General Discussion

wisechoice

(180 posts)

99. I have open mind

Wed Mar 5, 2014, 07:00 PM

Mar 2014

But do you have?
Consensus does not mean that we should not doubt. There will be more studies done in the future and the conclusion may be reversed. Then there is the inherent danger that the seed companies can accidentally ignore testing certain aspects of their seeds apart from willfully not testing certain aspects. There have been cases of recalls of GMO food.
So are they safe? That is still in debate.
Will I oppose GMOs - Yes, because of Monsanto, because Science has not fully understood genomics and also it is not easy to recall crops.
Will I call those who are pro GMOs as anti-science? - No

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

124 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Science is good. Anti-science propaganda is bad. DU should know this! [View all] HuckleB Mar 2014 OP

And bad science, is corporate propaganda n'est ce pas? Drew Richards Mar 2014 #1

? HuckleB Mar 2014 #2

Eat it up, Huck Berlum Mar 2014 #28

Thanks for the example of blind faith in anti-science routines. HuckleB Mar 2014 #32

why posting that is anti-science wisechoice Mar 2014 #77

It's a logical fallacy, and hit has no point in the discussion here. HuckleB Mar 2014 #78

C'est vrai. pnwmom Mar 2014 #81

Two words that anger me: "Natural News" Archae Mar 2014 #3

Both are Libertarian BS sites, and anti-progressive to the core. HuckleB Mar 2014 #4

This message was self-deleted by its author alp227 Mar 2014 #11

Surely, you're joking. HuckleB Mar 2014 #13

Oops I misinterpreted your post alp227 Mar 2014 #27

My post was clearly not clear. HuckleB Mar 2014 #33

You're talking about naturalnews and ageofautism, right?.... SidDithers Mar 2014 #23

That's correct. Thanks! HuckleB Mar 2014 #24

Jenny McCarthy is now hawking e-cigs. GoneOffShore Mar 2014 #60

WOW! HuckleB Mar 2014 #117

I'm pretty fond of LostOne4Ever Mar 2014 #98

+1,000,000,000 .... 000 HuckleB Mar 2014 #121

Here are a couple of blogs you might be interested in: LostOne4Ever Mar 2014 #124

I'm confused: you refer to a "fair test," but your post is laden with leading petronius Mar 2014 #5

Whatever. HuckleB Mar 2014 #6

I'll REC it for you, then. Feral Child Mar 2014 #43

You could always find an actual pro-science thread to rec. n/t Crunchy Frog Mar 2014 #65

Awwwwww. HuckleB Mar 2014 #91

You should invent a vaccine for that RobertEarl Mar 2014 #7

What? HuckleB Mar 2014 #9

I find the anti-GMO hysteria to be more than a bit ridiculous, for sure. Warren DeMontague Mar 2014 #8

Exactly... SidDithers Mar 2014 #25

Shilling for Monsanto is bad. U4ikLefty Mar 2014 #10

Shilling for anti-science BS is much worse. HuckleB Mar 2014 #14

Sadly, it's where progressive values clash. alp227 Mar 2014 #12

Nice post, you scientific materialist. Orrex Mar 2014 #15

Ah, LOL! HuckleB Mar 2014 #46

Some people can't recognize the bad logic with hyping woo. NuclearDem Mar 2014 #16

The author at the link is so-so The Straight Story Mar 2014 #17

In this instance, the issue also goes to the fact that the reviewers... HuckleB Mar 2014 #20

You are so passionate on this issue! Enthusiast Mar 2014 #18

I just wish progressives would be more critical of bad propaganda. HuckleB Mar 2014 #115

du rec. xchrom Mar 2014 #19

The concept that we shouldn't genetically modify anything is silly. chrisa Mar 2014 #21

The problem is with regulation wisechoice Mar 2014 #22

Regulation? Sure we live in a country that just loves more regulation. upaloopa Mar 2014 #58

Say what? HuckleB Mar 2014 #118

DU rec... SidDithers Mar 2014 #26

As is zealotry. Democracyinkind Mar 2014 #29

And that's a good part of my point. HuckleB Mar 2014 #30

Smoking isn't bad for you either, LOL Corruption Inc Mar 2014 #31

I'm actually working against blind-faith propaganda. HuckleB Mar 2014 #34

You don't need to convince wisechoice Mar 2014 #35

Ah, so you're going to go with the "slippery slope" pseudoscience routine. HuckleB Mar 2014 #36

If being critic is pseudoscience then be it. wisechoice Mar 2014 #62

I've challenged myself. HuckleB Mar 2014 #72

"you're either wit us or agin us!" tkmorris Mar 2014 #40

Thumbs up wisechoice Mar 2014 #63

You clearly missed the point of that response. HuckleB Mar 2014 #73

There's a lot of woo that gets a pass here. Vashta Nerada Mar 2014 #37

K & R. n/t FSogol Mar 2014 #38

Please give me the rest of the list that upaloopa Mar 2014 #39

You can choose however you want to choose. HuckleB Mar 2014 #41

I disagree upaloopa Mar 2014 #47

You're choosing a religious view over a science-based humanity is not progressive. HuckleB Mar 2014 #48

