General Discussion

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)

74. I don't care if you don't buy it.

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 05:09 PM

Mar 2015

I do care if you lie about it, working to demonize something for no good reason, including attempts at pointless legislation and banning people from growing crops.

I also find the promotion of more expensive products marketed as "organic" to be rather sketchy, and the marketing they use also aims to demonize GMOs, convincing people who don't have the money in the first place to buy more expensive food for no good reason. (Baseless fear mongering hurt people in real ways.) This is unethical marketing to the core, and it is not helping reduce food insecurity. In fact, it can only do the opposite.

Yeah, I get mad about those kinds of things. The anti-GMO movement has prevented Golden Rice from helping people around the world. It convinced governments in Africa to reject GMO corn on its way to starving people.

There is no justification for this crap. NONE! EVER! It is anti-human, anti-science, and unethical to the core.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

178 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Monsanto, proud marketer of saccharin, pcb�s, and DDT, says GMO's are GREAT. [View all] pnwmom Mar 2015 OP

I think I will just let the GMO advocates have this one. leftofcool Mar 2015 #1

The anti-labeling movement is about protecting products, mmonk Mar 2015 #2

They're pushing a bill right now in the Rethug Congress that would pnwmom Mar 2015 #3

Yep. It amazes me really that people can't see through the corporate law rights mmonk Mar 2015 #17

Yet again the GOP cherry picks when Moliere Mar 2015 #71

+ 1 billion Faryn Balyncd Mar 2015 #177

Fortunately, somene has found a picture of the Monsanto labs... Archae Mar 2015 #4

Washington State University Professor Charles Benbrook pnwmom Mar 2015 #6

that's pretty significant. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #12

It's win-win for Monsanto. Sell the pesticide; sell the pesticide-resistant-GMO seeds, pnwmom Mar 2015 #15

vicious circle commerce. yeah, win win, until it's not. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #16

The only "hysterics" visible are the anti-labeling hysterics, and those that attempt to peddle guilt Faryn Balyncd Mar 2015 #178

And... Archae Mar 2015 #5

Right. You think vaccines and GMO's are equally safe and valuable pnwmom Mar 2015 #9

Not the point. NuclearDem Mar 2015 #104

Yes it is the point. The fact that some people have the same issues pnwmom Mar 2015 #109

Those "issues" are fallacies. NuclearDem Mar 2015 #111

What is a fallacy is the idea that because both vaccines and GMO's pnwmom Mar 2015 #112

Again, not the point. NuclearDem Mar 2015 #114

It really doesn't matter what fallacies some people might use to promote their views. pnwmom Mar 2015 #116

Operative word being "can." NuclearDem Mar 2015 #117

No one has disproven the fact that GMO foods have led pnwmom Mar 2015 #119

It's up to people making a positive claim to provide evidence to support it. NuclearDem Mar 2015 #120

I've posted about the increase of pesticide use many times. pnwmom Mar 2015 #122

That's such a stupid dictorial bully graphic "you can't criticize one while believing in the other" Cha Mar 2015 #108

somebody made a cool graphic G_j Mar 2015 #11

Science!!! ND-Dem Mar 2015 #13

Sorry corrupt scientists working for industry, and their lackeys in the FDA, is not science proof on point Mar 2015 #32

All 1800 studies were done by shills? NuclearDem Mar 2015 #115

Not one says that GMOs are safe. immoderate Mar 2015 #143

Given your previous posts, I don't think anything could ever qualify as safe. NuclearDem Mar 2015 #144

Given my previous posts, you would think someone would cite a paper that would shut me up. immoderate Mar 2015 #147

You're either operating off some weird definition of safe NuclearDem Mar 2015 #150

Which paper, referred to me, that you have read, proclaims GMOs the safest? immoderate Mar 2015 #154

Another poster gave you a spreadsheet listing all the studies. NuclearDem Mar 2015 #155

Sorry, but citing tens of hundreds of studies does not count as providing information. F4lconF16 Mar 2015 #157

