General Discussion

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)

205. No, I accept science as is.

Wed Jul 16, 2014, 05:39 PM

Jul 2014

You simply don't accept my choice to live a GMO free liffestyle for reasons other than science.

I also notice the pro-GMO people tend to ignore the verifiable harmful effects of GMO crops. Scientifically proven ill effects from growing Roundup Ready corn are out there, but get ignored.

And no, I'm not talking about some flawed study into liver damage.

I'm talking about the fact that growing Roundup Ready crops has resulted in heavy usage of glyphosate, resulting in an unintentional selective breeding program for weeds that are glyphosate resistant.

OOPS, time for Monsanto to develop the next herbicide/gene combination to breed an entirely new line of toxin resistant weeds

Fascinating how an organism created in a lab can result in unintentional consequences in the field.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

263 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Core Truths: 10 Common GMO Claims Debunked [View all] Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2014 OP

An arctic golden sounds delicious. JaneyVee Jul 2014 #1

5 digit produce PLU that starts with an 8 = NO SALE MohRokTah Jul 2014 #2

First off, that PLU thing isn't 100% accurate. Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2014 #3

You failed to read your own link. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #4

It seems to me that Conservatives don't trust science, liberals don't trust technology. nt el_bryanto Jul 2014 #5

I'd say it's all over the place... Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2014 #7

I don't trust multi national corporations. Notafraidtoo Jul 2014 #183

GMO =/= Monsanto... Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2014 #187

This message was self-deleted by its author sammy27932003 Jul 2014 #237

It's not the technology I distrust. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #9

This message was self-deleted by its author sammy27932003 Jul 2014 #236

As far as generalizations go customerserviceguy Jul 2014 #14

You failed to read the whole thing... Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2014 #6

I buy organic only MohRokTah Jul 2014 #8

I don't eat glyphosate... Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2014 #10

Oh, you eat glyphosate. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #11

Water is a chemical... Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2014 #12

So now you play the semantics game. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #15

Enjoy sniffing your corks! N/T Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2014 #17

Enjoy surviving. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #18

Just remember, you're in the anti-science camp... Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2014 #19

WRONG! MohRokTah Jul 2014 #20

You are anti-science Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2014 #21

your are anti science wisechoice Jul 2014 #24

770 peer-reviewed, independent publicly funded studies Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2014 #31

You have no answer to you corporate masters misusing technology MohRokTah Jul 2014 #30

Wow are you ever taking this personally! lexx21 Jul 2014 #89

What a pity "you could give 2 shits about Monsanto". WCLinolVir Jul 2014 #138

So accusing those, mostly Liberals who tend to be more informed about these things, sabrina 1 Jul 2014 #28

Denying science is NOT "more informed" Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2014 #32

Link to one study where the seeds were provided with no agreement attached. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #52

Now there's the ultimate tautologic argument. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2014 #80

You are really reaching on that one bud. lexx21 Jul 2014 #91

what a logic wisechoice Jul 2014 #95

That is the most bogus statement I ever upaloopa Jul 2014 #83

"organic" is a marketing term, nothing more. alarimer Jul 2014 #36

Certified organic has a definition MohRokTah Jul 2014 #41

The point is not only are not all GMO foods labeled that way hack89 Jul 2014 #74

K&R for Richard Dawkins, a champion of logic and reason. nt conservaphobe Jul 2014 #13

DU rec... SidDithers Jul 2014 #16

Malarkey ! Duppers Jul 2014 #22

Science is not rightwing propaganda. Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2014 #23

you are anti science wisechoice Jul 2014 #26

You, apparently, did not read the article that was posted... Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2014 #33

AGRA companies can and do censor the work of these independent researchers. pnwmom Jul 2014 #27

What you are referring to is seed BEFORE it hits the market... Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2014 #34

No, I'm saying that the 770 studies -- I'll have to take your word on the number, since it's not pnwmom Jul 2014 #38

