General Discussion

roseBudd

(8,718 posts)

156. "I'm waiting for reputable studies. There currently aren't any." False

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 12:12 PM

Sep 2013

My point is people who believe in woo, consume untested substances peddled by practitioners of woo, including raw ingredients imported from China, which has a history of contamination and mislabeling. That is a fact, that I supported with a citation from Pub Med. Melamine in pet food and infant formula, and lead in paint on toys aren't the only instances of danger from China. Real, not made up. Listeria in cheese sold at Whole Foods.

You are a layperson who due to confirmation bias is parroting misleading information. Which is why you don't back up your statements. It is also why you won't read my links.

Peer reviewed, not Elle magazine, Mother Jones, or Huffington Post

Ricroch A., J. B. Bergé & M. Kuntz (2011). Evaluation of genetically engineered crops using transcriptomic, proteomic and metabolomic profiling techniques. Plant Physiology, April 2011, 155, 4: 1752–1761

Kuntz M. & Ricroch A. (2012). Has time come to lower the current regulatory risk assessment for GM food and feed? ISB NEWS REPORT, February 2012, 1-4 http://www.isb.vt.edu/news/2012/Feb12.pdf

Snell C., A. Berheim, J. B. Bergé, M. Kuntz, G. Pascal, A. Paris & A. Ricroch (2012). Assessment of the Health Impact of GE Plant Diets in Long Term and Multigenerational Animal Feeding Trials: a Literature Review. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50, 3-4, March 2012, 1134-1148

Ricroch A. (2013). Assessment of GE food safety using omics techniques and long-term animal feeding studies. New biotechnology 30 (4) 349-354 (online in 2012) http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.nbt.2012.12.001.

Kuntz M. & Ricroch A. (2013). Evaluation of genetically engineered crops using proteomics. In: Proteomics in Foods: Principles and Applications. Ed. L.M.L. Nollet & F. Toldrá

Kuntz M., Davison J., Ricroch A. (2013). What the French ban of Bt MON810 maize means for science-based risk assessment. Nature Biotechnology, 8 June. 31, 498-500 doi:10.1038/nbt.2613

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

363 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Andrew Weil, his woo, and anti-GMO hysteria... [View all] Archae Sep 2013 OP

This scientific illiteracy of the left... roseBudd Sep 2013 #1

What is this? Propaganda? WCLinolVir Sep 2013 #3

No, I don't jump on bandwagons because it is popular on the left roseBudd Sep 2013 #21

It may not be a bandwagon, but it sure feels like WCLinolVir Sep 2013 #58

+ 1,000 Berlum Sep 2013 #84

What do you call what Seralini did, which was unethical animal abuse? roseBudd Sep 2013 #99

I don't have a side. WCLinolVir Sep 2013 #181

Yes. It's "Poo" Berlum Sep 2013 #23

Poo flingers post pictures... roseBudd Sep 2013 #55

You are confusing poo with woo Berlum Sep 2013 #59

Another picture roseBudd Sep 2013 #63

Pictures are worth a Thousand Points of Poo, Inc. Berlum Sep 2013 #85

I don't want to consume food that is produced using cow poo... roseBudd Sep 2013 #100

It doesn't matter how sweet you say it is Generic Other Sep 2013 #9

All good, except: NuclearDem Sep 2013 #10

Says who? Argumentum from popularity roseBudd Sep 2013 #56

Only the corporate view is allowed Precisely Sep 2013 #96

Science is true, whether you believe in it, or not... roseBudd Sep 2013 #102

if science is true there's no need to "believe in it" Precisely Sep 2013 #112

There are plenty of scientificallly illiterate people who don't believe in reality roseBudd Sep 2013 #141

Overgeneralizing doesnt equal truth Precisely Sep 2013 #166

There is "no till" organic and the idea that GMO farming reduces carbon emissions is bogus since KurtNYC Sep 2013 #279

It is if it's not an informed opposition Scootaloo Sep 2013 #132

Monocropping precedes GMO. Climate change means we need biotechnology roseBudd Sep 2013 #142

