General Discussion

NRaleighLiberal

(61,894 posts)

13. Wow. broad brush used on a very complex topic.

Mon Sep 1, 2014, 11:39 PM

Sep 2014

It isn't a black and white thing - there is much grey to consider on this - since it is not just about GMO and food, but long term effects, impact on pollinators, impact on seed saving for those who wish to maintain open pollinated crops, control of our seed heritage. And that is not even considering the economic/monopoly aspects of it all.

The first GMO food was the Flavr Savr tomato in 1994, which wasn't widely consumed (no flavor difference, just faded into oblivion). Long term consumption health studies therefore really cannot have happened.

It is worthwhile reading this entire article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies - in particular the section on Health, which gets into what sort of testing is done, and not done.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

322 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hillary Clinton is Just Plain Wrong on GMOs [View all] eridani Sep 2014 OP

She's paid well to be wrong. HooptieWagon Sep 2014 #1

my guess would be AtomicKitten Sep 2014 #3

+1 n/t area51 Sep 2014 #116

Yes. LWolf Sep 2014 #60

+1 a whole fucking bunch. Enthusiast Sep 2014 #172

How much has the wealthy spent to subdue the science? HuckleB Sep 2014 #313

We agree on this, eridani. Cha Sep 2014 #2

It would be a good thing if Clinton supporters contacted eridani Sep 2014 #4

Yes, those who care about our environment. We're fighting GMOs tooth and nail so Cha Sep 2014 #5

Yes, because we really want our candidates to ignore science! HuckleB Sep 2014 #134

Why do some people thing that "science" = "corporate domination"? eridani Sep 2014 #170

Someone hijacked your whole thread to force feed us Generic Other Sep 2014 #180

I get it. HuckleB Sep 2014 #299

Why do you think that you can ignore science by pushing bad propaganda? HuckleB Sep 2014 #298

Great--let's make monarch butterflies extinct with pesticides eridani Sep 2014 #320

Here is a link to an NPR article on the decline of the Monarch Butterfly population CentralMass Sep 2014 #6

Here's one. There are plenty out there. pnwmom Sep 2014 #47

BTW, that same Monsanto Attorney Michael Taylor you mention above.... bvar22 Sep 2014 #102

That's unfortunate. n/t pnwmom Sep 2014 #104

Yep it is unfortunate. And it is unfortunate that over the last truedelphi Sep 2014 #107

And what does that tell us? Enthusiast Sep 2014 #173

I don't see a huge difference between anti-GMO folks and anti-vaxxers. Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #7

I don't think that your comparison is a good one. CentralMass Sep 2014 #8

Plus one. You are correct. Enthusiast Sep 2014 #174

You are making many claims, but offering no peer reviewed evidence. HuckleB Sep 2014 #212

Hillary is pro-Monsanto corporate sociopathology eridani Sep 2014 #9

Exactly! Texano78704 Sep 2014 #10

They are entirely separate issues. No one ever decreed in 1992 that henceforth pnwmom Sep 2014 #12

What? CSStrowbridge Sep 2014 #18

They would not allow their seeds to be used in research unless these "independent" researchers pnwmom Sep 2014 #22

No there have not been Tumbulu Sep 2014 #40

+ a million laundry_queen Sep 2014 #221

Her position is based on old information. HuckleB Sep 2014 #78

That's 'cause the anti-GMO people don't have a mechanism for the GMO to cause harm. jeff47 Sep 2014 #21

They don't need one. We don't have a mechanism of action for many drugs pnwmom Sep 2014 #23

And we test them because we have even more drugs that cause harm jeff47 Sep 2014 #24

Without labeling, there is zero way of determining zero harm in the greater population. pnwmom Sep 2014 #25

Sure there is. jeff47 Sep 2014 #27

Hey, Mr. Science, what happened to "control subjects"???? closeupready Sep 2014 #38

They're the Europeans. jeff47 Sep 2014 #71

Nope, wrong answer. Some are, some aren't. closeupready Sep 2014 #79

I listed two countries where GMO food is banned jeff47 Sep 2014 #95

Sorry that you're training in science was so incompetent. closeupready Sep 2014 #96

If you actually weren't spewing bullshit jeff47 Sep 2014 #99

lol closeupready Sep 2014 #100

There is a difference where GMO foods affect our environment at large... cascadiance Sep 2014 #160

Unless you are arguing against all hybrid technologies, you got nothing! HuckleB Sep 2014 #201

