GMOs are as good as vaccines.

[DamnYankeeInHouston]

Both the National Geographic magazine and Bill Nye, the science guy, have recently stated that people who are against GMOs are as crazy as people who are against vaccines. Really?

[Scuba]

1. Well then GMO producers should proudly claim their GMO heritage on their labels!

[Orrex]

10. Why?

Since irrational fear of GMOs will almost certainly have a negative impact upon sales of products labelled as GMOs, you'd need to establish that the benefit outweigh the cost.

[NuclearDem]

21. It's a marketing gimmick.

People have turned "GMO" into such a toxic term that the people most likely to actually benefit from labeling are organic food producers.

[Orrex]

34. Exactly.

Manufacturers that identify their products with this fear-generating label will suffer considerable detriment while receiving no benefit.

[LanternWaste]

65. I suppose many prioritize an alleged irrational fear over that of accuracy.

I suppose many prioritize an alleged irrational fear over that of accuracy.

[Orrex]

68. You are free to suppose that. If you have relevant information, please share it.

You are free to suppose that. If you have relevant information, please share it.

[Gormy Cuss]

221. The question you answered is "why not?"

If labeling products had no impact there would be no opposition from producers.

[Orrex]

222. If such labeling were justified, they'd have no grounds to object

Since no compelling need for GMO labeling has been demonstrated, there is no justification for forcing companies to label their products that way.

You are assuming that companies resist such labeling for nefarious reasons, but that's circular reasoning because you assume outright that GMO products are harmful. First you must demonstrate that GMO products are harmful, then you can demand that companies disclose their use.

Until then, you would require labeling based solely on ignorance and fear.

[Gormy Cuss]

223. I don't assume that they resist for any reason other than their profits.

IMO resisting labeling and intentional labeling are two sides of the same coin when it comes to marketing a product --- both decisions are made to enhance profits.


(eta: you made a powerful lot of assumptions about what I think in your reply but I'm assuming you confused me with someone else.)

[Orrex]

226. But that's not inherently wrong

And it's dishonest to portray it as wrong, as many in the anti-GMO crowd have done in these discussions.

If there is a compelling need to disclose GMO content, then that need may supersede the desire for profits, ajd labeling should then be required. Absent that need, and absent any demonstrated wrongdoing, a desire for profit is not wrong.

[Gormy Cuss]

227. Right, a desire for profit is not wrong

and cui bono is the first place to look when trying to understand why some are so ardently in one camp or the other.

[Orrex]

228. Used in that way, it's the famous "shill gambit"

And it frankly speaks of limited vision, if someone can imagine no motivation to advocate for a position other than profit. I've been accused of being a shill upwards of a dozen times in these threads, and it's been ridiculous each time.

I could as readily declare that someone would argue for GMO labeling only ou of a desire to profit from so-called "natural foods," and i would obviously be wrong to do so.

[Gormy Cuss]

229. Well, I've never called you a shill

but when the argument is about labeling rather than the efficacy of GMOs, the focus is perception of product safety.

[Orrex]

230. I wasn't saying that you called me that--only that many others have done so

when the argument is about labeling rather than the efficacy of GMOs, the focus is perception of product safety.

Maybe, but since the efficacy and safety of GMOs are not seriously in question, one wonders what point the anti-GMO crowd is trying to make.

And by "not seriously in question," I mean that broad scientific consensus has determined that they do not present a health risk and they are no less healthful than their "natural" counterparts.

[HuckleB]

246. Ah, so you are supportive of anti-science stances.

That might explain a lot about your behavior in GD today.

[HuckleB]

76. Why don't organic food companies label foods as being derived from mutation breeding?

Last edited Thu Mar 5, 2015, 01:39 AM - Edit history (2)

http://www.science20.com/kevin_folta/atomic_gardening_ultimate_frankenfoods-91836



More links on mutagenesis:

http://www.science20.com/science_20/blog/id_put_warning_labels_on_mutagenic_plants_before_gmos-127348

"... Once science discovered that new versions of plants could be created much faster than the old way of grafting, by controlling radiation instead of letting nature just create chaos and danger, they began to do it. In 1936, the world was introduced to mutagenesis, a controlled way to bombard a plant with ionizing radiation and get something new. It was wildly successful, over 2,200 varieties of crops in use right now were created using genetic modification - but since it was genetic modification due to mutagenesis it is considered a "conventional breeding technique" and completely allowed in Europe. Enjoy organic food? You are eating a GMO.

What does that tell weird lack of distinction tell us? It tells us that the anti-GMO craze in Europe is a legal issue, not a science one. They picked a completely arbitrary definition in order to include 1990s genetic modification without wiping out almost 100% of the genetically modified crops then in use. It might as well be called an anti-Monsanto law, since companies like BASF and DuPont have rushed to satisfy the market that Monsanto is not allowed to serve by simply going back to less precise genetic modification - mutagenesis.

At Genetic Literacy Project, I discuss the problem with that stance. It's good for DuPont and BASF, of course, Europe has basically used government fiat to ban a competitor, but bad for common sense and public understanding of science on The Continent. GMOs were created because they could be more precise than older techniques while, as a report by the National Academy of Sciences noted, mutagenesis gets a free pass “despite the expectation that mutant varieties may possess and generate more unexpected outcomes … because of the unpredictable and uncontrollable nature of non-targeted mutations.”

..."

and...

http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/10/20/mutagenesis-one-way-europeans-wish-it-was-1936-again/

[laundry_queen]

151. hahahahaha nt

[HuckleB]

152. Yup, that's right. Big Organic won't label its seed development technologies.

'Tis a funny thing indeed.

[laundry_queen]

154. OOOH Big organic! Those huge multinational big organic companies controlling the food industry

Jesus, I'm going to have an aneurysm from laughing so hard. ... Big organic. You are so funny. When you say ridiculous things like that, it really undermines your argument. Just sayin'.

[HuckleB]

155. Isn't it funny when silly anti-GMO rhetoric gets turned the other way around?

Hey, thanks for playing "do you really care about a supposed 'right to know?'"

Now we know that you don't actually care.

Your cooperation is much appreciated.

[laundry_queen]

158. LOL you still don't get it do you?

It's like reverse racism. There is a power differential that makes your attempt ridiculous on its face and your credibility suffers because of it.

You really crack me up in these threads.

[HuckleB]

160. Wow!

Reverse racism. Oh, goodness. You actually went there?

Now that is some seriously bombastic anti-GMO rhetoric. You dig a hole for yourself, and then you just turn up the volume, don't you?

On the other hand, Mike Adams would be so proud:

http://wonkette.com/578360/calling-someone-an-anti-vaxxer-just-like-racism-and-gay-bashing-says-professionally-stupid-man

[laundry_queen]

161. It's been fun

Yes I went there because I was trying to demonstrate the huge power differential between large agri-business and small organic farmers and how your assertions were ridiculous. As ridiculous as reverse racism is. What's wrong with using that analogy? Is there some kind of ban on DU I wasn't informed of? Turn up the volume on what? 'Rhetoric'? What have you been spewing? I could say the same for you. BTW, I don't go to anti-GMO sites. So I have no idea what their 'rhetoric' is.

Anyhoo, just thought I'd pop in because it's always a hoot to watch you on these threads, but my fun is done now. Toodles.

[HuckleB]

162. You seem to be forgetting that the only actual power difference is the science of the matter.

The science shows that GMOs are safe, more predictable than other forms of seed development, oh, and studied vastly more than other forms of seed development.

The "non-GMO" and "organic" industries are rather big, and utilizing baseless fear of technology (while utilizing a more dangerous technology) is a very easy way for them to get bigger, so that's what those companies have done, and continue to do. And you've helped them. I hope you're proud.


--------------------------------------

PS: Thanks for the classic anti-GMO posts. No actual content. All hyperbole. No boundaries. Awesome. Pure awesome.

[laundry_queen]

165. I don't need to post content (I'm sure that'll get a comment)

because I'm well aware of the science. I just have a blast at your hatred of anyone who questions your opinion of the science. I also disagree that those industries are 'big' in any way that compares with larger agricultural companies. There is no comparison. Could they be using fear to drum up business? Sure, just as large agricultural companies market their products as the best thing ever. It's what companies do. Why is it okay for companies that sell GMO to market their product, but not the other companies? If you ask me, both work on fear. GMO corps warn people of the impending doom of diseased crops and food shortages every bit as much as organic companies warn about the danger of GMOs. Fear sells. Both sides are guilty of it. Even here at DU, one side yells 'you are anti-science/dumb/idiot if you want GMOs labeled' which scares a lot of people out of these threads because, who wants to be called anti-science? Even if they do have a relatively good grasp of it (I spent some time getting a science education in post-secondary. Specifically genetics). It's a form of bullying. But I also don't believe that eating GMOs are going to instantly render me ill. I'm not even convinced they will have long term effects, physically, on humans. I, have some very 'earthy' friends that look at you in horror if they eat a bag of doritos like you've just ingested a bottle of arsenic and then make sure to mention it every time you are ill, or have an ache or pain and say, "it's your diet. You eat too much GMOs, your body has inflammation/toxicity/<insertweirdunscientifictermhere>, it's all your fault". I don't agree with that kind of intimidation either.

For me, it's about the choice of the matter. I don't think you get to dictate what I get to choose to eat. I think my earthy friends should have a choice if they want to avoid GMOs and spent triple the amount of money on local organics. I think by shouting 'anti-science' you are overlooking the discussion about choice in labeling. Heck, we even have to label the fiber content in clothing...just because. It's not like wearing polyester ever had ill effects on anyone (unless, I suppose, it was hot and it was thick polyester) but we are afforded that choice. It's labeled. Just the vehemence against labeling GMOs is honestly extremely disturbing and probably drives away more people to the 'other' side. I've seen enough of these threads, however, to know that it's not about educating people, it's about ridiculing them. You are no more interested in the content than my 4 month old yorkie sleeping next to me is. So please, stop pretending. THAT would be awesome.

[HuckleB]

166. More blind rhetoric, with no support.

And the most hilarious one is, of course, the fact that you rant about "choice," after laughing about labels for mutagenic foods.

[OrwellwasRight]

219. I love stating that you want control over what you eat

is labeled by you to be "blind rhetoric." It's neither blind nor rhetorical.

[HuckleB]

225. Nice propaganda.

It doesn't match up with reality. You have control over what you eat. Pretending that labeling a single seed development technology among many somehow gives you control over what you eat is about as disingenuous as one can get.

[OrwellwasRight]

233. Do you even know what propaganda is?

Stating that you want control over what you eat isn't propaganda. It's a human desire that some of us have. And those of us who want that control do not have that control, particularly over GM ingredients, when foodmakers fail to disclose that GM ingredients are in their food. That is a statement of fact. Because it is a fact you deem unimportant -- and I am at a loss to explain why -- doesn't make it propaganda.

[HuckleB]

240. Lying about GMOs is propaganda

How do you not understand that?