Great job pointing out it is the quality of the study suffragette Jul 2014 #175

Thanks, suffragette! pnwmom Jul 2014 #181

Your subject line is not what I said! Duppers Jul 2014 #72

Whole Foods likes to call GMO foods 'natural.' roody Jul 2014 #213

It's right-wing propaganda when it doesn't fit your preconceived notions. alarimer Jul 2014 #37

It is right-wing corporate propaganda to pretend that it doesn't matter pnwmom Jul 2014 #39

I eat carrots. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #55

grief. I am not opposed to all GMO. Duppers Jul 2014 #77

If they're so wonderful, they should be happy to label them then. pnwmom Jul 2014 #25

+1 I am having a hard time understanding the vehement stand against labeling. Live and Learn Jul 2014 #29

Define GMO MattBaggins Jul 2014 #43

There is little controversy in the definition. pnwmom Jul 2014 #45

Oh great so you get to define your competitors products and exclude your own MattBaggins Jul 2014 #47

Was a nectarine developed in a laboratory? No, a nectarine isn't a GMO pnwmom Jul 2014 #48

If I use a specialized a "gun" to put plum DNA into a peach it is a GMO MattBaggins Jul 2014 #50

No, cross pollination is NOT genetic modification. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #53

Yes cross pollination is genetic modification MattBaggins Jul 2014 #98

Please, stop spreading falsehoods. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #101

BULLSHIT MattBaggins Jul 2014 #111

Bzzzzzzt MohRokTah Jul 2014 #112

It is not well defined MattBaggins Jul 2014 #140

It is very well defined and you damned well know it. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #142

It is fair enough as a textbook collection of modern ways to change the genotype of an organism MattBaggins Jul 2014 #150

So, when confronted with the real defnition, you continue to attempt to redefine MohRokTah Jul 2014 #156

I reject your definition as a good one for public policy MattBaggins Jul 2014 #161

I reject your attempt at redefinition as nothing more than attempt to cloud the discussion MohRokTah Jul 2014 #164

My definition of GMO is the standard one. You're trying to stretch it to include pnwmom Jul 2014 #57

No your defenition is not even remotely a standard one. MattBaggins Jul 2014 #100

FALSE MohRokTah Jul 2014 #102

Yes that is your made up term MattBaggins Jul 2014 #114

That is what genetic engineers define as genetic modification MohRokTah Jul 2014 #116

That is where it is a made up term. Arbitrary MattBaggins Jul 2014 #166

Dude, ALL TERMS ARE MADE UP! MohRokTah Jul 2014 #169

Which is why it is a bad term for public policy MattBaggins Jul 2014 #179

Clearly defined terms are the BEST terms for public policy. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #184

It's clearly defined yet still deficient MattBaggins Jul 2014 #185

No, it doesn't. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #186

Good luck with that, Hans Brinker MattBaggins Jul 2014 #190

Mine is the definition in any dictionary or scientific reference. You should try looking it up. pnwmom Jul 2014 #157

You know why people want GMO labeling joeglow3 Jul 2014 #124

The vast majority of GMO food has done nothing to improve production MohRokTah Jul 2014 #130

Wow. joeglow3 Jul 2014 #132

Links please. eom MohRokTah Jul 2014 #135

Wow.....simply wow joeglow3 Jul 2014 #192

I noticed how many fail the first world vs third world GMO test MattBaggins Jul 2014 #149

Avoiding it is wrong? wisechoice Jul 2014 #211

On what basis do you say it does more harm than good? MattBaggins Jul 2014 #215

I am at a loss as to why a few liberals like you side with the right-wing pnwmom Jul 2014 #159

Really? I'll give you a clue - the answer is in this thread joeglow3 Jul 2014 #191

My immediate and extended family is full of of completely sane scientists and engineers pnwmom Jul 2014 #199

