General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"If you are anti-GMOs you are anti-science."
That mind-twisting meme is a steady, unrelenting drumbeat...
It's also a deliberate and ongoing corporate propaganda strategy.. Be wary of of the "tent pole" strategy.
"Recent disclosed documents have also exposed numerous scientific experts enlisted in Monsantos messaging (and other corporate messaging as well). But what is most pernicious is that a whole new rhetorical talking point has come to the forefront, which threatens anyone particularly scientists who speak out against their tent pole technology: If you are anti-GMOs you are anti-science...
The new talking point represents a brilliant strategy to promote genetic engineering. Most people do not want to be characterized as anti-science, not journalists, not public officials, not celebrities, and least of all, not trained and educated scientists. Furthermore, the propaganda plays to pro-science liberals who have accused conservatives of being anti-science due to their denial of climate change."
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/05/gmo-propaganda-and-the-sociology-of-science/
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Your article keeps mentioning glyphosate, which has very little to do with GMOs as a whole, and really is about Monsanto.
Monsanto =/= GMO. Monsanto sucks. GMOs do not.
NV Whino
(20,886 posts)As in "Roundup Ready." Altering DNA to be pesticide tolerant simply exaserbates the problem. You may call that a Monsanto problem. I call it a GMO problem. If Monsanto doesn't do it, someone else will.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,019 posts)AxionExcel
(755 posts)You might want to read up on some science. It can be very helpful in cutting through the corporate propaganda. Most people who have embraced the facts of the matter see the connection.
Here's the GMO glyphosate universe in a nutshell:
"Glyphosate-resistant crops represent more than 80% of the 120 million ha of transgenic crops grown annually worldwide..." http://www.agbioforum.org/v12n34/v12n34a10-duke.htm
demwing
(16,916 posts)Or anti-fracking, or anti-anything created by a scientist that has corrosive effect on the quality of life.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)denialism: sort of a strange feedback there
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)to the propagation and/or research into genetic engineering, in most contexts, are also the same people who oppose mandatory vaccinations, and seem to be proponents of such frauds as the "organic" farming industry, the supplement industry, and alternative medicine industry.
Not to mention the minds of these people are made up, an entire industry is apparently out to make sure they are poisoned and die, somehow, no explanation, but hyperbole seems to rule the day. They even, without a hint of irony, will admit this straight out. They want certainty where none exists.
AxionExcel
(755 posts)I absolutely understand why you'd want to change the subject.
If you wish to discuss the lack of evidence supporting GMO safety, or any of the other diversionary topics you have raised, please - by all means - start a thread that pertains to those topics.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)fit your preconceived notions, usually related to you ideological bent. This is, by definition, the complete opposite of critical thinking or supporting scientific scrutiny.
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)cheap rhetoric from cheap 2 bit corporate lackeys
GMO's are the biggest scientific fraud of our age
http://www.amazon.com/Altered-Genes-Twisted-Truth-Systematically/dp/0985616903/
Margarine was once good
Cannabis was once bad
Thalidomide was once good
Some of us don't give a damn what others say. That has worked well for me.
"Blah Blah Blah"
katsy
(4,246 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 7, 2016, 08:37 PM - Edit history (1)
Science is a process and self corrects over time with testing and analysis. Science isn't static. People need to weigh benefits/risks, real or suspected, for themselves. Especially when the common good is NOT involved (I am rabidly pro vaccine).
http://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=005528
https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/sep/17/scientific-studies-wrong
I'll repeat it: science is not static it's not a fucking religion and it self corrects as our knowledge grows.
Label gmos and let people make the choices. Corporations do not have the right to people's money without informing them what it is they are buying.
People have the right to not buy something even if it's just an "ewwwwww" factor.
People have the right to boycott Monsanto products just befuckingcause.
Labeling is required for people with peanut allergies even tho peanuts are scientifically non toxic.