Scientists overwhelmingly think GMOs are safe to eat
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/29/7947695/gmos-safety-poll

[OrwellwasRight]

245. Excuse me, who are you implying is lying about GMOs?

I never said GMOs were unsafe to eat. Neither did I say that scientists said they were unsafe to eat. In fact, my argument is there are other issues around GMOs that are reasons why people might want them labeled. That's what I said. Give me the post number where I said otherwise.

Then tell me who is a "liar." And consider apologizing for your flame bait outburst. I am not a liar nor do I appreciate the implication.

Here's a tip: Try to stick to the subject at hand. Ad hominems and non-sequiters are not effective argument techniques. But thank you for playing. You don't win the lounge suite or the new car. Good day sir.

[NuclearDem]

204. Revenue from organic food sales totaled $35.1 billion in 2013.

https://www.ota.com/what-ota-does/market-analysis

Needless to say, they have quite the lobbying operation to push for GMO labeling.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/05/21/organic-lobby-attacks-biotech-advances-obscures-own-sustainability-and-nutrition-doubletalk/

As the Genetic Literacy Project reports, the organic industry has a direct commercial interest in sowing confusion and doubt about genetically engineered crops and food ingredients derived from them.

The anti-biotech disinformation efforts have been in full gear over the past week. The leading critic is the Organic Consumers Association led by Ronnie Cummins, with help from foodies like Michael Pollan and Mark Bittman. Recently, however, the OCA has been joined in its demonization campaign by what have been considered more mainstream organic lobbying groups.

...

According to every leading national and international science body, those statements are accurate, although the specifics of each claim are complicated and worthy of nuanced discussion. But one won’t find that kind of serious dialogue at the OCA site. Rather, it promotes blind anti-biotech advocacy and non-education, making the sweeping and false statement that “a large and growing body of scientific and other authoritative evidence shows that these claims are not true.

...

Despite the new tomato’s obvious benefits, activists campaigned against it, calling it a “mutant veggie.” It never caught on and was eventually discontinued. A safe and nutritious food was removed from the market by a disinformation campaign. Even today, palpably false accusations about the tomato’s safety are re-circulated by Cummins and by other anti-biotech campaigners, such as Jeffrey Smith, who falsely claim that the Flavr Savr tomato or its ingredients killed rats in lab tests. (In fact, in lab tests, some rats fed an exclusive diet of tomatoes did show esophageal lesions, which speaks to the acidity of tomatoes; there was certainly no evidence of toxicity as Cummins and Smith have implied).

So yes, Big Organic does exist, and their lobbying for GMO labels is profit driven.

[laundry_queen]

213. LOL, pot meet kettle. 'Profit driven' LMFAO. nt

[NuclearDem]

214. Right, because the organic industry doesn't stand to profit from GMO labeling.

After all, the climate around GMOs is entirely rational and level-headed, and no one would refuse to buy foods with them out of irrational fear.

[laundry_queen]

216. That sound you hear

is the 'whoooosh' of the point sailing right over your head.

[url=http://postimage.org/][img][/img][/url]
[url=http://postimage.org/]free image uploader[/url]

[Donald Ian Rankin]

108. If they could rely on consumers behaving rationally, that would indeed follow. N.T.

[el_bryanto]

2. I think the problem with GMOs is that they are a readily understandable piece

of a system that has many features of corruption. Agribusiness has a number of practices that are questionable, such as copy-writing seeds and genetics. Such as the way that livestock is taken care of. And there's the simple truth that many fruits and vegetables have been grown to maximize eye-appeal with a corresponding loss in taste appeal (Apples and Tomatoes in particular). There's something not right in how we get our food; and GMOs provide a quick and easy explanation of what is wrong there.

I think labeling GMO products should be necessary though; I don't know if it would deter me from purchasing them, but I'd at least like to know.

Bryant

[phil89]

58. Should emotion based

reasoning be taken seriously? Or should we follow where the evidence leads?

[upaloopa]

61. I guess it depends on the pardigm you see the world through

[Orrex]

69. Please clarify

Please explain why the paradigm that ignores established science should be given priority over the paradigm that recognizes the value of evidence and testing.

[upaloopa]

74. The world is more complicated than you think

There is a profit motive to science that you seem oblivious to.

[Orrex]

79. That's not a clarification--it's a platitude.

Please clarify this statement:

I guess it depends on the pardigm you see the world through

[el_bryanto]

109. Not to be taken seriously?

Maybe it was a blessing in disguise that I was busy this morning after a computer crash and didn't have time to read your response.

Bryant

[Warren DeMontague]

195. I dont think the technology itself is inherently bad. In fact, I suspect it could have some

Beneficial uses.

But i do question whether selling more pesticides by engineering pesticide-resistant crops to complement that particular proprietary chemical, is the best use of a powerful technology.

Which I think is part of what you are getting at.

[silvershadow]

3. I like Bill Nye a lot. But on this, I think he isn't thinking clearly. nt

[DamnYankeeInHouston]

4. He said updated a chapter in his book after visiting labs at Monsanto.

I was very disappointed to hear that. So were the bees.

[Orrex]

42. Citation, please.

What was the nature of the update? Are you asserting that the update is false or incorrect? If so, then please provide your evidence. If not, then please clarify your meaning.

You imply that he changed the chapter due to influence by Monsanto. What is your evidence?

It has not been demonstated that CCD is due to action by Monsanto or their products. Please provide your evidence to the contrary.

[Bettie]

5. I have no problem with GMO's existing in our food supply

I simply have a problem with them not being labeled as such.

I'd like to know that I'm buying a GMO product.

My kids are vaccinated (as are DH and I), but we go into it informed and knowing we're getting vaccinated.

[Orrex]

11. Since there is no safety issue, what is the compelling reason to require GMO labels?

I could as readily--and with equal justification--demand to know the name of the truck driver who drove these oranges up from Florida.

Why should manufacturers be required to label GMO foods when there is no difference in health value, and such labelling will have a negative impact on sales due to the ill-founded fears of would-be purchasers?

[Bettie]

13. So, you have complete trust in Monsanto?

I don't.

I like to know what is in my food.

I guess organics shouldn't be labeled either.

Oooh, how about NO labels? No information on anything, we just eat whatever we're told to! That would be great, wouldn't it?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

14. Gmo =/= Monsanto

[Bettie]

19. Monsanto is a leader in this technology

Asking for information is not the same as demanding that such items not be sold.

Also, with GMO advocates asserting that their products are actually BETTER for you than non-GMO products, you'd think they would proudly label them as such.

Their resistance to that makes me less likely to trust what I'm being told.

In the end, I'm rather on the fence about GMO foods, I would simply like to see labels.

And I'm done with this thread for now at least. I am aware that I'm the worst person on the planet for suggesting that food be accurately labeled.

[Orrex]

22. Citation, please

Also, with GMO advocates asserting that their products are actually BETTER for you than non-GMO products, you'd think they would proudly label them as such.

I would be interesting to read these assertions.

I am aware that I'm the worst person on the planet for suggesting that food be accurately labeled.

That, too, is your assertion, and therefore no one else is required to defend it.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

23. They are one of seven big companies

And one of thousands in the field. And the only one you hear about. They're a shitty company. Gmos are still safe. Read a few research papers and wrap your head around the science.

[immoderate]

32. Ah the research papers. Do you know of an epidemiological study that says GMOs are safe?

There don't seem to be any.

--imm

[Orrex]

20. You didn't answer my question.

So, you have complete trust in Monsanto?

That is your assertion, not mine, so I don't have to defend it. Also, as has been noted, GMO =/= Monsanto.

I like to know what is in my food.

That's lovely. However, in the absence of a demonstrable safety risk, your wish to have that information does not require a manufacturer to provide it.

I guess organics shouldn't be labeled either.

That is likewise your assertion, not mine, so I don't have to defend it. Further, are organic foods legally required to be labelled as such?

Oooh, how about NO labels? No information on anything, we just eat whatever we're told to! That would be great, wouldn't it?

That is also your assertion, not mine, so I don't have to defend it.


Since there is no safety issue, what is the compelling reason to require GMO labels?

[laundry_queen]

153. There's no safety issue with most nutrients on the labels but those are required to be there. nt

[OrwellwasRight]

190. You are wrong like 1000000 times.

Manufacturers can be and ARE required to label all kinds of things that have no demonstrable safety risk.

Do you think dolphin-safe tuna is demonstrably nutritionally different than non-dolphin-safe tuna? I don't. And yet, it's required to be labeled.

We also have laws that require manufacturers to label the country of origin on non-processed food products like fruits, vegetables, fish, and meat. Do you think a carrot from Canada is demonstrably less safe to eat than a carrot from the US? And yet, it's required to be labeled.

People have a right to make a choice for all kinds of moral, ethical, environmental, and other reasons. If you have no such concerns, bully for you. Quit telling the rest of us we have no right to push for better laws so we can be more informed.

And quit pretending the only issue here is the human stomach. That's a straw man argument and you know it. It's about the planet and how we want to live on it.

[Orrex]

197. I'd refute your argument, but you haven't offered an argument. Just a string of nonsense.

Manufacturers can be and ARE required to label all kinds of things that have no demonstrable safety risk.

So what? In those cases the information has been deemed relevant whether or not it's a safety concern. You raise this point as if it refutes anything that I've posted, when in fact it simply underscores what I've been saying all along.

Do you think dolphin-safe tuna is demonstrably nutritionally different than non-dolphin-safe tuna? I don't. And yet, it's required to be labeled.

That information has been deemed to be relevant, and so it is required to be disclosed. Again, you raise this point as if it refutes anything that I've posted, when certainly it does not.

We also have laws that require manufacturers to label the country of origin on non-processed food products like fruits, vegetables, fish, and meat.

That information has been deemed to be relevant, and so it is required to be disclosed. Do you really not understand this? Once again, you raise this point as if it refutes anything that I've posted, when certainly it does not.

Do you think a carrot from Canada is demonstrably less safe to eat than a carrot from the US? And yet, it's required to be labeled.

Seriously? Do you think that baby formula and pet food from China--chock full of melamine--is as safe as the products made here in the US under strict controls? You truly have no idea what you're talking about.

People have a right to make a choice for all kinds of moral, ethical, environmental, and other reasons. If you have no such concerns, bully for you.

That's your false framing of my position, so I have no obligation to defend it.

Quit telling the rest of us we have no right to push for better laws so we can be more informed.

You can believe whatever crazy bullshit you like, but when you're crying for bullshit legislation based on bullshit pseudoscience, you can bet that I'm going to object.

And quit pretending the only issue here is the human stomach. That's a straw man argument and you know it.

Since that's not my position, you're the one who's using a straw man.

It's about the planet and how we want to live on it.

That's a lovely platitude, but the issue remains. Demonstrate that the GMO foods are themselves damaging the planet we live on. Otherwise you're simply evangelizing.


I've replied to two of your posts that were both so vapid that they didn't deserve a response. Unless you can come up with something that hasn't been addressed 20 times before, I'm not going to bother with you any further.

[OrwellwasRight]

198. You undo your own argument.

Really. It's quite ridiculous.

