Dr Jane Goodall: supporters of GM food deluded & ‘anti-science’ (backs new anti-GM book)

[JohnyCanuck]

Senior academic condemns ‘deluded’ supporters of GM food as being ‘anti-science’ and ignoring evidence of dangers

Dr Jane Goodall argues supporters of GM food ignored evidence of harm
Endorsed US book which says GM producers have twisted evidence
Publication comes as backlash against GM food is growing in US
Primate expert warns Britain and Europe not to drop GM safeguards
Accuses supporters of 'fraud' and says they are 'anti science'

By Sean Poulter, Consumer Affairs Editor For The Daily Mail

The highly respected academic has endorsed a new book, which argues the companies responsible for developing genetically modified farming and food have twisted the evidence to minimise the dangers.

Historically, critics of GM food have been lambasted by the GM companies, scientists who rely on their funding, and politicians, including the UK Government, as being ‘anti-science’.

However, Dame Jane argues that the advocates of GM food have ignored evidence of harm with the result it is they who are guilty of being ‘anti-science’.

SNIP

Dame Jane’s concerns have been raised in the foreword to a new book, ‘Altered Genes, Twisted Truth’, which is written by the American public interest lawyer, Steve Druker.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2979645/Senior-academic-condemns-deluded-supporters-GM-food-anti-science-ignoring-evidence-dangers.html#ixzz3TXKCM5P2

[upaloopa]

1. We need labeling either telling us a product

contains GMO or that it doesn't so that people not the GMO pushers can make the decision on whether to consume them or not.

[jeff47]

7. A "contains GMO" label is as meaningful as a "Contains DNA" label.

The information you need to make a decision is what the modifications were for. A GMO that resists glyphosate has different problems and risks than a GMO that ripens faster or yields more.

[upaloopa]

17. I have a brain I don't need you to think for me

[hedda_foil]

25. Well done, upaloopa!

[jeff47]

27. I'm not. I'm pointing out you need more information to make a rational decision.

If you prefer making decisions out of fear, go right ahead.

[upaloopa]

39. I don't understand DUers who feel they

should tell others how to think. It reminds me of church people who proselytize.

[jeff47]

46. I'm not. Again, to make a decision you need more information.

Food A: Contains GMO.
Food B: Contains GMO.
Food C: Does not contain GMO.
Food D: Does not contain GMO.

Which one is safe to eat?

Food A is glyphosate-resistant corn.
Food B contains extra vitamin C. No herbicide resistance, pesticide, etc. They just turned up a gene in the "normal" plant.
Food C is sweetened with high fructose corn syrup.
Food D is margarine.

I suspect you'd have reasons to object to A, C and D, while not finding B very concerning.

To make a decision, you need more than "contains GMO". You need to know what their modifications were.

[upaloopa]

55. I try to eat as much raw food as I can.

I read labels and read and watch documentaries on food as well as talk to my doctor and nutritionists. I will be 69 in May. In my life I probably ate healthier than most people on this board since not much was done to food way back when as now. I try to stick with what I found to be safe during those years. I am a vegetarian and I don't consume alcohol. I want to stick with what I've been doing for the rest of my life if possible.
I have no major illness and want to keep it that way. I don't need GMOs in my life. I don't have a wide variety of food that I eat. I think for me a label along with what I have been doing is good for me.

[jeff47]

92. Nothing we eat is natural.

Thanks to Monsanto being evil and a lot of fear, there's a lot of misinformation about GMOs and how they differ from "regular" food.

Nothing we eat is natural. Every single thing we eat has been modified by humans. The ancestor of peas produced much smaller seeds. The ancestor of tomatoes produced much smaller fruit. The ancestors of wheat and rice produced fewer grains. And so on.

Until recently, we modified our food through selective breeding over the 10,000 years we have been farming. Genetic modification is a much less clumsy way to do selective breeding. But we could still reach the same point via selective breeding. It would just take a very long time.

Also, if I come up with a new hybrid tomato, I can just sell it to anyone. Even call it 100% organic. Even if I hybridize it with nightshade. If I come up with a new GMO, it at least has to go through animal testing.

Eat or not eat whatever you'd like, but you should know that a certified organic not-genetically-modified apple is just as much of a frankenfood. It just took us a lot longer to make it.

[upaloopa]

146. I use to live in the Joaquin Valley. I've seen them

harvest a crop then put down chemicals to kill everything growing then put down more chemicals to fertilize and grow something else and repeat. Yes I know how fucked up food is.
So let's all stop worrying about it and let the food corporations run our fucking lives. GMO's seem to be one thing about corporations some DUers love.

[LeftyMom]

183. Err, it's the San Joaquin Valley, unless there's another one I don't know about.

Google doesn't seem to think so.

Having lived in Stockton or something doesn't make you a farmer. Jesus. By that logic having lived in Sacramento all my life makes me a high powered lobbyist.

[upaloopa]

270. Yes I left off the San and I said nothing about my being a farmer

Anything else to find fault with? I'll check back later to see.
Or maybe you can spend today looking for someone else's mistakes and point them out too so they will get the benefit of your superior knowledge.

[bvar22]

166. Not exactly true.

I can put a Salmon and a Tomato in the barn overnight,
and they will NEVER share any genes.

Nature has its own fail safes in place. Any hybridization that occurs between our natural crops
will be limited to small incremental steps, and the new hybrid must have the ability to survive on its own.

GMOs are capable of massive leaps that would NEVER occur in nature,
and have the potential to cause widespread damage.

[Dorian Gray]

246. MMMmmmmmm....

Salmato!

[jeff47]

259. And I can select tomatoes that have more salmon traits.

eventually leading to a salmon-like tomato.

Nature has its own fail safes in place.

No. Nature is not at all safe. Nature is a brutal war using genocide, chemical and biological weapons. There are no safeguards. There's limits in pacing, but you can create utterly toxic things from two food crops.

[druidity33]

244. The Tomato

is in the Nightshade family. So a tomato/nightshade hybrid wouldn't be that unlikely in "Nature". Whereas a plant inserted with the genes of, let's say, an Octopus or Spider... is NOT NATURAL. In "Nature", plants (animals too!) actually evolve ON THEIR OWN over time. When we selectively breed plants, we are doing principally what "Nature" does. That does not involve electron microscopes or piercing the cell wall of nucleii and infiltrating it with foreign matter.

You are obfuscating here. You know and everyone else here knows there is a difference between GMO and selective breeding. I am TIRED of hearing this lame-assed argument.

[jeff47]

262. A gene coming from an octopus or spider isn't relevant. You're looking for what the gene does

Let's say the gene happens to make tomato skin less likely to bruise. I can get the same results by inserting a gene, or by selecting less-bruise-prone plants. In both cases, I have modified the DNA of the tomato plant to do what I want. And in both cases, I can very radically alter the plant - the ancient ancestor of corn is nothing like what was farmed in the Americas in the 1600s.

Also, genes cross species boundaries often. It's called "swine flu" because it has incorporated genes from pigs into the virus. There's a host of retroviruses that evolved to do this kind of thing 100% naturally. (We don't use them to make GMOs because they are too hard to control.)

Nature is not a pretty, idyllic meadow. Nature is a brutal war involving mass use of chemical and biological weapons to commit genocide. And we can't even come close to the weapons nature has made. The deadliest chemical weapon humans have made is Vx nerve gas. The deadliest chemical weapon Nature made is botulism toxin, which is about 100 times deadlier than Vx.

Toxic waste dumps? All of the oxygen in our atmosphere is toxic waste - it was deadly to everything except cyanobacteria when cyanobacteria began dumping it into the environment. It now makes up 20% of our atmosphere, a scale far beyond the biggest toxic waste dumps humans ever made. It utterly decimated all life that existed at the time.

That's not to say man-made is better or safer or nicer. It isn't. Nature is just a lot messier than many of us like to believe.

"is NOT NATURAL" is not an argument. It's a fallacy meant to maintain the status quo. After all, the anti-LGBT people spend a lot of their time arguing it "is NOT NATURAL" too.

[druidity33]

296. that's the epitome of obfuscation right there...

When do you suppose IN NATURE, you will find the genetics of a tomato and an octopus intermingling? Are you saying that under no circumstances can anyone ever use the phrase, "That's not Natural"?
I don't think anyone can say with certainty that GMOs are safe for consumption AND safe for the environment. I don't think the studies SPONSORED and FUNDED by the companies that make these PRODUCTS can be trusted. Can you point to LONG-TERM studies funded by National Governments or Non-Profit/unaffiliated entities that unequivocably claim these PRODUCTS are safe?

[HuckleB]

325. So fiction-based ideology is what matters to you.

Got it.

Science doesn't care, dude.

[druidity33]

331. Science will back me up...

though it may take longer than the 3-year studies funded by the companies that create these PRODUCTS for that to happen. How long did it take scientists to figure out the effects of lead on the human population? Or Asbestos? Or cigarettes, fer chrissakes...

[HuckleB]

332. Science doesn't back up baseless faith, ever.

It's time for you to realize that you've been conned.

[druidity33]

339. If this wasn't such a serious topic

i'd tell you to remind me to laugh in your face when all we've got is superweeds, inedible crops, and pesticide doused farmlands 20 years from now. Instead i'll just shrug and wish you well, for surely i believe the same thing of you: "It's time for you to realize that you've been conned."

[HuckleB]

341. It is a serious topic, and the science is against your stance on the topic.

You are going to hurt people by continuing to ignore that reality.

[druidity33]

352. I am going to hurt people? wtf?

Who the heck do you think you are? I mean really, is that supposed to be a veiled threat?

Like i said earlier... science thought DDT was the best. Same thing with Asbestos. For how many years did we use lead lined pipes?

I'll say it again. The science will bear me out in the end, not you. Thanks for your time.

[HuckleB]

353. I never threaten anyone. Cut the crap.

You are acting in a manner that could lead to increased food insecurity, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

It's time for anti-GMO activists to realize that the science is against their baseless fears, and that what they "want" will harm real people, and that means the people most easily harmed.

[druidity33]

359. i'll tell you right now...

you have not helped your argument in this thread at all. In fact, your attitude and resistance to answering good common sense questions throughout (not to mention how rude you are) have only made me more inclined to disbelieve your incredulous statements.

Sorry, that's just the way it works sometimes. I hope you weren't trying to convince anyone here of anything.

[HuckleB]

361. So you have nothing to say.

Got it.

[CreekDog]

137. raw vs. cooked doesn't affect the GMO content of food

that's obvious, right?

[upaloopa]

142. You like GMO eat them leave others to make

their own choices. Why is that so hard for you?

[CreekDog]

143. what am I supposed to do with that?

Am I supposed to put the words in the correct order and then attempt to understand it?

[pnwmom]

80. No one's suggesting they can't add ADDITIONAL information -- just that there should be a MINIMUM

of information required -- including whether it is GMO or not.

[jeff47]

100. And what would you base that decision on?

The 100% organic tomato you can buy at a specialty "NO GMO!!" market was modified by humans. We made tomato vines produce more fruit, and produce larger fruit. Without genetic engineering.

Why is a brand-spanking-new traditionally-hybridized tomato safe? It isn't tested. I can sell it at the market above immediately. Oh, I used traditional hybridizing techniques to hybridize it with nightshade. While GMOs at least have to go through a round of animal testing.

"Contains GMO" doesn't get you the information you need, and only lets you make a decision based on fear.

[pnwmom]

136. It should be up to the food producer how much additional information they wanted to include

besides whether their foods include GMO's.

Other than meeting the standard labeling requirements already in place -- which they fought tooth and nail by the way.

[ND-Dem]

173. Just because you don't want the information doesn't mean others don't. Just because you

don't think it tells you anything important doesn't mean others don't.

Just because you think "modified by humans" is synonymous with current genetic modification doesn't mean others do.

You're not the arbiter of what information others 'need,' nor do you know what they base their decisions on.

[HuckleB]

179. Just because fear mongerers have scared doesn't mean you should be scared.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-people-fly-from-facts/

[ND-Dem]

236. i'm not scared.

[HuckleB]

266. Then what is your excuse for ignoring the science on GMOs?

[ND-Dem]

349. You haven't presented any science. In fact, I'm pretty convinced you don't even know what it

is.

[HuckleB]

350. Well, it's easy to convince you that GMOs are evil.

All I'd have to do is say so.

But thanks for ignoring the science of the matter, and for pretending that it hasn't been presented. That is cute.

[CentralMass]

200. Exactly, labeling. I would not purchase A-D

[HuckleB]

48. Isn't that what you're doing?

You say there must be a label, even though there is no reason for it? That sounds rather religious to me. Hmm.

[MattBaggins]

54. I don't understand Duers that want a meaningless convuluted

labelling system that won't actually tell the buyer a damn thing.

[upaloopa]

78. Neither you nor I know what the label, if it ever

shows up, will be like.

[GreatGazoo]

101. July 1, 2016, just over a year from now labeling begins in Vermont

Part of the push back against labeling is a fear-based belief that consumers will reject foods labeled "Contains GMO ingredients" or anything similar. Many industry giants expect the label-fearing side will lose and they are taking steps now to get GMO out of their foods.

