General Discussion

longship

(40,416 posts)

65. The science says that labeling is unnecessary.

Tue Sep 1, 2015, 02:57 PM

Sep 2015

Of course, any company is free to label their products as GMO Free if they want. But there is no argument that should compel such labeling since the science is pretty damned clear that it is unneccesary.

And the only arguments to the contrary always seem to cite the same bullshit, shoddy science.

If people want to make a case for mandatory labeling they are going to have to do some homework first. In the meantime, there is nothing stopping anybody for labeling their products to be GMO Free, regardless that the term is just as meaningless as any other marketing term. All food is genetically modified. All of it.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

119 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

New study on safety of Roundup "reflects rat liver and kidney damage" at low doses [View all] nationalize the fed Aug 2015 OP

I am for labeling crops that are gmo so can avoid those who aren't and who use roundup uppityperson Aug 2015 #1

Wouldn't roundup labeling be more direct? Lee-Lee Aug 2015 #2

Labeling a product GMO is specific enough. Most people won't care pnwmom Aug 2015 #11

Actually, I'd rather have them labeled what pesticides were used when so I could uppityperson Aug 2015 #25

Time wouldn't make much difference for the Roundup pnwmom Sep 2015 #58

I agree, that would be better, to label who uses GBH, thank you. uppityperson Aug 2015 #20

GBH? HuckleB Aug 2015 #46

One is either for more information nationalize the fed Aug 2015 #3

Are you saying I am belittling or insulting? What? Please clarify. Thank you. uppityperson Aug 2015 #5

Right. They're always trying to link GMO's and vaccines. They might as well pnwmom Aug 2015 #12

Not quite. progressoid Aug 2015 #50

Not a lot of vaccines are GEO's, but some are. My post acknowledged that. pnwmom Sep 2015 #52

If you're not against them, why label them? progressoid Sep 2015 #56

Roundup is also used on non-gmo crops. progressoid Aug 2015 #9

The Suburbs are also saturated with it, along with other toxins. bvar22 Aug 2015 #21

The issue with "Agent Orange" was incomplete combustion in some process batches Drahthaardogs Aug 2015 #48

"Remember: Monsanto did "scientific studies" that "proved" Agent Orange was safe!!!" malokvale77 Sep 2015 #85

No, Monsanto did no such thing. HuckleB Sep 2015 #102

So contract with the government... malokvale77 Sep 2015 #119

That was my point, sorry for being unclear uppityperson Aug 2015 #51

Non-GMO (non Roundup-ready, that is) use MORE Roundup. alarimer Aug 2015 #18

I am highly amused at your insults. Reread what I wrote and try again. uppityperson Aug 2015 #19

You got lambasted for making a simple point. Rex Sep 2015 #75

My point was avoiding non gmo crops and those who use roundup and other pest/herb icides close uppityperson Sep 2015 #89

I think I will continue to grow and provide my own produce, I know what happens then. Thinkingabout Aug 2015 #4

Me too. I like having my own garden. It makes it difficult to buy veggies in uppityperson Aug 2015 #6

Hey, then you don't have to whine either. Thinkingabout Aug 2015 #7

the damage from glyphosate KT2000 Aug 2015 #8

Seralini again, people. longship Aug 2015 #10

And he's hated by the Heritage Foundation and the Koch brothers. pnwmom Aug 2015 #14

Well, a point in his favor would be something he has not yet shown. longship Aug 2015 #16

This paper has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. That means it stood up to peer review. nt pnwmom Aug 2015 #17

Nope, that isn't how it works. longship Aug 2015 #22

Duh. But the initial peer reviewers approved its publication. pnwmom Aug 2015 #30

Well, it is a dodgy journal. longship Aug 2015 #31

....and becausde you think it is "dodgy" means that products containing GMOs.... bvar22 Sep 2015 #64

The science says that labeling is unnecessary. longship Sep 2015 #65

In case you misssed it in the above post, I'll repeat. bvar22 Sep 2015 #67

Well, all food is genetically modified. longship Sep 2015 #68

That is a BS myth created by Monsanto. bvar22 Sep 2015 #70

Humans have NOT used Natural Selection to improve crops and livestock throughout history... yawnmaster Sep 2015 #72

Nope! Nice try. longship Sep 2015 #73

There is a VERY clear line. bvar22 Sep 2015 #76

Again, nope! longship Sep 2015 #78

You keep eating what Monsanto and Agri Business puts on your plate, bvar22 Sep 2015 #79

That is a different matter altogether. longship Sep 2015 #88

"Nature takes little baby steps, and some "experiments" don't survive...and THAT is a good thing." NuclearDem Sep 2015 #77

Nowhere have I advocated for keeping sick people sick, bvar22 Sep 2015 #81

What exactly is amazingly better about "natural" processes than "unnatural" ones? NuclearDem Sep 2015 #82

You FAILED to respond to my challenge. bvar22 Sep 2015 #84

Because your challenge is completely ridiculous, sets an unrealistically high burden of safety NuclearDem Sep 2015 #87

"Peer reviewed, long term studies published in legitimate Journals is rediculous." bvar22 Sep 2015 #91

And for the cherry on top, you're completely dishonest. NuclearDem Sep 2015 #92

"Peer reviewed, long term studies published in legitimate Journals is rediculous." bvar22 Sep 2015 #94

Repeat a lie all you want, bvar. That won't make it true. NuclearDem Sep 2015 #95