Do you think dolphin-safe tuna is demonstrably nutritionally different than non-dolphin-safe tuna? I don't. And yet, it's required to be labeled.
That information has been deemed to be relevant, and so it is required to be disclosed. Again, you raise this point as if it refutes anything that I've posted, when certainly it does not.

Um, "has been deemed to be relevant"? So who do you think deems things "relevant", God? Here is how a democratic republic (not a Monsanto-owned corporatocracy) works: citizens think of ideas -- transmit to elected officials -- if enough of them do do that it appears the elected officials need to be responsive, they pass a law. I can recommend a good introductory book on government if you'd like. So if citizens say it is relevant, then it is relevant. Monsanto doesn't get to overrule democracy.

So, why was the manner in which tuna was caught "deemed relevant"? Citizens wanted it that way. And that is the only way we will get GMO labeling, as well. Oh, and by the way, I did fully refute "anything" that you posted. I refuted the entire post I responded to, in which your argument was that GMOs are "demonstrably safe" and so should not be labeled. Your entire argument implied that was the only determinant of labeling. It's a demonstrably incorrect premise, and I demonstrated that it was incorrect. So try another argument next time.

And I said nothing about "China" or "baby food". I asked if a carrot from Canada is demonstrably less safe than a carrot from the US. And it isn't. Therefore, under your ridiculous criteria, it would not have to be labeled. Only things that are demonstrably unsafe would have to be labeled -- so we would lose information about Canadian vegetables, Vitamin C, and the like. Stop using stupid arguments, and I will stop refuting them so thoroughly.

You do know there were fights over labeling vitamins, and tuna, and the like that occurred previously, each time food companies didn't want to label calories, or sugars, or vitamins, right? They made largely the same as the argument you are making now. And they lost. And we have more information on labels now. And not a single company went out of business as a result. Methinks they did protest too much.

And yet, the labeling laws were passed, I guess at the behest of people who believe "crazy bullshit," which by the way is yet another ineffective argument technique. Please point to the sentences above in which I purport to believe "crazy bullshit". No, seriously, I'm keen to find out what makes you think that you are the sane one between the two of us, or does impugning another person's state of mind really work out well for you here on DU? 'Cause I kind of think it doesn't.

Oh, and by the way, these same companies are currently fighting the country of origin labeling laws you so vigorously defend above. On what grounds? That it has no effect on food safety. Hmmmm, where have I heard that before.? The problem is, no one wants labels because of food safety. They want labels so that they know what they are buying, which companies they are patronizing, and can make choices about what kinds of food production they want to support. They want the perfect information promised for perfectly functioning markets. I'm sorry such concepts as consumers voting with their feet are beyond you. I can also recommend a good economics textbook if you'd like.

And, and please follow through on your "threat" to refrain from responding to me further. Calling someone's posts "vapid" is sort of the first refuge of someone losing an argument. But I guess that is what happens when someone deconstructs your lame argument, and you have to pretend that wasn't what you were arguing at all.

[Orrex]

203. Word salad. TLDR

Well, actually I did read it, but it's so full of garbage that it's not worth unpacking.

However, I call your posts vapid not because I am losing any argument but because you add nothing to the discussion and you are therefore unworthy of a more detailed or thorough response. I'm currently engaging with upward of a dozen anti-GMO types, almost all of whom are trotting out the same fallacies and nonsense, yet you would apparently have me respond to each with a detailed rebuttal including cross-references and citations. Worse, in many cases I'm required to spell out the basic rules of logical discourse, and I simply don't have the time or will to do that when the audience has preemptively declared me a Monsanto shill.

You are uninteresting because your posts lack insight and are generally redundant. I confess that I lost track of which vapid posts I had decided to ignore, so my response to you--though correct and well justified--was unintentional. If you want a more thorough treatment, you should make an effort to distinguish yourself from the background, because right now your noise simply comes across as part of the static.

[OrwellwasRight]

217. You have not ignored any of my posts, vapid or otherwise.

You threaten not to respond, and then you respond anyway. I so wish you would follow through on your argument, as it would save me from pointing out that your main rhetorical tool is ad hominem, a throughly discredited technique.

You have also refused to identify any "crazy bullshit" because there was none. You have also labeled discussions of the WTO COOL labeling controversy and a discussion of how a bill becomes a law "redundant," without pointing out where exactly those same arguments were made before.

You clearly do not know the first rule of logical discourse as ad hominem is not it. But thanks for telling me you have spelled it out for me -- when in fact you have not. Please give me the number of the post in which you explained to me logical discourse. Oh and please give me the number of the post in which I called you a "Monsanto shill." Or indeed any kind of "shill." I simply said they don't run our country and don't get to make our rules.

Finally, Here is your argument from Post 20: "Since there is no safety issue, what is the compelling reason to require GMO labels?"

You imply here that safety is the only issue. I have provided numerous other reasons to label ingredients, particularly for COOL labels and dolphin safe labels, which you purported to support. COOL land dolphin labels are for consumer preference. And so would GMO labels be. If you don't find that compelling, too bad. Compelling isn't the standard. This isn't a federal case about abortion rights, in which the standard is "compelling." This is a democratic choice of citizens -- see my last post if you forgot how that works -- the standard need not be compelling. And it is a straw man to make it so. You'll need some new TPs because your current ones aren't all that convincing.

[OrwellwasRight]

189. There is no safety issue with Vitamin C either

And yet, it is required for every food producer to put in on the label. Should we ban Vitamin C labeling too?

[Orrex]

196. Is vitamin C listed because of safety concerns? Of course not.

The FDA recommends that people take in a certain amount of vitamin C daily. The nutrition facts label gives this information so that people can gauge how much they're getting.

Did you really not know this? And despite that ignorance you're presuming to declare what sorts of information must be shown on the label? Ridiculous.

[OrwellwasRight]

199. And would GMOs have to be listed because of safety concerns?

Of course not.

Do YOU really not know this? And despite YOUR ignorance, you're presuming to declare what sorts of information must be shown on the label? Ridiculous.

(You do realize YOU were the one who premised that safety concerns (or lack thereof) are the reason GMO ingredients can't be listed, right? That was YOUR argument. And now it has been thoroughly debunked.)

[Orrex]

202. You wrote:

There is no safety issue with Vitamin C either

After you superfluously pointed this out (in an apparent attempt at a zinger), I told you why the disclosure of vitamin C is required. That reason is irrelevant to whether or not GMO foods should be listed on the label.

And would GMOs have to be listed because of safety concerns?

Of course not, because no safety concern has been demonstrated.

(You do realize YOU were the one who premised that safety concerns (or lack thereof) are the reason GMO ingredients can't be listed, right? That was YOUR argument.

That's a misrepresentation. I stated--correctly--that GMO foods are no less safe than non-GMO foods, and I further stated--correctly--that there is no other compelling reason to force companies to list them on the labels.

And now it has been thoroughly debunked.)

Well, that's simply a lie. Far from being "thoroughly debunked," it hasn't even been seriously addressed. Absolutely no one has put forth a compelling reason why GMO ingredients must be disclosed as such. If you are aware of such a compelling reason, please reveal it. You would be the very first to do so.

[OrwellwasRight]

218. How is it superfluous when it was your own argument?

In Post 20, you wrote:


"Since there is no safety issue, what is the compelling reason to require GMO labels?"

You imply here that safety is the only issue. I have provided numerous other reasons to label ingredients, particularly for COOL labels, which you purported to support. COOL labels are for consumer preference. And so would GMO labels be. If you don't find that compelling, too bad. That isn't the standard. This isn't a federal case about abortion rights, in which the standard is "compelling." This is a democratic choice of citizens -- I can explain that to you if necessary -- the standard need not be compelling. And it is a straw man to make it so.

I have addressed your one and only argument, which appears to be that GMOs are safe to eat so why label them. It is a stupid argument. Vitamin C is safe so why label it? Answer: for other reasons. Therefore, there are other reasons to label GMOs, including consumer preference, just like dolphin-safe tuna, just like COOL, just like Vitamin C. You'll need some new TPs because your current ones aren't all that convincing.

[Orrex]

224. No compelling reason has been put forth. None.

Not for fears about safety nor for any other reason. By insisting that I'm focused solely on baseless fears about safety (which I am not), you attempt to distract from the basic fact that no compelling reason exists, and in the absence of a compelling reason you have no grounds to demand irrelevant disclosure.

If my argument were indeed stupid, you would have no reason to misrepresent it so falsely. Alternatively, if you had an actual argument to make, you would make it, rather than reimagining my argument more to your liking.

[OrwellwasRight]

234. I have made many arguments. Your failure to adequately rebut them

is a failure of yours, not mine.

Read your own post #20.

To repeat myself, you wrote:

"Since there is no safety issue, what is the compelling reason to require GMO labels?"

You imply that (A) there is no other compelling reason, and that (B) the reasons to label food have to be compelling.

A is not true as in other posts you admitted that a reason (such as dolphin safe fishing methods or country of origin labels) could be deemed important enough to merit labeling.

B is not true, as I have explained, as there is no legal requirement that reasons for labeling need to be "compelling."

It is a little matter of trying to make democracy work, not showing that reasons are "compelling". And democracy can work, despite the great power of money on the other side.

[Orrex]

235. I am aware of what I wrote, though perhaps you are not

Last edited Sun Mar 8, 2015, 02:33 PM - Edit history (1)

Since there is no safety issue, what is the compelling reason to require GMO labels?

In that context, "since" obviously means the same thing as "given that." In other words:
Given that there is no safety issue, what is the compelling reason to require GMO labels?

You can agree that there's no safety issue, or you can pretend that there is, but either option is irrelevant to the question: what is the compelling reason to require GMO labels?

You imply that (A) there is no other compelling reason,

I am most certainly not implying that no other compelling reason exists; instead, I am asking you to name that compelling reason, and you have failed to do so.

and that (B) the reasons to label food have to be compelling.

If you intend to force companies to change their policies, then why wouldn't you have to give a compelling reason? The famed "will of the people" is simply not sufficient in this capacity because it has no right to make those demands. If you disagree, then please identify the limits of the public's authority in this regard. Can the public demand the disclosure of private payroll records? Can the public demand to know the details of confidential manufacturing processes? What are the limits?

It is a little matter of trying to make democracy work, not showing that reasons are "compelling".

That platitude is both lovely and irrelevant, because we're talking about the practices of private companies, rather than the workings of public institutions, the latter of which are indeed subject to the public's will. And before anyone mentions Vermont, let's remember that the law in that state was passed not by popular demand but by legislative process, and it stands a pretty good chance of being overturned.

And even if it is not overturned, you can bet that companies will argue that it is sufficient to identify GMO products by declaring "may contain artificial ingredients."

And democracy can work, despite the great power of money on the other side.

Another lovely platitude, also irrelevant. Save the posturing for a less conscious reader. Also, you're working to complete the checklist, so thanks for your help!


Before you squawk again about my repeated failure to stop replying to you, I will state only that I don't appreciate people willfully misrepresenting my arguments, as you've repeatedly done. Of course, since the anti-GMO crowd's rhetoric is evenly split between misrepresentations and shill-related accusations, I should hardly be surprised.