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

Vermont law and the fear-based lawsuit against labeling:
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/local/vermont/2014/11/29/vermont-gmo-fight-nears-court/19639519/

[pnwmom]

82. And I don't understand why any DUer would object to the labeling that would help people

-- those who have opinions about GMO products --make up their own minds about purchasing the products.

[jeff47]

103. You're not making up your own mind.

You're acting out of fear.

When it's Fox talking about ISIS killing us in our sleep, we mock making decisions out of fear.
When it's anti-vaxxers insisting there isn't enough testing and a massive cover-up, we mock making decisions out of fear.
When it's GMOs, suddenly fear is a good thing?

[pnwmom]

133. Yeah, right. You can try and piggy-back the popularity of vaccines onto GMO's all you want.

Anyone with a brain knows they are separate technologies with different risk/benefit ratios.

Not everything every scientist or engineer develops -- and corporations promote for profit -- is equally safe or equally valuable. There are three PhD engineers and scientists in my family and they all prefer organic foods and support labeling of GMO's. (Not everyone can afford to eat organic.)

[HuckleB]

149. You can keep repeating your mantra, all you want.

Repeating it won't make it true.

[pnwmom]

155. You're right. It's true, and repeating it doesn't affect the truth.

But some people might not get it the first time, so they need to hear it more than once.

[HuckleB]

156. You once pretended to care about science and evidence.

Oh, how bizarre to find out that the people one trusted were playing games all along.

Ugh. (And this is my very kind response.)

[pnwmom]

160. You, on the other hand, have been completely transparent.

Your views on science, and its profit potential, couldn't be more clear.

[HuckleB]

182. I'm honest. I acknowledge reality. I accept the evidence.

And I'm not blinded by relatives and BS.

I'm sorry that you have problems with the real world. I think you could help, if you didn't falter there. Unfortunately, you have worked to cause damage to real people, and not the other way around.

If you can accept that reality, and move beyond that, you could be a force for good again.

[ND-Dem]

235. 'damage to real people' like what?

[HuckleB]

271. Pushing anti-vaccine tropes leads to people not getting vaccinated.

Anti-GMO lies have worked to con people into thinking they need to buy more expensive food when they don't need to do so. That leads to financial issues and increased food insecurity.

The lack of ethics of both the anti-vaccine and anti-GMO movements is astounding.

[ND-Dem]

237. and you pushed a clip by a far right winger associated with the kochs and the fraser institute.

ugh. ("my very kind response&quot

[HuckleB]

272. And thus you admit that you can't debunk the piece.

Got it.

[Art_from_Ark]

167. Fear just may be a good thing when it comes to GMOs

There is no compelling reason to force everyone to eat GMO foods. None whatsoever. People have every right to be concerned about GMOs, not only for their potential adverse health affects, but also for the potential adverse effects that GMO farming may have on the environment, and the growing trend of a few huge chemical companies seeking to exercise monopolistic control over the world's production of seeds and suing small farmers who may unwittingly use seeds that have been tainted with GMO.



There are studies about possible ill effects of GMO foods, but sometimes they get squelched when the "peer reviewer" is someone who used to work for agribusiness:

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

The UNCTAD has noted that "Corporate executives from major agribusinesses appointed to public agencies have frequently participated in the drafting of regulatory rules that are favourable to their industry’s interests" and cites several examples of conflicts of interest that arise when foxes are chosen to guard henhouses (see p.83 in the following document):

http://unctad.org/en/publicationslibrary/ditcted2012d3_en.pdf

[HuckleB]

189. No one is forcing anyone to eat anything.

And yet Big Organic has no problem trying to scare you from GMOs, while it sells you mutagenic foods every day.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Have you noticed the disconnect?

[ND-Dem]

232. of course people are forcing others to eat things. when people don't know if the food supply

contains genetically modified items they don't want to eat, they're essentially being forced to eat them.

[HuckleB]

326. How? I guess that people are being forced to eat mutagenic food too!

Last edited Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:22 PM - Edit history (1)

Where are your posts against mutagenesis?

[ND-Dem]

344. Yes; when food is made or processed via techniques and processes, or with ingredients that

people don't want to consume, yet those things aren't labeled so that people have a choice, people are being *forced* to consume the items they don't want.

And it's pretty obvious that forcing GMOs on the population is exactly what the industry wants to do, because they know that if people had the choice it would cut into their bottom line.

Thus all the lobbying and arm-twisting, including the propaganda push at sites like DU.

[HuckleB]

345. So, all you have to offer is forced propaganda, based on fear mongering fictions?

Seriously, that post is just scary.

[Major Nikon]

218. Séralini was shot down by lots of folks

He also tried to profit from his bogus "research". He's not really all that much different than Wakefield's quackery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair#Scientific_evaluation

[ND-Dem]

174. The EU has labeling. All those europeans must be acting out of fear too.

Maybe I just don't want to eat unknown modified foodstuffs.

[HuckleB]

210. Show us the evidence.

We're waiting.

[ND-Dem]

233. The evidence that the EU labels GMOs?

http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/gmfood/labelling_en.htm

The evidence that I don't want to eat GMO food and I want it labeled? All I have to say is I don't want it. Like most of the public, I don't want it.

What's curious to me is why it should be forced on a public that wants it labeled, at the least.

[HuckleB]

267. The evidence that there is a science-based reason for labeling them.

Your desire equates to religious preference. Stop pretending otherwise. Mandatory labels are not justified.

[bvar22]

289. This guy disagrees:

&feature=player_embedded

[HuckleB]

290. He's a scientist now?

[jeff47]

265. They are.

Maybe I just don't want to eat unknown modified foodstuffs.

Then you better stop eating everything. Every single thing we consider "food" has been modified from it's original form to suit human farming.

Every single apple in the 100% organic all-natural section of the grocery store is a hybrid of two apple trees - one that produces good fruit is grafted on to one that produces better roots. And neither one is at all like the ancient ancestor of apple trees that nature produced - the ancient ancestor produced fruit that looked more like cherry tomatoes in size.

[druidity33]

346. I'm acting out of anger not fear

I have absolutely no desire to give any of my money to the machinations of Monsanto, Sygenta, and other community destroying world seed bank manipulating corporations out there. The same reason i don't buy Coca-Cola products... or any other company i take issue with. I have that right as a consumer. Whether or not you think my reasons for doing so are valid or not.

The arguments you are making here are disingenuous and a disservice to this community on DU. Scolding us for being "scared" and "anti-science" in the manner that you have on this thread borders on bullying. Why so heavy handed? Because we want to have a CHOICE in whether we consume this stuff?

We're not fucking anti-vaxxers, we're fucking educated people who would rather work with the precautionary principle than offer ourselves as guinea pigs to a multi-national corporate agenda.

I've got an idea. When labeling passes, why don't you eat ONLY GMO products for a year and then tell us how that was.

[mmonk]

119. They are acting out of fear their intellectual position may be incorrect or

they have stock in biotechnology.

[HuckleB]

122. So you acknowledge that fear works.

And you understand why the baseless fear mongering of the anti-GMOers is effective?

Got it.

Still, use of the shill gambit is just ridiculous. And, yeah, that's a kind statement. Very kind, in fact.

[ND-Dem]

175. Why? there are a lot of shills out there, and they're paid well.

[HuckleB]

178. What?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-people-fly-from-facts/

[ND-Dem]

234. Irrelevant to what I said. BTW, I have a science degree.

[HuckleB]

268. Your degree has no bearing on the matter.

It's what you show you know, and you have showed that you are buying into the anti-GMO movement's deceit.

[HuckleB]

86. Well, because, you know "organic" is so cool!

GMOs are so nerdy!

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

28. Really? That's a new one to me.

[GreatGazoo]

34. He is finally admitting that different GMO foods "have diferent problems"

That's new.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

36. Is he an expert on all GMO food? Sounds like a science denier.

[HuckleB]

59. What science is "he" denying?

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

242. The science of logic and safety. EOM

[HuckleB]

372. So you got nothing at all.

Sheesh.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

384. If I don't have anything then you don't either.

[GreatGazoo]

121. like amateur psychoanalyst who tells 93% of us "Since you don't believe as I do, you are crazy"

the ultimate ad hominem + appeal to authority compound logical fallacy fail.

hasn't offered any real science that I see

Speaking of which, here is some science, 93% of Americans want GMO foods labeled: A national telephone poll was conducted from Jan. 24 to 27, 2013 with 1,052 adults and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

[jeff47]

50. You not understanding there are different GMOs is not a terribly useful metric. (nt)

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

241. You haven't shown ANY useful metric! All GMO is bad!

And that is the way I will continue to live - as GMO free as possible.

[pnwmom]

76. Then why would you ever oppose it? Let other smart people, like Dr. Goodall, make up their own minds

[jeff47]

105. Because giving in to fear is bad.

Give people all the information they need to make a decision that is based in reality instead of fear stoked by people selling books.

So give them a label that actually tells them something useful instead of something that sells more books.

[GreatGazoo]

130. So you are pro-labeling?

Sincere question.

[druidity33]

335. If i don't want to use a plastic cup

i use a metal one, or glass, or ceramic. It doesn't matter to me what kind of plastic the plastic cup is made of. I don't want to use it. One type of plastic doesn't need to have different problems or risks in order to evaluate my choice. I WANT THAT CHOICE. Do you understand now why we want labeling? Whether you agree with the reasoning or not, can you understand that?

[sabrina 1]

383. It's very meaningful to millions of people who do not wish to eat genetically altered 'food'.

Speak for yourself only, when you state what is meaningful and what is not.

Europeans demanded their governments label their food, and guess what, their governments listened.

Corporations are denying the people of this country the right to know what they are eating.

Which is why more and more of them refuse to buy unlabeled food.

What ARE they hiding?

[bvar22]

162. This guy agrees with you,

or at least he said he did in 2008.

&feature=player_

I wonder whatever happened to that guy.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. I like Jane, but... I think people on both sides need to quit throwing around

'anti-science' and 'afraid' and similar epithets. It doesn't actually advance either side's agenda, merely pisses off people having such adjectives tossed their way.

[Major Nikon]

68. When someone describes the technology as ‘Frankenstein Food’...

You can safely dismiss them as someone who is more interested in making emotional, rather than factual arguments.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

70. You maybe can.

I consider them to be using rhetorical devices which often work better with most people. So I don't 'dismiss' them. I just note that they're employing a different set of tactics to achieve their goal.

[pnwmom]

87. She's responding to all the pro-GMO people who accuse people like her of being anti-science.

Why shouldn't she defend herself against such insulting accusations?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

90. I'm fine with her saying she isn't anti-science.

And I think you'd have to be a fool to call someone like her anti-science.

But unlike Bibi, I don't think that attacking someone else is a 'defense'.

[H2O Man]

3. Recommended.

Thank you.

[JohnyCanuck]

5. More about the book ‘Altered Genes, Twisted Truth’

‘Altered Genes, Twisted Truth’ is a new book by the US public interest lawyer Steve Druker. The book is the result of more than 15 years of intensive research and investigation by Druker, who initiated a lawsuit against the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that forced it to divulge its files on GM foods. Those files revealed that GM foods first achieved commercialisation in 1992 but only because the FDA covered up the extensive warnings of its own scientists about their dangers, lied about the facts and then violated federal food safety law by permitting these foods to be marketed without having been proven safe through standard testing.

If the FDA had heeded its own experts’ advice and publicly acknowledged their warnings that GM foods entailed higher risks than their conventional counterparts, Druker says that the GM food venture would have imploded and never gained traction anywhere.

He also argues that that many well-placed scientists have repeatedly issued misleading statements about GM foods, and so have leading scientific institutions such as the US National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the UK’s Royal Society.

SNIP

His work highlights research which has found tumours, liver and kidney harm in animals given GM feed in trials. And he complains, that researchers who dare to raise these problems have been pilloried.

He said: “Contrary to the assertions of its proponents, the massive enterprise to reconfigure the genetic core of the world’s food supply is not based on sound science but on the systematic subversion of science – and it would collapse if subjected to an open airing of the facts.”

http://www.colintodhunter.com/2015/03/not-science-just-lies-and-propaganda.html

[HuckleB]

292. BS.

AAAS Scientists: Consensus on GMO Safety Firmer Than For Human-Induced Climate Change

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_8915_b_6572130.html

Also see:

Infographic: Climate change vs. GMOs: Comparing the independent global scientific consensus
http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/07/08/climate-change-vs-gmos-comparing-the-independent-global-scientific-consensus/

[jeff47]

6. Ok, if you'd like to make this about science, where's her paper?

If this is about science, surely she has a paper documenting her experiment demonstrating these dangers. Where is it?

There's a book, by a lawyer, documenting that some scientists wanted more studies.

Science is about proving positives, because you can't prove a negative. You can not prove GMOs pose no danger, you can prove that GMOs pose a danger.

But you can sell a lot of books pointing out that scientists have failed to prove a negative.

[sabrina 1]

11. 30 countries have now banned Monsanto GMOs with more planning to do so.

Studies, scientific studies, including in EU countries prompted the bans with more on the way.

The sooner the better. These Corporations have killed the way of life of farmers in Third World countries causing many to be unable to take care of their families, as they once did.

When that many countries have done their own scientific studies and found that HMOs are harmful to their populations, I'll go with their assessments rather than Monsanto's or any other major, for profit institution with the kind of record they have.