All you do is label things. Your labels do not equal truth upaloopa Mar 2014 #49

Actually, that's what you're doing. HuckleB Mar 2014 #51

Humans cannot improve on nature. All we can do is destroy it upaloopa Mar 2014 #50

Thanks. HuckleB Mar 2014 #53

Calling me names and again labeling my ideas don't upaloopa Mar 2014 #57

This post is a perfect example of the point of the OP -nt Bonx Mar 2014 #64

Still doesn't make the OP truth upaloopa Mar 2014 #79

The OP merely shows that a non-scientific paper is bogus. HuckleB Mar 2014 #85

I really don't know why they think GMO is the miracle science wisechoice Mar 2014 #67

You do realize that the India suicide claim is bogus, right? HuckleB Mar 2014 #71

You seem to think that you're offering something else. HuckleB Mar 2014 #69

Is this true? wisechoice Mar 2014 #74

It probably is. HuckleB Mar 2014 #75

And is this conclusion valid wisechoice Mar 2014 #82

It could be, but there's a lot more to that story, if you'd check the link I offered. HuckleB Mar 2014 #83

So there is debate on GMO's wisechoice Mar 2014 #92

Ah, so you're choosing to ignore consensus by noting cherry picked studies. HuckleB Mar 2014 #93

I have open mind wisechoice Mar 2014 #99

I do. You claim to do the same, but this post actually speaks otherwise. HuckleB Mar 2014 #102

It is too bad you think so highly of your opinion. upaloopa Mar 2014 #84

Ah, so popularity is all that matters, to you. HuckleB Mar 2014 #86

The trouble with your thinking is that you upaloopa Mar 2014 #94

The trouble with many of your posts is that you put words in my mouth... HuckleB Mar 2014 #100

What science? wisechoice Mar 2014 #66

You keep telling yourself that. HuckleB Mar 2014 #70

Another article that shows the ludicrous nature of the "review" in question. HuckleB Mar 2014 #42

While I'm on your side in this debate, ugh...the Examiner. I know people ScreamingMeemie Mar 2014 #52

The Examiner is an oddball outfit. HuckleB Mar 2014 #54

I know them all too well as a freelance writer. ScreamingMeemie Mar 2014 #55

Got it. HuckleB Mar 2014 #56

Are you in favor of labeling allowing consumers to know exactly what is in the food they eat? Fumesucker Mar 2014 #44

I'm in favor of labeling food to let consumers to know what exactly is in their food. HuckleB Mar 2014 #45

What happens when GMO has replaced all natural occurring seeds? upaloopa Mar 2014 #59

The mission is accomplished wisechoice Mar 2014 #68

Got hyperbole? HuckleB Mar 2014 #89

You know as well as I that GMO mixed with natural seeds upaloopa Mar 2014 #96

You know perfectly that other forms of seed modificaton have already done similar things, HuckleB Mar 2014 #103

Look we don't just accept taking risks we don't have to upaloopa Mar 2014 #105

You seem to think that one form of modification is magically more risky than others. HuckleB Mar 2014 #111

That's our future if we don't stand up to this upaloopa Mar 2014 #95

When will that happen? HuckleB Mar 2014 #87

You don't make other seeds you grow them! upaloopa Mar 2014 #97

Seriously, that's your response? HuckleB Mar 2014 #101

Celiac is genetic, if I'm right sakabatou Mar 2014 #61

Celiac is genetic but not everyone with the genes develops it -- usually a trigger is involved. pnwmom Mar 2014 #80

The bottom line is that this "review" is all correlation without any way to connect... HuckleB Mar 2014 #90

I stopped reading since the author's very first claim wasn't supported by his own link. pnwmom Mar 2014 #76

IOW, your usual routine. HuckleB Mar 2014 #88

I am a little confused janlyn Mar 2014 #106

She cherry picked one thing and then ignored the bigger picture. HuckleB Mar 2014 #109

It's hardly "cherry-picking" to point out that the FIRST statistic cited isn't supported pnwmom Mar 2014 #107

It is cherry picking. HuckleB Mar 2014 #110

"I've always shown why you're not being honest. You have not." pnwmom Mar 2014 #113

I love this response. HuckleB Mar 2014 #114

Since logical fallacies are your thing... HuckleB Mar 2014 #116

Way to go! pnwmom Mar 2014 #119

I'm on point, as usual, as you well know. HuckleB Mar 2014 #120

Agree totally! LostOne4Ever Mar 2014 #104

Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future etherealtruth Mar 2014 #108

Good piece from a good book! Thanks! HuckleB Mar 2014 #112

It's a bit weird. JoeyT Mar 2014 #122

You can do whatever you want to do. HuckleB Mar 2014 #123