[OrwellwasRight]

239. Funny. I have misrepresented no argument of yours.

And your unconvincing post only confirms that.

The worst part is probably this:

If you intend to force companies to change their policies, then why wouldn't you have to give a compelling reason? The famed "will of the people" is simply not sufficient in this capacity because it has no right to make those demands. If you disagree, then please identify the limits of the public's authority in this regard. Can the public demand the disclosure of private payroll records? Can the public demand to know the details of confidential manufacturing processes? What are the limits?

You do know, right, that far more than 90% of laws are designed to limit private behavior, and a "law" is a public expression of force. It is all about forcing changes in the practices of private people and private companies. Very few laws are about "the workings of public institutions." All laws, whether they impact private companies (minimum wage laws, workplace safety laws, tax laws, record keeping laws, environmental laws, etc.) or public institutions (laws regarding acceptable use of force, record keeping in public institutions, etc.) are the "will of the people," famed or otherwise. As I have written above, laws do not need to be compelling except in very rare circumstances: e.g., when making a distinction between people on the basis of race. Since GMO labeling is not making a distinction on the basis of race, it need not be "compelling" to withhold scrutiny, no matter how much you'd like for the to be the standard. And no, such a law won't get overturned on the basis that it isn't compelling. I doubt a competent lawyer would even take the case.

Saying that democracy can work is neither a platitude, nor irrelevant -- you do get how arguments work, right? "Democracy can work" is called a "statement of fact." It is "relevant" because that is the process whereby a bill (say, a bill to label GMO ingredients) becomes a law. No, you don't need Monsanto's permission, just an idea that is popular enough to get a majority of votes. It's called, wait for it, DE-MO-CRA-CY.

PS Private businesses are not sacred in the US. If they are to you, maybe you should rethink.

[Archae]

6. Anti-GMO hysterics in 3-2-1...

Using discredited "studies."

Maharishi Yogi "university" graduate authors.

Inflammatory words like "frankenfoods" and "poison."

Accusing without evidence that anyone who says GMO's actually are safe are "Monsanto shills."

And so on...

[TheKentuckian]

7. That is what the supporting movement deserves for their arrogant and stupid anti labeling agenda

You and yours radicalized and greatly expanded your own opposition by boldly declaring the people are too stupid to know what is and is in our food and that you and yours would decide what we pay for and eat.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

15. Why label something that is safe?

It's unnecessary.

[ND-Dem]

17. we already label things that are safe. and many things that were once considered to be safe

are no longer considered to be safe.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

33. 6000+ studies

Showing safety of Gmos. Feel good legislation for the science illiterate and neophytes is a bad idea.

[ND-Dem]

35. we already label things that are safe; like nutrition content and drug ingredients. fiber content

in clothing and material content in various goods. what's your problem with labels?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

41. FUD is my problem.

And that's all this is. FUD. You want to avoid gmo? Go waste your money on overpriced organic food.

[ND-Dem]

62. so nutrition and content labeling is also fud? okey dokey gmo labeling, which already exists in

other countries, is also fud?

jesus h Christ, what a load

[Dr Hobbitstein]

101. No, nutrition and content labelling is necessary.

Especially considering the widely varying sodium and sugar contents in processed foods.

GMO labelling is feel good legislation based on FUD and junk science. Courts and governments are NOT scientific bodies, and none of those that have banned or required labelling based their decisions on sound science.
The nutrient content is about the same as it's conventional couterparts (which, btw, produce does NOT require nutrition or content labelling, just COO labeling).

[TheKentuckian]

30. Because the people buying it want to know for one thing.

We will decide as consumers and citizens what is necessary and isn't.

I don't think directions are necessary for toothpicks but they are there and I didn't campaign against them or to remove them.

Stupid argument. If it really didn't matter what is the objection?

[Orrex]

56. Would you require abortion clinics to deliver irrelevant, frightening information to its patients?

[TheKentuckian]

129. I'd require them to provide whatever factual information the patient requests on their procedure

I'm not in the business of telling women who need a medical procedure what they need to know about a procedure on their own bodies, are you?

[Orrex]

131. I certainly wouldn't require doctors to provide medically irrelevant information

Which is, of course, exactly what the anti-GMO crowd is requiring with their dubiously benign demand for food labeling.


Also, I don't believe that physicians are required to give medically irrelevant information, even if asked. Am I wrong?

They may elect to do so, of course, if they think it will be helpful, just as manufacturers are free to label their foods as GMOs.

[HuckleB]

132. Exactly.

[TheKentuckian]

134. So a woman asks a factual question on a procedure on her own body and you want

the doctor to refuse to disclose based on their assessment that it doesn't matter?

Pro-choice indeed. Who's choice I don't know since you don't care about the patient's.

I don't get this "scientific" desire...no...demand for ignorance, it is practically an oxymoron.

[HuckleB]

140. "Medically irrelevant" actually means something.

Doctors can't stand there answering questions that have nothing to do with the matter at hand.

Come on.

[TheKentuckian]

169. If the is factual and related to a procedure a patient is to have there is no such thing as

irrelevant.

What is it you think is so irrelevant that the patient cannot be told if they ask? I can't even come up with an example.

Maybe this is a lack of imagination on my part, I've never had a doctor address me in any such way no matter what questions I had.
This area of fact, directly related to a procedure, and patient asking a doctor a question that should be refused answer about said procedure is not a universe I'm familiar with at all.

[Orrex]

171. "Doctor, what is the anesthesiologist's religion?"

Would you consider that question medically relevant? Why?
Would you require the physician to answer that question? Why?

You will likely object that such an example is absurd, but...

Maybe this is a lack of imagination on my part,

I believe that you've identified the problem exactly.

Your conception of "irrelevant" in this context is both presumptuous and narrow, and it's explicitly why you are wrong to assume to know better than the physician what is and is not medically relevant.

This area of fact, directly related to a procedure...

Again, you are presuming to tell the physician what is and what is not directly related to the procedure. You simply have no authority to make that determination.

The patient is obviously free to ask whatever question they like. Just as obviously, the physician is not required to pretend that every question requires an answer or is medically relevant.

[TheKentuckian]

173. The anesthesiologist's religion is not medical or related to the procedure

Regardless of religion of that specialist it is not related to the procedure.

I wouldn't require a doctor to relay such data because there is no expectation they would be privy to such information and it is a protected status, we don't have religious tests.

I would require a factual response to what kind of steel a scalpel is made of, think that is irrelevant too damn bad, answer the question.

[HuckleB]

174. It is irrelevant.

And it's ridiculous that you think the health care system should be mandated in such a manner, and be bogged down even further. Patients deserve better than that.

[TheKentuckian]

182. You have data stating that physicians feel bogged down with bothersome questions from patients

and further that after peer review of those complaints the questions were found to be irrelevant?

It is my observation that knowledgeable, engaged, and patient oriented medical professionals WELCOME questions and feedback rather than disdain them.

The stupid question is the one left unasked was how I was brought up and when asked answer if I know, find out if I don't, and refer to an expert as appropriate.

[HuckleB]

172. In other words, you're missing the point.

Got it.

[Orrex]

147. Give me an example

Last edited Wed Mar 4, 2015, 11:37 PM - Edit history (2)

Tell me exactly what kind of medically irrelevant information you would require the doctor to disclose, and for what purpose. Also explain why your opinion as an internet gadfly should trump the doctor's judgment and experience. Please be specific.

Your claim that I don't care about the patient is a silly and feeble attempt at insult, and it's an outright lie.

You falsely mischaracterize my viewpoint, which is funny because anti-GMO types absolutely love to accuse the pro-science crowd of using strawmen. I'm certainly not demanding ignorance; I'm pointing out that ignorance and fear are no justification for forcing the revelation of irrelevant information.

I look forward to your explanation of why you know better than doctors. Do tell.

[TheKentuckian]

168. When did I make ANY claim to know more than a medical expert about their field?

I said if a patient has a factual question about their medical procedure that I'd require it be answered and need no example to defend that position as it is pointless.

If the question is factual and related to a procedure to be performed on their body then there is no such thing as irrelevant whether you personally believe it to be so or not.

[Orrex]

170. When you presumed to declare what doctors should tell their patients, obviously.

I said if a patient has a factual question about their medical procedure that I'd require it be answered and need no example to defend that position as it is pointless.

If the patient is requesting irrelevant information, then why should the physician be required to give it? Please be specific in your answer: simply describing it as a "factual question" doesn't cut it. You need to explain why you, an internet gadfly, know better than a trained and experienced physician about what a patient does and doesn't need to be told about a procedure.

If the question is factual and related to a procedure to be performed on their body then there is no such thing as irrelevant whether you personally believe it to be so or not.

Well, that's simply a bullshit formulation. If the question is factual and related to the procedure, then it's relevant by definition. However, you are presuming to instruct the physician in determining what is and related to the procedure and what is not.


If the patient asks a question and the doctor determines that it's not relevant, what answer do you believe the physician should give? What is the basis for your claimed authority in this regard?

[TheKentuckian]

178. They should tell them the truth and call it a day. Again, I claim no authority.

If it doesn't matter then why are you arguing about and why would a doctor be evasive...ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTIONS.

They should answer because the patient and consumer wants to know what is happening with their own body. To the best of my knowledge no one has ever argued otherwise until now because you want to maintain some air of logical consistency when carrying over to a desire for anti consumer arrogance to push a corporate agenda of public subservience.

[Orrex]

184. In telling them what they should do, you are claiming authority.

How can you not see this?

If it doesn't matter then why are you arguing about and why would a doctor be evasive...ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTIONS.

You are thereby claiming the authority to tell the physician what is medically relevant for her patient.

They should answer because the patient and consumer wants to know what is happening with their own body.

You are thereby claiming the authority to tell the physician what is medically relevant for her patient.

To the best of my knowledge no one has ever argued otherwise until now

You are thereby declaring the limitiations of your knowledge while also claiming the authority to tell the physician what is medically relevant for her patient.

you want to maintain some air of logical consistency when carrying over to a desire for anti consumer arrogance to push a corporate agenda of public subservience

Impressive! You're well on your way to completing the checklist all by yourself! So far you've claimed special knowledge, essentially called me a shill, posted anti-corporate rhetoric and based your propaganda on fear. Keep up the good work, and I'll keep updating the list!

[Archae]

59. I saw a "label" for a banana.

It was just full of chemicals.

The fact is, this "labeling" is just part of the "ban them!" agenda, push to have GMO food labeled, while putting out tons and tons of bullshit propaganda caling them "frankenfoods" and "poison."

"Oh look! That cucumber is a GMO! It's poison! Can you wait a moment while I light a cigarette?"

But let's label all foods, including if they are fertilized "naturally" (with shit) or with "poisonous" chemical fertilizers.

Let's label them also if they are machine-picked or picked by Mexicans hired off street corners.

Let's label each state they went through, in addition to what state they are grown in.