[Orrex]

13. You're absolutely correct that 160 countries haven't banned GMOs

It's important to remember that point--thanks for reminding us!

[sabrina 1]

18. You're absolutely correct. Not that long ago 190 countries had not yet realized how

harmful GMOs were to their populations. The tide on that has now turned, and 30 of those countries having done their own scientific studies, have now banned GMOs.

That's all it takes, a turning of the tide, starting with the first country to do so, and before long there were more, and there will be more.

When a Corporation doesn't want you to know what they producing, that is all one needs to know before doing their own investigations.

If they have done nothing wrong, they have nothing to hide.

Clearly they are afraid that if they were to label their products, they would go out of business.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

35. When we by food of any kind, even our dogs, we check to make sure

it doesn't come from China. I would gladly make the same check for GMO if they would label it.

[sabrina 1]

56. Yes, we don't buy commercial dog food anymore. Our puppy as it turned out, was allergic

to most commercial food, she lost her hair and looked like she had mange. We took her to the vet, three different times over the course of a year and a half, but nothing worked.

Then I met a woman who grooms dogs. It was embarrassing because the dog looked like no one cared about her. She told me that she had worked for a vet and had seen this condition often and it was related to food. I was willing to try anything so bought the food she recommended, Natural Balance, and in about one month her hair began to grow back. We mix it now with table food and she looks beautiful again.

We learned what to look for in the ingredients, which are listed on dog food.

It's a crime that we in this country are told 'we will decide what you eat and no, you don't have the right to know what you are eating'.

As a result we try to buy very little vegetables, dairy products etc. We grow our own and can buy more from the farmers who are neighbors, eggs, anything we can produce our selves.

[Orrex]

107. Boom! And the checklist continues!

Numbers 3, 4 & 10. I'll have to update my list!

If they have done nothing wrong, they have nothing to hide.

I believe that the NSA has made the same assertion justifying their snooping into your phone and email records. Are you really ok with that as the standard of evidence?

[sabrina 1]

127. Am I a public figure? No, but if I were, that standard would be okay with me. In fact I would

insist on it. Unless of course I was trying to hide something that the public might not be too happy with.

[GoneFishin]

165. That logic would apply if we were asking them transcribe their spouses' pillow talk onto the

outside of the food packages.

They are selling food with a reasonable expectation that it is fit for human consumption. If they are unwilling to disclose the origin of that food then it is reasonable to assume that they are hiding something.

[Orrex]

206. Seriously?

They are selling food with a reasonable expectation that it is fit for human consumption. If they are unwilling to disclose the origin of that food then it is reasonable to assume that they are hiding something.

Actually, that's not a reasonable assumption at all. It may be a reasonable suspicion, and you are free to research the matter, but it is premature to demand that manufacturers disclose irrelevant information that will damage their business unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Your assumption simply isn't a compelling reason.

[GoneFishin]

250. That's logical gibberish couched in grammatically well constructed sentences.

[ND-Dem]

176. "if they were to label their products, they would go out of business" = precisely.

that's the fear, and that's why the push to get gmos into the food supply by stealth.

and that pisses me off as much as anything.

[Orrex]

260. And that's why you need to demonstrate a compelling reason

You are also equating profit with evil without demonstrating that they are in fact equivalent. That's a fallacy.

[nationalize the fed]

31. Also important to remember that at least 64 countries require labeling

A food consumer in Estonia, for example. knows more about what is in their food than a consumer in the US



Countries with Mandatory Labeling of GE Foods

Australia
Austria
Belarus
Belgium
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Brazil
Bulgaria
Cameroon
China
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Ecuador
El Salvador
Estonia
Ethiopia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mauritius
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Peru
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Tunisia
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
Vietnam

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/international-labeling-laws

They don't seem to have a problem with the cost of it either

How could anyone be against providing more information to a consumer?
If GMO Foods are so great why not make sure people know which ones to buy

[Orrex]

111. If rice is included in the ingredients, then let us disclose that.

If you can demonstrate that a compelling reason exists to identify GMO vs non-GMO foods, then please do so.

"Customer preference" is not a compelling reason.

How could anyone be against providing more information to a consumer?

Because not all information is relevant. I demand to know the name of the truck driver who brought my apples to market, and I insist on knowing his wife's middle name. Do I have the right to demand that the manufacturer disclose them?

Why not? They're as relevant to the food's safety as whether or not it's GMO.

[ND-Dem]

177. we already do.

[Orrex]

205. Really? Because I'm looking at the label right now.

Last edited Fri Mar 6, 2015, 01:43 AM - Edit history (1)

And it doesn't mention anything about the middle name of the truck driver's wife. How can we tolerate such secrecy?

[ND-Dem]

231. "If rice is included in the ingredients, then let us disclose that."

We already do.

[Orrex]

247. Well, yeah. That was kind of my point.

Since GMO rice presents no greater hazard than non-GMO rice, and since companies already disclose the fact that "rice" is an ingredient, there is no compelling reason to force a company to disclose whether it's GMO or not, especially when that disclosure would likely have a negative impact upon the company.

[ND-Dem]

249. "there's no compelling reason" = except most americans want it. the EU already does it,and

there's "no compelling reason" why we can't, too.

of course, there's "no compelling reason" why americans have to pay >$1000 for anti-cold sore treatment medicine and Europeans & Canadians pay only $40.

"No compelling reason" but to drain us for private profit.

[Orrex]

257. Consensus simply isn't a compelling reason

Absent a demonstrable risk from GMO ingredients, there will be only two results:

1. Products that contain GMOs will sell in reduced numbers for reasons that amount to superstition
2. Products that contain no GMOs will sell in increased numbers for reasons that amount to superstition

Before you can demand GMO labeling, you need to demonstrate that your so-called compelling reason justifies the impact that it will have upon businesses that haven't actually done wrong.

Your rant about pharmaceutical pricing is irrelevant here.

Your rant about profit is irrelevant here.

[ND-Dem]

258. there was "no compelling reason" for previous labeling in the eyes of the industry either.

just because you say crap doesn't make it true.

[Orrex]

261. That's not an argument. it's a tantrum.

Let me know when you have a point to make.

[ND-Dem]

263. let me know when you have something other than personal attacks to make your points with

[Orrex]

269. Oh please

I'm fielding ad hominems from a dozen anti-GMO types. Will you scold them for their attacks? Or do you only complain when people call you out for your tantrums?

[uppityperson]

211. What is "natural flavoring" that I see on packages of food?

[ND-Dem]

230. (3) The term natural flavor or natural flavoring means the essential oil, oleoresin, essence or

extractive, protein hydrolysate, distillate, or any product of roasting, heating or enzymolysis, which contains the flavoring constituents derived from a spice, fruit or fruit juice, vegetable or vegetable juice, edible yeast, herb, bark, bud, root, leaf or similar plant material, meat, seafood, poultry, eggs, dairy products, or fermentation products thereof, whose significant function in food is flavoring rather than nutritional. Natural flavors, include the natural essence or extractives obtained from plants listed in subpart A of part 582 of this chapter, and the substances listed in 172.510 of this chapter.

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=501.22

[uppityperson]

280. In other words some part of some animal, plant or processed part of them?

In other words "natural flavoring" is something that can widely differ and we won't tell you what it contains.

[Orrex]

283. Wow.

That was brilliant--shame on me for not coming up with that slam-dunk!


[font color="white"]XXX [/font]
[font color="white"]XXXXXX [/font]
[font color="white"]XXXXXXXXX [/font]
[font color="white"]XXXXXXXXXXXX [/font]
[font color="white"]XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX [/font]

[ND-Dem]

307. i think you don't know much about how flavorings are made. the language is very specific.

also don't know much about labels.

(3) In cases where the flavor contains a solely natural flavor(s), the flavor shall be so labeled, e.g., strawberry flavor, banana flavor, or natural strawberry flavor. In cases where the flavor contains both a natural flavor and an artificial flavor, the flavor shall be so labeled, e.g., natural and artificial strawberry flavor. In cases where the flavor contains a solely artificial flavor(s), the flavor shall be so labeled, e.g., artificial strawberry flavor.

[uppityperson]

330. Let me pull a box out of my pantry. "natural flavors" is listed. So what is it specifically beyond

plant or animal processed or not something? The box is veggie taco mix. I see soy, and lots of other things, but what is "natural flavor" that is non-specific? It doesn't say something and natural flavor, but just natural flavors is added in the list. There are spices listed, and sugar products along with soy and oil. And "natural flavors". So what am I eating? Why does it not say?

[ND-Dem]

337. it would help if you listed a brand and exact name, but you're eating some plant flavor extract,

i'd guess, if the product is listed as vegetarian.

or perhaps a yeast extract, though it's not strictly vegetarian.

[uppityperson]

338. And what plant would it be? You know, allergies and just because I want to know exactly

what I am eating. Why doesn't it say what it is beyond probably some part of some plant processed in some way?

[ND-Dem]

340. fda lists the allowable plants. linked at the same place the definition is. the allowable

processes are also specifically listed.

which is better than you'll get with gmos.

[uppityperson]

354. So they won't tell me what it is. Thanks for your help in trying to figure out

wtf "natural flavors" is. I understand now that it can mean a variety of unspecified things, so is basically useless in figuring out what it means, what I might be eating beyond "plant or animal".

[sabrina 1]

365. Speak for yourself. If you don't care what you feed yourself and your family, that's your business.

But you don't get to decide, nor does any Corporation, get to decide for those of us 'consumers' who DO care.

You are not talking to children nor is Monsanto. However their arrogant dismissal of the American people as a bunch of ignorant children, has contributed greatly to the rising opposition in THIS country now, as well as the growing number of countries around the world, to their controlling the food supply here and elsewhere.

Since 50% of the 'science' surrounding these products was paid for by these Corporations, they are of little value to consumers.

What ARE they working so hard to hide?

So, you go ahead and eat their genetically altered food. No one is stopping you. But where did you get the idea that you have the right to order the rest of us to do the same?

[Orrex]

366. Classic red herring and a false dichotomy as well

Since I do not accept the fear-mongering anti- GMO propaganda, I do not accept your ridiculous claim that my concern for my family is in question.

I do not embrace your anti-science fear that GMOs are dangerous. This is not a statement of faith; I have reviewed the onformation available, produced by hundreds of independent bodies, and I do not conclude that luddite fears are justified.

You frame the issue as a false choice: either I love my family or I demand pointless GMO labeling.

Bullshit.

[sabrina 1]

367. Typical response from someone who wants to decide for the rest of us, what rights we have

wrt to what we feed our families. European governments do not regard their citizens as 'ignorant children' and have responded to the overwhelming number of them across Europe who have demanded that their food be labeled.

I don't much care what you 'respond to'. The fact is, the people have a RIGHT to know what they are eating.

It's a simple demand, just label your products, and if you don't, we have the right to assume you are AFRAID to do so.

I framed nothing. I told you you may decide whatever you wish.

You framed the discussion as if YOU are all knowing and have the right to decide for the rest of us, who insult in every comment you make.

Bullshit is right.

We grow our own food, so unless those horrible insecticides have contaminated this part of the country, we are GMO free.

And so are more people where I live. And unless those of you who think you have a right to tell us what to do manage to get our government to forbid Americans from making that decision, we will continue to do so.

Third World countries are not so lucky, where these corporations have forced their products on populations.

Still, many of those populations, see the Philipines, eg, are fighting back.

Shameful that a corporation can control governments in order to sell their products, but that power is diminishing finally and either they disclose what is in their products, or more countries will be banning them.

[Orrex]

368. I'm not deciding for anyone, so your accusation is bullshit.

Instead, I am correctly pointing out that you have no right to force your demands on companies based on your irrational fears. If you dispute this, then I have a list of demands that I will require you to follow for no compelling reason.

You are late to to the party and you bring nothing new. I'm certainly not going to waste more time on redundant anti-GMO bullshit.

Read what's been written. If you come up with something new to discuss, let me know.

[HuckleB]

43. But GMOs are evil because anti-GMO groups say so!

[ND-Dem]

193. "Anyone that says, 'Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,' I say is either unbelievably stupid,

or deliberately lying. The reality is, we don't know. The experiments simply haven't been done, and now we have become the guinea pigs." ~ David Suzuki, geneticist

[HuckleB]

194. Why can't Suzuki support his claims with a consensus of science?

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

[ND-Dem]

202. that's a post by someone called "orac," not a "consensus of science." and that's a stupid phrase

anyway, as physicists are scientists yet not experts on gmos.

Suzuki is a geneticist at least & a degreed one.

[HuckleB]

208. In other words, you refuse the reality of the science of the matter.

And interestingly enough Orac is not a physicists, though he actually utilizes the current science of the matter, unlike Suzuki, who is not respected by the vast majority of scientists.

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/science-gmo-safe/

[ND-Dem]

225. 1. i don't know who "orac" id or if he's the same person as the "skeptical raptor". 2. The "SR's"

work experience is not in science, but basically in marketing & business: for the medical/pharmaceutical industry, albeit he has degrees in science.

I have over 25 years experience in marketing, business development, and product development in the medical products industry, working in a variety of marketing, sales, clinical research, and product development roles with large and small medical products companies. I have also had key executive roles on both the manufacturing and distribution sides of the medical products industry.