People will starve to death regardless Scootaloo Sep 2013 #180

"...scientific illiteracy of the left..." me b zola Sep 2013 #11

So nothing but logical fallacies ^ roseBudd Sep 2013 #22

Just as on the right... Archae Sep 2013 #45

I have noticed a correlation between one type of woo... roseBudd Sep 2013 #57

Exactly! HuckleB Sep 2013 #182

R&K for no woo. nt longship Sep 2013 #2

Woo causes harm... roseBudd Sep 2013 #24

Can I say you are full of poo? WCLinolVir Sep 2013 #65

Very true. Union Scribe Sep 2013 #70

I Fucking Love Science. Always have. roseBudd Sep 2013 #77

Propaganda. Pure and simple. WCLinolVir Sep 2013 #4

Weil is a quack. Archae Sep 2013 #8

Massive load of corporate horsepuckey about "the rice mentioned in OP" Berlum Sep 2013 #25

Fine. Reporters know more about real science than scientists do. Archae Sep 2013 #46

You seek out, that which confirms your bias... roseBudd Sep 2013 #62

Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2013 #64

You just got here maddezmom Sep 2013 #69

Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2013 #71

LOL maddezmom Sep 2013 #74

"all too often kills and maims followers" Precisely Sep 2013 #83

Just think about it. Archae Sep 2013 #104

My brother the colon irrigator ran into Coretta Scott King... roseBudd Sep 2013 #105

Really. That's what you think? Precisely Sep 2013 #113

That's what I KNOW. Archae Sep 2013 #117

you think Precisely Sep 2013 #120

Because I've seen it advertised. Archae Sep 2013 #121

Good thing you don't overgeneralize Precisely Sep 2013 #122

so much for strict science eh. KurtNYC Sep 2013 #287

My mother is alive thanks to multiple meds for atrial fibrillation & high BP... roseBudd Sep 2013 #123

Um ... why did you have high blood pressure and need 5 bypasses in the first place? MH1 Sep 2013 #136

You may be right, BUT... Archae Sep 2013 #138

My father was not overweight, ate right, played tennis, triple heart bypass roseBudd Sep 2013 #144

You lost all credibility TM99 Sep 2013 #154

Please explain what you mean by "anti-GMO hysteria." Big Blue Marble Sep 2013 #5

I usually don't even open threads with the word "woo" in the subject line. Raksha Sep 2013 #17

Yes, woo is bad for business Precisely Sep 2013 #6

Woo is about parting gullibles from their money roseBudd Sep 2013 #26

Which is different from Precisely Sep 2013 #61

Pharmaceuticals have to establish efficacy... roseBudd Sep 2013 #68

the efficacy of preventative health Precisely Sep 2013 #72

And no doctor I know denies or disparages that principle... roseBudd Sep 2013 #79

...henceforth identified as POO (corporate "science" & allied mega-funded corporate propaganda) Berlum Sep 2013 #92

POO kills and maims!! Precisely Sep 2013 #94

"anti- gmo hysteria" tells me all I need to know. niyad Sep 2013 #7

20 years ago laundry_queen Sep 2013 #12

+10 avaistheone1 Sep 2013 #14

"Anti-GMO hysteria".. unreal.. Kaua'i is having a Huge Cha Sep 2013 #20

That is a logical fallacy roseBudd Sep 2013 #28

LOL, so because you can't see the relationship it doesn't exist. Mkay. nt laundry_queen Sep 2013 #133

Accusing someone you know nothing about of being a climate change denier... roseBudd Sep 2013 #145

LOL, speaking of non sequitur laundry_queen Sep 2013 #153

"I'm waiting for reputable studies. There currently aren't any." False roseBudd Sep 2013 #156

So your argument is laundry_queen Sep 2013 #173

Yeah, that too. Raksha Sep 2013 #18

DU rec... SidDithers Sep 2013 #13

Woo makes people feel like they are special roseBudd Sep 2013 #29

When you life someones work, you should cite the source. n/t TheBlackAdder Sep 2013 #40

Life someone's work? shenmue Sep 2013 #51

Lift Tree-Hugger Sep 2013 #93

"anti-GMO hysteria" avaistheone1 Sep 2013 #15

Actually not. roseBudd Sep 2013 #31

Is there any credible evidence that GMO food poses a legitimate health risk? Gravitycollapse Sep 2013 #16

Youbetchaa. Google is your friend. Berlum Sep 2013 #27

Yeah...I was told the same thing about my kid's autism by the anti-vaxxers. I'll pass. nt msanthrope Sep 2013 #47