[Orrex]

66. The lawsuit to label bananas was lost on appeal.

It generated a bunch of controversy.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

81. You do know that the foundation of a market is the exchange of product

between people who are informed enough to know that they value the product more than they value the money for which they exchange it, right? What matters is what consumers want to know, not what sellers don't want to tell them.

If people want to base their purchasing decisions upon whether or not the product is handpicked or machine picked, that should be up to them. If enough people want to know how the product was picked, then yes, they should get labeling to tell them. Whether or not it has value to you, personally.

If the stock market ran like you want to run grocery stores, no one would be allowed to know anything about a company beyond its stock symbol, current price, and the basic nature of the company. You'd have to simply make wild guesses as to whether or not the company was well run, had new products in the pipeline, etc.

[laundry_queen]

159. +1000 nt

[Revanchist]

112. I demand to know the pedigree of all the food I am about to eat!!!

[TheKentuckian]

130. Sounds good to me. Glad you are down.

[Marrah_G]

175. I would like to have the ability to avoid products grown in a way that hurts the environment

My issue is not whether or not something is safe to eat.

[OrwellwasRight]

191. yes, let's also not label

protein or vitamin c or dolphin-safe tuna or country of origin... what an awful lot of laws we'd have to repeal if you ran the world.

In fact, we could remove ingredient lists altogether, since nothing would ever be allowed in our foods if it wasn't "safe" and "safety" is clearly the only thing consumers or the government are allowed to care about.

Right on! 1890s here we come!

[Dr Hobbitstein]

200. Straw man alert!

[OrwellwasRight]

220. Read your own post #15

You imply safety is the only issue to label food ingredients. I respond to the single, solitary argument that you raised, and you call it a "straw man." You do know what a straw man argument is, right?

Here's a little refresher: it means to knock down an argument the other side didn't make.

Well, news flash, you did make it. I knocked it down. That's called winning. That's not called a straw man.

[Ichingcarpenter]

8. What Did Monsanto Show Bill Nye To Make Him Fall "In Love" With GMOs?

Monsanto's longtime chief technology officer, Robb Fraley, responded to the interview with an approving tweet featuring a photo of Nye at company HQ:


In his book Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation, published just last November, Nye reiterated these points. His concern about GMOs centered mainly on unintended consequences of growing them over large expanses—he cited the example of crops engineered to resist herbicides, which have been linked pretty decisively to the decline of monarch butterflies, which rely on abundant milkweeds, which in turn have been largely wiped out in the Midwest by GMO-enabled herbicide use. Nye praised certain GMOs, such as corn engineered to repel certain insects, but concluded that 'if you're asking me, we should stop introducing genes from one species into another," because "we just can’t know what will happen to other species in that modified species' ecosystem."

Now, Nye's doubts have evidently fallen away like milkweeds under a fine mist of herbicide. In a February interview filmed backstage on Bill Maher's HBO show (starting about 3:40 in the below video), Nye volunteered that he was working on a revision of the GMO section of Undeniable. He gave no details, just that he "went to Monsanto and I spent a lot of time with the scientists there." As a result, he added with a grin, "I have revised my outlook, and am very excited about telling the world. When you're in love, you want to tell the world!"


http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/03/what-did-monsanto-show-bill-nye-make-him-stop-worrying-and-love-gmos



Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp owns 67% of National Geographic


http://www.elephantjournal.com/2012/07/rupert-murdochs-news-corp-owns-67-of-national-geographic-channel-which-explains-this/

[DamnYankeeInHouston]

24. Thanks for this post.

[HuckleB]

54. So you thnk Bill is an idiot?

[Pooka Fey]

137. One picture speaks a thousand words.

[HuckleB]

138. Prove there is anything inaccurate in the National Geographic story.

If you can't, what's the point of this post?

[PoliticalPothead]

205. +1

[GreatGazoo]

9. It isn't true that Bill Nye said that but if he had said it then he would have been calling

McDonald's, Procter & Gamble and many other huge corporate entities crazy, but he didn't so...

http://modernfarmer.com/2014/11/mcdonalds-refuses-buy-genetically-modified-potatoes-fries/

"Virtually all the [fast food] chains have told us they prefer to take nongenetically modified potatoes," said Fred Zerza, spokesman for closely held J.R. Simplot, headquartered in Boise, Idaho.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB956875837624092771

[Orrex]

12. Here we go again (updated with links)

Last edited Thu Mar 5, 2015, 12:59 PM - Edit history (8)

This graphic, recently posted HERE, remains relevant and accurate:



I've highlighted in [font color="red"]RED[/font] the examples that were demonstrated in that very thread, and I've BOLDFACED the ones that have shown up here.[hr][font color="red"]Fear-based (Reply #13), (Reply #178)[/font]
[font color="red"]Scientists cannot be trusted (Reply #8), (Reply #27)[/font]
[font color="red"]Anti-corporation (Reply #13), (Reply #178)[/[/font]
[font color="red"]Anti-profit (Reply #74) [/font]
[/font]Celebrity endorsed
[font color="red"]Deny scientific consensus (Reply #17), (Reply #46)[/font]
[font color="red"]Cite discredited "studies" [/font]
Leaders are not scientists
[font color="red"]Call those who disagree "shills" (Reply #27), (Reply #49), (Reply #178)[/font]
Claims government/corporate conspiracy
[font color="red"]Uses appeal to nature fallacy (Reply #74) [/font]
[font color="red"]Misues precautionary principle (Reply #38), (Reply #78)[/font]
[font color="red"]Claims all manner of sickness [/font]
Claims special knowledge (Reply #25), (Reply #74), (Reply #134), (Reply #178)[/font]
[font color="red"]Says GMOs untested/unregulated (Reply #49), (Reply #78)[/font]
Links to Natural News & Dr. Mercola
Main info source is YouTube videos
Message spread through Facebook memes
Correlation = causation (Reply #25)
Call those who disagree "sheeple"
Believes talk show hosts over scientists[hr]


Hmm...

[Buzz Clik]

29. +1

You must consider science to be a religion.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

80. I call you out

What is science?

What is religion?

You show only simple thinking and very little of that.

[Buzz Clik]

84. You "call me out"? What does that mean?

You want me to define those words?

Just accept it: there is a significant fraction of those of us on the left who have no tolerance for anti-science jibberish. When we hear it, we will react in a way you won't like.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

85. Your world seems to be very simple.

Science without religion is blind.

[Orrex]

89. Religion sure as hell ain't no flashlight.

Far from illuminating, as an explanation of the universe it's almost entirely useless.

It's a great way for passing down bronze-age mythology, but that's about it.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

92. QUOTE: Albert Einstein "Science without religion is blind"

Quote: Albert Einstein "all we can make are tentative deductions"

You speak with certainty. I am very careful when I speak about "truth". Try it sometimes.

[Orrex]

97. When you're trying to scold someone, you should get your quotes right.

Here's the actual quote:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

That's from "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941 Further, he held that religious beliefs are childish superstitions. Why didn't you quote that part?

You're attempting to zing me because I failed to blame Einstein for your misquote--that's intellectually dishonest of you.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

98. good catch

Science without religion is lame.

You have done the same - have you read his writings on religion and science?

I would guess not. You would have never said "You must consider science to be a religion. "

[Orrex]

100. "You would have never said 'You must consider science to be a religion.'"

Nor did I. You're probably thinking of THIS POST by Buzz Clik.

Again, when you're trying to scold someone, you should get your quotes right.

[immoderate]

48. You left out, "beats wife."

--imm

[Orrex]

51. Perhaps that passes for humor among the anti-GMO crowd

Aside from the fact that your sick joke is flatly irrelevant, you have failed once again to refute any of the points made by the graphic--that the anti-GMO crowd uses many of the same anti-science tactics employed by anti-vaxxers.

The comparison is obvious and significant.

[immoderate]

91. Really? What special knowledge have I claimed?

And I am not of any crowd. I have questions that have not been answered. I do not share your view that science can not be questioned.

--imm

[Orrex]

99. For starters, you claim to know that 6000+ peer-reviewed studies are invalid

You therefore claim greater insight than the scientists who've examined those studies.

And I am not of any crowd. I have questions that have not been answered.

You have asked no questions of the anti-GMO crowd, while you have made impossible demands of GMOs. You are contrarian, and you are anti-GMO.

I do not share your view that science can not be questioned.

Since that is not my view, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and suppose that you are simply mistaken, rather than deliberately lying.

[HuckleB]

72. +1,000,000 ... 000

[Upward]

118. One Could Just As Well Put Up a Neat Little Graphic Comparing Pro GMO to Pro HRT ..

when it came to addressing concerns about links to cancer.

[Orrex]

122. Feel free to do so, in the interest of open discussion

In the meantime, no one in these two threads (or any other, as far as I know) has actually refuted the points raised in the graphic. Quite the contrary, in fact; as I've documented, we've seen clear examples of most of them right here in this thread.

I invite you to refute those points, and I look forward to your arguments.

[Upward]

139. For One Thing, You're Cherry-Picking and Setting Up Strawmen

Whoever created that graphic was someone who simply wanted to make a point. Whether or not it was factual was insignificant. I will point out that the graphic appears to have originated as a FB meme - which it claims anti-GMO and vaccers do? Pot, kettle, you know?

For the time being, I'm finished spending hours and hours doing research - ie, hunting down and reading collegiate-level experiments on GMOs.

The basic reality that gets overlooked (one might suggest, intentionally) repeatedly is that, overall, GMO crops generally pose no long-term economic advantage for most farmers when one compares GMO v non-GMO, and even short term is a mixed bag.

But then, that's what propaganda is all about. Getting people to look in the wrong direction. Shouts of "frankenfood" are so much easier to throw darts at than crop yield studies, after all.

[Orrex]

146. They're hardly strawmen

How can they be misrepresentations of anti-GMO tactics when I've documented their explicit use here in this thread and elsewhere?

Regarding Facebook: there's nothing wrong with using it as an information outlet so long as it doesn't represent a primary venue for catapulting your propaganda. This thread includes links to thousands of studies showing the safety of GMOs, so a Facebook graphic is simply a handy summation. Can you point to the thousands of studies showing that GMOs are so dangerous? No? The anti-GMO crowd uses Facebook memes in the absence of scientif evidence, rather than as a compliment to it.

Frankly, I don't believe that you've spent hours and hours researching this, either.

[Upward]

148. They Are Totes Strawmen. And Outright Lies.

For example implying there is a scientific consensus with the line about "deny scientific consensus." That's because THERE IS NO scientific consensus, except of those eating, or hoping to eat, at the GMO trough.

Whassat? Nothing to say about all the yield studies debunking the claims of economic and other benefits to farmers?

Nothing about the forceful insertion of middlemen into the food supply?

[Orrex]

149. Anti-GMO types ignore questions all the time. Do you call them out as well?

Explain how they're strawmen when I've linked to their explicit use right here in this thread.


Tell you what: if you haven't been PPR'ed two weeks from now, PM me and I'll reply to your silliness.

[Oktober]

215. Needs a section in there .... "I'm just asking questions..."

Setting aside the fact that the vast majority of them are asked and answered...