I have an undergraduate degree in Biology from a top US research university, and a graduate degree in Biochemistry/Endocrinology from a major US research university. I did my post-graduate work in a multi-national pharmaceutical company.


http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/about/

He tells us he has degrees from both "top" and "major" US research unis (not sure what the difference is), but negliges to name them, but since all his experience is for corporations, he's in no way a neutral source of research, or of information.

3. That you tell me the "vast majority of scientists" don't "respect" Suzuki is totally meaningless, as if you have any way of knowing that, or any definition of what kind of "scientists" you're referring to.

Your statement in and of itself is completely unscientific.

So I say f**k both 'orac' and the "skeptical raptor'; their opinions are as meaningless to me as anyone else paid by business to promote product.

[HuckleB]

301. The content is what matters, but you focus on everything but the content.

That's why there's no point in talking to you. You are a fundamentalist, not someone who cares about the science of the matter.

[ND-Dem]

303. if the content is what matters, what makes yours better than mine if all are written by

anonymous people on the internet?

and since your content isn't written by a scientist, but by an anonymous marketing person paid by a business, it ain't "science", it's PR.

[HuckleB]

308. The content in question wasn't written by anyone.

It was actual scientists questions David Suzuki, and then everyone in the audience noting that Suzuki couldn't support his claims. How are you missing that reality?

[HuckleB]

195. Here's what happens when Suzuki faces people doing actual science in this area.

https://www.realagriculture.com/2013/09/david-suzuki-gets-challenged-by-actual-scientists-in-australia/

[ND-Dem]

226. that clip is laughable and it's not suzuki i'm laughing at. The person who spoke most often was:

Ezra Isaac Levant (born 1972) is a Canadian media personality, conservative political activist, writer and broadcaster....Levant has written several books on politics and public policy. He has become involved in several legal and other controversies on free speech issues. Other issues that he has dealt with include multiculturalism, immigration, and economic deregulation. He published the book Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada's Oil Sands in 2010 and Groundswell: The Case for Fracking in 2014 through McClelland & Stewart. Levant has been successfully sued for libel on two separate occasions.

Born in Calgary, Levant holds a commerce degree from the University of Calgary and a law degree from the University of Alberta.... Born in Calgary, Levant holds a commerce degree from the University of Calgary and a law degree from the University of Alberta.

He spent the summer of 1994 in Washington, D.C., in an internship arranged by the libertarian Charles G. Koch Foundation Summer Fellow Program. He worked for the Fraser Institute in 1995, writing Youthquake, which argued for smaller government, including privatization of the Canada Pension Plan.

Levant saw "youthquake", the term he used to describe what he identified as a conservative youth movement of the 1990s, as similar to the 1960s civil rights movement except that instead of being enslaved by racism, his generation was "enslaved by debt" and, in order to liberate itself, society needed to dismantle elements such as trade unions, the minimum wage, universal health care, subsidized tuition and public pension plans.[6]

From 2009 until 2010, Levant worked as a lobbyist for Rothman's Incorporated, a manufacturer and distributor of tobacco products.[15] Levant has also worked as a lobbyist for the Alberta oil & gas industry, specifically for Achieve Energy Services Limited Partnership.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra_Levant

Like this guy is a credible spokesman for independent 'science". This is a case of if he's for it, I'm against it. He's a sleazy shill and any program he's on is pure propaganda.

And it certainly makes me wonder why *this* is your go-to clip to "prove" your POV.

Pure sleazy garbage, not science.

[HuckleB]

228. So you didn't bother to watch it.

Ok, then.

[ND-Dem]

229. I watched it all the way through. I guess you didn't bother to ready my comments all the way

through. I'll repeat them for you:

that clip is laughable and it's not suzuki i'm laughing at. The person who spoke most often was:

Ezra Isaac Levant (born 1972) is a Canadian media personality, conservative political activist, writer and broadcaster....Levant has written several books on politics and public policy. He has become involved in several legal and other controversies on free speech issues. Other issues that he has dealt with include multiculturalism, immigration, and economic deregulation. He published the book Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada's Oil Sands in 2010 and Groundswell: The Case for Fracking in 2014 through McClelland & Stewart. Levant has been successfully sued for libel on two separate occasions.

Born in Calgary, Levant holds a commerce degree from the University of Calgary and a law degree from the University of Alberta....

He spent the summer of 1994 in Washington, D.C., in an internship arranged by the libertarian Charles G. Koch Foundation Summer Fellow Program. He worked for the Fraser Institute in 1995, writing Youthquake, which argued for smaller government, including privatization of the Canada Pension Plan.

Levant saw "youthquake", the term he used to describe what he identified as a conservative youth movement of the 1990s, as similar to the 1960s civil rights movement except that instead of being enslaved by racism, his generation was "enslaved by debt" and, in order to liberate itself, society needed to dismantle elements such as trade unions, the minimum wage, universal health care, subsidized tuition and public pension plans.

From 2009 until 2010, Levant worked as a lobbyist for Rothman's Incorporated, a manufacturer and distributor of tobacco products. Levant has also worked as a lobbyist for the Alberta oil & gas industry...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra_Levant

Like this guy is a credible spokesman for independent 'science". This is a case of if he's for it, I'm against it. He's a sleazy shill and any program he's on is pure propaganda.

And it certainly makes me wonder why *this* is your go-to clip to "prove" your POV.

Pure sleazy garbage, not science.

Thanks for the right-wing commercial.

[HuckleB]

293. In other words, the scientists who questioned Suzuki showed that Suzuki doesn't know anything.

And this is your reply? That is some serious BS on your part. It shows that you will do anything to avoid the reality that GMOs are safe, and that the science on them is sound.

[ND-Dem]

305. yeah, loved the right-wing commercial too.

[HuckleB]

306. Thanks for digging yourself even deeper.

That lets me know that you really are a fundamentalist about GMOs, and that science does not matter to you at all.

[ND-Dem]

311. Like that right wing lobbyist has anything to do with science. He's a joke, and all your links

to supposed science have been jokes too.

Sorry, the Koch brothers don't do science.

And if that's who you're citing, you don't do science either.

[HuckleB]

312. Like that guy had anything to do with the scientists who were discussing things.

Your disingenuousness is ludicrous.

[ND-Dem]

318. He talked more than either of them. He excerpted and edited the clips he wanted and laid them out

as he wanted, so that they'd tell the story he wanted. And even then, it wasn't a very convincing story.

and then, just in case no body got it, he did minutes of complete personal attack and vilification on Suzuki.

If there's such a good case against suzuki, surely unedited video of the debate is available? Why didn't you post that?

Why do you keep posting crap from such dubious sources?

And where do you find it in the first place, this crap sourced so dubiously?

are you on the Dubious Sources Crap Mailing List?

You haven't posted any science that I've seen, just PROPAGANDA.

[HuckleB]

327. So you don't care about honesty.

Got it.

[ND-Dem]

322. I didn't quote any Koch-funded organizations, nor any right-wing lobbyists. It's you who keeps

doing that, using completely unscientific PROPAGANDA outlets.

Maybe you don't really know what science is.

[HuckleB]

328. You've never bothered to present any evidence.

You just push baseless BS.

Your behavior is insanely unethical. The lack of shame is astounding. Still, I'm sure your mother is proud.

[ND-Dem]

342. My evidence is: I, like 80-90% of the population, want labeling. I don't have to prove anything.

You, on the other hand, are pushing right-wing PROPAGANDA sponsored by the Koch brothers and similar sources and calling it "science".

Yeah, I'm sure *your* mother is also proud.

Still wondering why you happen to have those particular sources right at your fingertips. Actual scientists and people with science backgrounds know how to find real scientific studies and don't have to rely on Koch-sponsored trash.

[HuckleB]

343. So your evidence is a logical fallacy.

And you admit the you don't care about science or honesty in any way.

That hole you're in is deep. Why do you keep digging?

[ND-Dem]

347. I think you don't know what a logical fallacy is. I want labeling. As does most of the population.

[HuckleB]

351. So label it voluntarily.

Making others pay for your baseless desires is epitome of selfishness.

[ND-Dem]

362. 80-90% of the population has the same "baseless desire": hardly the "epitome of selfishness";

actually, it's more the gmo industry you could tag with that insult.

and since the labeling mechanism is already in place, it ain't that expensive, either.

hey, this thread has gotten so long and I've lost track of all the right-wing references you've posted, so I can't find the post where you put up the one that involved genera and david tribe, a lecturer at U Melbourne funded by Monsanto through yet another right-wing organization...

[HuckleB]

373. Not true.

When asked what people want on labels, only single digits say GMOs. That's telling with all the baseless fear mongering that has been done. The high percentages are via loaded questions. The anti-GMO movement continues its run of dishonesty.

[ND-Dem]

375. If you ask people if they want gmos labeled, they say yes. GMOs aren't on most ordinary

people's radars, that's why it doesn't immediately spring to mind.

But if you ask them if they want it labeled they say yes.

I imagine people don't voluntarily mention 'cyanide' as an ingredient that should be labeled either. Or shit. Or human cadaver meat.

There are a lot of things people wouldn't list off the top of their heads because they wouldn't think of them, or imagine they would be in foodstuffs.

Your comment is meaningless.

[HuckleB]

377. Labels are not about democracy. They need science-based justifications.

Last edited Sat Mar 7, 2015, 07:34 PM - Edit history (1)

You are still FOS on the bad propaganda BS. As it's clear that the only time you get high percentages is by using push poll kinds of questions. But none of it matters. Still, it's time for you to become honest for once.

[ND-Dem]

378. Ironic, considering it comes from the person repeatedly posting right-wing PROPAGANDA.

I haven't seen one citation from you that wasn't from a right-wing source, either first hand winger source or from a front group funded by the right.

I was kind of surprised, actually, because after you were called on it, you kept citing the same kind of sources.

[HuckleB]

380. So honesty is not your thing.

You're going to have to prove your assertion here. The one video, which is about the actual scientists questioning Suzuki, and showing that Suzuki doesn't know what he's talking about has been noted. Pretending that the video of those scientists isn't valid, because of a talk show host is disingenuous at best. The fact that you then made multiple posts about it, all of them completely out of context, was ugly enough. However, to then pretend that I use right wing sources on a regular basis? Well, that's just plain old ugliness at its worst.

You've already shown that you don't care about evidence. You care about distractions and nonsense. This attack is beyond the pale.

[sabrina 1]

369. Why are they afraid to label their products? If THEY are even afraid to tell us what they are

up to, then WE ought to be afraid. I wouldn't take candy from a stranger when I was six. I sure won't take food from a Corporation who is so afraid to tell me what is in it, they fight to hide what they are doing.

You are free to 'trust' those strangers. The rest of us are free not to do so.

[HuckleB]

370. Your comparison makes no sense.

The science is clear. They are safe. They are predictable. They are studied ten times more than any other seed development technology. The labeling crowd is demonizing GMOs without justification. It is unethical to the core.
http://fafdl.org/blog/2014/08/16/a-principled-case-against-mandatory-gmo-labels/

And...

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


Also, why aren't these same people asking for labels for mutagenic plants? Why don't organic companies voluntarily label their foods that contain mutagenic plants?
http://www.science20.com/kevin_folta/atomic_gardening_ultimate_frankenfoods-91836

[sabrina 1]

371. Label the food. The people have a right to know what it is they are hiding. Period!

[HuckleB]

374. No one is hiding anything.

No seed development technology has ever been labeled, because there is no justification for doing so.

Also, the fact that you want a label on one seed development but not all of them, and not mutagenesis, in particular, shows that you have no justification for your stance. It is comparable to religious preference. That's optional. Not required.

Ethics matter in the real world, and the anti-GMO movement is acting unethically, every step it takes. It's not good.

[sabrina 1]

381. I want a label on ALL food, I want to know what food is genetically altered and what is not.

A vast majority of the people in Europe demanded that their food be labeled. It is.

Here however, where clearly the people have no say over who runs this country, Corporations, and thanks Dan Quayle btw, people are denied that basic right.

Therefore it is the opinion of millions of people, see all the countries now banning GMOs, that they are indeed HIDING SOMETHING.

[HuckleB]

382. A few activists demanded labels for no good reason.

They had a political in, and it worked. That's no justification for anything.

You don't care about the reality of the situation. You just keep promoting baseless fear. That's unethical.

Seriously, get some ethics!

[HuckleB]

42. Where are these studies that you claim exist?

And can you list the 30 countries you claim here?

Thank you.

[sabrina 1]

117. Ireland, Austria, Hungary, Greece, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Japan, New Zealand, Germany,

Switzerland, Australia, Mexico among others. In 2013 eg, there were 26 countries with bans on GMOs, and in several countries, some regions have banned them. Countries like Thailand eg, which was iffy on them, had their products blocked by nations like Japan due to 'safety concerns'.

The latest to ban them is Russia, and the EU has passed legislation allowing member nations to ban them, a bill that has satisfied neither side so will most likely be revised. An overwhelming majority of people in European countries do not want GMOS.

In a total of 30 countries as of this past year, GMOs are banned either totally or in several regions of the countries.