When it's in response to "there are no studies showing GMOs are safe" NuclearDem Mar 2015 #159

Do you really thnk those papers all said GMOs are safe? They didn't. immoderate Mar 2015 #161

"They didn't." NuclearDem Mar 2015 #163

So you can't find it either. immoderate Mar 2015 #169

I asked you for the studies you claim do not assert GMO safety. NuclearDem Mar 2015 #171

And, as is obvious, you haven't looked at them. immoderate Mar 2015 #173

That's called a Gish Gallop. It wasn't the information I requested. (Did you read it? Why not?) immoderate Mar 2015 #160

When the issue is "there is no butter", NuclearDem Mar 2015 #162

Is there a study there that concludes GMOs are safe? immoderate Mar 2015 #168

The evidence is out for one, but not the other as we are in the middle of the grand mmonk Mar 2015 #47

Your logic "you can't criticize one while believing the other" is a fallacy. nm rhett o rick Mar 2015 #56

total nonsense, that chart Voice for Peace Mar 2015 #75

Fail. You can't claim to love science while endorsing logical fallacies. GreatGazoo Mar 2015 #79

"anti-corporation" "anti-profit" LittleBlue Mar 2015 #136

Yawn!!! mindem Mar 2015 #146

Aspartame makes me sick as a dog. Rex Mar 2015 #7

It's on my son's sleep list clinic's list of substances to be avoided pnwmom Mar 2015 #10

It seems to be in almost everything that says 'sugar free'. Rex Mar 2015 #14

We're using stevia, it's an herbal sweetener. Just don't use too much or it will be bitter. peacebird Mar 2015 #24

not only that; there's a link to slave profits. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #8

Why use such obvious lies to make your point? jeff47 Mar 2015 #18

Read the actual article I linked to. These are products Monsanto brought to market, pnwmom Mar 2015 #19

Nope. A small portion of the list are products Monsanto sells. jeff47 Mar 2015 #20

The article explains the part Monsanto had in marketing pnwmom Mar 2015 #22

Nuclear weapons. jeff47 Mar 2015 #28

No, they were just involved in helping to manufacture nuclear weapons. Is that better? pnwmom Mar 2015 #31

Not when the claim is Monsanto brought nuclear weapons to market. jeff47 Mar 2015 #36

Good argument. Trying to prove points by including artifacts doesn't advance the discussion. eom erronis Mar 2015 #46

Right, but it's fine to conflate GMO's with vaccines, as GMO supporters routinely do. pnwmom Mar 2015 #77

The anti-GMO and anti-vax crowds do behave similarly. And they're both pushing anti-science tropes. HuckleB Mar 2015 #84

This is classic anti-GMO propaganda. HuckleB Mar 2015 #23

Right. Because vaccines and GMO's are equally safe and valuable. pnwmom Mar 2015 #27

You just have to keep digging, don't you? HuckleB Mar 2015 #29

You keep saying you don't engage with me any more. pnwmom Mar 2015 #34

Yes, much better to go with the people claiming Monsanto sells nuclear weapons. (nt) jeff47 Mar 2015 #30

It's so much better merely to help produce nuclear weapons. pnwmom Mar 2015 #35

The article claims they "brought them to market". Not sold chemicals to the US government. jeff47 Mar 2015 #37

They needed the chemicals from Monsanto in order to bring the products pnwmom Mar 2015 #40

No, they needed chemicals. Dow could have easily supplied them, but Monsanto won the bid. jeff47 Mar 2015 #42

Where did I imply that Monsanto was lying? Lying about what? pnwmom Mar 2015 #45

That GMOs are safe. Without that claim, there's no reason for you to make your post. (nt) jeff47 Mar 2015 #49

They have been controlling the research by controlling the seed contracts. pnwmom Mar 2015 #53

+1 nt laundry_queen Mar 2015 #158

But, it's ever so beneficial. That's why they want it advertised on food...oh, wait. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2015 #21

