major Nikon]

11. I'm not so easily convinced

As far as "clears up a lot of myths", that is highly debateable, especially considering the person who wrote and directed the video is a quack and AIDS denialist who got his degree from a diploma mill. People really should check their sources before they post these kinds of things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Null

This page does a pretty good job of debunking actual myths rather than creating them. No biotech company is going to make money from Golden Rice.
http://irri.org/rice-today/debunking-golden-rice-myths-a-geneticist-s-perspective

[2naSalit]

31. Hmmm

Thanks for the background info. I'm always interested in checking sources. I was still in the "initial deliberation" stage after watching that video. What I do know is that monsanto is evil, not surprised about a lot of accusations about them. It's an interesting food for thought kind of flick if nothing else.

[Major Nikon]

125. There's plenty of reasons to hate on Monsanto without making them up

Not all GMO research benefits biotech companies. Much of it is produced by charitable and governmental support. The idea that all GMO is bad is little more than anti-science rhetoric. When it comes to feeding starving people and preventing easily preventable diseases, all options should be on the table.

[2naSalit]

157. Well

I agree with the not making stuff part but the "all option should be on the table" is something I don't entirely agree with when GMOs are involved.

There are far better ways to accomplish such a lofty goal (and I don't mean that facetiously) but it would require a sea change in how we think, do business and how the world of aggression is curtailed without trying to outsmart nature... which I think is foolish and dangerous in many cases.

[Major Nikon]

159. People have been outsmarting nature for thousands of years

There's practially nothing that's natural about modern agriculture, GMO or otherwise.

[2naSalit]

163. Have to

agree to disagree on that one, preferably without animosity.

[HuckleB]

21. That's a bad propaganda video. It promotes nothing but myths.

Try again.

[SidDithers]

24. Gary Null is a fucking idiot...

He once sued his own supplement company, because his name branded supplements gave himself and a bunch of others Viatmin D poisoning.

Nobody should ever consider Gary Null to be a reputable source on anything.

Sid

[2naSalit]

32. Didn't know that...

point taken, thanks for that. As I said above, it was an interesting "food for thought" kind of flick. Guess I should have added the "if true" disclaimer.

[SidDithers]

33. No worries. And I apologize for jumping all over you...

More about Gary Null suing "himself" here:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/04/29/too-deliciously-ironic-for-words-gary-nu/

Sid

[2naSalit]

35. Yikes

The doesn't seem to know much about nutrition even before coming up with a supplement.

I am not inclined to take advice from and act on anything I haven't studied more carefully though I know too many who would. And that simply because they don't study anything and are totally taken in by advertising. It normally gives me the chills when people who don't examine things like their food and the nutrients it does/does not contain get annoyed when I try to inform them of why said foodstuffs are or are not valid candidates for consumption. There's a lot of stuff I won't or can't eat so I have always had to be diligent in examining anything I might consider eating or bathing in.

[LWolf]

37. Some of it is, and some of it isn't.

Here is one aspect that's cut and dried for me that trumps the rest:

I don't want anyone owning patents on the world's food supply, and I don't want crops dependent on patented products. So...no genetically modified seed that can't be saved by farmers, that must be repurchased from patent owners every single year. No gmos that are modified to survive patented weed killers that also must be purchased from the patent holder each year and that also, not so incidentally, interact with the natural world outside the fields they are sprayed upon. That's cut and dried for me. No global corporate ownership of the food supply.

There's also, of course, the issue you mention...the chance to feed a hungry, rapidly exploding population. That's no so cut and dried. On the surface, it looks like a good thing. The rotten underbelly, though, exposes the fact that, as long as science is touted as the solution to feeding an overpopulated planet, the human population will continue to explode. I'd like there to be a healthy planet left for the rest of the biosphere, so I don't support this "solution." Also found in that rotten underbelly is the simple fact that solutions are never addressed until the corporate ruling class have set up ways to profit from them. Sustaining the planet and the species should not be about profiting the 1%.

[HuckleB]

14. Perhaps because people push her as a spokesperson.

[NRaleighLiberal]

2. As with many things, there are shades of gray in this discussion.

Science and reality are certainly critical. But when huge corporate profits meet something as simple as gardening and saving seed (that is not contaminated by GMO genes), trouble ensues. It is something way too complex for short sound bites, that's for sure.

Watching small seed companies getting gobbled up and consolidated into large multinationals is not great for the gardener - I am thankful for the existence of organizations like the Seed Savers Exchange for spearheading the saving of our non-hybrid, genetic legacy.

[HuckleB]

15. Reality is important.

Small seed companies were being gobbled up long before GMO technology arrived on the scene.

Also, there is no such thing as "non hybrid" when it comes to the food we eat.

[NRaleighLiberal]

22. Again, definitions.

I grow a few thousand tomatoes and am a seed saver. I grow nearly all open pollinated (non hybrid) varieties - they come true from saved seed. Perhaps a hundred or so years ago, they were from a natural cross - but the hybridization step (or mutation) that led to them as a distinct variety is long past.

[HuckleB]

45. Again, that works for a few small farmers.

It's not what happens in most of agriculture, in terms of feeding the population at large.

Bottom line: Shiva is a fraud who misrepresents her credentials, and has been caught making repeated lies about GMOs.

[scarletwoman]

3. Vandana Shiva is someone who knows damn well how multinational corporate agribiz is destroying

the livelihoods of Indian farmers.

I'll stand with her any day.

[polly7]

12. As will I.

Last edited Mon May 26, 2014, 03:00 AM - Edit history (1)

Vandana Shiva, a woman who cares deeply for millions of people affected in terrible ways by GMOs.

Vandana Shiva’s Message for the March against Monsanto

People often ask me “Why Monsanto”?
My response is, we did not choose to target Monsanto, Monsanto chose to target our seed and food freedom, our scientific and democratic institutions, our very lives.

Monsanto has admitted it wrote the intellectual property treaty of WTO that allows seeds to be redefined as Monsanto’s intellectual property. And it is through patents that Monsanto, a poison maker, has become a seed giant, with the largest share in control over the seed market. In India it controls 95% of the cotton seed market, and the extraction of superprofits through royalties has trapped our small farmers in unpayable debt. 284,000 farmers have committed suicide in India because of debt linked to seed and chemicals.

Corporations like Monsanto were behind the EC Seed law that would have made diversity and seed saving illegal in Europe. The last parliament sent back the law to the European commission. We must ensure that the new parliament does not pass the law.

In the US, Monsanto used its money to undermine the Right of US citizens to Know what they eat. It is threatening the State of Vermont because it got a labelling law in place. And it now has introduced a bill in Congress called called The Safe and Accurate Food Labelling Act which has earned itself the name the Dark (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act.

This is an assault on Democracy and people’s freedom.
While Monsanto announces that it is retreating from Europe, it is pushing GMOs on the Eastern European countries. And is pushing new trade treaties like TIPP, to undermine Europe’s largely GMO free status, and to get stronger IPR rights on seed.

http://seedfreedom.in/vandana-shivas-message-for-the-march-against-monsanto/


Reforms not working

However, both the food crisis and the economic crisis are a result of the so-called reforms. More people are denied their right to food because, on the one hand the livelihoods of small and marginal farmers are being destroyed to carry out the reforms of corporatising the agriculture sector, with corporate seeds and chemical products, and corporate procurement instead of public procurement. The result is debt, hunger and despair.