No. Seralini's research doesn't show what woosters claim roseBudd Sep 2013 #32

Is there any ethical reason that labeling shouldn't be required pnwmom Sep 2013 #157

Yes. Stacks of it. truebrit71 Sep 2013 #187

Umm. Nope. HuckleB Sep 2013 #188

To be clear, you are suggesting that there is NO research proving that GMO is BAD for people... truebrit71 Sep 2013 #189

To be clear, the consensus of the science is quite clear. HuckleB Sep 2013 #191

Please answer my question. You are saying that there are no ill-effects to GMO at all... truebrit71 Sep 2013 #194

In other words, you didn't read my answer. HuckleB Sep 2013 #197

So you won't answer my very simple, straightforward question. truebrit71 Sep 2013 #199

So you're going to pretend that I didn't answer your question. HuckleB Sep 2013 #201

Please direct me to the answer to my direct question. truebrit71 Sep 2013 #205

And you keep pretending. HuckleB Sep 2013 #208

That is NOT an answer to the question i asked though, is it? truebrit71 Sep 2013 #212

It does answer your question. HuckleB Sep 2013 #215

The only game here is you not wanting to answer a very simple question. truebrit71 Sep 2013 #218

Again, it has been answered. HuckleB Sep 2013 #228

It's rather amazing that with stacks of evidence jeff47 Sep 2013 #251

Google doesn't work for you either...? truebrit71 Sep 2013 #291

Apparently you need google to find out what "peer reviewed" means. jeff47 Sep 2013 #296

Again, try Google, I neither have the time, nor the inclination to school yet another... truebrit71 Sep 2013 #299

So....mountain of evidence, and you can't manage to deliver a single pebble? jeff47 Sep 2013 #305

I may not agree with many coporations business practices such as Monsanto but I do not liberal_at_heart Sep 2013 #19

Big organic needs for peole to believe in woo roseBudd Sep 2013 #34

Big organic? Beaverhausen Sep 2013 #89

So you didn't know... roseBudd Sep 2013 #101

OMG Precisely Sep 2013 #98

I love the idea of "Big Organic".... truebrit71 Sep 2013 #190

So you think Organic companies have your best interests in mind? HuckleB Sep 2013 #193

So you think that there's a cartel of organic producers..furtively plotting the demise of the poor.. truebrit71 Sep 2013 #198

Try paying attention. HuckleB Sep 2013 #200

Try answering a simple question truebrit71 Sep 2013 #202

Try reading the answer. HuckleB Sep 2013 #204

I'd love to. Where is the answer? truebrit71 Sep 2013 #207

Nice denialism, dude. HuckleB Sep 2013 #209

Nice avoidance, dude. truebrit71 Sep 2013 #214

Awww. He just can't stop pretending. HuckleB Sep 2013 #217

Aww. He just can't answer a simple question. truebrit71 Sep 2013 #220

Do you think there's some magic that prevents Monsanto from buying organic companies? (nt) jeff47 Sep 2013 #254

do you approve of monsanto going after farmers whose fields MONSANTO has contaminated, suing niyad Sep 2013 #42

link please roseBudd Sep 2013 #80

A quick google will give you plenty of examples Marrah_G Sep 2013 #111

that is the funniest thing I have read today. PLEASE tell me you forgot the sarcasm icon, because niyad Sep 2013 #115

GMOs harm the intestines of the animals who eat it. Ask the farmers who've taken sick animals off it Precisely Sep 2013 #97

link please roseBudd Sep 2013 #106

Google Precisely Sep 2013 #114

I don't need to. I know all about Carman. roseBudd Sep 2013 #129

What about unlabeled GMO foods and people with allergies? pnwmom Sep 2013 #158

Just slapping a "GMO" label on it won't help. jeff47 Sep 2013 #259

Someone with allergies would know to avoid it, just as I have to do when pnwmom Sep 2013 #263

My point is why get hung up on a literal GMO label jeff47 Sep 2013 #275

We should do both. But Ted Kennedy fought for decades to have better labeling and in the end, pnwmom Sep 2013 #284

There's no reason to make that allergen list permanent jeff47 Sep 2013 #293

But how are new allergens ever going to get recognized unless the ingredient pnwmom Sep 2013 #297