+1 an entire shit load. Enthusiast Mar 2015 #43

That is quite a list of toxins Generic Other Mar 2015 #25

You're welcome, Generic Other. n/t pnwmom Mar 2015 #26

But isn't Monsanto just like every other corporation erronis Mar 2015 #50

The Monsatan meme must be preserved. HuckleB Mar 2015 #54

So Dupont is bad but Monsanto isn't? Generic Other Mar 2015 #64

Yes, all corporations have unethical histories. HuckleB Mar 2015 #66

Saying NO to what you are selling is now unethical? Generic Other Mar 2015 #69

Lying about it, and pushing for legislation that makes no scientific sense is unethical. HuckleB Mar 2015 #72

I don't care what poisons you put in your body Generic Other Mar 2015 #82

And there's another anti-GMO trope. HuckleB Mar 2015 #83

How can one refuse to buy it when Monsanto, and others, iemitsu Mar 2015 #131

Why don't organic companies label foods that come from mutagenesis? HuckleB Mar 2015 #134

26 nations who some on DU would call liars and unethical Generic Other Mar 2015 #138

Thank you Generic. iemitsu Mar 2015 #142

Ok. That is really lame. salib Mar 2015 #149

And if a majority of consumers reject their product or want labeling Generic Other Mar 2015 #55

How could they make money if a majority of consumers rejected their product? HuckleB Mar 2015 #57

By buying friends in high places in order to forcefeed us adulterated food Generic Other Mar 2015 #67

No one is force feeding anyone. HuckleB Mar 2015 #68

Why do you care if I refuse to eat what you are selling? Generic Other Mar 2015 #70

I don't care if you don't buy it. HuckleB Mar 2015 #74

You believe Asians don't have the competence to grow rice without Monsanto? Generic Other Mar 2015 #78

WOW! You just get more ridiculous and disingenuous with every post. HuckleB Mar 2015 #80

Monsanto = good old fashioned American white supremacy toward Asian rice farmers Generic Other Mar 2015 #87

Golden Rice has nothing to do with Monsanto or culture. HuckleB Mar 2015 #88

Because no Asians know anything about rice Generic Other Mar 2015 #93

You just keep ranting without bothering to read or inform yourself. HuckleB Mar 2015 #94

And you keep saying nothing Generic Other Mar 2015 #97

Oh, goodness. That's funny. HuckleB Mar 2015 #98

Name me the major strains of rice Asians eat and locate the countries Generic Other Mar 2015 #100

Thanks for the confession. HuckleB Mar 2015 #101

golden rice sounds as appetizing as golden showers Generic Other Mar 2015 #118

Post removed Post removed Mar 2015 #121

Let's let a jury decide Generic Other Mar 2015 #124

Post removed Post removed Mar 2015 #125

I think I have a right to defend myself when I am accused of lying repeatedly Generic Other Mar 2015 #129

Why don't you stop lying? HuckleB Mar 2015 #132

I am not a liar Generic Other Mar 2015 #133

Looks like the jury made their decision Generic Other Mar 2015 #141

Evidently he also thinks that Africans are too dumb to make informed decisions iemitsu Mar 2015 #152

I take exception to being called names for two days for voicing an opinion Generic Other Mar 2015 #170

What ugly behavior. I hope that the review process takes his PM iemitsu Mar 2015 #172

Refusal to label GMO foods and seeking iemitsu Mar 2015 #151

Yes, it's Monsanto that's running scared here laundry_queen Mar 2015 #156

That's how I see it. iemitsu Mar 2015 #166

Which is why they're fighting labeling tooth and nail. n/t pnwmom Mar 2015 #126

They're fighting it because other corporations have utilized fear mongering about GMOs... HuckleB Mar 2015 #128

And that is exactly why they don't want to label their products. iemitsu Mar 2015 #137

Totally opposed to GMOs in every way, but must mention that saccharin--compared to Aspartame-- Wella Mar 2015 #33

The fear about saccharin comes from causing tumors in rat bladders. jeff47 Mar 2015 #39