Are you even responding to my post or still just parroting GMO marketing propaganda? cascadiance Sep 2014 #202

I'm responding to real world content. HuckleB Sep 2014 #213

I think YOU don't have any ability to discuss issues, when you have NO DETAIL... cascadiance Sep 2014 #222

In other words... HuckleB Sep 2014 #297

If you want to ban glyphosate, ban glyphosate. jeff47 Sep 2014 #225

No, YOU are lumping all of our arguments under your scripted "glyphosate" anecdote. cascadiance Sep 2014 #238

Exactly. HuckleB Sep 2014 #305

There are too many confounding variables for this to work, without even knowing pnwmom Sep 2014 #48

You're making a claim that there is large-scale, significant harm jeff47 Sep 2014 #72

No, I am not. pnwmom Sep 2014 #94

Either you are, or you're wasting everyone's time. jeff47 Sep 2014 #98

Wrong. We don't require foods/drugs to be unsafe on a large scale before they are regulated. pnwmom Sep 2014 #103

Because, again, we have a mechanism by which they could cause harm. jeff47 Sep 2014 #226

No, because there was EVIDENCE that they caused harm because of research pnwmom Sep 2014 #228

Reality is not the friend of anti-GMO folks. HuckleB Sep 2014 #141

And of course you know what "reality" is. Philosophers struggle explaining reality, but YOU rhett o rick Sep 2014 #157

"Corporate overlords" = philosophical bent. HuckleB Sep 2014 #161

Why would you deny the public their right to know? rhett o rick Sep 2014 #163

"claiming" is the operative word. Enthusiast Sep 2014 #175

The public already can know. HuckleB Sep 2014 #184

You keep trying to change the argument to whether or not GMO's are safe and away from the rhett o rick Sep 2014 #189

You're the one who fails to respond on topic. HuckleB Sep 2014 #192

What a bunch of crap. This has nothing to do with anti-GMO. This has to do with truth in rhett o rick Sep 2014 #219

No, it doesn't. HuckleB Sep 2014 #248

nice link. thanks. mopinko Sep 2014 #279

Why do you care what I do or do not want to eat? Generic Other Sep 2014 #167

I don't. HuckleB Sep 2014 #186

I do not want to consume your product. Generic Other Sep 2014 #209

No one is force feeding you. Please don't pretend that they are. HuckleB Sep 2014 #301

I don't want to consume your what you arer selling Generic Other Sep 2014 #318

"The GHWBush FDA declared that all GMO's would automatically be considered safe" Veilex Sep 2014 #37

-- G_j Sep 2014 #62

Monsanto's 2013 Net Revenue was approximately $2.4 billion closeupready Sep 2014 #80

What does Monsanto's revenue have to do with it? HuckleB Sep 2014 #82

The claim that labeling is too expensive, that's what. closeupready Sep 2014 #83

There is no connection whatsoever. HuckleB Sep 2014 #85

I am not your servant. If your link is important, summarize it here. closeupready Sep 2014 #89

Ah, so you're just spouting off, without knowing what you're talking about. HuckleB Sep 2014 #121

"Lame" that "you won't bother learn[ing] about the matter" - yeah, closeupready Sep 2014 #125

That's so cool. HuckleB Sep 2014 #126

Hoisted on your own petard? closeupready Sep 2014 #129

And you have no response. HuckleB Sep 2014 #131

And yet GMOs go through the USDA for approval, with a great deal of oversight. HuckleB Sep 2014 #81

Hmm... Veilex Sep 2014 #91

Wow. broad brush used on a very complex topic. NRaleighLiberal Sep 2014 #13

Yes, when stymied, change the subject. Well done, Lucian. closeupready Sep 2014 #15

It is not anti-GMO, It is Pro-lablilng GMO. Live and Learn Sep 2014 #20

If GMOs are so good for you, then these companies should WANT it labeled... cascadiance Sep 2014 #162

Yep. Anti-science strangeness. ZombieHorde Sep 2014 #26

Or anti-corporate sanity. If I choose not to support corporate dictatorship over our eridani Sep 2014 #56

Not at all surprised to see you take a stand on the side of H. Clinton-Sachs and Corp-America rhett o rick Sep 2014 #32

PLUS ONE! Enthusiast Sep 2014 #176

Yes, this is the ridiculous latest meme from you guys Tumbulu Sep 2014 #36

It doesn't work that way. jeff47 Sep 2014 #93

All your "science" is inaccurate Tumbulu Sep 2014 #112

So you would prefer the older, much worse pesticides/herbicides. HuckleB Sep 2014 #135