Same way gluten allergies were. jeff47 Sep 2013 #304

At the time I was diagnosed, it took the average Celiac 11 years to get diagnosed. pnwmom Sep 2013 #306

And that still doesn't change the need to stick with what we can prove. (nt) jeff47 Sep 2013 #343

But if we don't know an ingredient is in our food, there's NO chance of linking pnwmom Sep 2013 #356

Well... HuckleB Sep 2013 #298

Ermm... ananda Sep 2013 #30

How "scientific." Archae Sep 2013 #37

As a personal friend of Dr. Weil, I call LIAR on that article. Why post this BS? Coyotl Sep 2013 #33

The shoe fits roseBudd Sep 2013 #35

Agreed. Archae Sep 2013 #36

Yeah we get that you and rosebud are in cahoots. WCLinolVir Sep 2013 #67

Yeah, we're part of the "BIG CONSPIRACY" Archae Sep 2013 #78

The SCIENCE CONSPIRACY.... roseBudd Sep 2013 #81

Weil like Mercola is laughing... roseBudd Sep 2013 #82

That article is also laden with BS. I know for fact from first-hand experience. Coyotl Sep 2013 #38

Right-wing Corporate Poo Flinging, Inc. (R) is a fact of life. Berlum Sep 2013 #48

Excellent point. Corporate monopoly on medicine is important. Coyotl Sep 2013 #50

What truth? roseBudd Sep 2013 #53

What's not true in the article? HuckleB Sep 2013 #183

Because being full of woo while accusing others of woo is big fun. tenderfoot Sep 2013 #192

BS. HuckleB Sep 2013 #206

I know, Monsanto and GMO are awesome and safe. Roundup - I love spraying it right from the bottle.. tenderfoot Sep 2013 #221

And a pointless response is so cool. HuckleB Sep 2013 #225

How about some photographic evidence? tenderfoot Sep 2013 #271

And another one pushes Seralini! WOW! HuckleB Sep 2013 #276

Stop lobbying for Monsanto and prove that GMO's are safe then I'll stfu. tenderfoot Sep 2013 #286

Oh, brother. HuckleB Sep 2013 #288

Union of concerned scientists... sounds like the concerned women of America. tenderfoot Sep 2013 #295

You don't know about UCS? And you lie about GLP? HuckleB Sep 2013 #300

Oh well. No GMO popcorn for me. tenderfoot Sep 2013 #307

Science doesn't care. HuckleB Sep 2013 #309

I heard marijuana causes insanity - science said so - it must be true. tenderfoot Sep 2013 #312

No, science didn't say those things. HuckleB Sep 2013 #314

I don't know him personally but agree this a lie and it's crap. nt Raine Sep 2013 #210

As a former farm owner and Food & Water Watch Volunteer... TheBlackAdder Sep 2013 #39

no, because you are threatening THEIR scientifically-based beliefs. no evidence to the contrary niyad Sep 2013 #41

So we disparage science? How is that different than climate change deniers? roseBudd Sep 2013 #108

As a son of 6 generations of farmers NickB79 Sep 2013 #75

now that sounds like a more accurate assessment of what is happening. liberal_at_heart Sep 2013 #86

And lets not forget GM papaya... roseBudd Sep 2013 #110

to all who defend gmo food, answer this: if this genetic tinkering is NOT dangerous, niyad Sep 2013 #43

They don't want the labeling because they know that consumers don't want these products. Gormy Cuss Sep 2013 #44

exactly. notice how they have no response? niyad Sep 2013 #54

What's in a GMO Label? roseBudd Sep 2013 #124

Ooo, a blog post by a 'myth buster' type. laundry_queen Sep 2013 #134

^ A subject line with no rebuttal roseBudd Sep 2013 #146

I don't need to post studies laundry_queen Sep 2013 #152

Still false. All myths that show you have zero understanding roseBudd Sep 2013 #165

I understand plenty. laundry_queen Sep 2013 #171

I don't care how many Monsanto-approved studies are out there. pnwmom Sep 2013 #177

That's because consumers are fearful Union Scribe Sep 2013 #66

there's propaganda on both sides. It's impossible to know the truth. Real scientific research liberal_at_heart Sep 2013 #73