One out of every four Indians today is a victim of hunger. And half of the hungry are farmers who cannot eat what they grow, either because they are planting cash crops such as cotton; or they're growing costly crops such as rice, wheat and corn, which they have to sell in order to repay the loans they get to buy seeds, fertilisers, etc.

That is why lowering the cost of production and increasing the livelihood sustainability of small and marginal farmers must be the first step in building food security. However, the Food Security Act is totally silent on production, procurement, and farmers' livelihood and food rights. This in my view is its biggest failing.

The silence on production makes many people feel that the Food Security Act could increase India's dependence on food imports. We are already spending millions of dollars in importing and subsidising pulses - grain legumes - and edible oils. Until the Green Revolution, India was the biggest producer and exporter of oilseeds and pulses.The Greed Revolution which is based on rice and wheat production has destroyed our self-sufficiency in pulses and oilseeds, and the globalisation and libralisation of the food trade has made it worse. We need to introdruce tariffs on imports of edible oils and pulses, both to give our farmers a level playing field, and to reduce our trade and budget deficits.


Full Article: http://www.zcommunications.org/indias-food-security-act-myths-and-reality-by-vandana-shiva.html

"In fact, to take advantage of these seeds, small farmers who are among the hungriest people in the world, have to take out loans to buy the costly products that are required—the seeds, the fertilizers... and the pesticides that are required" for the GMO seeds.

"So in fact the honorees ... are actually contributing the problems that keep us locked... in hundreds of millions of people in a world where there is plenty of food," concluded Lappe.

The World Food Prize explained that the GMO work by the new winners has "contributed significantly to increasing the quantity and availability of food."

Not so, says Shiva.

"The evidence is so clear," she says, that "GMOs have not increased production, there's a failure to yield." In addition, "they have not reduced use of chemicals. Worse, they have increased the use of chemicals because they have created superpests and superweeds."

Full Article: http://www.zcommunications.org/frances-moore-lappe-vandana-shiva-blast-award-for-gmo-scientists-by-andrea-germanos


Vandana Shiva - We Don’t Need Genetically Engineered Bananas For Iron Deficiency

Saturday, April 27, 2013

The latest insanity from the genetic engineers is to push GMO bananas on India for reducing iron deficiency in Indian women.

Nature has given us a cornucopia of biodiversity, rich in nutrients. Malnutrition and nutrient deficiency results from destroying biodiversity, and with it rich sources of nutrition.

The Green Revolution has spread monocultures of chemical rice and wheat, driving out biodiversity from our farms and diets.

And what survived as spontaneous crops like the amaranth greens and chenopodium (bathua) which are rich in iron were sprayed with poisons and herbicides. Instead of being seen as iron rich and vitamin rich gifts, they were treated as “weeds”. A Monsanto representative once said that Genetically Engineered crops resistant to their propriety herbicide Roundup killed the weeds that “steal the Sunshine”. And their RoundUp Ads in India tell women “Liberate yourself, use Roundup”. This is not a recipe for liberation, but being trapped in malnutrition.

Full Article: http://www.zcommunications.org/we-don-t-need-genetically-engineered-bananas-for-iron-deficiency-by-vandana-shiva

Seeds of Suicide
By Vandana Shiva
Source: Asian Ag
Thursday, April 04, 2013

“Monsanto is an agricultural company.
We apply innovation and technology to help farmers around the world produce more while conserving more.”
“Producing more, Conserving more, Improving farmers lives.”

These are the promises Monsanto India’s website makes, alongside pictures of smiling, prosperous farmers from the state of Maharashtra. This is a desperate attempt by Monsanto and its PR machinery to delink the epidemic of farmers’ suicides in India from the company’s growing control over cotton seed supply — 95 per cent of India’s cotton seed is now controlled by Monsanto.

A Monsanto representative admitted that they were “the patient’s diagnostician, and physician all in one” in writing the patents on life-forms, from micro-organisms to plants, in the TRIPS’ agreement of WTO. Stopping farmers from saving seeds and exercising their seed sovereignty was the main objective. Monsanto is now extending its patents to conventionally bred seed, as in the case of broccoli and capsicum, or the low gluten wheat it had pirated from India which we challenged as a biopiracy case in the European Patent office.

That is why we have started Fibres of Freedom in the heart of Monsanto’s Bt cotton/suicide belt in Vidharba. We have created community seed banks with indigenous seeds and helped farmers go organic. No GMO seeds, no debt, no suicides.

Full Article: http://www.zcommunications.org/seeds-of-suicide-by-vandana-shiva

VANDANA SHIVA: I’m here in Los Angeles to address a conference on International Women’s Day on global ecologies, on how globalization, shaped by a very patriarchal mindset, a capitalist, patriarchal mindset, has actually aggravated the violence against women, that we are living in a very violent economic order to which war has become essential—war against the earth, war against women’s bodies, war against local economies and war against democracy. And I think we need to see the connections between all these forms of violence, which impact women most. Whether it’s climate change or biodiversity erosion or seed monopolies, all of it is connected. It’s one piece.

VANDANA SHIVA: I think this case is not just about Bowman, the Indiana farmer. It’s about every farmer, every person and every seed in the world. First, the idea that Monsanto can patent a seed by putting a toxic gene for Roundup resistance into a plant, that that is a creation of seed, that has evolved over millennia, been bred over thousands of years in East Asia, not by Monsanto—how can we be governed by an illusion that introducing a toxic gene is creation of life? It’s an error. And it is this error that compelled me 26 years ago to start Navdanya, the movement for seed saving in India, because I do not think seed is invented, and therefore, a patent on seed is wrong from the first step.

In India, this kind of false claim to creation, false claim to invention, the collection of royalties from seed, has led to Monsanto controlling 95 percent of the cottonseed supply, 95 percent through a monopoly, not through the choice of the farmers, as it’s often made out to be. Farmers are getting indebted because the price of seed jumped 8,000 percent, and there’s no option, except the little options we are creating through Navdanya by saving open-pollinated seed.

Two hundred and seventy thousand Indian farmers have committed suicide since Monsanto entered the Indian seed market. That’s more than a quarter-million. It’s a genocide. And every farmer who commits suicide leaves behind a widow. For me, this is a prime example of violence against women through violent economic means.


Full Article: http://www.zcommunications.org/vandana-shiva-on-int-l-women-s-day-capitalist-patriarchy-has-aggravated-violence-against-women-by-vandana-shiva

"Born in India in 1952, Vandana Shiva is a world-renowned environmental leader and thinker. Director of the Research Foundation on Science, Technology, and Ecology, she is the author of many books, including Water Wars: Pollution, Profits, and Privatization (South End Press, 2001), Biopiracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge (South End Press, 1997), Monocultures of the Mind (Zed, 1993), The Violence of the Green Revolution (Zed, 1992), and Staying Alive (St. Martin's Press, 1989).

