Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Hillary Clinton is Just Plain Wrong on GMOs [View all]jeff47
(26,549 posts)16. If you're going to claim factual errors, you better not make them yourself.
As scientists release studies, each one more alarming than the next, revealing the devastating health and environmental hazards of the herbicides required to grow GMO crops
Wrong.
Some GMO crops are engineered to resist herbicides. Those herbicides are not required to grow those GMO crops, as this article claims. The crop will grow without the herbicide.
Other GMO crops are not resistant to herbicides, and would die when exposed to those herbicides.
Hillary would do well to go back to her science books. Here are the facts, as understood by every biologist. Seed hybridization occurs when the seeds of two compatible parent plants, within the same species, are crossed, either in a controlled environment or in nature.
Wrong. Hybridization between species can occur.
First, there's the separate species that can breed together. Ever heard of a boysenberry?
Second, grafting has been used for centuries. A process which most definitely requires "human intervention". Despite the article's claim that "human intervention" is unique to GMOs.
She does this by focusing on GE drought-resistant seedsas if engineering seeds for drought-resistance were a major focus on the biotech industry.Its not
Because time never marches on. We're still doing the same science today that we did in 1970.
If were truly serious about averting a global warming disaster, reducing carbon emissions isnt enough. We have to acknowledge, and harness, potential of organic, regenerative agriculture to reverse global warming by sequestering carbon.
It is not possible to grow enough plants to fix enough carbon to stop global warming. GMO or not. It is even less possible when you restrict it to the lower tonnes/acre of organic farming.
Stopping global warming is going to require drastic changes in how we live, in order to reduce CO2 emissions. Well beyond farming.
A recent ABC News poll revealed that 52 percent of Americans believe food containing GMOs are unsafe, while 13 percent are unsure.
48% of Americans believe we are being visited by extra terrestrial species.
57% of Americans have bought lottery tickets in the last year, presumably believing that they were going to win.
Significant numbers of people will claim that a newly-built cell phone tower is causing headaches....before it is powered on.
Here's a bunch of things the public are sure will kill you....when they most likely won't.
"The public believes it" is about the worst possible proof you can have of something. The public believes all sorts of things that aren't true.
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:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Here is a link to an NPR article on the decline of the Monarch Butterfly population
CentralMass
Sep 2014
#6
They would not allow their seeds to be used in research unless these "independent" researchers
pnwmom
Sep 2014
#22
That's 'cause the anti-GMO people don't have a mechanism for the GMO to cause harm.
jeff47
Sep 2014
#21
Without labeling, there is zero way of determining zero harm in the greater population.
pnwmom
Sep 2014
#25
Are you even responding to my post or still just parroting GMO marketing propaganda?
cascadiance
Sep 2014
#202
I think YOU don't have any ability to discuss issues, when you have NO DETAIL...
cascadiance
Sep 2014
#222
No, YOU are lumping all of our arguments under your scripted "glyphosate" anecdote.
cascadiance
Sep 2014
#238
Wrong. We don't require foods/drugs to be unsafe on a large scale before they are regulated.
pnwmom
Sep 2014
#103
And of course you know what "reality" is. Philosophers struggle explaining reality, but YOU
rhett o rick
Sep 2014
#157
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
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
"The GHWBush FDA declared that all GMO's would automatically be considered safe"
Veilex
Sep 2014
#37
If GMOs are so good for you, then these companies should WANT it labeled...
cascadiance
Sep 2014
#162
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
please list for all of us here how you have reduced pesticide use in your own life
Tumbulu
Sep 2014
#245
Hillary's position is a right wing position on this. You should have said 'anti-environment 'folks'.
sabrina 1
Sep 2014
#51
Asking for honest labeling and you call it a loaded question? Honest labeling has too high of costs?
rhett o rick
Sep 2014
#39
Once again you are preaching for secrecy to protect the stupid public. That's very
rhett o rick
Sep 2014
#114
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 want to know what is genetically altered and what is not. Why do you want to control
sabrina 1
Sep 2014
#55
Why is it so very important to keep it a secret from the public? If the public misunderstands,
rhett o rick
Sep 2014
#115
Transparency is the liberal thing to do. As is fighting the dominance of big corporations.
rhett o rick
Sep 2014
#150
Apparently you can't put forth an argument without putting words in my mouth.
rhett o rick
Sep 2014
#159
That's a distraction from the issue. Why doesn't Monsanto want the public to know
rhett o rick
Sep 2014
#191
"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
It is hardly hypocrisy as hybridization is an entirely different technology
Enthusiast
Sep 2014
#239
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
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
I can see that if your reality parallels the propaganda of the Big Corporations and their
rhett o rick
Sep 2014
#117
Lies, lies and more lies. I never once "spewed massive quantities of" whatever FUD is.
rhett o rick
Sep 2014
#232
Not to mention that EVERY reputable scientific body disagrees with the OP's article.
wyldwolf
Sep 2014
#68
Can you explain how it is that the County was sued so it could not accept the
truedelphi
Sep 2014
#128
Kaua’i anti-GMO ‘Witch Trials’ continue, as Mayor faces death threats for bill veto
HuckleB
Sep 2014
#130
Dow has petitioned the EPA to approve another herbicide bc weeds are now Round-Up Ready
KurtNYC
Sep 2014
#148
Who gives a shit? I think I am entitled to avoid supporting with my consumer dollars
eridani
Sep 2014
#237
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
Another site that says someone is 'wrong' on science but doesn't quote science
wyldwolf
Sep 2014
#67
Oh, yes, I live on McDonalds and as such I'm vulnerable to the spooky Monsanto conspiracy.
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2014
#119
Warren DeMontague -- there are huge differences between what humans have done with
truedelphi
Sep 2014
#111
And if Hillary can't get even THAT one right, God help us if she becomes POTUS ~nt
99th_Monkey
Sep 2014
#106
Actually, she has power of the GMO based corporations for whom she carries the H2O...
MrMickeysMom
Sep 2014
#139
I don't think there is a preponderance of peer reviewed scientific studies, much due to the industry
MrMickeysMom
Sep 2014
#171
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
And what have you got? Corp-America? We are in a fight to reestablish our
rhett o rick
Sep 2014
#203
So are you also going to tell us that the "consensus of science" says there's no climate change too?
cascadiance
Sep 2014
#224
She's also tried to use a "better vocabulary" to support the H-1B program...
cascadiance
Sep 2014
#165
they're ideologues: "I've given my decree: why are you still DISAGREEING WITH ME?!"
MisterP
Sep 2014
#233
Safety aside, I want labels so that I can choose not to support Monsanto, et al.
NYC_SKP
Sep 2014
#241
It was "reporting" on Monsanto and firing reporters that gave Fox permission to LIE to us!
cascadiance
Sep 2014
#263
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
no, no she isnt. lumping monsanto's corporate misbehavior in with the ALL the science
mopinko
Sep 2014
#273
But you are basically saying that you'd rather know nothing than everything here!
cascadiance
Sep 2014
#304