Yeah! Bring back DDT! It was thoroughly tested! Enthusiast Sep 2014 #178

Thanks for the pointless response. HuckleB Sep 2014 #185

Oh, here you are! Tumbulu Sep 2014 #235

Your posts are filled with lies. HuckleB Sep 2014 #252

please list for all of us here how you have reduced pesticide use in your own life Tumbulu Sep 2014 #245

Name one pesticide that I use in my garden. HuckleB Sep 2014 #253

Thank you! PatSeg Sep 2014 #140

+1 an entire shit load. Enthusiast Sep 2014 #177

I'm sick and tired of folks who claim.. sendero Sep 2014 #266

Well stated!!!! Thank you nt Tumbulu Sep 2014 #277

You can be sick and tired all you want. HuckleB Sep 2014 #293

I don't see a huge difference between pro-GMO folks and pro-lifers. Crunchy Frog Sep 2014 #50

Hillary's position is a right wing position on this. You should have said 'anti-environment 'folks'. sabrina 1 Sep 2014 #51

PLUS ONE, a whole bunch! Enthusiast Sep 2014 #179

Regulation. Feral Child Sep 2014 #61

Exactly. HuckleB Sep 2014 #73

So is the scientific community I suppose. alp227 Sep 2014 #11

Fuck safety. This is about corporate dictatorship, period eridani Sep 2014 #14

So why do they fear fair and honest labeling? nm rhett o rick Sep 2014 #33

I have answered that loaded question 100s of times already. alp227 Sep 2014 #35

Asking for honest labeling and you call it a loaded question? Honest labeling has too high of costs? rhett o rick Sep 2014 #39

If the goal is "honest labeling" Orrex Sep 2014 #49

Honest labeling is not what you're actually looking for. jeff47 Sep 2014 #76

Once again you are preaching for secrecy to protect the stupid public. That's very rhett o rick Sep 2014 #114

And you want to label one technology, but not all technologies. HuckleB Sep 2014 #122

Labels change all the time. It's called marketing. roody Sep 2014 #44

So you agree with Dan Quayle and Bush Sr. I remember when the Left was totally opposed to that sabrina 1 Sep 2014 #52

I keep seeing "right to know" thrown around about GMO labelling. alp227 Sep 2014 #53

I want to know what is genetically altered and what is not. Why do you want to control sabrina 1 Sep 2014 #55

All our food plants are genetically altered. HuckleB Sep 2014 #77

So Monsanto hasn't done well? What are their revenues like? closeupready Sep 2014 #58

Baloney. What the big companies do not realize is that truedelphi Sep 2014 #108

Why do you want to label only one technology? HuckleB Sep 2014 #84

Why is it so very important to keep it a secret from the public? If the public misunderstands, rhett o rick Sep 2014 #115

No one is keeping anything secret. HuckleB Sep 2014 #123

Transparency is the liberal thing to do. As is fighting the dominance of big corporations. rhett o rick Sep 2014 #150

And you want selective transparency, which is, well, dishonest. HuckleB Sep 2014 #151

Apparently you can't put forth an argument without putting words in my mouth. rhett o rick Sep 2014 #159

You have not asked for total transparency, ever. HuckleB Sep 2014 #187

That's a distraction from the issue. Why doesn't Monsanto want the public to know rhett o rick Sep 2014 #191

Nothing contains GMOs. HuckleB Sep 2014 #198

"Nothing contains GMO's" Seriously, now that's your argument. "Don't worry, nothing contains GMO's rhett o rick Sep 2014 #214

And the usual, "I can't respond to reality, so I'll just shout, 'MONSANTO'!" response... HuckleB Sep 2014 #216

I can tell when a poster has nothing left when they resort to "Wow." rhett o rick Sep 2014 #220

You've never had anything to say HuckleB Sep 2014 #254

If there is no label, it is secret. We want consumers to make the choice. Enthusiast Sep 2014 #181

So, why weren't you clamoring for labels for other hybrid technologies? HuckleB Sep 2014 #188

It is hardly hypocrisy as hybridization is an entirely different technology Enthusiast Sep 2014 #239

It is a different technology, but the dangers are actually greater. HuckleB Sep 2014 #309