Shiva is a leader in the International Forum on Globalization, along with Ralph Nader and Jeremy Rifkin. She addressed the World Trade Organization summit in Seattle, 1999, as well as the recent World Economic Forum in Melbourne , 2000. In 1993, Shiva won the Alternative Nobel Peace Prize (the Right Livelihood Award). The founder of Navdanya (“nine seeds”), a movement promoting diversity and use of native seeds, she also set up the Research Foundation for Science, Technology, and Ecology in her mother’s cowshed in 1997. Its studies have validated the ecological value of traditional farming and been instrumental in fighting destructive development projects in India .

Before becoming an activist, Shiva was one of India ’s leading physicists. She holds a master’s degree in the philosophy of science and a Ph.D. in particle physics."

http://www.livingunderdrones.org/ ~~~~GO LEAFS! ~~~~~ http://www.journeyman.tv/66218/short

[burrowowl]

48. Great Post!

HuckB you don't realize the havoc caused by Monsanto!

[bravenak]

59. Thank you Polly.

Great info. I'm a little scared of companies owning patents on our food supply.

[HuckleB]

60. How is it "great info?"

Can you prove the assertions made in that "info?"

[bravenak]

64. Why should i have to prove anything?? I never claimed to be a scientist.

I like information. I like Polly. I like when Polly gives out information. I read the monsanto propaganda and i do not trust them. I do not like the idea of large corporations owning patents on food or human dna for that matter. I do not like the idea of farmers commiting suicide.


Whats your deal dude? You seem kinda angry at me amd i just met you like right now and stuff.
My mom plants a huge garden every year and i want to know if she will need to save her seeds for certain plants in the future because we don't eat bullcrap in my house. This way i'll start saving what we need for next year, this year.

I also want to know when i am buying with my own damn money, genetically modified food. Monsanto doesn't seem to want me to know. That makes them a shady ass organization. Like the food mafia. La Comida nostra. I kill me. I am so funny.


Don't you think we should have the right to know whats up with our food?

[HuckleB]

65. So you don't know when something is baseless propaganda?

Got it.

Yikes.

[bravenak]

73. No.

I am a human with the right to know what i am buying at all times. I have allergies and a child with autism. I read every fucking label!!!! I read the labels on my soap and makeup.

Why should anybody purchase anything without all of the info? I read the fine print on everything.

I guess you might not care about what goes into your children's bodies or your own, but you do not have the right to decide for me that i don't need to know these things.

I'll decide if it's baseless when they decide to label the fucking products. If they wont label it, then they are some sneaky fuckers and deserve to have problems.

I would never tell somebody that i wont let them know whats in the food they are eating.

You need to check yourself on your attitude, yo. I am not the one for this type of bull. If you want to go around angry amd snarking on people be my guest, but leave me out of your battle for the 'Honor of Monsanto'. I do not expect to have to repeat myself.

[HuckleB]

75. And labeling GMOs won't tell you one valuable thing about the product.

http://realfoodorg.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/why-i-think-mandatory-labels-for-gmo-is-bad-policy-and-why-i-think-it-might-be-good-strategy-and-why-i-still-cant-support-it/

Maybe you should inform yourself for once. Stop buying into bad fear mongering. The anti-GMO nonsense is right up there with the crap pushed by Fox News every day. Doesn't that make you wonder?

[bravenak]

87. It will tell me the thing i want to know.

If my food is genetically modified. You do get that right? That way i can decide fir myself as an adult if i want to support that particular corp with my hard earned dollars. I do not want to support sneaky multi million dollar corporations that are fighting gi the right to NOT let me know.

If they are so awesome they should label it. Tobacco companies didn't want to label their products either. McDonalds has to tell us how many calories even though we already know eating it every day all day will make you fat. But they still label, and we buy more every day.

Label the shit, then we all know. We will probably buy it anyways, most of us. But those people who do not want genetically midified foods should have the right to choose for themselves. You kay think they are stupid, but it doesn't matter what you think. It is not your body that the food they purchase is going into.

Being nasty and rude just makes me even more suspicious of the company. You are having the opposite effect of what you are going for because of the way you come at people. You act like you think people are stupid and you know it all. And you talk down to them in a real condescending way.
You should have more patience if you want any positive results.

[HuckleB]

89. Believe it or not, you're not the center of the universe.

Government required labeling is not about your beliefs.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/03/1252782/-Why-I-Think-Mandatory-Labels-for-GMO-s-is-Bad-Policy-and-Why-I-Think-It-Might-Be-Good-Strategy

[bravenak]

90. You are also not the center of the universe.

And you are so wrong it burns. LOL!
You are fighting the good fight for a multi million dollar corporation. And btw, when it comes to my money and my food, i am the center of the fucking universe. Ha! So put that in your pipe and smoke it baby.

[HuckleB]

91. Prove that I'm wrong.

Don't just make up strawman as a way to attack?

Prove it.

[bravenak]

101. No.

I don't have to. I just want a label. I could care less if you are right, really.

[HuckleB]

103. Again, you have no reason to label. You just want to be the center of the universe.

Lame.

And thanks for admitting that can't prove me wrong.

[bravenak]

108. Allergies to food.

I have been on life support from ' something' i ate or drank. Staring death in the face make one more concerned about their life. I get hives if my food touches food that i'm allergic too. If you put almonds in a food processor and i am in the room i need an epi pen stat.

I am the center of my universe. I am my own god. Life ends for me when mine ends.

[HuckleB]

110. I'm sorry that happened to you.

However, there is no evidence that GMOs are an issue in regard to allergies. And your allergies have nothing to do with GMO labeling.

Strawmen are easy to create, but not so easy to keep standing.

[bravenak]

119. Can you prove that cross breeding with food that i am allergic to wont cause a reaction?

I can't take chances. I only have one life. The allergies combined with astma wreak havok on my sytem when i mess up and occasionally they change ingredients for a product and i feel like death.

Honestly, all i need is a label saying genetically modified- cross bred with_____. And i will be satisfied. I have no problem with it being sold but i don't wamt to buy it unless i want to buy it.

I don't understand the problem with labeling. Makes no sense unless they are trying to hide something. I won't even buy weed from certain people because i've had my face swell up from certain strains.
This is why i shop at natural pantry. They are always willing to give me all the info on any product.

And with all the plantlife up here, the damn cottonwood, and the Funny river fire going on my allergies are booming right now.

If i die from allergies from GM foods, it's all your fault.

[alp227]

92. What is the point of a "genetically modified" label,

if there is no scientific evidence at all that gmo= harmful, and if "generally modified" is such a wide ranging weasel word it is impossible to make a proper labeling criteria?

People should make informed decisions, correct. But they can't do it when what they want to know just ain't so.

[bravenak]

97. The point is that i want to know.

I want to use my money to support non modified food sources.
I have taken medication that ten years later, they find out that they were more risky than to was thought to be. When zyprexa first came they didn't know the extent of the weight gain it could cause. I rarely took it. Later i was having issues and went back on it and gained weigh so rapidly i couldn't breath and my asthma came back along with a severe full body rash. It doesn't give people rashes. Only me.
Now i read everytimg very carefully before i put it into my body. It took over a year to lose the HUNDRED pounds i gained from 3 months on meds. My astma is gome too now. I just have to watch for allergic reations because i never know what is going to set it off. After being in a coma for ' unknown reasons' for six days from a reaction to 'something' i just don't want to take chances. I have so many food allergies i never know what they all are. If they are cross breeding different foods with other foods i need to know if the modified foods are crossbred with something i am allergic to.
I have to know what i am eating or i will die if i can't get to the er in time. There are lots of people like me.