Here's the deal. I do not want to be a guinea pig for any big Corporation, so I will not buy or eat GMOs, we buy from local farmers and grow our own as do most of our neighbors.

More the 50% of the studies that supposedly claim GMOs are safe were done by GMO Corporations' scientists.

Several other scientific studies contradict their findings and as a result, there is huge and growing opposition to them around the globe.

64 countries require GMO foods to be labeled.

Third World countries are the most likely to have these GMOs forced on them, for now. That is not to say the PEOPLE want them.

In India there is huge opposition especially from farmers, which hopefully will eventually join the growing number of nations now banning them.

In scientific studies GMOs have been linked to cancer, among other things.

So you go ahead and eat whatever you want, but don't try to force those who do not trust what Monsanto wants to put into their bodies, to do the same.

It's interesting that just a short few years ago, only 16 nations had bans on GMOs. Thanks to scientists and activists the numbers are growing.

No corporation should have control over the world's food supply, I am glad to finally see this huge opposition to GMOs growing every year.

[HuckleB]

118. So the studies don't exist.

Thank you for the confirmation.

[sabrina 1]

124. The studies do exist, lots of them. I mentioned one linking GMOs to cancer, another that links Rat

Tumors to GMOs. And since many of the studies are done by scientists not connected to or being paid by the GMO producers, they tend to be less suspect.

Clearly a growing number of nations think so.

[HuckleB]

126. So you can't link to these studies?

Or all they all the debunked ones by Seralini?

Come on. Cut the crap.

[sabrina 1]

132. Am I on your payroll or something? Google is a marvelous tool for those who actually want

information. I used it and found that information. I have learned that sometimes people don't really want inconvenient information and only ask for it so they can try to debunk it. Normally I kind of enjoy those challenges but sometimes, like now, i don't have time to respond to your expected 'oh, s/he's not credible' responses where I have to totally wipe out your attempts to debunk the messengers.

When I have time to play, I'd be delighted. Not so much for your benefit, minds that are made up rarely change, but for others who may be reading.

The very fact you asked for something that is so easily accessible, tells me this isn't for the purpose of discussion, but for the purpose I mentioned above.

While I make dinner, try using Google if you really are interested.

And then I will respond to whatever you find.

[HuckleB]

134. So you can't support your claims, and you can't show any studies.

Thank you, for the clarification.

[Major Nikon]

224. The study linking GM to tumors was dismissed the world over as quackery

That's why the journal that originally published it also retracted it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair#Scientific_evaluation

[uppityperson]

213. Many of thoseThird World countries would profit healthwise from golden rice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice

Vandana Shiva, an Indian anti-GMO activist, argued the problem was not the plant per se, but potential problems with poverty and loss of biodiversity. Shiva claimed these problems could be amplified by the corporate control of agriculture. By focusing on a narrow problem (vitamin A deficiency), Shiva argued, golden rice proponents were obscuring the limited availability of diverse and nutritionally adequate food.[38] Other groups argued that a varied diet containing foods rich in beta carotene such as sweet potato, leafy green vegetables and fruit would provide children with sufficient vitamin A.[39] However Keith West of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health countered that foodstuffs containing vitamin A are either unavailable, or only available at certain seasons, or that they are too expensive for poor families in underdeveloped countries.[15]

Prevalence of vitamin A deficiency. Red is most severe (clinical), green least severe. Countries not reporting data are coded blue



http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/gmo-debate-grows-golden-rice-philippines/

He may not be happy about it, but this megadose of vitamin A might save his vision or maybe his life. Vitamin A deficiency is a pervasive and silent killer of malnourished children and pregnant mothers in the Third World.

Each year, at least a half-million children and a few hundred thousand women go blind or die for lack of this crucial micronutrient. The best sources of vitamin A, meats and leafy vegetable, expensive and often unavailable, are rarely part of the daily diet here.

That’s why people here in the Philippines are working to add vitamin A to the daily staple, rice. But the rice they’re meticulously breeding has become the gold standard for a heated debate over genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

(clip)
When golden rice was first created in the late 1990s, the giant agribusiness corporation Syngenta funded research and development, but since it’s inbred, generating seeds that farmers can replant, the company saw no moneymaking potential and turned the project over to the nonprofit world.
(clip)

[ND-Dem]

227. Yeah, africa is vitamin deficient because of a lack of genetically modified rice. Such bullshit.

[uppityperson]

282. You seem to have cause and treatment backwards. Golden rice can help treat vitamin deficiency.

Or are you against treating vitamin deficiencies or other problems in a simple way?

I bet you didn't know that the patent on this rice has been pulled so people can save and regrow from their own seed rather than having to buy it so the company that started it makes little off it beyond the initial seed.

[ND-Dem]

364. I know all about golden rice, and have for years. it's bullshit. If anyone wanted to heal

vitamin deficient Africans, they had the power to do it long ago, without creating rice with vitamin a in it.

foods with vitamin a or beta carotene are ubiquitious in nature and easy to get in the normal course of things if one is not dirt poor, starving, landless, etc.

if Africans are vitamin deficient, there's typically just a couple of reasons:

1. they eat a monotonous diet, usually as a result of poverty
2. they have health conditions that result in poor absorption or digestion of food; again, usually a result of poverty, hunger, decreased immunity


cheaper and surer proven solutions exist; this one is being pushed by certain corporate interests for a reason.

[DanTex]

16. I don't think she publishes anymore.

Since, as you say, you can't "prove a negative", then belief in the safety of GMOs would rely on the assumption that scientists have thoroughly attempted to find any reasonable dangers, and found none. And, if I understand correctly, she seems to be arguing that the attempts of scientists to find the dangers have not been thorough. If so, what's the problem with what she's saying?

[jeff47]

40. Actually the opposite.

then belief in the safety of GMOs would rely on the assumption that scientists have thoroughly attempted to find any reasonable dangers, and found none.

Actually, the opposite. First you'd have to come up with a mechanism by which it could cause danger. Then you can test that hypothesis.

The main reason GMOs are believed safe for consumption is no one has come up with a mechanism where they are different than eating any other food.

Animal studies are done with "new" GMOs to try and tease out if there is a hole in that assumption. So far, no difference has been found.

....except in pay-to-publish journals with very weird experiment design. You'd think "Feed GMO to one group, feed non-GMO to other, feed standard 'rat chow' to third" would be a simple enough design to copy-n-paste, but that apparently doesn't get the results they wanted.

If so, what's the problem with what she's saying?

What's enough?

Since you can't prove a negative, there will always be more you can do to test for a negative. We will never reach the point where we satisfy everyone.

[PaulaFarrell]

58. I'd be satisfied if GM foods were subjected to the same types of tests as pharmaceuticals

The only time that has been done (peas, Australia) the product was withdrawn due to the dangers found.

As it stands, GM foods are deemed to be "substantially the same" as non-GM foods and don't go through those types of tests.

From Monsanto's website:

"DNA and RNA are a normal part of every plant and animal, and therefore in virtually every meal we eat. DNA and RNA carry no dietary hazard and are “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) in the United States, and are considered safe by food safety experts globally. Proteins are also a normal part of the human diet, are extensively digested, and generally present no hazards, but that must be confirmed for the specific proteins introduced in GM crops. To do this, an analysis of protein structure and function is performed and testing of digestibility is conducted to establish safety of the introduced proteins.

As long as the introduced gene protein is determined safe (an initial step in the safety assessment) and the GM and non-GM crops are alike in all respects, the GM crop is said to be substantially equivalent, or “equal to,” their conventional counterparts and are not expected to pose any health risks. Experts in the field of food safety are satisfied that this approach is sufficient and reliable to assure the GM crops are as safe their conventional counterparts. This expert community does not see a need and thus does not recommend long-term tests in humans in order to establish food safety."

[jeff47]

61. Except there are plenty of people who claim those tests are not enough.

Again, there is never "enough".

As it is, GM foods actually do get tested. If I decided to sell a tomato/nightshade plant that I created using traditional hybridizing techniques, there would be no testing.

[PaulaFarrell]

215. I am speaking for myself

The tests don't happen.

[jeff47]

264. Tests actually happen. You would like more.

That is exactly the same as someone else who wants more than "pharmaceutical-level" testing.

And that ignores that everything else we eat is not tested at all.

[HuckleB]

81. What about plants from other seed development technologies, like mutagenesis?

Why do they get a pass?

[laundry_queen]

196. Here's my benchmark

if it can be patented, it should be labeled.

[HuckleB]

220. So, you think everything should be labeled, for whatever reason you can conceive.

Ask how your organic seller friends feel about that.

Oh, goodness.

[PaulaFarrell]

216. I don't know what mutagenesis is

but it's beside the point. We are talking specifically about GMOs here.

[HuckleB]

222. So you admit that you know nothing about the topic at hand.

Thanks!

[Major Nikon]

106. So why just test GM foods?

The Lenape potato, developed in the 1960s for the snack business, made a damn fine potato chip. Unfortunately, it was also kind of toxic.

http://boingboing.net/2013/03/25/the-case-of-the-poison-potato.html

[PaulaFarrell]

217. Who said that?

Not me.

[Major Nikon]

221. You specifically singled out GM products

Furthermore the GM pea project in Australia was abandoned from the same testing that GM products in the US go through (and non-GM food doesn't).

[DanTex]

110. "What's enough?" is exactly the question. Apparently Jane Goodall doesn't think that what's been

done is enough. Why is she wrong?

It's an important question, when it comes to something like the food supply.

[HuckleB]

153. Why is she right?

87 percent of scientists think she's wrong.

So... what do you have?

[DanTex]

161. I have nothing. I'm just asking. It's a valid question, how much testing is enough?

And the thing is, the consequences of being wrong are asymmetric. If GMOs are unsafe, but people act as though they are safe, that's really bad. If they are safe, but people act as if they are unsafe, at worst we lose a little efficiency in food manufacturing.

So rather than just repeat "they're safe" really loudly and insult anyone with questions, maybe someone could explain what standards we should be using to determine how much testing is enough to conclude that something is safe.

[HuckleB]

180. Do you realize that the "concerns" about GMOs are multiplied if one discusses mutagenesis?

And that the people who push fear mongering about GMOs don't seem concerned about mutagenesis?

Ugly fear mongering is ugly. Pure and simple.

PS: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-people-fly-from-facts/

[DanTex]

184. Fine. So let's be concerned about both. That doesn't begin to answer my previous question.

How do we decide how much testing is enough? Especially in light of the asymmetry of the consequences.

[HuckleB]

185. I'm not concerned about either, or I wouldn't eat at all!

The point is that the anti-GMO fear mongerers are pushing completely ridiculous nonsense.

It's time to fight the fear pushers. No?

[DanTex]

186. Well, until we get an answer to my question from two posts ago, we can't dismiss any concerns as

ridiculous nonsense. It's a legitimate question, and you are ignoring it. It's also a tricky question, which is probably why you are ignoring it. But it's an important question, and it can't be ignored.

[HuckleB]

187. So, you're saying that thousands of studies are not enough on GMOs?

And that the scientists are FOS? But, on other, less predictable seed development technologies, uh, such as, say, mutagenesis, there is no problem?

You do realize that GMOs are the most predictable seed development technology, right? Also, the plants are studied through the bunghole, etc...?

If you fear any food, it's not GMOs that you fear.

[DanTex]

190. I'm asking how much is enough? What is the standard for concluding that something is safe?

I'm not saying that scientists are FOS, and I'm not saying anything at all about mutagenesis. I don't think the number of studies is really the key factor here. It's more a question of deciding when we've ruled out all plausible risks.

I am simply asking, given that we can never really prove something is safe, we can only fail to prove that it is dangerous, how do we set that standard? Particularly when the consequences of falsely concluding something is safe are much graver than falsely concluding it is dangerous.

Especially when it comes to something like labelling. What are the economic costs of labelling GMOs?

[HuckleB]

192. Well, scientists are saying we've studied GMOs plenty.

They're also saying labeling them costs much more than any supposed benefits.

I'm saying that the anti-GMO movement has cost humans in hunger, misery, lives, and knowledge.

I can explain why for all of those, but I also think you can figure out why.

I'm going to spend time with my family now.

[DanTex]

198. And I'm asking why they think that (apparently not all of them do).

At the very least, some quantification of the harms of labeling I would think would be reasonable. Another good thing would be an estimate of the probability that there are harms associated with GMOs that we haven't found out about (and please don't say zero). This would be the beginning of a cost-benefit analysis.

The costs are economic. They can be measured in dollars. How much of a drain on GDP would it be?

[HuckleB]

212. Why label one seed development technology but not all of them?

Why label the one that is the most predictable and most studied?

Oh, you didn't know that?

Why make food cost more for those who don't have enough to eat? And why do so many DUers think doing so is the right thing to do?

[ND-Dem]

240. "Why make food cost more for those who don't have enough to eat?" = bullshit.

we already label foods. it's not going to cost particularly more to label it gmo. and if it's not gmo, it won't have any additional labeling.

it will just cost profits for gmo producers, from people who don't want their gmo food.

[HuckleB]

273. Yes, it will. It's time the anti-GMO crowd admits reality.

http://thefoodiefarmer.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-costs-of-gmo-labeling.html

[DanTex]

245. How much more expensive? Why aren't you answering my questions?

Please tell me you actually have an estimate of the cost, that you're not so adamant about this issue without even knowing what the costs are.