[Matrosov]

16. The big difference is..

Whether or not people eat GMOs has no effect on me, whether or not people vaccinate does.

[Orrex]

45. Please explain why that difference is significant.

[uppityperson]

18. imo, there is anti-gmo and anti-gmo

So far human health issues have not been attributed to gmo's and there are some with really good benefits like that rice with vitamins. However, have all environmental issues, thinking monarchs in particular, been shown non existent? Then there is open pollinated seed issue vs need to buy new seed every year, for those of us who do that.

But there is an amount of omgness about GMO s similar to vaccines. Reading scientific studies has changed some of my anti GMO thinking to.

[DamnYankeeInHouston]

25. Monachs and bees.

[uppityperson]

26. yup, they may not be bad for me, but we need to be good stewards of the larger

works also.

[Orrex]

64. And?

The cause of CCD has not been determined. It appears that a virus or a fungus may be a significant contributing factor, neither of which is produced by Monsanto. For a while cell phones were also implicated as the culprit.

It is also my understanding that habitat destruction and climate change are greatly to be blamed for the collapse of the monarch population.

Are you claiming special knowledge about Monsanto's culpability in the deaths of these populations? If so, then please share it. If not, then please provide your source.


Thanks!

[Chathamization]

183. Golden rice is an interesting case. Critics originally pointed out that it didn't contain enough

beta-carotene, and it was later retooled to contain much more beta-carotene (I've often seen GMO-boosters act as if the initial variant was ready to go from its inception). This is one of the reasons why dismissing all criticism as anti-science is silly - for people who actually care about results instead of merely winning a tribalist argument, criticism is useful in order to find problems and fix them.

It's also interesting to see what issues golden rice has run into. Despite some comments I've seen, golden rice hasn't been stopped by anti-GMO activists - it continues to be developed, and it seems that a lot of the work involved breeding golden rice with the preferred local varieties of rice. The largest obstacle I've seen from my readings has been that certain types of funding are off limits to the project. Then again, the Gates Foundation has been helping out the project for years, so I imagine they're doing much better than many other projects.

I have to say too, that the fact that goldenrice.org (which seems to be the site of the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board) seems to be so bothered by the fact that they need to go through biosafety assessments, and act as if the delay is only caused by excessive regulation (and not, for example, the time it took to get a decent level of beta-carotene or bread the rice with local varieties), doesn't exactly fill me with great confidence. The implication that certain regulations should be skipped if the product is beneficial reminds me of Bjorn Lomberg (who thinks that if fighting climate change costs more than doing nothing, then fighting climate change hurts poor people) school of thought.

Incidentally, Lomberg also seems to be a big proponent of Golden Rice, and also likes to pretend that it was ready in 2001 and GMO opponents have stopped it from reaching the people who need it. Again, Golden Rice 2 wasn't developed until 2005, and after that it needed to be bred with local varieties - and tested, if you're still one of those anti-Science freaks who think that food products should be tested before being made commercially available and new organisms should be tested before being introduced to the environment on a large scale.

[Art_from_Ark]

188. Some human health issues have been linked to GMOs

But it's hard to get the word out when "peer review" can be conducted by former employees of agribusiness:

"We would like to comment on your answers (Hayes, 2014a) concerning the retraction of our study (Seralini et al., 2012 and Hayes, 2014b) by Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT). Our study investigated the long-term effects in rats of consumption of two Monsanto products, a genetically modified (GM) maize and its associated pesticide, Roundup, together and separately. The decision to retract the paper was reached a few months after the appointment of a former Monsanto employee as “editor for biotechnology”, a position created for him at FCT ( Robinson and Latham, 2013). In a recent editorial, Portier and colleagues express concern about the “dangerous erosion of the underpinnings of the peer-review process” in the case of our study ( Portier et al., 2014)."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691514002002

[Buzz Clik]

28. Hell yes! Go Bill!

You can't selective say, "I believe the science about vaccines but not about GMOs" and expect to not be called on it.

[Ichingcarpenter]

31. He loves Monsanto................. yuk

[Buzz Clik]

36. Really? He loves them?

Oh, my.

[ND-Dem]

39. he said he was in love and wanted to tell the world now. i wonder what his true love is

[Orrex]

40. Bill and Monsanto sitting in a tree

[Orrex]

37. You keep making that claim. Surely you can support it?

I would be interested to read your citation.

[Ichingcarpenter]

43. post number 8 n/t

[Orrex]

47. You claimed that Nye loves Monsanto. You have not supported this claim.

You have linked to a Mother Jones article claiming that Monsanto influenced Nye to revise his book dishonestly. Even if that's true--which is a matter of some dispute--it certainly doesn't support the ridiculous claim that Nye loves Monsanto.


That kind of hyperbolic and dishonest propaganda is par for the course for the anti-GMO crowd, by the way.

[GreatGazoo]

83. The quote is right there for reasonable people

He gave no details, just that he "went to Monsanto and I spent a lot of time with the scientists there." As a result, he added with a grin, "I have revised my outlook, and am very excited about telling the world. When you're in love, you want to tell the world!"

Seems simple enough.

You badger others for citations and proof yet offer none of your own btw.

[Orrex]

87. You're engaging in intellectual dishonesty

Nye is clearly engaging in hyperbole--a common technique in writing of which you are perhaps unaware. To take his wry assertion at literal face value is dishonest.

Further, even if the claim were literally true, that still doesn't mean that his revision is incorrect or deceptive. That claim needs to be supported independent of your interpretation of his emotions.

You badger others for citations and proof yet offer none of your own btw.

Give me an example, and I will support it with documentation. Further, the anti-GMO crowd routinely makes claims without citation; do you call these out as well?

[GreatGazoo]

111. I'll let the more reasonable posters decide which of us might be engaged in "intellectual dishonesty

You asked a for a citation and received one. Hyperbole =/= sarcasm.

Confirmation bias ?

[Orrex]

126. A false or irrelevant citation is not a valid citation

Whether we elect to call it hyperbole or saecasm, the point remains: Nye did not claim to "love Monsanto" with the intent repeatedly (and dishonestly) suggested in this thread. It also has not been shown that Nye's "love" for Monsanto led him to make false or misleading statements on their behalf. In fact, that claim is a fallacious ad hominem of the type so eagerly called out by the anti-GMO crowd. Except when it serves their purposes, of course.

Further, I suspect that your definition of "reasonable people" is a fine example of the confirmation bias that you purportedly reject. Nor do you strike me as a credible judge of who or what is reasonable.

[immoderate]

38. Vaccines are tested.

--imm

[Buzz Clik]

44. ... as are GMOs.

Ignorance of the science is not an indication it does not exist.

[immoderate]

46. I am still searching for the epidemiological test of GMOs.

At least one would be a minimum to declare a product safe. If it exists, where is it?

--imm

[jeff47]

53. You were directed to thousands of them. You ignored the list.

You are looking for excuses, not studies.

[immoderate]

96. I looked through them. They were misrepresented.

None that I saw said "GMOs are safe." If you saw one, which is it? Some of them were papers on how to improve GMO safety studies. Why would they be there if GMOs were already determined by those same papers to be safe?

How many of those papers did you read?

--imm

[Buzz Clik]

57. Exactly what do you think you're looking for?

I'm suspicious that your concept of an epidemiological study doesn't line up with the reality of epidemiology.

[immoderate]

86. A long term study that isolates a particular variable.

Not too fancy.

--imm

[Orrex]

88. How might that be accomplished?

You would require thousands of identical twins, half of whom ingest no GMO foods, while the other half eats only GMO foods. Further, all of these people will have to maintain exactly the same environmental conditions and behaviors through the course of the study.

How do you propose that such a tightly controlled longterm study might be achieved?


You are deliberately setting an impossible standard, which is a hallmark of intellectual dishonesty.

[immoderate]

105. Who is it that is setting this impossible standard, the "hallmark of intellectual dishonesty?"

Are you suggesting all epidemiological studies conform to the protocols you describe? Or else they are ... what? inconclusive? So where are the studies that attest to this legendary GMO safety? And please point to one at a time.

For the record, I suggest that experimental methodologies can be devised that are pragmatic, and will still yield valid results.

And you don't charge extra for the ad hominems. How nice.

--imm

[Orrex]

107. You have summarily rejected 6,000 peer-reviewed studies,

so your authority to assess scientific validity is questionable at best.

For the record, I suggest that experimental methodologies can be devised that are pragmatic, and will still yield valid results.

Lovely. Let's hear your proposal.

And you don't charge extra for the ad hominems. How nice.

Let's be clear: I'm not fallaciously suggesting that your argument is invalid because you're intellectually dishonest; on the contrary, I'm saying that you're intellectually dishonest and I'm demonstrating that your argument is invalid. Big difference.

[immoderate]

115. I didn't reject a single article. They all say what they say.

If you want to present the article that from among those 6,000 best demonstrates the claim that GMOs are safe, please do. I have only had a chance to sample from the data dumps regaled upon me. You say all these articles attest to the safety of GMOs. I say none of them do. At least, so far.

I can't wait for you to prove me wrong.

--imm

[Orrex]

124. You haven't taken a falsifiable stance

Last edited Mon May 23, 2016, 08:47 AM - Edit history (1)

You are simply asserting your opinions, which can't readily be proven false.

I've read all of your posts in both of these threads, and your entire argument, such as it is, can be paraphrased as "is not.". That's not an ad hominem; it's a semi-facetious overview of your posts to date. Nor is it a straw man, because I am not attacking that overview as if it were your argument, and I am not requiring you to defend that overview.

Instead, I invite you to articulate your actual argument in a clear manner, since you have yet to do so.

Since you have refused to offer up an example of how your longterm, single-variable study might be carried out, it seems likely that you recognize that you're asking for the impossible and have abandoned that preposterous demand.

[immoderate]

135. So what? I need only falsify your stance to make my point.

I am not convinced that GMO and non-GMO fed organisms are developmentally the same.

Moreover, I am concerned that this and other trends are ecologically unsound and unsustainable. GMOs are developed to serve their markets, not the ecology.

My long term study: Label the food. Let people select what they and their offspring will eat. Examine autopsies, development of children. Write it down in the ledger.

On the more approachable time frame. I'd like to see more, longer animal studies. Makes it easier to apply controls, examine results.

--imm

[Orrex]

145. Of course, that's not the study you were calling for

Last edited Wed Mar 4, 2015, 11:36 PM - Edit history (1)

You demanded a longterm study with a single variable, but your model is almost the exact opposite of that. Why? Is it because you recognize the impossibility of it? If not, then why don't you spell it out for us?

It really doesn't matter that you don't think they're equivalent. Since you have by fiat rejected the 6000 or so studies showing that they are, and since you reject scientific consensus, you are resorting to pseudoscience to prop up your faith. I find that sad, particularly because you certainly haven't falsified my argument nor anyone else's.

So let's recap: you have no point to make, you haven't refuted anything that you claim to have refuted, and you employ the same anti-science tactics as anti-vaxxers.

