HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Defending GMOs on grounds...

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 04:23 PM

Defending GMOs on grounds that they are not poisonous is like defending manufacturers who exploit

child labor overseas on grounds that the products are indistinguishable from ethically assembled products.

Regardless of whether GMOs are not poison, it is a business practice that seeks to monopolize agribusiness and it recklessly destroys independent farms; here's some interesting reading:

Genetically Modified Crops: Why Cultivation Matters

Induced Nuisance: Holding Patent Owners Liable for GMO Cross-Contamination

Life is Better in the Land Down Under: Australian Treatment of GM Contamination and Why It Should Be Followed in the United States

I prefer non-GMO products for reasons that have nothing to do with whether or not the GMOs are poison; I avoid GMOs for ethical reasons, just like I avoid Chick-fil-A, Coors beer, products of apartheid, Walmart, unfairly traded coffee, and conflict diamonds for ethical reasons.

Why are so many progressives opposed to allowing consumers to have information to use as their basis to choose products?

I'm not a vegan, but I certainly have no beef (ha, a pun) with labeling that allows vegans to follow their preferences when choosing food products. Regardless of whether you share my preference to avoid GMOs because I disapprove of the business model that creates them, why can't we agree that I should be entitled to the information necessary for me to exercise my own consumer preference when spending my own money?