If a company wont label i don't think its safe to take the chance. I mean, who will raise my kids?

[Major Nikon]

131. The reality is that you are safer with GMO than you would be otherwise in that regard

Any new protein introduced into a food product has the potential to create an allergic reaction. GMOs are tested for known allergens, but anyone can crossbreed one varietal with another, introduce new proteins, and bring that product to market without such rigorous testing or labeling. The only known case of a GMO having the potential for serious allergic reaction was found during testing and abandoned.

[bravenak]

136. The reality is that i want to know.

I already know which foods i can't eat. Monsanto doesn't know what i am allergic to. Most people with allergies can eat what i can't and can't eat what i can. It's my body, my decision what to put into it. If they put food out that's cross bred with, say some berry or something that wont harm most people, my throat will close up. I have about 15 minutes before i'm lacking enough oxygen to cause brain damage.
Sometimes i can eat one food in a family, but others i can't. Don't know why, makes no sense. Doesn't matter to my body. It doesn't care if the only known case of GMO causing reactions has been abandoned. And monsanto will produce peer reviewed articles in court to protect themselves. I care more about me than they do.


This fight to allow a company to NOT label food is strange and scary. They should gladly label the food and swear by it's safety. But they are afraid to label. That makes me afraid to eat it.

If they are worried that people won't buy because they hate the name Monsanto, they need to clean up their image and work on the issues people have with the company.
Corporations always tell you that their product is safe and that they are doing due dilligence, but sometimes they lie. It's our jobs as consumers to fight for what we want. We want labels. If labeling kills your company you don't need a company. You need a better product that people will still buy even if it has a label on it.

[Major Nikon]

139. So what if I want to know if the produce I buy has been fertilized by cow shit?

Fertilizing with cow shit increases the chances that I might die of e. coli. Do I have an equal right to know, especially since the chances of this happening are far greater than what you describe?

If such labeling kills the organic market, is this just tough shit (pardon the pun)?

[bravenak]

143. You should be allowed to have access to the info.

I don't see why anyone should keep that info from you unless they were using cow shit and didn't want you to know.
The chances of my death from food allergies is considerable since i did almost die from something i ate or drank and spent a week on life support with a tube down my throat.

Yep, i think you have an equal right to know. We have local farmers here who do not use cow shit. We barely have any cows in Alaska so it's kinda spendy to ship tons of shit up here. Lot's of Alaska grown products, i like to go to the farmers market downtown. If you ask the farmers, they will tell you exactly how they grew the produce and what they used. Good friendly, open, honest, real true Americans will tell you how the grew the food they sell you.

I doubt labeling will kill the organic market since we all know shit is used for fertilizer. I perfer cow shit on my crops to anyother kind of shit. They shit alot and eat greenery. When i grow potatoes up here in the summer i prefer cow shit. I don't even mind the smell. Smells like summer.

[Major Nikon]

144. There's a difference between having access to the information and labeling

Where labeling is warranted due to a rational threat, I support it completely. However, labeling can be used to stoke irrational fears. I don't have a problem with produce fertilized with cow shit either, but requiring producers to label their products as such simply will cause people to believe there is a serious threat. I don't know of a single verifiable allergic reaction death attributed to GMO. There's hundreds of verifiable cases of deaths attributable to cow shit.

[bravenak]

145. If a company doesn't want to label the products.

I don't want to eat it. It is that simple.

[Major Nikon]

126. There is almost no commercially produced food that isn't genetically modified

People have been genetically modifying food throughout all of recorded history and the vast majority of commercialized food would have never happened in nature.

Should people have the right to know that their food was fertilized with cow shit? Imagine the backlash from the organic industry if someone tried to push that labeling.

[bravenak]

128. I need to know if they cross breed it with something i can't eat.

Why is that a problem? Now i'm even more scared to eat. Maybe thays why my allergies have increase in the last 15-20 years.

[Major Nikon]

137. How do you know this about any product, GMO or otherwise?

A non-GMO food product that you've never been introduced to before could cause an allergic reaction and this could be either brought to market directly through food globalization or crossbred with a domestic crop.

There's lots of reasons why people have more allergy problems than in years past. Some of these are food related, most aren't, and many aren't well understood. GMO products are going to be tested against the most common known food allergens which reduces the risk to at or below non-GMO products. While it's certainly possible you could be some outlier which wouldn't be captured by testing, this could also be just as true with any food product you've never eaten before.

[bravenak]

142. I do not have the most common food allergies.

I can eat peanuts all day. Strawberrys do not affect me negatively. Apples will make my mouth and throat itch.

I rarely eat something i haven't tried before because when i do, there's always something awful in there like almonds.

Of course a non GMO can cause a reaction. Any food can.
I test to see if i react and wait too se what happens. If i eat a tiny bit and it wrong for me, a benedrly will work. If i think it's regular but it's been cross bred with something i can't eat, i may just eat a whole bunch without knowing. Thats a problem. I can't test everything every time or i'd never get a meal.
I don't even go to jamba juice because they have leavings of other stuff laying around and if i get some raw wheat grass it's over. Done. Cancel christmas.

I am that one percent of folks who are just super sensitive. The people they don't care enough about to test for. I blame genetics. My daughter's face swole up a few days ago and i have no idea what she got into.

Knowing wht's up with my food is serious business. Life or death. Why hide things from people who need to know?? When not knowing could possibly kill them?

Just because it wont harm most people, doesn't mean that they shouldn't know.

I never really had an opinion on Monsanto before, but now i just don't trust them.

[HuckleB]

147. The question remains: Why are you bringing up allergies?

It makes no sense.

[bravenak]

148. Makes sense to me.

I have allergies so i worry about them endlessly. Like diabetics worry about sugar.

[HuckleB]

152. How does that connect to GMOs?

[bravenak]

153. We went in a circle.

And looped da looped. Shit happens.

[HuckleB]

154. You evaded the questions.

That's not a circle.

[bravenak]

161. You tag teamer.

It's a circle if i say it's a circle.

[Cha]

156. You did great, bravenak.. thank you!

Freaking Seed Dictators.

[bravenak]

158. He actually made me more skeptical than i had been before.

I found this strange and will read up more on the issue. I think labels are helpful to consumers to make informed choices. I now do not want to purchase Monsanto foods. Too secretive.

[Cha]

162. Monsanto and their spawns are very afraid of "labels".. they also do not want to tell

us on Kaua'i what the name of the poisons are that they use in their sprays. We won that battle with Bill 2491 after a Veto from the Mayor and an override by our Council.. but they are taking it to court. They also didn't like the buffer zones the Bill requires to keep them away from schools and hospitals.