Tell me again why I'm wasting time on you?

[immoderate]

176. Because none of those studies declares GMOs safe.

--imm

[Orrex]

185. Three things:

Because none of those studies declares GMOs safe.

Three things:
1. You haven't read all of them, so you simply have no authority to make that statement

2. If the studies find no risk or statistically neglible risk, then that is sufficient.

3. Studies have indeed shown that GMO foods pose no greater risk than non-GMO foods. Therefore, if non-GMO foods have been declared "safe" to your satisfaction, then GMO foods have also been declared "safe."


In addition, when you reduce your responses to vapid, subject-line-only soundbytes, you have effectively admited that you have no argument. You're well into that territory at this point.

[Buzz Clik]

114. Don't you think you'd need to begin with an existing problem (health disorder)...

... and look for the cause? That really is the nature of epidemiology.

To simply run around the planet desperately seeking a health problem caused by GMOs isn't epidemiology at all -- it's fishing.

[immoderate]

121. Why would that be required for an "epidemiological study?"

I thought that studies that followed the efficacy of supplements, diets, etc., are also called epidemiological. I tend to relate it to the methodology for detecting the effects of biologically active forces on development. If you'd rather I call it something else, I'll be happy to.

I would like to see more long term animal studies. I'd like to see labeling, so long studies can be done by people who know what they're eating. Over time we could see if there are differences. Perhaps the information we seek will not be there, or be masked by noise. Maybe we can filter it out.

Remember the motivation behind GMO producers is effective marketing to farmers (profits.) The consumer is hardly part of the equation.

--imm

[Zorra]

49. The fact is, no one knows what the lerm term effects of GMO's on the human body

and the rest of the natural environment are, and/or will be.

Since GMO's began to be used on a mass scale, there has been a rapid and continual rise in cases of autism. There are many theories, and much speculation, concering why there has been a rapid rise in cases of autism, but no one really knows what has caused this rise.

There has been a rapid and continual rise in cases of food allergies since GMOs began to be used on a mass scale. There are many theories, and much speculation, concerning why there has been a rapid rise in cases of allergies, but no one really knows what has caused this rise.

Are GMOs the cause of the inordinate rise in cases of autism and rise in the onset of allergies among young and old alike?

I don't know. You don't know. And if Monsanto., etc knows, they sure as heck aren't going to hurt their bottom line profits by revealing anything negative about their cash cow GMO's.

Throughout history, many people have been harmed or killed by the use of industrial. medical, and agricultural products (such as asbestos, DDT, Mercury, that industry scientists claimed was perfectly safe, and that was sanctioned for use by the EPA.

Maybe they made mistakes in these cases. Maybe these products were never properly tested for safety. Maybe they marketed these products knowing they were toxic in the long run, but figured the profits they made in the short run were worth far more than the people they harmed or killed. Maybe they figured that by the time the toxic effects of these products became apparent, they would have made so much in profit that the slap on the wrist fine they would be penalized with was nothing but a few pennies compared to the long term profits.

Or maybe they simply didn't know what the long term effects would be. The same situation exists in the present, concerning the agricultural use and mammalian consumption of GMO's.

Now, some of the DU armchair scientists, and the DU trolls for Monsanto, and some plain old DUers who simply believe because they are cheerleaders for capitalism, or because it's 'murica!, whatever, that there are no present or long term negative effects of GMO's, may post on this thread in indignation, telling everyone that they know for a fact that GMO's are definitely safe for agricultural use and mammalian consumption.

But the plain truth is, really don't know, and they can't prove that they do know.

[HuckleB]

52. If that's your argument, then it goes double or triple for mutation breeding.

Yet, I don't see the anti-GMO crowd saying anything about mutation breeding at all.

[Zorra]

102. I don't see the necessity for mutation breeding, either, but don't believe that

intra-species hybrids produced in this manner are as potentially possibly harmful as hybrids produced by interspecies gene insertion.

[HuckleB]

106. So why aren't you advocating on that front?

[Zorra]

117. I simply don't see the odds of mutation breeding being as

possibly potentially harmful are nearly as great as the odds that interspecies hybridization is.

I don't like either, I just consider interspecies hybridization to have far more unknown variables that could have possible potential harmful effects.

[HuckleB]

119. Except that GMOs limit the variables dramatically.

Last edited Wed Mar 4, 2015, 06:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Far fewer genes are changes, and we know which ones, and what they do. And we research those through the roof.

Mutation breeding changes a massive amount of genes, and we don't know which ones, and they're really not studied.

The difference is absolutely astounding, yet the rhetoric of the anti-GMO movement is the opposite of that difference.

A good piece on the matter: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/04/22/better-late-than-never-when-hysteria-about-gmos-takes-root/


On edit: Another interesting piece: http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/10/20/mutagenesis-one-way-europeans-wish-it-was-1936-again/

[X_Digger]

194. Wait, what?

You intentionally irradiate (expose to radiation) plant germ cells, then raise them and see what mutations come up. Maybe the food tastes like shit, or is missing a key nutrient, or produces compounds that build up in your liver, killing you slowly. Who the fuck knows, cause we just irradiated the shit out of the seeds, causing mutations, willy-nilly.

That's safer than changing a specific gene that does one thing?!?

Errrrrrrrr.

[chervilant]

55. "Hippie Ninnies"?!

Did you read the comments herein above? Several of us "hippie ninnies" ask why big agri-businesses (yes, we know Bayer produces neonicotinoids) resist labeling GMOs. Furthermore:

Throughout history, many people have been harmed or killed by the use of industrial. medical, and agricultural products (such as asbestos, DDT, Mercury, that industry scientists claimed was perfectly safe, and that was sanctioned for use by the EPA.

I find it both relevant and appropriate that people are questioning GMOs.

[In_The_Wind]

63. Nope. That wasn't a good idea.

12:30 PM

Automated Message
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Wed Mar 4, 2015, 12:17 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

GMO paranoia is to the incoherent Left...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6311179

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Eau de Troll? "Hippie Ninnies"? This entire post is a slam on "the left" in a democratic forum.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Mar 4, 2015, 12:30 PM, and the Jury voted 5-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Troll - hopefully MIRT will take care of this person
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The hippie ninnies name-calling crap by BB_smoke is unnecessary. Hide it.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Some very well known DU members slam the left more than this and they get accolades. I don't see this as violating CS.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: See #2, above. What he said
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Nothing but insults throughout the entire post. If you can't put a thought together without being obnoxious then don't bother.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation:

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Cha]

143. ...

[KamaAina]

60. There is a LOT more science behind vaccines

owing to the fact that they've been in use for generations. GMOs? Not so much. Actually, most GMOs don't really worry me, mainly the transgenic stuff: the classic is the fish gene in a strawberry to keep it from freezing!

[Pooka Fey]

67. Pro GMO'ers, I wish you all a hearty Bon Appetit!

I'm happy to live in a country where GMO's are banned. Food quality and taste are still considered more important to this society than super high yields and RoundUp resistance. Food tastes better here. Cows are grass-pastured and the milk, butter, cheese, and meat taste amazing and they are healthier for me. Small agricultural production is the still the norm here. For the 1st several years, I couldn't believe how good everything tasted.

Oh, I can still purchase big tasteless watery imported strawberries that store in plastic for 10 days if I want, but I prefer the local sweet varieties I find in the farmer's markets between May and July. You have to eat them within 24 hours or they go bad, but they usually don't sit around that long in our house.

I like my food nature made or adapted using traditional horticulture, thank you very much. I don't find all the insulting rhetoric that some are throwing about very interesting. Nobody is stopping anybody from eating GMO "food", but Monsanto would sure like to be able to stop me from eating the food that I like in order to increase their profits.

That's not "irrational", not "anti-science". GMO's are capitalism, period, and I don't want Capitalism on my dinner plate.

[bobclark86]

113. But slave labor capitalism is OK to talk on the Interwebs? n/t

[Pooka Fey]

136. I have no idea what you are talking about. Flame bait, anyone?

with a side of snark?

[bobclark86]

167. No more than somebody using a computer made by people...

who are "protected" at work by suicide nets bitching about capitalism.

[pnwmom]

70. The GMO-apologists want to piggy-back onto the popularity of vaccines.

But their P.R. isn't working because people understand that vaccines and GMO's are different things.

[DamnYankeeInHouston]

82. Bingo.

[HuckleB]

123. Nope.

The comparison has been made over the years because the science for both is very strong, and the anti "movements" for both utilize the same tactics over and over again. It's really disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/antivaccine-versus-anti-gmo-different-goals-same-methods/

and...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2014/08/07/vaccine-gmo-denial-treated-equally/

and...

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/09/24/bad-science-on-gmos-it-reminds-me-of-the-antivaccine-movement/

and...

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-vaccine-gmo-natural-20141113-story.html#page=1

and...

http://thesoapboxrantings.blogspot.com/2014/01/10-reasons-why-anti-gmo-and-anti.html

[GreatGazoo]

90. +1 Polls show 93 to 95% of Americans want GE/GMO foods labeled.

This number is similar to the polls showing that 90%+ believe vaccines are effective. Translation: most of the people believe that vaccines are safe and that GMOs should be labeled.

Real scientists would not expect that repeating the same ad hom attacks, conflation of GE with hybridization, appeals to authority and other logical fallacies will ever get them to the 90% approval that vaccines enjoy. But then again, real scientists wouldn't indulge in logical fallacies in the first place since logic is a foundation of scientific theories.

[Orrex]

93. CItation, please.

84% of Americans believe in life after death, but that doesn't make it true or compelling.

You are fallaciously appealing to popular opinion, when popular opinion has nothing to do with scientific fact.

[HuckleB]

95. If that's actually true, what does it mean?

After all, it's hard to find a legitimate argument for labeling GMOs, especially if you're not asking for labels for all types of seed development technology.

See: http://fafdl.org/blog/2014/08/16/a-principled-case-against-mandatory-gmo-labels/ for more on this.


-----

Also, most Americans don't actually focus on the topic, despite non-GMO marketing itself ad nauseum, and the press going nuts over the topic:

Most Americans Pay Little Attention to Genetically Modified Foods, Survey Says
http://news.rutgers.edu/research-news/most-americans-pay-little-attention-genetically-modified-foods-survey-says/20131101#.VPdZAvnF-Gc

[HuckleB]

71. Persistent Anti-GMO Myths by Steven Novella

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/persistent-anti-gmo-myths/

[dilby]

75. Yeah they are just as crazy anti-science anti-vaccers. n/t

[HuckleB]

77. "GMOs are highly regulated. They are the most tested food that we eat."

Anti-GMO Propaganda
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/anti-gmo-propaganda/

[on point]

78. Insufficient research from independent source on long term human health

And environment impact

Too early to say GMO safe.

[HuckleB]

94. Poll Shows Disparity Between Scientists And American Public On Scientific Issues (Including GMOs)

http://www.iflscience.com/technology/poll-results-show-disparity-between-scientists-and-american-public-scientific-issues

[1StrongBlackMan]

103. Okay, this will probably put my ignorance on full display; but ...

aren't Vaccines just GMOs?