You still haven't produced ANY independently reviewed studies bvar22 Sep 2015 #96

"I call that a fail." NuclearDem Sep 2015 #97

No. it is just a plain old FAIL. bvar22 Sep 2015 #115

Strawman much? Major Nikon Sep 2015 #112

That man would have made a good president. malokvale77 Sep 2015 #86

This message was self-deleted by its author longship Aug 2015 #37

"BioMed Central retracting 43 papers for fake peer reviews" progressoid Aug 2015 #26

Now who could have predicted this? longship Aug 2015 #28

If companies like Dupont and Monsanto and the other GMO producers had a better pnwmom Aug 2015 #42

Well, I don't like Monsanto anymore than I like Seralini. longship Aug 2015 #45

How can you say that "all the science says it is safe" when Monsanto was allowed pnwmom Aug 2015 #47

Because every study cited by anti-GMO folks have big problems. longship Aug 2015 #49

The studies sponsored by the producers all have clear conflicts of interest, pnwmom Sep 2015 #53

Conflicts of interest are part of the peer review. longship Sep 2015 #54

Studies that GMO producers prevented from being published are being reviewed by no one. nt pnwmom Sep 2015 #55

Rubbish! longship Sep 2015 #57

You missed my point completely. And this is a matter of FACT. pnwmom Sep 2015 #59

And maybe you missed my point. longship Sep 2015 #62

And he's also loved by nutbag Republicans Mercola and Mike Adams Major Nikon Sep 2015 #103

I don't know much about Mercola, and nothing about his politics, so I googled him. pnwmom Sep 2015 #108

Sure, all good Democrats belong to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons Major Nikon Sep 2015 #109

Seralini?... SidDithers Aug 2015 #23

So it might be dangerous after 2 years of chronic exposure AwareOne Aug 2015 #13

Farmers are using Roundup in much greater doses than before pnwmom Aug 2015 #15

All herbicides undergo extensive testing AwareOne Aug 2015 #24

EPA hasn't tested Roundup since 1993, had to be sued to do so... GreatGazoo Aug 2015 #27

That has not stopped studies in other countries. L0oniX Aug 2015 #40

As the recent editorial in the American Journal of Medicine explained, pnwmom Aug 2015 #33

Trust ...it's a wonderful thing. L0oniX Aug 2015 #39

Your much beloved EPA has been captured by Monsanto. bvar22 Sep 2015 #83

Michael Taylor has never worked for the EPA Major Nikon Sep 2015 #105

My alphabet soup must have been upside down this AM. bvar22 Sep 2015 #110

If you meant FDA, why did you respond to a comment about the EPA? Major Nikon Sep 2015 #111

That was my bad, bvar22 Sep 2015 #114

Not all questions deserve answers Major Nikon Sep 2015 #116

I neeed nothing more than the appearance of impropriety, bvar22 Sep 2015 #117

Actually you don't even need that for making baseless accusations Major Nikon Sep 2015 #118

Here's an explanation of animal doses nationalize the fed Sep 2015 #66

But, but... it's not real "science" if it reflects badly on Monsanto or other corporate toxins! villager Aug 2015 #29

Absolutely! Doing otherwise endangers Lorien Aug 2015 #34

That's right! You gun-grabber! villager Aug 2015 #44

Oh dear, here comes the foaming at the mouth pro-GMO crowd! Lorien Aug 2015 #32

Is this an example of what this other post was talking about? uppityperson Aug 2015 #41

This is an even better one Major Nikon Sep 2015 #104

If it's so safe naysayers, eat a diet of nothing but gmo corn and wheat and tell me about your cance Dont call me Shirley Aug 2015 #35

I'd like to see how healthy someone is who ate nothing but non-gmo corn and wheat uppityperson Aug 2015 #43

Tumorville Dont call me Shirley Sep 2015 #69

If you throw in some GMO beef, some GMO pork, oh and GMO potato - I'm in!... yawnmaster Sep 2015 #74

And gmo zucchini, yellow squash and salmon. Yummy yummy. Look at how fast these tumors are Dont call me Shirley Sep 2015 #90

Nope, don't generally like zucchini and yellow squash, unless they are in minestrone soup... yawnmaster Sep 2015 #98

Almost makes you wonder where they are hiding all the bodies Major Nikon Sep 2015 #106

Another attempt to justify Seralini. HuckleB Aug 2015 #36

Apparently, they can't...nt SidDithers Sep 2015 #63

Monsanto's Herbicide Linked to Fatal Kidney Disease Epidemic: Could It Topple the Company? L0oniX Aug 2015 #38

That's some funny shit right there Major Nikon Sep 2015 #99

Obvioulsy Monstanto has employees everywhere. L0oniX Sep 2015 #100

The tin foil hat brigade seems to be well represented as well Major Nikon Sep 2015 #101

Asshats and emoticons for endocrine disrupters! Octafish Sep 2015 #60

And the CT loons lap it up... SidDithers Sep 2015 #61

First, Seralini is the Andrew Wakefield of anti-GMOs. NuclearDem Sep 2015 #71

The anti-Science is STRONG in this thread. MohRokTah Sep 2015 #80

It's funny. I can't even see most of the posts in this thread. HuckleB Sep 2015 #93

It's amazing what you learn in these threads Major Nikon Sep 2015 #107

Once more, your broad brush fantasy has proved to be very flawed. bvar22 Sep 2015 #113