No, it's because people inherently think of food as natural Gormy Cuss Sep 2013 #87

this. nt La Lioness Priyanka Sep 2013 #95

And who would want ascorbic acid if it were labeled as such? roseBudd Sep 2013 #109

amazingly enough, some of us actually KNOW what ascorbic acid is, and sodium chloride, but nice niyad Sep 2013 #116

Oh, but poo pictures are fine roseBudd Sep 2013 #126

since I have neither used that word, nor posted pictures, that remark cannot possibly be addressed niyad Sep 2013 #140

Logical falllacy not based in science roseBudd Sep 2013 #107

keep trying. I need the laughs. niyad Sep 2013 #118

so GMO foods would fail in the marketplace- or be niche- like organics are. Sounds fair to me. bettyellen Sep 2013 #150

wrong. Labeling is for risks. roseBudd Sep 2013 #163

oh bullshit. labeling is there for consumer to use to make decisions and there is no good reason to bettyellen Sep 2013 #175

Why are so many working so hard to create unjustified fear about GMOs? HuckleB Sep 2013 #184

in other words, you don't HAVE an answer that doesn't involve huge wads of money, yes? niyad Sep 2013 #319

So you can't explain why working to foment baseless fear is a good thing. HuckleB Sep 2013 #323

From Cracked.com... Archae Sep 2013 #49

The Fact is: there's no evidence to suggest GMO mutant crops are safe Berlum Sep 2013 #52

That is false. That you don't know that is false roseBudd Sep 2013 #125

Your claim of 'falseness' is patently false Berlum Sep 2013 #164

Cracked.com! fuck yeah! my go-to source for scientific information! KG Sep 2013 #60

no kidding. nt laundry_queen Sep 2013 #88

At the articles from Cracked, most times they are linked to credible sources. Archae Sep 2013 #119

As opposed to Mother Jones & Huffington Post roseBudd Sep 2013 #130

Ha! I just saw that article and it reminded me of this thread. Dr. Strange Sep 2013 #135

kicked and recommended.... mike_c Sep 2013 #76

It starts with nutrition Precisely Sep 2013 #90

Nice post. sagat Sep 2013 #91

I worked in the health food industry for quite some time... Dr Hobbitstein Sep 2013 #103

I have a scientist friend that laundry_queen Sep 2013 #137

The studies don't support his views. Your anecdotal evidence is the worst kind roseBudd Sep 2013 #149

LOL laundry_queen Sep 2013 #151

Your claim of lack of studies is false roseBudd Sep 2013 #159

LOL, nice try getting me to out my friend. laundry_queen Sep 2013 #172

Genetically Modified Organisms ~ Gosh, what could possibly go wrong? Zorra Sep 2013 #127

It's good Science Precisely Sep 2013 #139

Yeh, they proved that beyond the shadow of a doubt in Fukushima, didn't they? Zorra Sep 2013 #143

^ non sequitur roseBudd Sep 2013 #162

GM crops created superweed, say scientists Zorra Sep 2013 #174

Read this morning about genetically modified insects Precisely Sep 2013 #168

Ever eat corn? jeff47 Sep 2013 #273

A few months ago I asked something similar. Archae Sep 2013 #338

Antivaccine versus anti-GMO: Different goals, same methods SidDithers Sep 2013 #128

So you hate GMO�s because they are untested. What about feelbetteramine from the health store? roseBudd Sep 2013 #131

Re-read the article... SidDithers Sep 2013 #186

kick for that fantastic article Orrex Sep 2013 #161

There is no connection between the two. pnwmom Sep 2013 #178

DU has become the go-to place for assinine Rightwing propaganda. "anti-GMO hysteria" my ass. nt Romulox Sep 2013 #147

You nailed it. We are a magnet for Rightwing Corporate propaganda -- aka POO Berlum Sep 2013 #148

Science isn't rightwing propaganda, it is the opposite roseBudd Sep 2013 #155

Um, you know the Torygraph is a right-wing paper right? truebrit71 Sep 2013 #226

Yes, and rightwing propaganda is not science. JackRiddler Sep 2013 #328

Certainly a phrase the Monsanto PR department would approve of -- or perhaps authored villager Sep 2013 #176

Oh yes. Anti-GMO hysterics. Pro-environment purists. Organic idiots. pnwmom Sep 2013 #160

Denying science goes to credibility roseBudd Sep 2013 #167

"Climate change dictates that we need biotechnology." Precisely Sep 2013 #169

I'm not denying science. And neither is Don Huber, retired Agri prof. at Purdue University pnwmom Sep 2013 #170