[Orrex]

104. Shhh!

Don't tell!

[immoderate]

110. Depends on whether you think your food should trigger an immune response...

--imm

[Orrex]

127. You mean like my cousin's allergy to peanuts?

Was Monsanto doing a lot of gene-modding in 1965?

[immoderate]

179. We shouldn't be creating foods that cause those things.

--imm

[Orrex]

181. Please demonstrate that we are doing so.

Please also demonstrate that the risk of GMO allergies outweighs the benefits. That is, if 100 people suffer complications equivalent to peanut allergy, should we therefore not feed the 1,000,000 who would have benefited from GMO rice able to grow in arid regions while providing greater nutrition?

[Upward]

116. I Don't Give a Shit What People Who Have to Market Themselves Say

If Mr. Nye spent as much time reading university studies on GMO as he did promoting himself, he may have a different opinion.

[HuckleB]

120. Yeah, he probably would have changed his mind sooner.

[One_Life_To_Give]

125. Hybrids should list their DNA structure as well

Would be like labeling Dihydrogen monoxide. If we ever labeled Egg's for content nobody would eat them.

Hmmmm that gives me an idea we should list the chemical a genetic details of Filet Mignon!

[HuckleB]

128. Americans are in denial about genetically modified foods

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/chi-gmos-genetically-modified-foods-20150209-story.html

"Sophisticated readers know a science denier when they see one: the libertarian irresponsibly attacking vaccine safety, the oil-state senator mocking climate theory, the Southern Bible-thumper denying the fossil in front of his nose.

But the biggest gap between public opinion and scientific consensus in the United States is not in the realm of vaccines, global warming or evolution, but regarding the safety of genetically modified foods. And the science deniers on this topic are more likely to be Democratic than Republican, with college-educated Americans almost evenly split.

According to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in association with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 88 percent of scientists believe GM foods are safe to eat, compared with only 37 percent of the public — a gap of 51 percentage points.

An equally overwhelming majority of scientists (87 percent) believe climate change is mostly caused by human activity, and 50 percent of the public agrees — a gap of 37 percentage points. Fully 98 percent of scientists believe humans have evolved over time, and 65 percent of the public agrees — a gap of 33 points.

..."




Hmmmmmm. Dang scientists!

[HereSince1628]

133. It's not just GMO plants/seed, it's the entire chemical culture surrounding them.

I have a PHD in bio.

I am not afraid of GMO's per se

But the application rates of pesticides on GMO's makes me VERY uncomfortable.

I have to drink water that percolates down through soluble stuff that technically shouldn't actually reach my well, but as chemical analysis shows, DID.

Component by component arguments look OK. When you actually integrate them into a REAL WORLD agricultural landscape things really do begin to look sketchy. Chemicals that -should- decompose in sunlight in a matter of days instead escape to subterranean darkenss where their decomposition becomes sketchy.

[DamnYankeeInHouston]

142. I agree. The GMO plants are devoloped to resist pesticides which are inarguably harmful to life.

I love DU. I work 70 hours a week so don't have time to research. I knew I could get answers here.

[HuckleB]

144. And yet pesticide use is down with GMO crops.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

They have also led to the use of safer herbicides:

http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/04/30/is-glyphosate-used-with-some-gm-crops-dangerously-toxic-to-humans/

http://www.biofortified.org/2014/02/herbicides/

http://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2015/01/asktfd-do-gmos-reduce-the-use-of-round-up.html

The rhetoric of the anti-GMO folks, just doesn't match up with reality.

[Faryn Balyncd]

232. Tell that to the last monarch butterfly.

[Boo-]

150. You and Mr. PHD need to research the difference between a herbicide and a pesticide.

The assertion GMO crops require more pesticides is ludicrous. GMO plants are not resistant to pesticides, they don’t need to be. Pesticides target bugs not plants. Some GMO crops require little to no pesticide because specific pests are controlled biologically thus reducing pesticide use.

I also see someone above mention neonicotinoids and CCD. They have nothing to do with GMO’s. Neonicotinoids are a family of insecticides used on many crops, GMO and non-GMO alike.

[HereSince1628]

180. Maybe more properly called biocides...I get that natural dirt isn't dead

but imprecision here is really the problem?

I was speaking about direct problems that effect me. And the direct problem I have with GMO use is that its success has largely been about produce chemical tolerance in major production crops...and the chemicals are being laid on in abundance things that should decompose in sunlight before reaching the water table don't do so as promised.

[HuckleB]

192. Let's see the data to support your claims.

Thank you. Oh, and if its from Benbrook or others, well, why can't you find independent data supported by a consensus of science?

[Marrah_G]

177. This is my concern with them also.

We are also destroying huge sections of precious soil.

[Boo-]

187. How so?

What is your definition destroying? If productivity (bu/ac) is the measure the trend line has done nothing but increase since the 40s.

[Faryn Balyncd]

237. "If productivity (bu/ac) is the measure", we increased the productivity by deep plowing the Great...

...Plains, (among other adaptations of technological "advancements&quot , in the years before the Dust Bowl.

And we "increased the productivity" by overgrazing the (formerly) fertile grasslands of the Big Bend, which have never recovered.

[HuckleB]

141. " I'd Put Warning Labels On Mutagenic Plants Before GMOs"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016116024

[Spider Jerusalem]

156. Except they aren't, not really, for some pretty specific reasons.

Those reasons have nothing to do with food safety, but everything to do with environment. "Roundup-ready" GMO crops, for instance. (Use of pesticides like Roundup is linked to honeybee colony collapse.)

[HuckleB]

157. Citations needed for the claim in parentheses.

Thanks.

[Spider Jerusalem]

163. There is quite a lot of research on the role of pesticides in bee colony collapse.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048357514002533

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6079/348.short

http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/05/biosci.bit012.short

http://www.beeccdcap.uga.edu/documents/CAPArticle7.html

NB that a significant amount of the literature focuses on the spread of "Roundup ready" crops and the effects of glyphosate (Roundup) on flowering plants that sustain honeybees (and also on milkweed, which monarch butterflies rely on).

[HuckleB]

164. Which peer-reviewed article links glyphosate to issues with bees?

None of these pieces appear to do so.

[Faryn Balyncd]

209. Here's a good study using realistic dosages, which is pretty damning:

http://jeb.biologists.org/content/217/19/3457.full

[HuckleB]

211. That study has turned out to be an outlier.

It needs corroboration by other studies, and that hasn't been the case.

[Inkfreak]

186. I honestly just don't get all the fuss.

GMOs don't move the needle for me. I eat healthy, work out daily, and the dr says I'm in great shape. So I'm happy.

This isnt me saying I'm pro or con. Just ambivalent. Which prolly makes me worse in some views.

[HuckleB]

193. It makes you wise.

Eat your veggies and fruits, and keep your calories down, oh, and exercise.

GMOs are only an issue for people who are trying to demonize them for profit, or those who have been conned by those who are trying to demonize them for profit.

[Dont call me Shirley]

201. Once again the Monsatan employees hijack the thread.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

207. Yup, if you can't win an argument due to lack of facts,

then your opposition MUST be a paid shill.

[Dont call me Shirley]

208. You are correct.

[Generic Other]

206. For me it's an appetite issue

It is now possible for plants to be engineered with genes taken from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals or even humans. Scientists have worked on some interesting combinations:

• Spider genes were inserted into goat DNA, in hopes that the goat milk would contain spider web protein for use in bulletproof vests.
• Cow genes turned pigskins into cowhides.
• Jellyfish genes lit up pigs' noses in the dark.
• Arctic fish genes gave tomatoes and strawberries tolerance to frost.
• Potatoes that glowed in the dark when they needed watering.
• Human genes were inserted into corn to produce spermicide.
• Corn engineered with human genes (Dow)
• Sugarcane engineered with human genes (Hawaii Agriculture Research Center)
• Corn engineered with jellyfish genes (Stanford University)
• Tobacco engineered with lettuce genes (University of Hawaii)
• Rice engineered with human genes (Applied Phytologics)
• Corn engineered with hepatitis virus genes (Prodigene)

http://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com/about-gmos.html

Just as I do not want to eat downer cows or beef raised on its own bonemeal products, I don't want to eat this kind of crap. To compare my lack of appetite for your unnatural foodproduct to someone else's refusal to be vaccinated is ludicrous. The fact that I don't want to eat rice engineered with human genes when my rice growing ancestors have produced wholesome healthy alternatives for centuries is not anti-science. It is pro-consumer. My grandfather did not ever have to pay others for his seed. He owned his own labor. That is not anti-science. That is a choice not to let big capitalism muscle in where they are not wanted. If you want to grow corn that is unfit for human consumption that crosspollinates and contaminates fields with corn meant for human consumption, feel free. No one is stopping you. I have no appetite for corn chips that contains polymers or other plastics. You can tell me all day that it doesn't harm me. The fact that my grocer pulled the contaminated GMO product off the shelves speaks volumes. Nestle Corp. went into poor African nations and promoted powdered milk as a more healthy alternative to breastfeeding. They lied. Now they say, trust us on GMO. You will love eating chocolate with human genes inserted. No. I am not a cannibal. I do not love this idea. I do not care what people trying to forcefeed me say about how good their product is for me. Soylent green is dreck in my opinion and does not stimulate my appetite in the least. So call me anti-science all you like. Play with your food all you like. Just don't expect me to let you play with mine.

[mmonk]

210. They, of course, aren't looking at environmental science. They also haven't proven their

theory that safe in their minds doesn't require truth in labeling. Also, if pesticides, for example, are safe for human consumption, then just create a soda pop with it in it.

[HuckleB]

212. How Scare Tactics on GMO Foods Hurt Everybody

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/528331/how-scare-tactics-on-gmo-foods-hurt-everybody/

[HuckleB]

231. Scientists overwhelmingly think GMOs are safe to eat. The public doesn't.

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/29/7947695/gmos-safety-poll

[Faryn Balyncd]

236. Write that on the tombstone of the last monarch butterfly.

The long term effects of technologies on human health (difficult as they are to fully prognosticate) are far from the only relevant issues.

[Blue_In_AK]

238. I would like to know

why the GMO supporters are so insistent that everyone else jump on board. Why do you care that we have a preference about what foods we put in our bodies? Whether or not people choose to eat organic, non-GMO food has absolutely no bearing on your own well-being. Go ahead and eat GMO food all day long, for all I care. Just don't tell me that I'm crazy or anti-science or a hippie ninny if I choose not to.

[HuckleB]

241. Do you realize that the supposed "GMO supporters" are only responding to anti-GMO BS?

Maybe you should pay attention to what's happening the world.

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/29/7947695/gmos-safety-poll

[Blue_In_AK]

242. Wow, you come back nine days later to insult me.

That's some devotion to your cause right there.

[HuckleB]

243. I didn't insult you.

Apparently, you are so incurious that being corrected on misinformation you are spreading is an insult to you.

Well, that's rather immature.

[Blue_In_AK]

244. In my very best teenager voice,

whatever.