As far as why just one, like I said, if you want to label others, I have no problem with that. No, I don't know much about seed development technology, that's why I'm asking questions. The questions are, what would you estimate the risks associated with GMOs to be, and what are the costs of labeling them. Those are entirely reasonable questions, and also necessary questions in order to make an informed decision.

One thing to add: the amount of risk that can be rationally associated with a technology doesn't depend just on the testing. It's a combination of the amount of testing and one's prior belief that the technology could potentially be risky. This is why, for example, the space shuttle needs to be tested more than a bicycle. So, presumably, the reason that GMOs are tested more than these other technologies is that GMOs are a priori more risky, and scientists feel that they ought to be tested more to achieve a commensurate level of confidence in their safety.

[HuckleB]

274. I've looked at it for years.

http://thefoodiefarmer.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-costs-of-gmo-labeling.html

As for your "risk" issue, you realize that the risks you mention are much higher for other types of seed development technology, including mutagenesis, and yet you're not posting about that. Hmm.

[DanTex]

284. The risk being higher for other types of seed development is irrelevant.

Like I've said, if there are other seed development technologies that should concern people, then let's concern ourselves with those as well. "Something else is worse" is not a strong defense.

Thanks for the article, although it doesn't actually come up with a number: how much higher will overall food costs if GMO labelling is required. 10%? 1%? 0.01%? Obviously, a precise number will be difficult, but just ballpark, besides "hugely expensive". It's easy to throw up big scary numbers, but the question is what is the actual impact on consumers.

The other thing, doomsday articles about how much regulations are going to cost are common in a lot of industries, and there's often reason to doubt them. I remember Krugman once explaining, with respect to climate regulation, that all too often the same people who think that the free market is some ultra-powerful intelligent thing that should never be questioned are the same people who think that the free market is so fragile that relatively mild regulations will cause huge damage to it.

More to the point, I don't see why a grain storage facility like the one this person discusses can't decide to dedicate some grain elevators to GMO corn and some to non-GMO corn.

[HuckleB]

285. No, it's not.

There is an entire movement pushing anti-GMO tropes while utilizing those other technologies. That says all anyone needs to know about the movement, itself. It also shows the reality that these "risks" are not considered to be extreme in any way, when people actually look at the matter at hand.

Your decision to remain ignorant about infrastructure is your decision. Your decision to pretend that GMO labeling wouldn't cost anything is untenable. Period.

PS:

http://io9.com/questionable-new-report-claims-gmo-labeling-wont-raise-1641760666

http://www.realclearscience.com/2014/05/21/gmo_labels_hefty_price_for_your_039right_to_know039_259121.html

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

[DanTex]

287. I don't care about the movement. I care about the truth.

I never said that GMO labeling wouldn't cost anything. I just don't think the costs are very high, and I'm always suspicious of people in an industry complaining that if you pass XYZ regulation, this will sink us. And so should you be. That second article you linked to found that the net cost to consumers is somewhere between negligibly small (a few dollars per consumer per year) to a significant 10% increase in food prices. That's a pretty wide range, but at least it's a starting point.

You obviously like to insult people, but the fact is that, among experts there is no consensus that GMO labeling would be hugely expensive. As one of your articles points out:

Despite these concerns, some experts don’t expect that consumers will see a dramatic uptick in food costs. Food corporations are highly skilled at minimizing the economic impact of disruptive changes in production, said Parke Wilde, an associate professor at Tufts’ Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy and founder of the influential blog U.S. Food Policy: “The food system can adapt to many things.”

So the belief that GMO labeling is no big deal is well within the range of defensible informed opinions. It's just not an opinion you share, which is fine, but your "everyone is an idiot who disagrees with me" attitude is simply unjustifiable here.

Another interesting thing is that the big price increase predictions assume that a lot of people switch to non-GMO foods. This would only occur, of course, if there was high demand for them, which means people actually want to eat non-GMO food. Why? Because in their minds the uncertainty about GMOs is not worth the few dollars they would save.

It's true that the scientific consensus says these people are wrong. The question is, how likely is it that the scientific consensus is wrong. Not very likely, to be sure. But given that the consequences could be grave if they are, you can't just dismiss people with concerns as idiots. If someone would rather pay an extra few bucks to avoid the tiny risk of some yet unknown problem with GMO foods, that's not the same as being a creationist.

Nutrition is an area we still don't know very much about. They only got rid of the food pyramid recently -- until then the official recommendation was to use bread, pasta, cereal, and rice as the foundation of a diet. Now some health scientists are actually pointing at the formerly ubiquitous low-fat advice as one of the causes of the obesity epidemic, as people replaced fats with refined carbohydrates. So it's not like there isn't precedent for nutritional advice going wrong. This isn't some dumb "science has been wrong in the past therefore evolution is a lie" argument. It's a rationally defensible stance, given the totality of the evidence, and the asymmetric consequences of being wrong in one way or another.

[HuckleB]

288. If you care about the truth, then why do want worthless labels?

Why do you want to promote the demonizing of one seed development technology over others, without any good reason to do it?

AAAS Scientists: Consensus on GMO Safety Firmer Than For Human-Induced Climate Change

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_8915_b_6572130.html

Also see:

Infographic: Climate change vs. GMOs: Comparing the independent global scientific consensus
http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/07/08/climate-change-vs-gmos-comparing-the-independent-global-scientific-consensus/

[DanTex]

297. Because they might not be worthless. And because the costs are very low.

[HuckleB]

298. They are worthless, and the costs are not low.

Please don't pretend you care about the truth, when you show that you do not over and over again.

[DanTex]

299. Neither of those are rationally defensible claims.

That's the central problem here. You simply ignore valid criticisms, and hide behind a false certainty.

[HuckleB]

300. That's really, quite frankly, hilarious.

There is no science-based justification for your claims, at all. That has been shown to you repeatedly. You prefer to live in a fiction-based world, and that's your choice.

However, I have not ignored any valid criticisms. You have chosen to ignore the real world evidence over and over again. You are now simply being deceitful in your posts.

That's unethical to the core.

[DanTex]

304. Here's the thing. You're missing an opportunity.

You're a published scientist, just like I am. You know that the points I'm bringing up are valid, and you're ignoring them.

You could engage me in a rational discussion, but instead you decline, and try to pretend that "there is no science-based justification" for my claims, something you most certainly understand is false. At the very least, you understand that your "science-based justification" that the costs of GMO labeling are extremely high is tenuous at best. This is not a scientific question, it is an economic one, one in which you trust the industries have a profit motive.

You also understand full well my point that likelihood that the scientific community has missed something here, albeit low, are not zero. You understand that nutrition is not a well-understood field, adding to the likelihood of a "black swan". And you understand the point I've made about the asymmetric consequences of being wrong one way versus the other.

You know all this, and you'd rather just hurl insults instead of having a rational discussion. Too bad.

[HuckleB]

309. The points you bring up are not valid.

You would be laughed out of any actual scientific conference in the world with those "points."

I think you know that, but I don't think you care, and I'd love to know why, but I don't think you'll let that cat out of the bag.

[DanTex]

310. Telling me I'd be laughed at is not a substitute for an intelligent response.

The thing is, I've actually been to plenty of scientific conferences. So I'm not going to bullied here. I'm not claiming that you don't have a scientific background also. But just hurling insults without responding to the substance of my arguments isn't going to get you far.

[HuckleB]

313. Pretending that you wouldn't be laughed at is not a substitute for an intelligent response either.

So far, you have brought nothing but pointless platitudes and bad anti-GMO propaganda to the table. Until you can offer something more, I have to ask what is your purpose here?

[DanTex]

314. Well, I guess we're done. I was hoping you would address some of the issues I brought up.

But the fact that you refuse to is in itself an answer.

[HuckleB]

315. I've addressed everything, while you have addressed nothing.

Your lack of honesty is acknowledged. Sheesh.

You've let pride take over, and that is your downfall. Sure, you can get away with it when there are plenty of other believers, but that really doesn't justify it, ever.

[DanTex]

319. Meh. Maybe next time we'll have a scientific discussion. I'd be interested in that. Too bad.

[HuckleB]

329. Show, don't tell.

I see no evidence that shows that you give a rip about science.

[druidity33]

355. a link to that 87% stat would be nice. nt.

[HuckleB]

356. You've been given it repeatedly.

Honesty would be nice. Please show it.

[HuckleB]

357. So, four, overlapping and cherry picked bits, overcome 2000 other studies?

How?

[LittleBlue]

8. And this is why I think GM foods should be labeled

She is one of the most respected scientists of modern times. Surely no one would say she just doesn't understand science.

Not anti-GM foods myself, but consumers should have the knowledge to make an informed choice when buying food.

[sabrina 1]

22. Yes, they should be labeled. It's outrageous that a corporation gets to force food on the public

without telling them what is in it.

And imo, anyone who supports GMOs is free to ahead and eat them. But they have no business telling anyone else to do the same.

The arrogance of these Corporations and their supporters is simply stunning.

I am encouraged by the number of countries who have now banned GMOs and hope there will be more.

[HuckleB]

44. Most scientists disagree with her.

The overwhelming majority of scientists disagree with her.

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

Also, labeling one seed development technology makes no sense. The anti-GMO movement is based on fictions and lies, and it is time for people to stand up the baseless fear mongering.

You want to label something, then label mutagenic foods. That would make more sense, but the organic industry won't go along with it, because it would harm their sales, even though that industry is fine demonizing GMOs. Yes, it should spin your head around. It's bizarre.

[LittleBlue]

47. And that's fine

Give us the ability to read all the opinions and decide what is right for ourselves. If the majority of scientists are right, then GM foods will prevail.

[HuckleB]

49. Did someone take that ability away from you?

[LittleBlue]

51. Labeling would help to inform consumers

Without labeling, it's very difficult to know if, and to what extent, the food we buy is modified.

[HuckleB]

53. How would labeling one seed development technology help inform consumers?

Because it's the most predictable technology? The most studied?

Until pro-labeling people ask for labels for EVERY seed development technology, and acknowledge the lack of research on plants developed in much more haphazard technologies, as I noted regard mutagenesis, which is a favorite, though much less predictable, technology of the organic industry, there's a definitive reality that calls for labels are just one industry slamming another. It's corporation vs. corporation, and people and science are losing because of it.

Ask yourself why fear mongering about GMOs is so widespread, but not about mutagenesis. Once you learn about mutagenesis, you have to ask, "What's really going on here?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=116024

[LittleBlue]

62. Aaaand there it is

Even though I believe genetically modifying organisms is ultimately a beneficial technology to humanity, this is where I jump ship from the hardcore pro GMO crowd.

If we can't agree on consumer choice, then our opinions are irreconcilable. Opinions like that are why GMO supporters are losing people politically. I don't really want to hear arguments about why they can't be labeled and how labeling is pointless. As long as we don't have labels, I will continue to be skeptical no matter how many studies support GMOs.

[HuckleB]

64. That's disingenuous at best.

You repeatedly ignore the fact that you are not calling for choice. You ignore all of the other seed development technologies. In fact, your responses make it clear that you didn't even read my responses.

Your behavior does not match your claims at all.

[LittleBlue]

73. Nope

See post 69

[HuckleB]

75. You really need to actually read my posts.

You have yet to respond to the content of them at all.

[LittleBlue]

88. I am not interested in debating what you're talking about

I just want this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Initiative_522_%282012%29

We can talk about anything you want after that.

[HuckleB]

93. And, thus, you have no point at all.

GMOs don't exist in a vacuum. They are one of many seed development technologies. If any of those should be labeled, it would be mutagenesis, and yet you choose to ignore this reality over and over again. Also, you don't care about the science of the matter, which is very clear, GMOs are safe, predictable, and studied. Other seed development technologies are almost never studied, yet you give them a pass.

Your desires are officially ridiculous. You know why that crap failed in Washington? People learned about the reality, and saw that it was a ridiculous thing. It happens everywhere. The more people know about GMOs, the less they buy into the anti-GMO marketing routine. Why is that?

Oh, that's right. They actually looked into the actual information. Not just a marketing label. Hmm.

Maybe you should, too. (Not that you will have read any of this.)

[LittleBlue]

97. No, my point is that I'm tired of our relatively small state being flooded by money

from international corporations to prevent us from passing a labeling initiative.

This isn't hard to understand. I just want the labeling described in I522. Am I a bad person for wanting that, and yet not wanting to debate it after debating these same points ad nauseum last year?

[HuckleB]

98. Actually, you should be tired of fear mongerers pushing BS initiatives to promote their business.

Somehow, you miss the other side of the equation. You have failed to look at the issue from any angle but the one you want to see it from. That is not good for you or anyone else.

[LittleBlue]

104. I'm the same way with preemptive war,

torture, SS, universal health care, and a few other issues. To me, some issues are just so persuasively one-sided that, barring an unexpected total reversal of the evidence, I have my mind made up about.

This is one of those issues.

[HuckleB]

113. Those are not comparable.

You are failing to understand the issue here at all.

And your disrespect continues to be noted.

[ND-Dem]

255. no, it's you who are disallowing choice.