"Bill 2491 will require heavy users of restricted use pesticides, primarily the biotech companies, to disclose what pesticides they are spraying, where and in what quantities. The law also requires farmers to report to the county any genetically altered crops that they are growing, and it creates buffer zones between fields sprayed with pesticides and schools, parks, medical facilities and private residences. The county will also be required to study whether pesticides are harming the environment or the health of residents. Employees of biotech companies can be fined or jailed for violating pesticide disclosure requirements and buffer zones."

http://www.civilbeat.com/2013/11/20426-kauais-gmo-and-pesticide-bill-is-set-to-become-law-after-veto-override/

[bravenak]

164. Thats what i figured.

We fought exxon for years up here and they swore the sound was clean. It wasn't. It's still recovering from the spill, and they fought against payment for years and got it lowered. I do not trust corporations.

[Cha]

165. They've given us no reason to "trust" them.. with their sleazy orwellian bullshit. nm

[bravenak]

166. Amen. Nt.

[Cha]

171. Just a FYI, bravenak.. "My Throat Is On Fire - RoundUp"

Weed-Whacking Herbicide Proves Deadly to Human Cells

"Until now, most health studies have focused on the safety of glyphosate, rather than the mixture of ingredients found in Roundup. But in the new study, scientists found that Roundup’s inert ingredients amplified the toxic effect on human cells—even at concentrations much more diluted than those used on farms and lawns."

MOre..
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/

otohara http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5004539

Round Up is used with GMO plants..

Pesticide Use Proliferating With GMO Crops, Study Warns

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/pesticides-gmo-monsanto-roundup-resistance_n_1936598.html

[bravenak]

172. Thank you, Cha!

We really need to know what these people are doing to our food.
I care more for my health than for their profits.
About to go read up some more.

[HuckleB]

16. Then prove her assertions.

Thank you.

[rocktivity]

5. And now for something completely different

Last edited Mon May 26, 2014, 01:32 PM - Edit history (1)

Would you prefer awful things about GMOs from an American schoolgirl?

http://yourhhrsnews.com/video-childs-homework-assignment-growing-potato-plants-makes-case-for-organic-food/


rocktivity

[HuckleB]

17. So, instead of peer reviewed research, you offered a really bad video.

Oh, wait. This is exactly the kind of nonsense Shiva offers. Great example!

[mathematic]

26. Children as propaganda 101

1) Chorpropham is not used on sweet potatos
2) Sweet potatoes are not GMO
3) There is no connection made between the UTTER HORROR of sprout inhibition and food safety.

Are there any other scholarly subjects where 7-year-olds in youtube videos are your go-to source for information?

[rocktivity]

36. I know which potato I'd "go to"

Last edited Mon May 26, 2014, 02:26 PM - Edit history (1)

for proper nutrition. Potatoes that are not capable of sprouting have a genetic problem of SOME kind.

We just don't know enough about GMO at this point, and sadly, for the worst reason -- it might prevent a handful of people from making a shitload of money.


rocktivity

[Leme]

6. gmo escapes

some gmo also need specific extras

[Hekate]

7. Dr. Shiva IS an eco warrior goddess. nt

[HuckleB]

18. So, anti-science, dishonest individual equates to that?

Yikes.

[alp227]

93. I wonder how many who condemn Jenny Mccarthy

just WORSHIP Shiva.

[951-Riverside]

8. Monsanto is the bestest n/t

[Downwinder]

9. Science also gave us Thalidomide, Fukushima, and Global Warming.

[HuckleB]

19. I like red herring, too!

[SidDithers]

25. And insulin, space travel and the internet...nt

Sid

[NuclearDem]

28. No. Shitty corporate practices gave us those.

[Aerows]

39. Exactly.

None of the organizations developing the golden rice are in it for royalties or money. I can get behind that.

Those that have shitty corporate practices and seek to control food production for their own gain? I'm absolutely NOT behind that. Monsanto is a prime example of shitty corporate practices.

[alp227]

94. And corrected those mistakes. nt

[PaulaFarrell]

13. "True experts"

or company shills? You decide

[HuckleB]

20. 2000 peer reviewed studies, all assessed by independent scientists.

600 of them funded independently. Science organizations around the world saying GMOs are safe.

Do you have anything concrete to counter that?

Thanks.

[angstlessk]

23. Do YOU have a link to that study? n/t

[HuckleB]

53. This piece covers it.

It also gives links to the list of studies:

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/

[MohRokTah]

30. Any links to long term studies of human consumption?

You know, like 20 years of consuming GMOs.

I love how Monsanto used genetic modification of corn and soy beans to have a nationwide breeding program to produce weeds that are resistant to glyphosate.

[HuckleB]

46. Any links to studies of long term human consumption of hybrids created by other technologies?

This is a really bad, anti-GMO line that chooses to ignore the reality that GMO/GE is a technology that actually creates more predictable plants than other technologies, yet the GMO movement doesn't even begin to note that. Thus...

[MohRokTah]

27. I don't trust GMO food for one single reason.

The producers of GMO are afraid to be open and honest with the consumers by openly labeling their food as what it is, GMO.

I can never trust companies that are so terrified of the public finding out what they produce that they buy politicians to insure nobody ever knows they are consuming GMO food.

I don't need science for that. It was a clear decision made by those companies. If they had confidence in their product, every last bit of food that contained GMO ingredients would ahve those three letters plastred in 48 point font on every label. Instead, they hide it in the dark.

If the companies producing this shit have no confidence in it, how can I be expected to?

[HuckleB]

62. Hogwash.

No one is asking for other hybrid technologies to be labeled. This is all about fear mongering by some corporations against other corporations. Don't be fooled.

http://realfoodorg.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/why-i-think-mandatory-labels-for-gmo-is-bad-policy-and-why-i-think-it-might-be-good-strategy-and-why-i-still-cant-support-it/

[MohRokTah]

67. GMO is NOT Hybrid tehnology. so YOU are spreading HOGWASH!

And trying to claim it is hybrid technology is an outright LIE!

Hybrids have been a staple of agriculture for millennia.

GMO is only a few decades old.

So the only reason is you are NOT confident in the new technology. Make them label it and let the free market decide.

[HuckleB]

88. Yes, it is.

Lame response.

[alp227]

98. You say there is potential harm, burden of proof is on you.

This is an argument from adverse consequences. YOU prove harm instead of speculative "they are hiding something" mind reading. you are using the same logic as people who believe that Obama has a dark side he wants to hide from the public, like sealing his college records, long form birth certificate, etc.

[MohRokTah]

100. You build the strawman to tear it down.

I did not say what you claimed I said.

Boom, just blew up your strawman.

[HuckleB]

106. It appears that you don't know what a strawman is, even though you sure build enough of them.

[MohRokTah]

111. Oh, and you might tell your friend or your sock or whatever...

I can tell when people I've put on ignore respond to a post. The reason people end up on my ignore list is because they spread lies and are thus unworthy of any response.

And since you are of the same ilk, making up things and making claims about things I say that I never said, you can join your friend or your sock or whatever.