Allergens can harm and kill you MattBaggins Jul 2014 #216

people don't fear science wisechoice Jul 2014 #218

No one knows what effects particular GMO's may have because the companies pnwmom Jul 2014 #220

Not true. HuckleB Jul 2014 #244

You certainly appear to be moving the goalposts both quickly and deftly with each response you recei LanternWaste Jul 2014 #51

Either they know better than we do what is good for us, pnwmom Jul 2014 #46

Does your hippy dippy organic wine maker MattBaggins Jul 2014 #56

And now you resort to hippy punching. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #58

Every food item would not have to bear the GMO label, but you are correct pnwmom Jul 2014 #59

Nearly every processed food in most grocery stores would have to bear the label MohRokTah Jul 2014 #60

That's true. But most of the public would quickly get over it because the alternative pnwmom Jul 2014 #65

Will the "I don't understand genetics" crowd start ripping the insulin out of my hand? MattBaggins Jul 2014 #107

No one wants to take away your insulin. n/t pnwmom Jul 2014 #109

It's a product from a GMO and GMOs are scary MattBaggins Jul 2014 #117

Insulin is not a food. eom MohRokTah Jul 2014 #119

And? MattBaggins Jul 2014 #129

Yes, and that is a discssion for you to have with your prescribing doctor MohRokTah Jul 2014 #131

Why would they have to rip it out of your hands to put a label on it? Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2014 #128

I have a biology degree. MattBaggins Jul 2014 #134

Most of the time, I've noticed that patients don't read much of the labels. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2014 #136

Still doesn't answer MattBaggins Jul 2014 #143

I don't see how 'labeling implies it's unsafe'. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2014 #146

+1 Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2014 #81

Which types of GMO? MattBaggins Jul 2014 #110

Please stop using falsehoods in support of your position. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #113

It has not been proven to be a falsehood MattBaggins Jul 2014 #121

You are the one making up a definition. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #125

And it is great for a general science definiton MattBaggins Jul 2014 #133

And now you once again move goal posts. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #137

I am moving those goal posts MattBaggins Jul 2014 #144

I seriously doubt if you understand genetics given many of your statements. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #151

I'm just going to LoL at that. MattBaggins Jul 2014 #153

LOL all you want MohRokTah Jul 2014 #158

Hybridization IS genetic modification. Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2014 #147

No, it is NOT! MohRokTah Jul 2014 #152

Reading comprehension? Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2014 #160

Reading conmprehension: MohRokTah Jul 2014 #163

Is a cross bred orange's DNA the SAME as the original species? Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2014 #165

Now you've blatantly demonstrated an ignorance of genetics MohRokTah Jul 2014 #167

Organic has a LEGAL definition thanks to misinformation and lobbying by the "health food" industry. Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2014 #172

Organic has a chemical definition, too. Benzene, asphalt, plastic and a host of other chemicals are MohRokTah Jul 2014 #173

Then why do you keep clamoring on about "organic"? Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2014 #188

Certified Organic Food also has a very clear definition. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #189

poison is organic wisechoice Jul 2014 #196

It is modification MattBaggins Jul 2014 #203

Typically, Genetic Modification goes outside of the phylum. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #209

So you admit you have an organism that has been genetically modified MattBaggins Jul 2014 #214

Hybridization DOES NOT genetically modify an organism MohRokTah Jul 2014 #217

You have never taken a biology course have you MattBaggins Jul 2014 #225

Biology was required for my biochemistry minor. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #226

So you seem to be admitting that it is the tools that scare you MattBaggins Jul 2014 #201

Nothing about GMOs scare me. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #207

yes it scares me wisechoice Jul 2014 #212

hybridization IS recombinant DNA-- it's the original recombination.... mike_c Jul 2014 #223

You need to hit the books, professor. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #224

That is not what people are talking about and you know it. laundry_queen Jul 2014 #228

They are being anti-science with their definitions, too. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #230

Well, that would be none of them then. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2014 #123