And DDT and PCB's and Dioxin. Have they all been vindicated, too? n/t pnwmom Mar 2015 #44

That is so completely relevant to saccharine. jeff47 Mar 2015 #48

Monsanto continued to market saccharin after the rat studies came out. pnwmom Mar 2015 #51

There was never any proof that the problem did extend to humans and saccharin had a warning label Major Nikon Mar 2015 #73

You might as well make that argument about Thalidomide. pnwmom Mar 2015 #76

Thalidomide was never approved for sale in the US Major Nikon Mar 2015 #99

So? We dodged a bullet. It WAS approved by several governments in Europe pnwmom Mar 2015 #102

Not sure your assertion is correct, but even if it was the best you have is still a fallacy Major Nikon Mar 2015 #105

People smoked cigarettes for hundreds of years before testing proved the dangers. pnwmom Mar 2015 #107

Well here's some arguments that actually aren't false equivalencies (but are no less nutty) Major Nikon Mar 2015 #174

And here's an argument I've seen many pro GMO- supporters make: pnwmom Mar 2015 #175

So your argument is if others can make nutty arguments so can I Major Nikon Mar 2015 #176

I remember that the equivalent human ingestion would have been 800 sodas a day. Wella Mar 2015 #81

Big Agra is trustworthy. Octafish Mar 2015 #38

Yes, we need to trust the people claiming Monsanto sells nuclear weapons instead. (nt) jeff47 Mar 2015 #41

Did I claim that? Octafish Mar 2015 #59

As far as GMOs go, there are plenty of independent scientists who point out that they are safe. HuckleB Mar 2015 #61

Thanks! All I know is what I read and see with my own two eyes. Octafish Mar 2015 #62

The science on BPA has been convoluted from the word go. Not so with GMOs. HuckleB Mar 2015 #65

I got a friend who worked in medical marketing... Octafish Mar 2015 #92

To some extent, yes. The pharm companies will pay for such research. HuckleB Mar 2015 #95

Hm, 50 replies and I see 39 of em. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #52

"Childish." HuckleB Mar 2015 #58

K&R DeSwiss Mar 2015 #60

the atomic bomb??? Duppers Mar 2015 #63

monSATAN LiberalEsto Mar 2015 #85

Thanks for the example of why it's impossible to parody the anti-GMO crowd. HuckleB Mar 2015 #86

+1 Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #90

Let's dig deeper, pnwmom: Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #89

Do you object when GMO proponents try to lump GMO's in with vaccines? pnwmom Mar 2015 #91

I don't understand what you're saying. Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #96

There have been many recent posts on DU trying to link pnwmom Mar 2015 #103

Thank you. Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #148

Thanks for giving me a chance to clarify. pnwmom Mar 2015 #153

Agent Orange and relentess users of Roundup. fuck 'em.. don't care how "sciencey" they are. Cha Mar 2015 #106

Many companies were contracted to make Agent Orange. HuckleB Mar 2015 #110

Would you spray it on your grass then let your dog lick it? leftofcool Mar 2015 #145

Meet the New Monsanto: Dow Chemical... and Their New 'Agent Orange' Crops Cha Mar 2015 #113

Do you ever post anything that's not from an anti-GMO activist group? HuckleB Mar 2015 #123

Cha posts very widely, unlike you. n/t pnwmom Mar 2015 #127

And that justifies his use of anti-science groups, how? HuckleB Mar 2015 #130

You accused Cha of only posting in one area and that's not true. The problem is pnwmom Mar 2015 #140

LOL.. now I'm a "he".. doesn't know when to stop digging.. "Science/Agent Orange!!!!1111" Cha Mar 2015 #164

LOL.. a lot he knows. He really didn't like the message on monsanto and other posionous entities. Cha Mar 2015 #135

Screw them 840high Mar 2015 #139

Only a morally bankrupt weasel would trick someone into eating food that they don't want to GoneFishin Mar 2015 #165

Before you say anything about Monsanto, read "Seeds Of Reprisal." DFW Mar 2015 #167