Pfft! Enthusiast Sep 2014 #321

Because they know people are stupid and ignorant. Donald Ian Rankin Sep 2014 #149

bought off and paid for by corporate masters Tumbulu Sep 2014 #42

Prove it. HuckleB Sep 2014 #137

Well that begs the question Caretha Sep 2014 #264

I'm not. HuckleB Sep 2014 #265

Except for the AAAS, these organizations are, in this case, shills. NYC_SKP Sep 2014 #88

Are those organizations wrong about all science then? alp227 Sep 2014 #90

Talk about your non-sequitur. What I mean is that there is a bias and an agenda. NYC_SKP Sep 2014 #92

Indeed. The organic industry works hard to foment fear in order to increase profits. HuckleB Sep 2014 #138

If you're going to claim factual errors, you better not make them yourself. jeff47 Sep 2014 #16

The progressive movement must be a fact-based movement. CSStrowbridge Sep 2014 #19

EXACTLY! Alas, it's so frustrating to see how powerful fiction-based fear remains. HuckleB Sep 2014 #74

In other words it's ok for Corporations to lie to the American public, because the public rhett o rick Sep 2014 #41

Where is the lie? jeff47 Sep 2014 #70

I can see that if your reality parallels the propaganda of the Big Corporations and their rhett o rick Sep 2014 #117

Again, where is the lie? jeff47 Sep 2014 #227

Lies, lies and more lies. I never once "spewed massive quantities of" whatever FUD is. rhett o rick Sep 2014 #232

Yes, you did. HuckleB Sep 2014 #284

You continue to try to make this about me. I will restate my position. rhett o rick Sep 2014 #288

Companies that have nothing to hide PatSeg Sep 2014 #291

You forget that the organic industry is focused on profit. HuckleB Sep 2014 #300

"Oddly, you don't seem to care about that." This is not about me. rhett o rick Sep 2014 #322

Not to mention that EVERY reputable scientific body disagrees with the OP's article. wyldwolf Sep 2014 #68

Thank God for Norman Ernest Borlaug! William769 Sep 2014 #17

He was a traditional plant breeder Tumbulu Sep 2014 #46

Yup! HuckleB Sep 2014 #75

I seriously want someone else as our candidate. She is NO friend to the planet. glinda Sep 2014 #28

well, the, better get working on that... brooklynite Sep 2014 #59

Sometimes it is a good idea to glinda Sep 2014 #64

"Just plain wrong" what kind language. . . littlemissmartypants Sep 2014 #29

Kicking. Thank you, eridani. nt littlemissmartypants Sep 2014 #30

I agree. It seems GMOs are affecting our ecosystem in Cleita Sep 2014 #31

k&r. Thanks for posting. nm rhett o rick Sep 2014 #34

This is why I cannot support Hillary KauaiK Sep 2014 #43

Thank you, KauaiK~ It's the Environment Stupid.. to borrow frrom her era. Cha Sep 2014 #54

People in Kauai have worked so hard and fought so much. truedelphi Sep 2014 #110

We're not done until we run them off island KauaiK Sep 2014 #118

Can you explain how it is that the County was sued so it could not accept the truedelphi Sep 2014 #128

I'm not sure... I think KauaiK Sep 2014 #217

Kaua�i anti-GMO �Witch Trials� continue, as Mayor faces death threats for bill veto HuckleB Sep 2014 #130

Well if some of you really want GMOs off the market cstanleytech Sep 2014 #45

2-4-D plus RoundUp plus ??? KurtNYC Sep 2014 #113

You are convoluting substances. HuckleB Sep 2014 #127

Dow has petitioned the EPA to approve another herbicide bc weeds are now Round-Up Ready KurtNYC Sep 2014 #148

Yes, Dow has. HuckleB Sep 2014 #153

Glyphosate has been linked to breast cancer Generic Other Sep 2014 #287

Yes you want the labels and I would like them myself however cstanleytech Sep 2014 #183

Who gives a shit? I think I am entitled to avoid supporting with my consumer dollars eridani Sep 2014 #237

1. You are certainly allowed to choose on how to spend your money. cstanleytech Sep 2014 #260

There certainly is a problem with them--monarch butterflies are dying off eridani Sep 2014 #261

Thats a problem for the milkweed plant and the butterflies but they arent going cstanleytech Sep 2014 #281

Yes thank you for pointing out the existing parallel between what is happening truedelphi Sep 2014 #133