Really? I'm not buying it. HuckleB Sep 2013 #185

No, you're buying the industry crap. pnwmom Sep 2013 #196

No, I'm not. HuckleB Sep 2013 #203

Explain to me how it is "anti-science" pnwmom Sep 2013 #211

You are pushing all the usual, long-debunked nonsense. HuckleB Sep 2013 #219

So GMO's are actually great, and all of the countries that have banned them have been snookered... truebrit71 Sep 2013 #223

Again, pay attention. HuckleB Sep 2013 #231

Um. Perhaps YOU should pay attention... truebrit71 Sep 2013 #238

Pushing BS pseudoscience sites is not helpful. HuckleB Sep 2013 #242

Neither is responding without having read what was posted. truebrit71 Sep 2013 #246

You haven't read any of what I've posted. HuckleB Sep 2013 #252

Your link debunks nothing. pnwmom Sep 2013 #229

In other words, as usual, your preconceived notions are all that matter. HuckleB Sep 2013 #232

You're talking to the guy in the mirror because you have no answer to this: pnwmom Sep 2013 #233

And you think that makes everything else go away. HuckleB Sep 2013 #236

"Many other scientists have called out" The Scientific American on the issue pnwmom Sep 2013 #245

No link coming from me. HuckleB Sep 2013 #248

I've been paying attention since 1989 and the L-Trytophan debacle. pnwmom Sep 2013 #258

And you offer up one of your usual attempts at distraction. HuckleB Sep 2013 #262

Right. Personal comments are so much more useful than actual logic or data. n/t pnwmom Sep 2013 #266

Logic and data are only useful to you... HuckleB Sep 2013 #272

Your only contribution to a reasoned discussion was a link to an industry site. pnwmom Sep 2013 #277

Nope. HuckleB Sep 2013 #285

If we have to shill for big Ag get the red out Sep 2013 #179

IF GMO'S WERE GOOD FOR YOU - THEY WOULD WANT THEM TO BE LABELED! Not going in my body. grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #195

They are as good for you as any other type of food. HuckleB Sep 2013 #213

Absolute BULLSHIT. truebrit71 Sep 2013 #216

Here's the thing. HuckleB Sep 2013 #222

And the science says GMO's are BAD.... truebrit71 Sep 2013 #224

No, it doesn't. HuckleB Sep 2013 #227

Yes it does. truebrit71 Sep 2013 #237

You found a fear-mongering site pushing BS pseudoscience. HuckleB Sep 2013 #240

You posted a response not having read the material. truebrit71 Sep 2013 #244

You clearly did not read the links I posted to sites that actually dig into the science. HuckleB Sep 2013 #247

"You've got to spend some time with the real science"... truebrit71 Sep 2013 #257

NO! HuckleB Sep 2013 #261

Without reading the report...damn that is scientific... truebrit71 Sep 2013 #265

So you think you can push crap upon others and then make excuses when they point that it's crap. HuckleB Sep 2013 #268

You haven't read it, but offer your opinion...tell me again how I'M the one that's full of crap... truebrit71 Sep 2013 #289

Once again you prove that haven't read any of my posts. HuckleB Sep 2013 #290

As previously stated the site can be whatever it wants, the report, with it's SCIENCE... truebrit71 Sep 2013 #294

No matter how many times you make the claim, it's not science. HuckleB Sep 2013 #301

READ.THE.REPORT. truebrit71 Sep 2013 #303

Yes, it's fun to misquote actual science with the aim of misinforming others. HuckleB Sep 2013 #311

Then why don't you want them labeled? grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #230

Let's label every single method for changing the properties of plants! HuckleB Sep 2013 #234

Can't answer my question? If it was good for you - they would want it to be labeled, heck, they'd grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #241

Your question was answered. HuckleB Sep 2013 #243

HAHAHA. You're not to be taken seriously then. That was a reply, not an answer. grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #250

So, I answer, but you pretend I didn't. HuckleB Sep 2013 #255

A reply is not an answer. If they were good for you, grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #269

My reply is a complete and thorough answer. HuckleB Sep 2013 #274

HAHAHAHAHAHA. BuhBye;) I hope they pay well! grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #278

