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 General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pnwmom

(108,950 posts)
64. Why wouldn't it be? I wouldn't object to the disclosure of the type of fertilizer used, including manure.
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 03:26 AM
Mar 2015

In that case they should, of course, specify whether it was animal or human manure that was used.

I didn't say, in my previous post, that GMO's are more likely to contain allergens, although that is a legitimate concern for some people. The point I was making is that the food industry doesn't only object to labeling regulations for GMO's; it objects to labeling regulations IN GENERAL even when serious health issues are involved -- and the most recent example of that was in their decades long fight with Sen. Kennedy.

And yet, for all the industry's concern about the dire consequences of labeling allergens, they survived. And they will also survive labeling of GMO's, no matter what dire effects they are predicting now. They are the industry that cried wolf, and most progressives are tired of their bleating.

The Great GMO Legitimation Crisis [View all] JohnyCanuck Mar 2015 OP
GM foods are of little or no help... SoLeftIAmRight Mar 2015 #1
The genetic modification of food serves no agricultural purpose... gregcrawford Mar 2015 #2
+1 - good analysis of the real reasons for GMO$. erronis Mar 2015 #4
TPP or whatever comes next will be mighty handy for Monsanto, ADM and Big Agra. Octafish Mar 2015 #28
Genetic modification is a part of most agricultural plantings. HuckleB Mar 2015 #40
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive." Zorra Mar 2015 #54
So why do you work so hard to deceive people about GMOs? HuckleB Mar 2015 #68
There is a HUGE difference between hybridization... gregcrawford Mar 2015 #67
In other words, GMOs are more predictable hybrids. HuckleB Mar 2015 #69
We really are fighting an uphill battle re: GMO food labeling yet asiliveandbreathe Mar 2015 #3
You realize that organic production requirements are just haphazard, right? HuckleB Mar 2015 #21
Yet the PTB want the seeds in seed banks labeled, just not GM of course. roody Mar 2015 #32
You realize that the "organic" label is for marketing purposes, right? HuckleB Mar 2015 #34
Another great article from the same source Major Nikon Mar 2015 #5
Holy crap! Why did I EVER vaccinate my child? HuckleB Mar 2015 #35
no one's paying attention. cause they see it's bull. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #55
Not just bull, but Art_from_Ark Mar 2015 #61
Steven Druker is an associate of Jeffrey Smith. Archae Mar 2015 #6
Shoot the... 99Forever Mar 2015 #9
If the messenger is unreliable and agenda-driven, ignoring actual science... Archae Mar 2015 #10
This message was self-deleted by its author 99Forever Mar 2015 #12
The article is about power and politics, and how they're used by the GMO industry, pnwmom Mar 2015 #14
Flashback Major Nikon Mar 2015 #15
The truth hurts, so you try to distract. Typical. pnwmom Mar 2015 #16
The truth is you employed the exact same tactic Major Nikon Mar 2015 #17
Monsanto's been saying one thing to the regulators, and another to the farmers fooled into buying pnwmom Mar 2015 #23
And here's what you said.... Major Nikon Mar 2015 #24
They knew perfectly well 20 years ago that the continuous use of Roundup pnwmom Mar 2015 #26
They also published that 20 years ago Major Nikon Mar 2015 #30
But that's NOT what they were telling the farmers in the ads of their product. pnwmom Mar 2015 #31
Yes, they were saying herbicides must be used continuously. Of course, they were! HuckleB Mar 2015 #36
The better way is for crops and herbicides to be rotated, not for one crop and one herbicide pnwmom Mar 2015 #37
Thanks you for continuing to show everyone your true stripes. HuckleB Mar 2015 #39
How dare they publish university research! Major Nikon Mar 2015 #38
Aloha pnwmom... I just made a comprehensive post on this thread .. how I feel about Monsanto Cha Mar 2015 #57
Defending crank woo sites? NuclearDem Mar 2015 #41
Defending the ... 99Forever Mar 2015 #42
Yeah, calling out pseudoscientific bullshit is defending the police state. NuclearDem Mar 2015 #43
You have me confused... 99Forever Mar 2015 #44
I am well and truly hurt now. NuclearDem Mar 2015 #45
Well bless your heart. 99Forever Mar 2015 #48
So you admit that there is no point in discussing any matter with you at all. HuckleB Mar 2015 #50
So, you think it's ok to push BS if it agrees with your preconceptions. HuckleB Mar 2015 #46
The messenger is making it up. HuckleB Mar 2015 #51
So you're going for guilt-by-association. Who cares? Drucker's just one person mentioned in the beginning of the article, pnwmom Mar 2015 #13
And so far you've shown nothing to back it up. Archae Mar 2015 #25
Skulls and arrows? Scarecrows? Where did I post a single such poster? pnwmom Mar 2015 #27
Monsanto's goal is to collapse the natural ecosystem and get exclusive rights to our food supply, whereisjustice Mar 2015 #7
Precisely. 99Forever Mar 2015 #8
That's exactly right. CanSocDem Mar 2015 #70
propaganda doesn't just get believed or buys time, each bit contributes to a larger overall MisterP Mar 2015 #11
Good point Major Nikon Mar 2015 #18
So, another "NaturalNews" type crap source. HuckleB Mar 2015 #19
Water memory cures cancer Major Nikon Mar 2015 #20
FFS! HuckleB Mar 2015 #22
Bangladeshi farmers learn the hard way it's not wise to put much stock in the pro-GMO propaganda. JohnyCanuck Mar 2015 #29
This is Why it is Okay to Feed Your Family GMO’s HuckleB Mar 2015 #33
Then there's this... Major Nikon Mar 2015 #47
I know. I know. HuckleB Mar 2015 #49
I just want labeling for GMOs salib Mar 2015 #52
You mean other than misleading and falsely alarming consumers? Major Nikon Mar 2015 #53
There is nothing misleading about correct labeling. And the food manufacturers have zero credibility pnwmom Mar 2015 #59
So would it be OK to label food fertilized with shit? Major Nikon Mar 2015 #63
Why wouldn't it be? I wouldn't object to the disclosure of the type of fertilizer used, including manure. pnwmom Mar 2015 #64
Good question Major Nikon Mar 2015 #65
There is a profound difference between simple and clear labeling and scaremongering. pnwmom Mar 2015 #66
If the labels are true, and the truth alarms consumers, then tough shit. closeupready Mar 2015 #73
Not a damn thing.. but you will get a Lot of Hot Air from those defending Not Labeling GMO. Cha Mar 2015 #58
+100 ND-Dem Mar 2015 #71
"The Pro gmo lobby" is Orwellian, imo. "Choice"? How about "labeling" their products to actually Cha Mar 2015 #56
Thanks for the information, Cha! n/t pnwmom Mar 2015 #60
You're Welcome, pnwmom! Cha Mar 2015 #62
they decide, they choose ND-Dem Mar 2015 #72
And, I can't believe we have people defending their toxic actions on a Democratic board. Cha Mar 2015 #74
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Great GMO Legitimatio...»Reply #64