[TBF]

29. Who is she? A physicist.

I am just starting to learn about the GMO issue as I generally tend to value science and it's methods (peer review, replicating studies etc). I post this simply so folks can look at the page and see that she is not a right-wing lunatic. But I don't know enough about GMO or Golden Rice (which seems to be a major issue right now) to draw any conclusions. Definitely an area where I need to read/research more. Here is what I found on wiki:

Vandana Shiva (Hindi: वंदना शिवा: born 5 November 1952) is an Indian environmental activist and anti-globalization author.[2] Shiva, currently based in Delhi, has authored more than 20 books.[3] She was trained as a physicist and received her Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Philosophy from the University of Western Ontario, Canada, in 1978 with the doctoral dissertation "Hidden variables and locality in quantum theory."[4][5]

She is one of the leaders and board members of the International Forum on Globalization, (along with Jerry Mander, Edward Goldsmith, Ralph Nader, Jeremy Rifkin, et al.), and a figure of the global solidarity movement known as the alter-globalization movement. She has argued for the wisdom of many traditional practices, as is evident from her interview in the book Vedic Ecology (by Ranchor Prime) that draws upon India's Vedic heritage. She is a member of the scientific committee of the Fundacion IDEAS, Spain's Socialist Party's think tank. She is also a member of the International Organization for a Participatory Society.[6] She received the Right Livelihood Award in 1993, and numerous other prizes.

Source: wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandana_Shiva)

Golden rice

Shiva also opposes Golden rice, which, according scientific experts, could prevent millions of children from becoming blind every year and alleviate vitamin A deficiency of 250 million people in the developing countries.[19] Shiva said that the women of Bengal grow and eat 150 greens which can do the same.[19] Martina McGloughlin, director of the biotechnology program at the University of California at Davis angrily compared this to Marie Antoinette, who said that the peasants should eat cake if they don't have bread. The Nutrition Foundation of India's study of indigenous food in India confirms that there are plants with much higher beta carotene than what is being touted to be the selling point of 'Golden Rice' [20] Doctor Patrick Moore writes that most of these 250 million children don't eat much else than a bowl of rice a day.[21] Doctor Adrian Dubock says that golden rice is as cheap as other rice and vitamin A deficiency is the greatest reason for blindness and also causes 28% of global preschool child mortality.[22]

Shiva argues that Golden Rice is more harmful than beneficial in her scientific explanation of what she calls the "Golden Rice" hoax: "Unfortunately, Vitamin A rice is a hoax, and will bring further dispute to plant genetic engineering where public relations exercises seem to have replaced science in promotion of untested, unproven and unnecessary technology... This is a recipe for creating hunger and malnutrition, not solving it."[23]

At the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the director of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Ismail Serageldin, asked: "do you want 2 to 3 million children a year to go blind and 1 million to die of vitamin A deficiency, just because you object to the way golden rice was created?"[19]

[HuckleB]

52. Unfortunately...

She appears to be a fraud of the worst kind.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/01/29/vandana-shiva-anti-gmo-celebrity-eco-goddess-or-dangerous-fabulist/

"But those representations are incorrect. According to the University of Western Ontario, where she received her PhD, her doctorate is not in the discipline of physics, as she claims, but in philosophy. It focused on the highly technical and often politicized debate over a central notion in physics known as Bells’ Theorem, which has been called the “most profound” theory in science.

Perhaps foreshadowing her current contentious views about modern agriculture, Shiva concluded that quantum mechanics in physics was philosophically invalid and factually doubtful. The main thesis of quantum mechanics that she challenged has since been confirmed by experimental physics, meaning that her thesis stands at odds with factual reality. Independent of the quality of her philosophical research, it is a substantive leap to go from earning a PhD in the Philosophy of Science to self-identifying as a “scientist,” “nuclear physicist” or “quantum physicist”—the various ways she refers to herself.

Shiva also claims to have written more than 300 papers—a factoid echoed in almost every article or news release about her, including on Beloit’s site. A query of Thomson Reuter’s Web of Science (research platform for information in the sciences, social sciences, arts and humanities) returns only 42 records of peer reviewed papers or publications authored by Shiva since 1980.

Shiva subsequently abandoned her formal pursuit of philosophy, switching her focus to agriculture, plant breeding, genetics, biology, toxicology, microbiology, nutrition, social sciences and economics—subject areas about which she has no academic training and has not done any formal research."

[DisgustipatedinCA]

34. Pure, peer-reviewed, repeatable science is a wonderful thing.

Corporate hack science is altogether different, and does not meet the standard.

[HuckleB]

58. And your point?

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/

[DisgustipatedinCA]

63. My point is that I don't believe that all the science around GMOs is clean.

[HuckleB]

66. 2000 peer reviewed and post-publication criticized studies.

600 plus of them independently funded. Every legitimate science organization around the world acknowledges the safety of GMOs, but you have a "belief."

Hmmmmm.

[Aerows]

38. Here are my thoughts

Since none of the organizations that are producing golden rice are in it for royalties, and this has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives, prevent complications in millions of children and improve general health in regions without significant beta-carotene crops, I think this is wonderful.

You really have to balance the benefit to humanity (i.e. lives) vs. fears over GMOs. If you can give poverty stricken communities a way to improve their health, I believe that outweighs the concerns.

As for those who develop GMOs strictly for profit and seek to strangle farmers (Monsanto)? I'm absolutely NOT behind that.

[HuckleB]

55. I'm not a fan of the corporations.

Still, GMO corporations do not appear to be any worse than any other set of corporations, which is what makes me wonder of the demonization of them. It's really a mob mentality at this point, and that's never going to be helpful.

[Aerows]

95. "do not appear to be any worse"

Any corporation that controls a nation's food supply controls far too much of the people that live in that nation.

[HuckleB]

96. So you think a single corporation controls the food supply?

Hmm. Can you prove that assertion?

Oh, and thank you for acknowledging that GMO technology is not the issue. Please spread the word. Thank you.

[Aerows]

99. GMO technology, in my opinion, is not the issue.

I've already told you what my problems are with Monsanto and others like them.

I guess I am unique in that I don't think there are particular problems with GMO's - just with those that attempt to corner the market on what, how, why and at what price food sources are grown. Hey, I don't like the crop speculations market, either, so there is no need to feel like I singled a certain group to be picked on.

[HuckleB]

102. But who has the market cornered?

And you do realize that if mandatory labels become the norm, it will make it harder for smaller companies to compete, right?

[Aerows]

105. So be it.

And there are no smaller companies, unless you have a list, that I am aware of. Please produce such a list and I will then figure out where I stand.

Don't make royalties or have patent rights? I'm great with it. Do make royalties and have patent rights? Absolutely not.

[HuckleB]

109. So you can't answer my question.

Got it.

PS: http://www.biofortified.org/resources/genetic-engineering-companies/

[Aerows]

113. No I answered you.

I said "So be it." If you aren't making royalties or own patent rights, great. I'm all for it.

If you wish to profit off of controlling the world's food supply, no.

Those that fear labeling fear that the average consumer will figure out how their dinner arrives in the supermarket. It is the same people that fought against "cage free" egg labeling, "hormone free milk" labeling and labeling that tells you whether what you are purchasing contributes to your local economy or if it is just contributing to some big corporation that doesn't care how or who the business practices it uses impacts its workers or the world.

I want to know if I am buying things that enrich Monsanto - because I wish that company would hurry up and fold for some of the horrible things they have done. I want to know that there are eggs in my supermarket that were grown right down the road by farmers that take good care of their chickens. I want to know that the vegetables I get are grown and that the people who grow and pick them are being paid a fair wage.