... and a flotilla of other issues. Scuba Sep 2014 #57

The demobots in this country marym625 Sep 2014 #63

Why is she always on the wrong side of every damn issue that matters??? Generic Other Sep 2014 #65

Well this issue doesn't matter Shivering Jemmy Sep 2014 #132

How is this the "wrong side" of this issue? HuckleB Sep 2014 #147

Shill it to someone who cares Generic Other Sep 2014 #155

I get it. You prefer fiction-based fear over science. HuckleB Sep 2014 #158

Why do you think you have the right to force feed me??? Generic Other Sep 2014 #168

No one is force feeding you. HuckleB Sep 2014 #190

I don't wish to consume your product Generic Other Sep 2014 #196

I do appreciate the bizarre confession. HuckleB Sep 2014 #197

I do not want to consume your product Generic Other Sep 2014 #199

No one is making you consume anything. HuckleB Sep 2014 #200

I want to know when your product is in my food because I do not want Generic Other Sep 2014 #208

I have no product. HuckleB Sep 2014 #250

I don't want to consume what you are pushing Generic Other Sep 2014 #286

You don't have to eat safe foods. HuckleB Sep 2014 #307

Maybe Hillary should have a GMO label..er...logo attached. Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2014 #66

GMO as in Goldman Money Org? L0oniX Sep 2014 #258

Another site that says someone is 'wrong' on science but doesn't quote science wyldwolf Sep 2014 #67

Genetic engineering is a process. A tool. Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #69

Those ancient Mesoamericans were really geniuses eridani Sep 2014 #87

That's pretty similar to the point I'm trying to make. Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #97

Try to keep up... CanSocDem Sep 2014 #101

Oh, yes, I live on McDonalds and as such I'm vulnerable to the spooky Monsanto conspiracy. Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #119

Farmers work to use less pesticides. HuckleB Sep 2014 #136

Warren DeMontague -- there are huge differences between what humans have done with truedelphi Sep 2014 #111

I'm not terrified of the technology, like I said it's a tool. Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #120

I wonder who to trust on this matter, Arundhati Roy or Hillary... JaydenD Sep 2014 #86

No third way Democrat for president can convince me to vote mmonk Sep 2014 #105

And if Hillary can't get even THAT one right, God help us if she becomes POTUS ~nt 99th_Monkey Sep 2014 #106

Mrs Clinton might be wrong, but she has the power. truedelphi Sep 2014 #109

She's right, and showing that she will go with science is a good sign. HuckleB Sep 2014 #124

I know you are not that naive PatSeg Sep 2014 #144

I'm not naive. That's why I know she is going with the science. HuckleB Sep 2014 #146

Sounds like PatSeg Sep 2014 #154

So you have no actual evidence to support anything you are "supporting." HuckleB Sep 2014 #156

I have plenty of evidence PatSeg Sep 2014 #164

No, you don't. HuckleB Sep 2014 #251

Actually, she has power of the GMO based corporations for whom she carries the H2O... MrMickeysMom Sep 2014 #139

That's quite the hyperbolic rant. HuckleB Sep 2014 #143

I don't think there is a preponderance of peer reviewed scientific studies, much due to the industry MrMickeysMom Sep 2014 #171

Some people don't want evidence or logic, PatSeg Sep 2014 #194

There are 600 plus independently funded studies that have been done. HuckleB Sep 2014 #195

Pseudo-Scientific Defense of GMO Safety is Smoke and Mirrors PatSeg Sep 2014 #204

I appreciate your reply, PatSeg... MrMickeysMom Sep 2014 #206

You're welcome PatSeg Sep 2014 #210

So you don't understand the terminology of pseudoscience. HuckleB Sep 2014 #249

Well then... MrMickeysMom Sep 2014 #207

Yes PatSeg Sep 2014 #211

You would? HuckleB Sep 2014 #256

Snarky PatSeg Sep 2014 #267

You've read the nearly 1800 studies that have shown no concerns about GMOs? HuckleB Sep 2014 #271

297 scientists and experts agree GMOs not proven safe PatSeg Sep 2014 #280

Claiming to be a scientist doesn't make you one. HuckleB Sep 2014 #282

Right back at you dear PatSeg Sep 2014 #289

No, they are not!!!! HuckleB Sep 2014 #311

dozens... hundreds of scientist deny global warming or that it's man made. wyldwolf Sep 2014 #314