That information has to be correct and fair MattBaggins Jul 2014 #145

fair? There's nothing 'fair' about information. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2014 #162

Fair can be used with the term information MattBaggins Jul 2014 #204

Those nectarines MattBaggins Jul 2014 #103

Necatarines are not genetically modified. eom MohRokTah Jul 2014 #115

Yes they are MattBaggins Jul 2014 #126

No they aren't MohRokTah Jul 2014 #127

Yes they will suffer because idiots like Mercola have spent decades MattBaggins Jul 2014 #104

Then fight Mercola, not labeling. n/t pnwmom Jul 2014 #105

Why not fight both? HuckleB Jul 2014 #250

Because there's no reason to fight truth-in-labeling. pnwmom Jul 2014 #256

Wow, you are such an antagonistic piece of ... work. closeupready Jul 2014 #67

Big Organic spends money fighting the labeling, too... Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2014 #35

That anti-labeling argument is the same right-wing argument that's put forth pnwmom Jul 2014 #42

"ALL food is GMO in one way or another." MohRokTah Jul 2014 #62

Sure it can. It genes were modified. jeff47 Jul 2014 #257

"If you have nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide." Orrex Jul 2014 #40

People buy things every day that may not be safe for them, and they know it. pnwmom Jul 2014 #44

What qualifies as GMO under your proposed guidelines? Orrex Jul 2014 #61

Foods produced using genetic engineering techniques as defined by pnwmom Jul 2014 #64

Demonstrate that the benefit outweighs the cost, and companies will volunteer Orrex Jul 2014 #68

Forget it. Companies rarely think that protecting human lives is worth the cost. pnwmom Jul 2014 #93

I'm not twisting your words Orrex Jul 2014 #96

Don't you remember when producers were fighting against organic companies pnwmom Jul 2014 #108

Not really. Orrex Jul 2014 #118

rBGH is a genetically engineered hormone that was given to cows to increase their milk. pnwmom Jul 2014 #221

Maybe this is why the GMO lovers are roody Jul 2014 #229

They're worried about the referendum in Oregon, for one thing. And they don't pnwmom Jul 2014 #232

Yes, because we are now looking at baseless fear as a basis for legislation. HuckleB Jul 2014 #254

Organic food CANNOT be GMO MohRokTah Jul 2014 #69

Define organic. Orrex Jul 2014 #70

So now you are attempting to change the definition of genetic modification to include MohRokTah Jul 2014 #71

Define organic. Orrex Jul 2014 #73

Don't attempt to redefine organic MohRokTah Jul 2014 #75

I don't care to argue with luddites, if that's what you mean by lazy Orrex Jul 2014 #79

And now you resort to flinging ad homminems. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #82

Dismissing anything associated with "big ag" is an ad hominem Orrex Jul 2014 #85

And now you try to redefine "ad hominem" MohRokTah Jul 2014 #86

It seemed fitting, since you seem not to know what it means. Orrex Jul 2014 #87

I'm now confused. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #88

Don't be disingenuous Orrex Jul 2014 #90

Wow. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #97

What is factually wrong about what I wrote? Orrex Jul 2014 #106

USDA Organic Standards roody Jul 2014 #233

WE. DON'T. WANT. IT. There is no "science" to prove that we do. nt Romulox Jul 2014 #49

IF GMO was such a wonderful product, the sweet corn growers would not have rejected it. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #54

The Big Thing Here RadicalGeek Jul 2014 #63

It is pretty shocking laundry_queen Jul 2014 #235

Or the fact that it's food-related RadicalGeek Jul 2014 #238

We will do what we want to your food for our profit and you will accept it... L0oniX Jul 2014 #66

Just label food so people know what they are buying abelenkpe Jul 2014 #76

Only if you include All altered foods MattBaggins Jul 2014 #180

What a hilariously predictable OP, and right on time, right after something was djean111 Jul 2014 #78