I refuse to apologize for doing the best I can to contribute to the small dairy farmer's livelihood, the local farmer, and everyone that shuns those that strive to artificially constrict and relax the food supply to benefit themselves.

[closeupready]

40. Let consumers decide! Why do you hate informed consumers?

Put the damn labels on GMO products, all of them, and let the free market and consumers make the decision for themselves.

[HuckleB]

51. Putting a label on GMOs offer no information of value whatsoever.

See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5003080

[killbotfactory]

167. Oh bullshit.

GMO crops are made to be resistant to pesticide use, the overuse of which is bad for the environment, just like the overuse of antibiotics. It also cannot be contained, as plants cross pollinate. There is round-up ready alfalpha growing wild all over Oregon, which means the ranchers I buy meat from, who graze their cattle in the area, can't certify their cattle as GMO-free, even though they eliminated the use of GMO's in their cattle feed. Nevermind the pitfalls of granting companies like Monsanto ( see: http://inhabitat.com/monsanto-being-sued-for-poisoning-west-virginia-town-with-agent-orange-chemicals/ ) a patent over staple crops and the pressure's it puts on small farmers.

[alp227]

115. Informed of what? Informed of what?

"Informed" is thrown around like a hacky sack. From which basis IS the "informed choice" around GMO? how is a gmo supposed to be labeled? If the food didn't exist in its present form in 6000 BCE? Breaking news... humans have genetically modified food FOREVER. Might as well starve to avoid GMO.

[closeupready]

122. Dishonest of you, and very disappointing.

[L0oniX]

41. What if just don't want to eat anything GMO? Can I have a choice?

What else are corporations going to force on me?

[HuckleB]

47. You have a choice.

Why do you want to use the government to foment baseless fear that only serves to help some corporations make more money by demonizing others? It makes no sense.

[alp227]

118. I'll give you a time machine.

Pick a point in time before humans ever selectively bred food. Good luck.

[L0oniX]

121. Good luck with your false equivalency.

[alp227]

124. What do you mean, false equivalency?

Selective breeding of food is what it is, genetic modification! So frustrating that I have to encounter ignorance of basic science ON DU...I thought the right wing in America had a monopoly on scientific ignorance.

[Major Nikon]

149. Sure, you can eat organic or that which is labeled non-GMO

Nobody is forcing anything on you

[AceAcme]

42. The Republican War on the Feminine Continues - Sockpuppet style

Henceforth to be known as the Royal Craven Memorial Day Poo-Fling Party of the Huckster PantyBunch Brigade, Inc.

[HuckleB]

54. And, as usual, you can't argue for your assertions.

You just name call.

Lame.

[NuclearDem]

61. Howdy Berlum!

[HuckleB]

77. Now that does explain it!

[SidDithers]

133. *Smirk*...nt

Sid

[SomethingFishy]

43. If there is no issue with GMO's

then why the big push not to include it on the label?

Seems fishy to me.

[HuckleB]

49. There is no logical reason to label it.

It's a technology but no one is asking to label other hybrid technologies. GMOs are studied at a rate that is nearly ten times that of other technologies, and they're more predictable. The who "labeling" routine was started by one set of corporations aiming to demonize a product this safe in order to convince people to spend more money on their products. Why should the government label something at the behest of such fear mongering?

It makes no sense.

A more complete answer here:
http://realfoodorg.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/why-i-think-mandatory-labels-for-gmo-is-bad-policy-and-why-i-think-it-might-be-good-strategy-and-why-i-still-cant-support-it/

[TBF]

56. Then why do Gov'ts in Europe

find it necessary to label?

[HuckleB]

57. Politics.

There's no logical reason supported by science.

And labeling there isn't the anti-GMO crowd wants us to think it is.

Further, EU research coincides with all the other research that shows GMOs to be safe:
ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/kbbe/docs/a-decade-of-eu-funded-gmo-research_en.pdf

[MohRokTah]

68. Again with the false comparisons to hybrids

Now you are spreading outright falsehoods about GMOs comparing them to hybrids.

Stop spreading misinformation.

[HuckleB]

71. You're the one spreading misinformation.

Wow! Just WOW!

[MohRokTah]

76. You are spreading even more BULLSHIT.

Hybrids are produced through selective breeding programs.

GMOs are produced by artifically inserting DNA into organisms that would have NEVER occurred in those organisms through selective breedring programs.

So if you claim that producing GMOS is just another selective breeding program, you are telling a BLATANT LIE! I know the GMO companies would like everybody to believe GMO corn is no different from a Big Boy tomato, but they are LYING!

[HuckleB]

78. So you don't understand genetics.

Got it.

Selective breeding is just experimental GMO. You just don't know what you're going to get with it. And it's only one other form of hybridization.

Pay attention: http://www.scribd.com/doc/224613622/GMO-Technology-is-Simply-Precision-Breeding

Try again.

[MohRokTah]

80. No, you don't understand agriculture.

Got it.

Claiming GMO and selective breeding are the same thing is a LIE.

So stop LYING to us.

Tell me, how does the roundup ready gene get into corn by breeding corn to other varieites of corn with no genetic manipulation at the DNA level?

Tell me, how does the BT gene that controls production of insecticides within the BT get into a plant by selectively breeding that plant with other varieties of the same species?

I'll tell you.

THEY CANNOT!

So stop spreading the lies.

[HuckleB]

81. So all you can do is offer up the usual anti-GMO cliches.

You don't understand any of it. I get that you think you do, but you don't.

[MohRokTah]

84. So all you can offer are the standard pro-GMO lies?

Seriously, you claim GMO is no different from any selective breeding program and then claim I don't understand genetics?

You, sir, are worthtless to try and discuss this issue with.

[HuckleB]

86. Prove that I've lied about anything regarding GMOs.

[U4ikLefty]

120. A paid industry shill would not be so earnest.

make one wonder.

[MohRokTah]

129. Some argue for the sake of arguing.

I feel no compunction for having put that sort on ignore.

And it rarely makes me wonder. Paid shill, argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. Six of one. Half a dozen of the other.

[MohRokTah]

69. It's new technology that is completely untested in the long term

There's your valid reason to label it.

You're terrified it's just shit. There is NO CONFIDENCE IN THE PRODUCT FROM THOSE WHO PRODUCE IT!

[HuckleB]

72. Oddly, you've never cared about other hybrid technologies.

I don't think you even know what they are. Of course, they haven't been studies much in terms of the short term, and they haven't been studied at all, long term.

You can pretend all you want, but you are pushing BS.

[MohRokTah]

79. GMO is NOT a hybrid btechnology.

Claiming it is is LYING.

Only Monsanto and the other GMO companies want everybody to believe GMO corn is arrived at through the same sort of selective breeding tht produces a Big Boy Tomato.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

So stop spreading misinformation. GMOs are NOT hybrid technologies no matter WHAT propaganda LIES Monsanto chooses to spread

[HuckleB]

85. Now that is beyond the pale.

It's so ridiculous that it's just hilarious.

I get it. You want to be up in arms.

That doesn't help you or anyone else, however.

[Major Nikon]

150. How exactly is it different?

Other than scary processes that you may not understand are involved?

Can you explain that in reasonable terms that don't involve appeals to emotion?