Why don't you discuss this with HuckleB? PatSeg Sep 2014 #319

So you didn't know this? HuckleB Sep 2014 #255

Mono-symbolically speaking... MrMickeysMom Sep 2014 #270

"Sybolically?" HuckleB Sep 2014 #272

You can probably get people who want to believe like you do to agree... MrMickeysMom Sep 2014 #278

Actually, I have, repeatedly. HuckleB Sep 2014 #285

Ah, give it up! PatSeg Sep 2014 #276

Says the non-thinking programmer. HuckleB Sep 2014 #283

You know PatSeg Sep 2014 #290

In this case, you might want to try thinking for once. HuckleB Sep 2014 #294

You know, I think you are right PatSeg Sep 2014 #308

Awesome! Fiction-based propaganda is so cool!!!! HuckleB Sep 2014 #310

Another good reason marions ghost Sep 2014 #142

Because she doesn't kowtow to anti-science BS? HuckleB Sep 2014 #145

Hillary has no clue marions ghost Sep 2014 #152

Because she kowtow's to big Corp-America and does not represent the people. rhett o rick Sep 2014 #166

Has been tried, but corporatists don't want to fight these battles and court rejects them... cascadiance Sep 2014 #169

Got fiction? HuckleB Sep 2014 #193

And what have you got? Corp-America? We are in a fight to reestablish our rhett o rick Sep 2014 #203

The consensus of science shows GMOs to be safe. HuckleB Sep 2014 #215

So are you also going to tell us that the "consensus of science" says there's no climate change too? cascadiance Sep 2014 #224

Right here^^^^^^^^^Buddy MrMickeysMom Sep 2014 #230

Wake up, Buddy. HuckleB Sep 2014 #247

Ensser had been debunked over and over again. HuckleB Sep 2014 #246

She's also tried to use a "better vocabulary" to support the H-1B program... cascadiance Sep 2014 #165

Why, isn't she special?!? truedelphi Sep 2014 #182

Just curious PatSeg Sep 2014 #205

Just curious wyldwolf Sep 2014 #218

But there are many people who don't even respond to our details here... cascadiance Sep 2014 #223

I think you nailed it PatSeg Sep 2014 #229

�"But we don't see those threads�" MrMickeysMom Sep 2014 #231

+1,000,000 ... 000 HuckleB Sep 2014 #257

they're ideologues: "I've given my decree: why are you still DISAGREEING WITH ME?!" MisterP Sep 2014 #233

And a lot of schoolyard taunting PatSeg Sep 2014 #234

Haven't made up my mind on GMOs but I want them labeled LittleBlue Sep 2014 #236

Safety aside, I want labels so that I can choose not to support Monsanto, et al. NYC_SKP Sep 2014 #241

We are on the same wavelength PatSeg Sep 2014 #243

It was "reporting" on Monsanto and firing reporters that gave Fox permission to LIE to us! cascadiance Sep 2014 #263

Their reach and power PatSeg Sep 2014 #268

^^^This!^^^ n/t eridani Sep 2014 #244

Well said PatSeg Sep 2014 #242

The attitude that GE technology should be labeled is sick corporate fear mongering. HuckleB Sep 2014 #315

This is no surprise. H. Clinton stands with Big Corp America. She makes no pretense otherwise. rhett o rick Sep 2014 #240

If GMO food is so good why try to hide it? L0oniX Sep 2014 #259

You would think that they would LOVE the "free advertising" of labeling! cascadiance Sep 2014 #262

For the most part PatSeg Sep 2014 #269

Of course, the reality is the opposite. HuckleB Sep 2014 #312

So how is IDENTIFYING when GMOs are in food LYING about them? cascadiance Sep 2014 #316

no, no she isnt. lumping monsanto's corporate misbehavior in with the ALL the science mopinko Sep 2014 #273

Exactly!!!!!! HuckleB Sep 2014 #274

you schooled me well hb. mopinko Sep 2014 #275

I'm not smart enough to "school" anyone. HuckleB Sep 2014 #296

you showed me where to find the evidence, mopinko Sep 2014 #317

Hillary needs to listen to the American people PatSeg Sep 2014 #292

Fear mongering works! HuckleB Sep 2014 #295

Why do you NOT want to know what you are eating? cascadiance Sep 2014 #302

I do want to know what I'm eating. HuckleB Sep 2014 #303

But you are basically saying that you'd rather know nothing than everything here! cascadiance Sep 2014 #304

You have made it clear that you are focused on one thing. HuckleB Sep 2014 #306