I'm actually ok with cloned meat unless they decide to make it round-up ready 😂😂😂 for no other reason than I don't want my money going to Monsanto if I can help it. Just because it's my choice to make. I never ever set foot in a Walmart. Perfectly SAFE place to visit I heard but I don't give a shit. When given a choice I make one! I don't like monsantos corp policies of suing farmers, buying up all the seed companies... IMO they are dangerous and I reject their stuff whenever possible. Am I still a free person living in a democracy with the ability to do so?
Can democracy can endure without transparency and choice? Really? It's ok to boycott companies just because it's your choice to do so.
LABEL IT!
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)what are, at best, subjective choices.
This isn't about people who will go into anaphylaxis if they eat a GMO produced corn chip. That isn't a risk factor, but rather people who, for whatever reason, will create risks where there are none for the sole purpose of fearmongering and trying to justify their choices.
katsy
(4,246 posts)In my mind even those people have the right to their opinion and their own choices if it doesn't involve public health.
Subjective choices are part of a messy democracy and information is currency. It's that simple.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)so the claims to facts not in evidence, for example, that GMOs cause cancer, or autism, etc., should be countered as much as possible.
katsy
(4,246 posts)The WHO cautions on cancer.
People have a right to act subjectively in democracies. There is no ifs ands or buts.
IMO monsanto should stop funding studies. They are worthless to people who are suspicious and rightly point out that just by funding the research casts doubt on on its independence. Sure they should run their own studies for product development but leave safety testing to independent researchers. And stop fighting labeling. That is a shit stance to even neutral observers and fuels CTs. It has no place in democracies. More info, better democracy.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)I think its too similar to licensing of chiropractors and the recent certifications related to the "organic" label.
Both were pushed by their respective industries so that now they use them to legitimize their stances, even though chiropractic is a 19th century fraud and the organic industry is pretty much completely unregulated even with certification. Not to mention there's no evidence that organically grown food is any less safe than non-organically grown food. Creates a false dichotomy and misleads the public.
More information is largely a good, but that information also has to be both helpful and accurate to be truly in the public good.
ON EDIT: I feel that this labeling issue is being pushed by industries who have a vested interest in trying to cast a bad light on GMO food production. This also serves to mislead the public.
Ratty
(2,100 posts)Makes it incredibly hard to sort the science wheat from all the woo chaff.
There are some legitimate concerns about GMOs. What they do to honeybee populations and other pollinators. How splicing the genes from one species into another can trigger allergies and food sensitivities in humans. And once you've let a pollinating GMO out into the environment there's no way of ever putting it back. GMOs should be approached with caution. But I suppose like any issue there'll be zealots on both sides of the issue.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,019 posts)Those who aren't beholden to one side or the other can use reason and try to find independently funded studies (not easy, of course).
Rex
(65,616 posts)People that have faith in mega-conglomerates already drank the kool-aid, so there is really no debating them. Same goes with CTers that KNOW, just KNOW it is a grand conspiracy or something! Both groups are so myopic that it is obvious to the normal reader.
People that have faith in The Science and can never prove what they claim are easy to dismiss. They can be as obtuse as they want to be which is kinda an indicator they don't have any idea what they are talking about. Then when the sub-thread evolves into name calling, I know they don't know what they are talking about and are done with the subject as far as I am concerned.
I also know there is a big push between Organic and GMO mega-conglomerates to get people to pick sides. No thanks, I let other people be tools for the billionaires. Not interested.
All it boils down to for me is my health and getting the most accurate information available. MOST of the time that is not on DU, what goes on at DU is more Fight Club then anything else.
Shandris
(3,447 posts)...'scientific consensus' is anyway (read: Persona non Grata). What, did you think it was only going to be used for those evil, mean, totally stoopid 'global warming """"""""""""""""""""""deniers"""""""""""""""""""""""'?
As I often say...anyone surprised isn't paying attention.
Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)splicing the bT gene into the corn plant to make it worm resistant.
Organic farmers have been using the plain ole bt soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis, for years to control worms but that can be washed off.
Throughout history there have been new products have been sold with out any testing.
Have you noticed methiliate or "monkey blood" is not around anymore. Yeah, we used it on children for years and it has Mercury in it.