[HuckleB]

275. Not in the real world.

The anti-GMO repeatedly admits that it wants to ban GMOs, or make them expensive so they won't be used. It is all about what they want, and what they want is to push their fundamentalist view of the world upon everyone, science and reality be damned.

[ND-Dem]

254. yes.

[HuckleB]

302. Prove it.

[druidity33]

358. yeah that 87% stat is BULLSHIT

from your link:

"The poll results come from 2,002 American adults and 3,748 members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) who are currently living in the United States."

What does it take to become a member of the AAAS? As far as i can tell all you need to do is subscribe to their magazine... and presto! You're a scientist!

[HuckleB]

360. In other words, you don't like reality.

And you will push every bit of deceit you can in order to push your fictions.

Nice try, but ethics are against you, just like science. You are on the wrong side of reality.

[MattBaggins]

57. Umm perhaps Jane Goodall isn't as great a scientist as you think

[LittleBlue]

63. It doesn't matter

I just want labels. Is that acceptable to you, yes or no?

[HuckleB]

65. Why can't you tell us what the labels would tell you?

And why don't you call for labels on all seed development technologies?

[LittleBlue]

72. See post 69

I want what the Washington GMO bill proposed, nothing more

[HuckleB]

77. Is that why you ignore all other seed development technologies?

You want to label the one that Big Organic demonizes? Say what?

[LittleBlue]

84. Link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Initiative_522_%282012%29

This is not negotiable for me. Until big corporations stop flooding my state with outside money, I will side with anti-GMO people regardless of the scientific consensus.

[HuckleB]

89. In other words, you continue to admit that you haven't read my posts.

Yet, you responded to them.

Yes, that is disrespectful. And I am being kind.

[LittleBlue]

94. Apologies, I just don't have an interest in discussing that

Sorry

[HuckleB]

96. And now everyone knows that feigning that you are ok with GMOs, as you did here and elsewhere is BS.

If you actually cared about the science of the matter, you would be interested, but you admit that you're not.

[LittleBlue]

99. I'm absolutely fine with GMOs

Undoubtedly if they were labeled, I'd buy many GMO products. I might even prefer them depending on taste and price, which is the same way I feel about organic foods.

I just want them labeled, that's all.

[HuckleB]

102. Hogwash.

The fact that you want one seed development technology labeled, but not all of them, shows that you are not being honest about anything.

Thanks for the long-winded confession.

[uppityperson]

214. Do you know who stands to profit from labeling? Organic food manufacturers and food coops/health

food stores.

Do you know why? Because even though there is no reason for it beyond fear, fear sells.

What is "natural flavor" that I see so often on packages? If you want food labeled so you know what it is, how can you allow such poor labeling to stand now?

[ND-Dem]

256. there's a fda definition which i already posted for you.

[uppityperson]

281. You mean this one that tells me nothing beyond made of plant and/or animals or processed them?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6320358#

That definition is so wide it translates to "stuff" without giving me any information what that "stuff" may be except it started as a plant or animal of some sort and has been processed to some extent and possibly combined with some other stuff.

Natural flavoring. Stuff.

[MattBaggins]

66. No the labels would be meaningless and a nightmare.

Does your local bakery have to label all their custard items as GMO?

[LittleBlue]

69. And once again, we're done

I consider anti-consumer opinions to be right-wing. I will not engage. I will continue to spread as much anti-GMO opinion as possible so that the political winds of Europe spread here in the US.

Corporations spent millions to narrowly defeat the Washington State GMO bill. I want what was contained inside that bill, nothing more.

[HuckleB]

74. So, you admit that you want one seed development technology labeled.

And you don't want all of them labeled, just the one that has been used by certain companies as a marketing foil?

And you find to be pro-consumer, how?

[LittleBlue]

79. You can read all about it here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Initiative_522_%282012%29

I'm just not interested in a debate about whether I should be informed as a consumer. You can read what I want right there.

[HuckleB]

83. Thank you for admitting that you have not read the content of any of my posts.

WOW! That's just pure disrespect. Sheesh.

[LittleBlue]

91. How should I politely say that I'm not interested?

I considered not replying at all, but that would also be rude. I have only one interest in this issue, to see something like I522 implemented.

I apologize if I didn't give you the discussion you wanted.

[HuckleB]

95. You clearly were not honest from the get go.

That's the most rude thing you could ever be.

You do owe me an apology, and that's being kind to you.

[mmonk]

9. Once you turn off an RNA structure somewhere, you have effectively altered it's outcome in some way.

Last edited Thu Mar 5, 2015, 03:56 PM - Edit history (1)

GMO's should be labeled as a matter of public policy and protection.

[Sancho]

10. Oh boy, here we go...

At this point, we may need a new DU button: "been there, argued that"!

May be an interesting book to read anyway.

[Orrex]

12. I tend to forget that she's an expert in genetic engineering and food science.

[mmonk]

14. Genetic enngineering has a certain risk factor just as interjecting a species

in a non-native environment may have a risk factor in it's new locale.

[Orrex]

15. If only we had thousands of studies confirming the safety of GMOs

If only...

[mmonk]

20. I don't think those pushing rapid expansion of GMO's are too interested in that approach.

We are a short term profit nation.

[Orrex]

23. Yeah. If only we had thousands of studies confirming the safety of GMOs

If only...

[mmonk]

29. Many issues take time to reveal any damage.

The only thing I have to go on is RNA manipulation. For example, if there is a change to kill bacteria, what bacteria? It took living organisms millions of years to evolve into a symbiotic relationship with some bacteria including those needed for proper digestion. What happens if that is interrupted? Has anyone done clinical trials on such things? We don't know because the information hasn't been forthcoming.

[Treant]

38. Stop and evaluate indefinitely is a lousy argument

It's one you never hear when people are arguing about how great it is to eat the new super food, change soap brands, or anything else.

There's always the problem that the goalposts constantly move as well. "Yeah, but what if it causes an issue in a thousand years?" If you aren't asking the same thing of every other bred food and plant on the market, you aren't playing on an even field.

[immoderate]

30. From those thousands you would think you could find one.

I have been looking...

--imm

[Orrex]

109. Boom! And the checklist continues!

Number 15. Keep up the good work!

[immoderate]

112. And each time, no answer.

Keep up the no work.


--imm

[Orrex]

115. You have ignored the answer every time it's been given

And it's been given repeatedly. Keep catapulting your propaganda, or whatever the hell it is you're trying to do.

[immoderate]

123. Because it's not the answer to my request. It's a diversion.

But I'm still looking through those papers that don't say what you say they say.

--imm

[Orrex]

141. Keep looking.

And keep denying. I'm not the only one who figured out your nonsense quite a while back.

[immoderate]

144. As I am not as great a thinker as you...

I need to see some confirmation.

--imm

[Orrex]

152. Funny how anti-GMO zealots always roll out the personal attacks.

You have been repeatedly presented with the studies, and you have insisted that they are inadequate. Since I do not believe that you have read all 6000, I do not believe that you have made an honest investigation of the subject, nor do you appear to be interested in doing so.

Therefore, in the absence of a rational argument, you attempt to attack my ego.

Ultimately I'm not qualified to declare whether you're a great thinker or not, and I don't care. However, I know that you are intellectually dishonest--which I have documented already--and you resort to petty insult when you don't get your way, and these are not generally considered the hallmarks of great thinkers.

I'm about done with you. Feel free to reply, but I'm not going to bother. I'll still keep track of your posts for the checklist, though--you've been very helpful in demonstrating the undeniable similarity between the tactics of anti-vaxxers and anti-GMO types.

Keep it up!

[immoderate]

199. Dishonest? Zealot? Ah the perils of questioning you.

("Great thinker" is an insult? What's a compliment? )

For the record, I got one dump of about 1700, and another of about 400. You think I'll find what I'm looking for with another 4000, or so? I asked for one. Do you know what a Gish Gallop is?

You are right that I didn't read all of them, but apparently I read more than you did. I went through the titles, hoping some might cue that they dealt with safety. There was at least one about how to design safety studies. What for, if we know they're safe? And I opened a few and learned some methods of splicing genes, and some things about economics.

Sure there are some that conclude there are no significant differences between the groups, but they are all 30 days max. I know for sure that no scientist would state that all GMOs are safe. I will concede that a person can eat a GMO, just like a Big Mac, without falling over. But I cannot assert that an exclusive diet of either will pose no hazard.

BTW, my views comport pretty well with those of David Suzuki, whose video is posted somewhere down thread. Is he a dishonest zealot as well? If not how do you tell the difference?

--imm

[Orrex]

207. Does Suzuki engage in personal attacks like you do? No?

Does he employ intellectually dishonest tactics to prop up his bullshit arguments? No?

Then he's not a dishonest zealot. See the difference?


Now, since I'm done wasting my time replying you, I suspect that you'll make some bullshit declaration about my inability to answer questions or cite sources, despite the fact that I have answered dozens of questions from dozens in the anti-GMO crowd (many of them laced with personal attacks), and I've cited dozens of sources.

I'll keep reading your posts because you're so helpful in completing the checklist, though. Thanks again for proving the point!

[immoderate]

219. I imagine he does. Maybe more, maybe less.

But you don't think his views on GMOs are dishonest or zealotish? Is he the same as an anti-vaxxer? You assert I'm dishonest about wanting my food labeled? But Suzuki is honest. How do you know this? Do you think I really don't want my food labeled, but I have time to troll your ass?

Do you really think I attacked you? Where? Maybe some mild condescension, but it was well provoked. Is it possible you're a bit overly sensitive? Do you know what projection is? You left a good trail of it. Go back and try to find where I attacked you. Then link to the best one.

Ooh! Checklists! Does this go on my permanent record?

--imm

[ND-Dem]

348. No. He doesn't. He's quite good-natured, unlike the pro-GMO folks here.

[upaloopa]

19. As are all the DU GMO pushers

or should I say bullies.
People have a right to decide this for themselves. Why is that do offensive to you?
You decide for you and that is your right

[Orrex]

21. Careful!

Remember the last time you tried to be clever on this subject, and you got your post hidden?

[upaloopa]

26. Hey just what I need more lectures from you

Why can't you let people use their brains. Why do you feel the need to think for other people?
I really don't give a shit about the alert system since I don't let others think for me. Mostly it is a badge of honor to get alerted by some folks here. Now go and alert this I really don't care.

[Orrex]

114. You free to use your brain. Find me one post anywhere on DU where I've suggested otherwise.

However, you are not free to demand that companies disclose irrelevant information.

Why do you conflate the use of your brain with the demand that companies disclose irrelevant information?

That's intellectually dishonest and a fallacy.

[upaloopa]

120. My brain says ignore you

[HuckleB]

151. So your brain doesn't like the real world?

Hmm.

[Cha]

209. Your "brain" is smart on that.. you're missing NOTHING.

[HuckleB]

294. So you live in a fiction-based world?

And you think that's ethical? How?

[Bradical79]

385. You're the bully here.

Someone made a perfectly rational non-hostile post upthread and you proceeded to respond in a very agressive confrontational manner choosing not to actually address what was said.

[gregcrawford]

32. Work for Monsanto, do you?

Sure sounds like it. Monsanto's long history of capricious malice and ruthless intimidation through litigation makes their credibility on this issue nonexistent. I wouldn't believe them or trust them any farther than I can throw my truck. And I refuse to buy anything made by that company.

[Dont call me Shirley]

52. +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000...where's the infinity symbol on my keyboard?

[HuckleB]

60. The shill gambit is BS.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shill_gambit

Cut the crap.

[Orrex]

108. Boom! And the checklist continues!

Numbers 3 and 9!

Keep 'em coming! You anti-GMO types are a laugh riot!

[dilby]

24. In the voice of Sheldon, "Anthropology is not a real science anyways." good luck with your quackery

Jane.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

37. .

[hedgehog]

41. I have no problem at all when GMO technology is used to develop a

better medication or a cheaper way to manufacture the medications we have.

http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/ProductRegulation/SelectionsFromFDLIUpdateSeriesonFDAHistory/ucm081964.htm

I do have reservations about inserting genes into plants or animals which may have unexpected consequences for the environment.

[mmonk]

45. After having some difficulty in demonstrating the "go ahead" in RNA manipulation might have risks,

I'll try and make my argument this way. It's not that some of us resist draught resistant crops over superstition, for example, but manipulation without restraints and destruction of benefits an organism may have provided after evolutionary time for other living organisms in the chain.

[G_j]

67. just dropped in to see Jane ridiculed and tossed under the bus.

nt

[HuckleB]

71. And instead you found some people who disagreed with her, and some who agreed with her.

Bummer for you.

[Trajan]

163. You are perhaps the meanest person I have ever met in DU ...

My opinion ....

As smart as you appear to be, it is also apparent that you do NOT have our best interests at heart ...

As righteous as you are - I do not trust you ...

Not one bit ....

[HuckleB]

188. Why?

Because I go with evidence and science instead of pushing baseless fear?

I find those who push fear mongering to be mean and inhumane. That's just me, but...

[laundry_queen]

197. +1 bazillion. nt

[HuckleB]

223. It's interesting that you can't support your claims.

But you'll give kudos to other people who can't support their claims, too. Hmmmmm.

[laundry_queen]

248. What claims?

Which claims have I made?