[MohRokTah]

155. Simple

In hybrid breeding programs, there is never a time when any genetic matieral from outside the genus is involved.

In GMOs, those who introduce genetic material always obtain and introduce genetic material from outside the genus.

No matter how hard they try, those who support genetially modifying organisms cannot claim with any truth whatsoever that roundup ready corn is still zea mays. It is an entirely new organism that never existed before and never could have existed through hybrid breeding programs.

[Major Nikon]

168. Both your assertions are demonstratably false

In hybrid breeding programs, there is never a time when any genetic matieral from outside the genus is involved.

You share 50% of your DNA with a banana.

Just sayin'

In GMOs, those who introduce genetic material always obtain and introduce genetic material from outside the genus.

This is true for transgenic, not GMO.

No matter how hard they try, those who support genetially modifying organisms cannot claim with any truth whatsoever that roundup ready corn is still zea mays. It is an entirely new organism that never existed before and never could have existed through hybrid breeding programs.

I'm not sure anyone is trying to claim that, and even if they did hybrid breeding also can and does create "an entirely new organism that never existed before" and the idea that it can't be created by hybrid breeding is kinda the whole point. So you've managed to avoid the appeal to emotion fallacy, but have completely embraced the appeal to nature fallacy, so I'm not sure that's much of an improvement.

[MohRokTah]

160. One other thing.

I am getting tired answering friends/socks/whatever. Good bye.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. If GMO foods are so beneficial why does Monsanto (and others) oppose labeling it GMO?

It seems odd that the manufacturers of GMO would oppose the advertising of their "beneficial" product.

[HuckleB]

50. Why do those who work so hard to demonize GMOs ask this question?

Also see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5003080

[MohRokTah]

70. Why do those who oppose labeling have no confidence in the product?

You obviously have no confidence or else there would be 48 point lettering on every label saying proudly GMO!

[HuckleB]

74. Try responding the actual content of my posts.

If you have to create a strawman in order to respond, then you have nothing to say.

[MohRokTah]

82. Try responding tot the actual content of my posts.

You create the strawman by claiming GMO is no different from selective breeding.

[immoderate]

135. You can get a GMO by cross breeding?

--imm

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

104. It seems a valid question. Why does Monsanto oppose labeling their product?

Is it "logical" that a manufacturer is avoiding advertising it's own product? Other products don't seem to have a problem labeling their products non-GMO. Does Monsanto consider it's beneficial product non-competitive because it's GMO?

[HuckleB]

107. You're response completely ignores my response.

You clearly don't want to discuss the matter. If you did, would take information in, and respond to it. You wouldn't ignore it and just repeat yourself.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

114. Why do those who work so hard to demonize GMOs ask this question?

The answer is in my question. Because we don't trust companies who won't say what their product is when selling it. As I said, other companies have no problem labeling their products as non-GMO.
Don't you think it a tad suspicious that a company that's trying selling a product refuses to say what it is? You're saying that GMO food is safe and beneficial. Why is Monsanto, et al, trying to hide that from consumers?

[NuclearDem]

112. This might help you:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

116. I think Monsanto is more interested in profits than prophecy.

And, worried about labeling them will interfere with the profits.

[NuclearDem]

127. Not surprised you missed the point entirely.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

132. Not really. Monsanto is trying to fulfill it's own prophecy about it's product being beneficial.

And, it's doing a crappy job of it by trying to hide what it is and what Monsanto does. And, again, if it is beneficial and harmless, and their business practices are all above board, why are they trying to stop labeling of their product as GMO?

[NuclearDem]

138. Woosh.

[Aerows]

123. If Monsanto is afraid of people that will shun their products

because they despise Monsanto, then perhaps Monsanto should do some serious corporate cleaning and improve their image by implementing good practices rather than whining and litigating, as always, "nobody likes us, so we can't have our fingerprints on the packaging!"

[NuclearDem]

130. No argument from me that Monsanto is a shitbag of a company.

But my point was about the hysterics around GMOs in general. I'm absolutely not surprised, given how unfairly toxic GMO has become due to completely hyperbolic claims, that companies don't want the label.

To be clear, I'm absolutely in favor of labeling, just as I'm in favor of the nutrition labels. I'm also in favor of accurately representing what GMOs are, and separating the science from bad corporate practices.

[Aerows]

134. Agree completely! n/t

[Major Nikon]

151. For the same reasons organic producers would oppose labeling their use of cow shit fertilizer

If the labeling serves no purpose but to stoke irrational fear, why would they NOT oppose it?

[ancianita]

117. My two cents. If GMO's are fine, then GMO companies shouldn't fight against labeling. Period.

Monsanto refuses to change its propriety agri-business practices, when what I and many family farmers prefer are agri-cultural practices. If the market were truly free, Monsanto wouldn't take such great pains to manipulate it.

The world's farms produce more than enough food to feed the world, and Shiva's politics are food control politics.

She's a physicist. Hangs out with scientists. Perhaps she's political about GMO foods. So what. I personally admire her and I don't care if she's saying horrible things about GMO's or Monsanto.

Just sayin'. Also, thanks to MohRokTah for the posts. It's been an interesting read, this thread.

[Aerows]

140. For me personally, the argument revolves around food control politics

Monsanto strives to control food production. Other corporations like Monsanto, like Nestle, think water is something we should also pay for (CEO recently said that water is not a human right). That kind of thinking leads us to a world where you are unable to have water, unable to grow food and are unable to have the right to breathe.

When the growing of crops becomes a patent violation, access to drinking water is no longer a human right, you can bet that someone will be cornering the market on the ability to breathe before too long.

I'm pretty sure access to sunshine is the next idea. Shade your community and charge access for it to shine down on your home. Maybe access to rain and wind, too. All are commodities. I mean, hey, if it can be sold it SHOULD be, amirite?

[ancianita]

146. The whole strategy of nature being for sale seems to be what this is all about, yeah.

I'm totally with your understanding of all this.

So is Vandana Shiva. I'm on her side, and I'm glad she's politicizing all this. Someone's got to stand up for the right to have the basic necessities without it costing them lifelong servitude to racketeers.

[ozone_man]

141. By "conventional agriculture" they mean corporate agriculture.

Shiva supports sustainable agriculture, the way it was before corporate agriculture, GMOs, fertilizers, and pesticides have prevailed. She teaches that fertilizers result in unsustainable, dead soil, unlike historical methods that allow a living soil.

"Vandana Shiva is a prominent Indian-born environmentalist who, for the past decade, has emerged as an international icon in the movement criticizing conventional agriculture and biotechnology."

[Tommymac]

170. Thanks For the OP - You have shined the light of Truth on Corporate GMO Lies.

I never knew of Dr. Shiva before.

You opened my eyes.

After reading up on the issue this thread discusses, in my mind it has reinforced the truth of the deception, greed and desperate cover ups of Monsanto and other GMO proponents.

I'm sure this is what you intended - great idea, Hucklbe and friends to play the devil's advocate continuously throughout the threads to so that truth-seekers have been forced to provide overwhelmingly valid evidence against GMO's and in support of Dr. Shiva's righteous Crusade for freedom of agriculture.

I salute you for this educational OP.