And then they fail to return to answer to the facts. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #84

It's the new "Woo" Puzzledtraveller Jul 2014 #92

I know that is what they are trying to do, but my self-esteem is quite intact! djean111 Jul 2014 #94

It's sort of like people who are anti-marriage equality. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #99

Of course, it's nothing at all like that. Orrex Jul 2014 #120

The comparison is completely fair MohRokTah Jul 2014 #122

You are equating your quaint science denialism with decades of society-wide persecution Orrex Jul 2014 #139

Nobody is denying science. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #141

Yes, you are. Orrex Jul 2014 #148

No, I am making a lifestyle choice MohRokTah Jul 2014 #154

It would be even more convenient to ignore everything you write. Orrex Jul 2014 #168

Stop calling me an anti-vaxxer, we'll discuss anything further MohRokTah Jul 2014 #171

I haven't called you an anti-vaxer in this discussion. Orrex Jul 2014 #174

There you go, you anti-lifestyle-choicer MohRokTah Jul 2014 #176

Well, that's simply a lie Orrex Jul 2014 #193

No, I accept science as is. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #205

That's shifting the goalposts Orrex Jul 2014 #208

And I still support the right to know. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #210

Why didn't you want to know the technology used to create plants before GMOs? HuckleB Jul 2014 #242

Label all foods clearly as containing GMO or not. Let me decide what to feed my family. peacebird Jul 2014 #155

You already have that option. Orrex Jul 2014 #170

Not my 'convenience', as a consumer I should have a right to know what is in my food. peacebird Jul 2014 #177

Can you demand to know the day of the week on which it was harvested? Orrex Jul 2014 #194

Actually, that is a good idea. Why not? nt Live and Learn Jul 2014 #234

So, you really don't give one care about food security? HuckleB Jul 2014 #255

I don't think the date it was picked on is irrelevant at all. Live and Learn Jul 2014 #260

This is the standard argument against labeling. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #178

That's your first semi-reasonable post in this discussion so far Orrex Jul 2014 #198

Here is a "compelling" reason: SomethingFishy Jul 2014 #182

You have the right to lnow Orrex Jul 2014 #195

So caring about my health is "self-righteous" SomethingFishy Jul 2014 #197

No. Orrex Jul 2014 #200

LMAO.... SomethingFishy Jul 2014 #202

Your paranoia doesn't offend me in the slightest Orrex Jul 2014 #206

You're wrong and you damned we'll know it MohRokTah Jul 2014 #219

+1,000,000 ... 000 HuckleB Jul 2014 #253

everything you eat is genetically modified unless you're eating a very strict, wild diet.... mike_c Jul 2014 #222

False wisechoice Jul 2014 #227

Not false. HuckleB Jul 2014 #243

Your claims are demonstrably false. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #231

His claim is correct. HuckleB Jul 2014 #241

Industrial propaganda is not evidence. eom MohRokTah Jul 2014 #246

I'm sorry to tell you that reality is not "industrial propaganda." HuckleB Jul 2014 #247

When you link to a site that is nothing more than propaganda for.. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #249

You can call it whatever you want to call it. HuckleB Jul 2014 #251

Wow, what a thread! Rex Jul 2014 #239

Labeling the technology that led to the food gives you no information of value. HuckleB Jul 2014 #252

This is a really good piece. I'm happy to see some DUers who go with science. HuckleB Jul 2014 #240

Why do you feel a pressing need to shove this corporate bullshit down our throats? nt Zorra Jul 2014 #245

It's the science of the matter. HuckleB Jul 2014 #248

It's just the latest round of Luddites. jeff47 Jul 2014 #258

+A Brazilian! n/t Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2014 #259

Not really my thing one way or the other, but MFrohike Jul 2014 #261

Something happened to the article... Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2014 #262

Alas, people don't want information on this issue. HuckleB Jul 2014 #263