[HuckleB]

276. You haven't made any claims about GMOs, ever?

Really?

LOL!

[mmonk]

85. I didn't. Check my posts. I think it has been pretty civil but I do stand with Jane in a proper

sense. RNA or gene manipulation will, I think, produce outcomes we currently do not know.

[G_j]

169. it's a good point

which I haven't seen addressed, or maybe I missed it.

[HuckleB]

334. Dishonesty is never civil.

If you simply don't understand the matters at hand, that might excuse uncivil dishonesty. However, you have been given many links to the science of the matter. Ignoring them, and choosing to repeat your mantras, is dishonest and, therefore, not civil.

[NuclearDem]

170. Right, because there's no middle ground.

Either believe everything she says, because she's Jane Goodall, or throw her under the bus.

Most are mature enough to know her work in primatology doesn't give her special knowledge of genetic engineering, but neither is it invalidated by this opinion.

[G_j]

172. yes

I am not referring to actual discussion, but the derision some people heap on those whom they have differences with.

[Orrex]

116. Jane Goodall also believes in bigfoot and telepathic parrots

I am not inclined to accept her opinion as authoritative.

[HuckleB]

125. If those are true, I need links.

My wife loves her, and she also despises Goodall's anti-GMO goofiness, but I'd love to tease my love with a good one about Bigfoot!

[Orrex]

140. I'll post them later this evening--not in a convenient place to do it right now

[Rex]

147. link

http://skepdic.com/refuge/bunk33.html

[Revanchist]

159. Is NPR still considered a reliable source?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6469070

[Orrex]

204. Here you go:

Yeti or Bigfoot or Sasquatch….I tell you that I’m sure that they exist….I’ve talked to so many Native Americans who all describe the same sounds, two who have seen them. I’ve probably got about, oh, thirty books that have come from different parts of the world, from China from, from all over the place.

Dr. Jane Goodall, while being interviewed by Ira Flatow, National Public Radio’s “Science Friday,” September 27, 2002.

and

Jane Goodall's When Animals Talk also includes footage of research on telepathic communication between N'kisi and his owner, Morgana.

Link HERE. I was unable to view the program onlnine, but it's probably out there somewhere.

N'Kisi, of course, is a parrot whose owners have done a lot of work creating the impression that the bird is capable of human-level communication, using the mechanism of carefully worded "transcripts" of the bird's otherwise very garbled speech. N'Kisi was a big hit a few years ago on DU, and I was attacked for my scandalous anthropocentrism primarily because I didn't accept a carefully edited YouTube clip as conclusive.


For all of the excellent work that Goodall has done, she's hitched her wagon to some crazy bullshit, too, some of it clearly outside of her field of expertise. Kind of like how Linus Pauling is dubiously trotted out by proponents of vitamin megadosing.

[mmonk]

128. I believe persons who may be incorrect in one subject are always incorrect in any subject.

How about you? Afterall, natural gas has many scientists that say if you want to stop global warming, reduce pollution, be energy "independent", it's a stop gap between fossil fuels and renewable energy, and stop global warming, don't go solar and wind, frack your ass off.

[HuckleB]

129. How about Goodall producing a consensus of science to support her claims on GMOs?

So far, that hasn't happened. Until it does...

[mmonk]

131. Nor have I have seen scientists for profit build theirs for GMO's.

[HuckleB]

135. Your post doesn't make sense.

[mmonk]

138. What is your specialty? is it in biology and genetics and DNA and RNA strands as well as

evolutionary biology? Just curious. How long have RNA manipulated organisms been on earth? Has anyone measured the effect, either short or cumulative? Is there results and have they been published or not? What about effects on the human genome after consumption of these unnatural products as opposed to natural ones? What is the lifetime of these studies? Do they out purpose or outshine any evolutionary science and its longer time periods? Does the following video create any questions in your mind and does anyone who opposes unregulated gmos just a nutjob that is not as intelligent as you? If so, why the fear of labeling or sunlight?

[HuckleB]

154. You responded to yourself.

And you utilized a scientist who hasn't been able to answer other current scientist's questions for years.

You might want to consider that fact. Then get back to me.

[ND-Dem]

238. says the guy who posted the video moderated by a guy paid by the Kochs and various other

far right and business groups, a lobbyist for the tobacco and oil industries, etc.

you've got a nerve.

[HuckleB]

277. Says the guy who can't argue with actual evidence of any kind.

All you can do is push ad hominem BS.

[Orrex]

139. Feel better after your little tantrum?

Uncritically accepting her belief in the evils of GMO is simply a matter of hero-worship. She's not a geneticist, and she's not a food scientist.

When someone espouses belief in crazy bullshit, like telepathic parrots, it is reasonable to question that person's skills at analyzing evidence.

Goodall is wrong about GMO regardless of her belief in crazy bullshit.

[mmonk]

145. Thank you all knowing god. I will throw away any contrary questions or evidences

to your divine mind. Afterall, if I question gmo's, I accept bigfoot. Thank you for your illogical logic. Forgive me for questioning. Science stems from beliefs from others without checking on any evidentiary quest. I forgot.

[Orrex]

148. I imagine that you think your attempt at snark (or whatever that is) is clever.

You are mistaken, but if it makes you feel better, then by all means proceed.

I don't plan to reply to you anymore because it's clear that you are unable to engage the subject without resorting to weird, flailing insults and desperate nonsense. You add nothing to the discussion.

[EX500rider]

150. Well when I want a authority on GMO's, a anthropologist is not on the list.

[mmonk]

157. I'm bowing out to tackle this issue another day. Yes, I know it looks like a nerd foodfight.

But we all think we know everything so what can anyone say? Goodnight and good luck.

[HuckleB]

158. So you can't answer the questions given to you.

Weak.

[mmonk]

164. You didn't look at my questions. But arrogant people never do.

And trees that kill insects are natural and will never affect the environment or eco system we live in because they have been here forever. Ingestion of products never occurring in nature will never have an negative effect on the human genome or biology whatsoever. Thanks for your genius and trust in the gmo companies enough to ridicule all others who request evidence. Your intelligence is outstanding.

[HuckleB]

181. I've looked at your questions a million times.

You don't even understand the questions you posed. If you did, you would know better, by now.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-people-fly-from-facts/

[immoderate]

201. Your citation doesn't include GMO safety as a "fact."

But you knew that.

---mm

[mmonk]

243. Want a fact? The burden of proof should lie with those that tamper with a consummable product

and not the consumer.

[HuckleB]

278. And that's why so much science has been done on GMOs.

That's why the scientific consensus is so clear. They are safe.

[X_Digger]

171. Oh, well if she said so, it must be right, correct?

Appeal to authority is sooo 1990's, dailyflail.

[mathematic]

191. How can one argue with the writer of 'Seeds of Hope'?

Whoever they are. lol.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

239. GMO's suck

I like food. I can taste. I know good food when I taste it. Some times it cost much more than I like and sometimes it is free. I pursue good food.

How often do you get a crappy strawberry? Good God I have eaten strawberries that literally made me shiver with delight. Melons that made me swoon. Tomatoes that you want with every meal. I have eaten a dozen varieties of peas and beans picked and hulled the same day.

New paragraph for the butters. Real butters change flavors with the seasons. I would pay one hundred dollars for just a taste of the bitter-weed butter that my grandmother would get so pissed about. It was an explosion of complex flavors that coated your mouth and lingered. Sweet Jesus.

The GM food folks drink the Budweiser. Shop at the walmart. And think all is well.

I think the agricultural system in America sucks. The GM food supporters do not have enough brains to fight for real food. They waste their lives in support of a system that is not sustainable and produces shit that taste like crap. All I see is stupidity.

Science, real science is never satisfied. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent trying to prove Einstein wrong. Physicist poke and prod ceaselessly looking for a flaw. Yet, when one suggest that there might be a problem with GM food one is declared anti science.

BULLSHIT! Einstein himself said that all we can make are tentative deductions. When it come to the complexity of biological system we just have learned the alphabet. Test my ass. We are still wandering in the dark. The rats were not born with two heads and tumors did not spring up over night – we call it safe.

Not me. Forever question. And EAT WELL.

[SidDithers]

252. #36 of the Woo Woo Credo...

from back in the days of Usenet.

36 Quote Einstein, and do so often. Quote things he said if possible, but Einstein has been dead for ages now and so it's permissible to bring him up to date. Change the odd word here and there to make it clear that Einstein would have supported your argument if only he knew what you know. Act as if any arbitrary Einstein quote supports your position.

http://www.insolitology.com/tests/credo.htm

You've hit on lots of them in your past couple threads.

Sid

[GoneFishin]

251. "You can't prove that what you don't know will hurt you. So eat whatever the fuck we trick you into

eating and STFU".

[Rex]

253. All this over wanting labels on foods that are GMO...OH MY!

Nothing to hide here, just the facts.

[HuckleB]

286. How Scare Tactics on GMO Foods Hurt Everybody

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

[SoLeftIAmRight]

363. ouch - that hurts

I am so hurt - ouch

[HuckleB]

291. AAAS Scientists: Consensus on GMO Safety Firmer Than For Human-Induced Climate Change

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_8915_b_6572130.html

Also see:

Infographic: Climate change vs. GMOs: Comparing the independent global scientific consensus
http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/07/08/climate-change-vs-gmos-comparing-the-independent-global-scientific-consensus/

[ND-Dem]

316. First you quote an organization funded by the Kochs, now you quote Sense about Science.

Every few months, an organisation called Sense About Science (SAS) issues a pamphlet that makes fun of celebrities getting their science wrong. It is full of what it regards to be false assertions by celebrities about the benefits of homeopathy and so on, and ends with an offer by the organisation to act as a fact-checking service.

Newspapers always lap it up. The problem is that they have fallen into a trap again. While they quote Sense About Science with the kind of deference usually reserved for the Royal Society, the organisation is at best suspect.

Sense About Science is much more than an innocent fact-checking service. It is a spin-off of a bizarre political network that began life as the ultra-left Revolutionary Communist Party and switched over to extreme corporate libertarianism when it launched Living Marxism magazine in the late eighties. LM, as it was latterly known, campaigned against, among other things, banning child pornography...

The chairman of this movement's latest incarnation, Sense About Science, is the Liberal Democrat peer, Lord Taverne. While he routinely fires off about non-scientists debating scientific issues, calling at one point for Prince Charles to be forced to relinquish the throne if he made any further statements critical of GM food, he doesn't have a background in science himself...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jan/05/sense-about-science-celebrity-observations

I don't see you looking to science. I see you quoting all sorts of radical political propaganda outfits.

What's your game here?

[HuckleB]

317. Can you find any inaccurate statements from Sense About Science?

I doubt that you can, though mistakes could be made.

I'm finding it hilarious that you keep focusing on the messenger instead of the content, and the content is good.

Why do you not care about what actually matters?

Your postings here are unethical to the core.

[ND-Dem]

321. Look, why should I pay any attention to non-scientific sources? The right-wing crap you're

linking to is little different than sourcing Jenny Mcarthy on vaccines.

and I wonder why you're so familiar with such sources that you seem to use them almost exclusively.

[HuckleB]

323. Why are you so dishonest?

You know full well about the content of the matters at hand, and you just keep repeating dishonest attacks?

It's bizarre.

[HuckleB]

295. Genera Database On Studies Re: GMOs.

http://genera.biofortified.org/viewall.php

[DeSwiss]

320. GMOs are Social Darwinism on an industrial scale.

- I've decided to give up complaining about people who don't have enough sense to figure out that poison for bugs is poison for them too.

KARMA works in science as well.......


K&R

You tell 'em, Jane. Fuck the stupid assholes.........

[HuckleB]

324. You actually complained about people who passed chemistry and biology?

Yeah, you stop complaining about them. They did their homework. Why didn't you?

[mother earth]

333. K & R nt

[HuckleB]

336. Anti-science advocates are freaking out about Google truth rankings

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/06/anti_science_advocates_are_freaking_out_about_new_google_truth_rankings/

"Google could launch an effort to keep trolls and bad information at bay, with a program that would rank websites according to veracity, and sort results according to those rankings. Currently, the search engine ranks pages according to popularity, which means that pages containing unsubstantiated celebrity gossip or conspiracy theories, for example, show up very high.

New Scientist’s Hal Hodson reports on the proposed Knowledge-Based Trust score:

The software works by tapping into the Knowledge Vault, the vast store of facts that Google has pulled off the internet. Facts the web unanimously agrees on are considered a reasonable proxy for truth. Web pages that contain contradictory information are bumped down the rankings.

Google has recently implemented a kind of Knowledge-Based Truth score lite with it’s medical search results. Now, doctors and real medical experts vet search results about health conditions, meaning anti-vaxx propaganda will not appear in the top results for a “measles” search, for instance.

Even though the former program is just in the research stage, some anti-science advocates are upset about the potential development, likely because their websites will become buried under content that is, well, true.

..."

Hmmm.

[ND-Dem]

376. To mention google and truth in the same sentence is a cruel joke. google is an intelligence

service disguised as an internet company.

and we are their product.

[HuckleB]

379. You like to spread that propaganda far and wide.

Don't you?

We're talking about the search engine part of Google, and improving is good for everyone. It makes no sense to pretend the status quo is the best it can get.