How much do you make pushing unjustified fear upon the public? HuckleB Sep 2013 #281

Not enough! LOL grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #282

You mean "too much." HuckleB Sep 2013 #292

Did Kenji help write that I wonder? truebrit71 Sep 2013 #302

Interesting reply. LanternWaste Sep 2013 #326

Well, my reply was a very clear answer. HuckleB Sep 2013 #329

Not you as well.... truebrit71 Sep 2013 #249

I've writtin him/her/it off as a paid corporate Shill at this point, LOL grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #253

Where's my check!? HuckleB Sep 2013 #256

That's the conclusion I have to draw as well.... truebrit71 Sep 2013 #260

DERP! HuckleB Sep 2013 #264

Seriously, that's the best you've got? truebrit71 Sep 2013 #267

Now that is a cute hat. HuckleB Sep 2013 #270

ROFL!!! OMG, I'm dying!!!! grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #280

Tumor pics and info: grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #235

Really? You trotted out Seralini? HuckleB Sep 2013 #239

AN ORGANIC FARMER AND A GENETICIST WALK INTO A FIELD HuckleB Sep 2013 #283

K&R idwiyo Sep 2013 #308

No independent research, no science. Democracyinkind Sep 2013 #310

None of your claims are true. HuckleB Sep 2013 #313

Does Monsanto and co allow independent research on their products? Democracyinkind Sep 2013 #315

Genetically engineered science Precisely Sep 2013 #316

You failed to write science in all caps and therefore didn't convince me!!!11!! Democracyinkind Sep 2013 #318

LINK PLEASE Precisely Sep 2013 #320

Really? HuckleB Sep 2013 #321

Derp di derp? Democracyinkind Sep 2013 #340

What's wrong with people Precisely Sep 2013 #317

Nothing. HuckleB Sep 2013 #322

That sentence may be a bit off Precisely Sep 2013 #327

Nope. HuckleB Sep 2013 #330

Who the $%&& are you TALKING about? Precisely Sep 2013 #339

So all these people pushing fear without evidence to justify fear aren't pushing fear? HuckleB Sep 2013 #345

"all these people" Precisely Sep 2013 #352

So, you have nothing but lies to offer. HuckleB Sep 2013 #361

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Precisely Sep 2013 #362

Where is the independent study showing that GMO food causes long term harm? Glassunion Sep 2013 #324

The problem with that equation is that hybridization only happens via genetic modification. HuckleB Sep 2013 #331

No it does not. Glassunion Sep 2013 #333

Thus, you admit that don't understand how biology, chemistry and genetics work. HuckleB Sep 2013 #334

So please oh wise one enlighten me on the difference. Glassunion Sep 2013 #335

Uh, are you serious? HuckleB Sep 2013 #336

I feel it is you that does not understand the science. Glassunion Sep 2013 #337

Just a kid playing tough with Dad's dictionary. nt Democracyinkind Sep 2013 #341

You're offering up a very simplistic definition that ignores how those things happen. HuckleB Sep 2013 #344

If you can't explain it simply, you probably don't understand it well enough. - Albert Einstein Glassunion Sep 2013 #348

No, you're ignoring the cellular level, and that's just for starters. HuckleB Sep 2013 #349

I am ignoring nothing. Glassunion Sep 2013 #350

Yes, you are. HuckleB Sep 2013 #359

I'm afraid I am not. Glassunion Sep 2013 #363

Big Ag certainly has good branding. LanternWaste Sep 2013 #325

Really? HuckleB Sep 2013 #332

Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research? Democracyinkind Sep 2013 #342

That the shills for the chem-companies don't want labels tells you everything you need to know. Romulox Sep 2013 #346

Buddhist Economics and A GMO rethink by Pamela Ronald HuckleB Sep 2013 #347

Corporate woo -- "nothing to see here! Trust us! Dismiss all critics! This stuff is good for you!" villager Sep 2013 #351

Bullshit. Archae Sep 2013 #353

Yes. You're quite comfortable spouting corporate-sanctioned versions of it. villager Sep 2013 #354

You really hate ACTUAL science, don't you... Archae Sep 2013 #355

Says the poster with the one-word "bullshit" replies? villager Sep 2013 #357

Read above. Archae Sep 2013 #358

+1,000,000,000 .... 000 HuckleB Sep 2013 #360