235 replies, 23103 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 235 replies Author Time Post
Reply Defending GMOs on grounds that they are not poisonous is like defending manufacturers who exploit (Original post)
Attorney in Texas Jul 2016 OP
NuclearDem Jul 2016 #1
katsy Jul 2016 #4
Attorney in Texas Jul 2016 #5
RapSoDee Jul 2016 #14
womanofthehills Jul 2016 #72
HuckleB Jul 2016 #74
womanofthehills Aug 2016 #169
PatSeg Aug 2016 #185
HuckleB Aug 2016 #217
MH1 Aug 2016 #207
HuckleB Aug 2016 #218
HuckleB Aug 2016 #216
Moliere Jul 2016 #2
NuclearDem Jul 2016 #3
RapSoDee Jul 2016 #15
NuclearDem Jul 2016 #16
PatSeg Jul 2016 #21
Adrahil Aug 2016 #112
Armstead Jul 2016 #22
mythology Jul 2016 #23
womanofthehills Jul 2016 #67
Humanist_Activist Jul 2016 #69
RapSoDee Aug 2016 #96
PatSeg Aug 2016 #186
killbotfactory Aug 2016 #220
NuclearDem Jul 2016 #24
PatSeg Jul 2016 #20
Humanist_Activist Jul 2016 #46
womanofthehills Jul 2016 #75
Humanist_Activist Aug 2016 #78
PatSeg Aug 2016 #95
madokie Jul 2016 #6
Attorney in Texas Jul 2016 #9
madokie Jul 2016 #10
Humanist_Activist Jul 2016 #42
CanSocDem Aug 2016 #99
Major Nikon Aug 2016 #104
Humanist_Activist Aug 2016 #144
Major Nikon Aug 2016 #100
PatSeg Jul 2016 #17
madokie Jul 2016 #32
PatSeg Jul 2016 #40
Humanist_Activist Jul 2016 #38
womanofthehills Jul 2016 #68
womanofthehills Aug 2016 #97
Major Nikon Aug 2016 #106
womanofthehills Aug 2016 #145
Major Nikon Aug 2016 #148
SidDithers Jul 2016 #7
proverbialwisdom Jul 2016 #12
PatSeg Jul 2016 #18
MohRokTah Jul 2016 #8
longship Jul 2016 #11
ZombieHorde Jul 2016 #13
PatSeg Jul 2016 #19
ZombieHorde Jul 2016 #28
Major Nikon Aug 2016 #108
Rex Jul 2016 #25
ZombieHorde Jul 2016 #27
Rex Jul 2016 #29
PatSeg Jul 2016 #30
Rex Jul 2016 #31
PatSeg Jul 2016 #45
Rex Jul 2016 #48
ZombieHorde Aug 2016 #135
Humanist_Activist Jul 2016 #36
womanofthehills Aug 2016 #154
PatSeg Aug 2016 #158
womanofthehills Aug 2016 #167
PatSeg Aug 2016 #168
ZombieHorde Jul 2016 #33
Rex Jul 2016 #35
Humanist_Activist Jul 2016 #37
Rex Jul 2016 #39
Humanist_Activist Jul 2016 #43
Rex Jul 2016 #47
Humanist_Activist Jul 2016 #51
Rex Jul 2016 #54
Humanist_Activist Jul 2016 #61
PatSeg Jul 2016 #49
Rex Jul 2016 #50
PatSeg Jul 2016 #57
Rex Jul 2016 #60
Humanist_Activist Jul 2016 #53
PatSeg Jul 2016 #59
Humanist_Activist Jul 2016 #62
ZombieHorde Jul 2016 #55
Rex Jul 2016 #58
Humanist_Activist Jul 2016 #64
ZombieHorde Jul 2016 #70
katsy Aug 2016 #94
womanofthehills Jul 2016 #71
Humanist_Activist Jul 2016 #73
womanofthehills Aug 2016 #76
Humanist_Activist Aug 2016 #79
womanofthehills Aug 2016 #83
womanofthehills Aug 2016 #77
ZombieHorde Aug 2016 #80
womanofthehills Aug 2016 #82
ZombieHorde Aug 2016 #84
womanofthehills Aug 2016 #86
ZombieHorde Aug 2016 #87
womanofthehills Aug 2016 #98
ZombieHorde Aug 2016 #133
womanofthehills Aug 2016 #141
Eko Jul 2016 #26
Humanist_Activist Jul 2016 #34
womanofthehills Aug 2016 #85
NuclearDem Aug 2016 #91
Humanist_Activist Aug 2016 #143
womanofthehills Aug 2016 #206
Humanist_Activist Aug 2016 #212
Humanist_Activist Aug 2016 #142
womanofthehills Aug 2016 #103
Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2016 #41
Humanist_Activist Jul 2016 #44
Rex Jul 2016 #52
Humanist_Activist Jul 2016 #56
Rex Jul 2016 #63
katsy Jul 2016 #65
Humanist_Activist Jul 2016 #66
womanofthehills Aug 2016 #81
Humanist_Activist Aug 2016 #90
womanofthehills Aug 2016 #107
Major Nikon Aug 2016 #130
womanofthehills Aug 2016 #140
Major Nikon Aug 2016 #146
womanofthehills Aug 2016 #157
Major Nikon Aug 2016 #170
roody Aug 2016 #88
Humanist_Activist Aug 2016 #89
PatSeg Aug 2016 #101
Exilednight Aug 2016 #92
PatSeg Aug 2016 #102
Humanist_Activist Aug 2016 #149
Exilednight Aug 2016 #201
Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2016 #93
womanofthehills Aug 2016 #111
Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2016 #113
womanofthehills Aug 2016 #105
Major Nikon Aug 2016 #109
womanofthehills Aug 2016 #115
Major Nikon Aug 2016 #117
womanofthehills Aug 2016 #121
Major Nikon Aug 2016 #123
Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2016 #114
womanofthehills Aug 2016 #120
Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2016 #124
PatSeg Aug 2016 #187
Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2016 #224
PatSeg Aug 2016 #230
Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2016 #231
NuclearDem Aug 2016 #193
Marr Aug 2016 #136
Adrahil Aug 2016 #110
Major Nikon Aug 2016 #116
womanofthehills Aug 2016 #119
Major Nikon Aug 2016 #122
Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2016 #125
Adrahil Aug 2016 #137
DFW Aug 2016 #118
steve2470 Aug 2016 #126
DFW Aug 2016 #147
Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2016 #127
DFW Aug 2016 #150
Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2016 #225
DFW Aug 2016 #226
Humanist_Activist Aug 2016 #151
ret5hd Aug 2016 #152
Humanist_Activist Aug 2016 #155
DFW Aug 2016 #153
Humanist_Activist Aug 2016 #159
DFW Aug 2016 #171
Humanist_Activist Aug 2016 #183
steve2470 Aug 2016 #160
womanofthehills Aug 2016 #156
Humanist_Activist Aug 2016 #164
womanofthehills Aug 2016 #205
bananakabob Aug 2016 #128
Major Nikon Aug 2016 #131
bananakabob Aug 2016 #132
Major Nikon Aug 2016 #134
PatSeg Aug 2016 #163
Major Nikon Aug 2016 #177
NuclearDem Aug 2016 #194
bananakabob Aug 2016 #190
PatSeg Aug 2016 #196
Marr Aug 2016 #138
Humanist_Activist Aug 2016 #166
HuckleB Aug 2016 #215
Major Nikon Aug 2016 #129
nationalize the fed Aug 2016 #189
NuclearDem Aug 2016 #195
Major Nikon Aug 2016 #197
nationalize the fed Aug 2016 #211
PatSeg Aug 2016 #219
Major Nikon Aug 2016 #221
PatSeg Aug 2016 #208
Major Nikon Aug 2016 #222
PatSeg Aug 2016 #229
Major Nikon Aug 2016 #232
mike_c Aug 2016 #139
PatSeg Aug 2016 #161
Major Nikon Aug 2016 #172
PatSeg Aug 2016 #174
Major Nikon Aug 2016 #176
PatSeg Aug 2016 #178
Major Nikon Aug 2016 #180
Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2016 #181
Humanist_Activist Aug 2016 #165
immoderate Aug 2016 #184
PatSeg Aug 2016 #188
Loki Liesmith Aug 2016 #162
womanofthehills Aug 2016 #173
Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2016 #175
Major Nikon Aug 2016 #179
Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2016 #182
womanofthehills Aug 2016 #200
Major Nikon Aug 2016 #202
PatSeg Aug 2016 #209
Post removed Aug 2016 #203
Major Nikon Aug 2016 #204
Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2016 #223
immoderate Aug 2016 #233
Humanist_Activist Aug 2016 #234
immoderate Aug 2016 #235
Act_of_Reparation Aug 2016 #191
NickB79 Aug 2016 #192
PatSeg Aug 2016 #198
Major Nikon Aug 2016 #199
NickB79 Aug 2016 #210
PatSeg Aug 2016 #214
Major Nikon Aug 2016 #227
uppityperson Aug 2016 #213
joshcryer Aug 2016 #228

Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 04:29 PM

1. There are labels that already exist to allow vegans and people who don't want GMOs to decide.

 

If you want to avoid GMOs or only eat vegan-friendly substitutes, look for labels that say "Never GMO", "Contains No GMO Ingredients", "Vegan", "No Dairy", or "Vegan-Friendly." They exist, and major grocery store chains have entire sections devoted specifically to those kinds of foods.

GMO labeling exists solely as an organic industry tactic to stigmatize their competitors.

If you want to avoid eating GM foods, fine, but don't force it on the rest of us who don't want to go broke every time we go to the grocery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 04:49 PM

4. If you're going broke at the grocery store

it's not because they revised a food label. I've designed hundreds of labels. Revisions cost nothing. And by that I mean maybe $750 per label for a client you hate.

The sky isn't falling because of design changes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 04:56 PM

5. It is Monsanto, not organic farmers, who have stigmatized GMOs in my mind.

I generally DON'T buy organic foods (but I find organic carrots, for example, often taste better and I generally prefer heirloom tomatoes), but I have a distinct preference to avoid GMO products because I find the business model unethical.

In my mind, Costco stigmatizes my view of Walmart every time I learn another detail about how much better Costco treats its employees than Walmart mistreats its own employees.

Is that kind of stigmatizing a bad thing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 06:34 PM

14. + 1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 11:28 PM

72. Yeah - I paid $1.69 for organic lettuce yesterday in Albuquerque - "I'm going broke"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 11:55 PM

74. Indeed.

A good friend mentioned the following, and it is true.

"I've yet to encounter someone anti gmo for rational reasons."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #74)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 01:33 PM

169. How about this reason- sublethal exposure to Glyphosate causes changes in antiobiotic susceptibility

Roundup and GMO - made for each other. This is from the American Society for Microbiology (doesn't sound anti-science to me) Getting very scary!!

Sublethal Exposure to Commercial Formulations of the Herbicides Dicamba, 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid, and Glyphosate Cause Changes in Antibiotic Susceptibility in Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium

IMPORTANCE Increasingly common chemicals used in agriculture, domestic gardens, and public places can induce a multiple-antibiotic resistance phenotype in potential pathogens. The effect occurs upon simultaneous exposure to antibiotics and is faster than the lethal effect of antibiotics. The magnitude of the induced response may undermine antibiotic therapy and substantially increase the probability of spontaneous mutation to higher levels of resistance. The combination of high use of both herbicides and antibiotics in proximity to farm animals and important insects, such as honeybees, might also compromise their therapeutic effects and drive greater use of antibiotics. To address the crisis of antibiotic resistance requires broadening our view of environmental contributors to the evolution of resistance.

http://mbio.asm.org/content/6/2/e00009-15

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #169)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 03:46 PM

185. Crickets..............

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #185)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 09:43 PM

217. Derp.

Why do you honk spreading ear via fictions is ok?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #169)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 07:44 PM

207. Pshaw. Antibiotics, shmantibiotics!

Who needs antibiotics to actually work?

Oh wait ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #207)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 09:44 PM

218. You do need science instead of pseudoscience, for starters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #169)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 09:43 PM

216. How about another crap source of pseudoscience?

Grow up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 04:36 PM

2. I'm with you

I do t understand why there's a faction that insists on labeling anti-gmo folks in the same breath as flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, etc.

Why is there such hostility towards transparency?

This is about knowledge of what we put into our bodies and the less glyphosate I consume, the better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Moliere (Reply #2)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 04:38 PM

3. Pray tell, how do organic food manufacturers keep pests off their crops?

 

Inquiring minds want to know. Sticks and harsh language?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #3)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 06:40 PM

15. Skillful means

Growing organically requires a steady application of intelligence and skillful means. But with those two elements, anyone can do it.

Corporations don't want to bother with that, so they depend on poisons - pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, etc. -- and soak their crops in crap, which eventually turns up as residue in your body.

GMO crops in particular depend on the herbicide glyphosate, which is now in your beer, your meat, and if you are a woman in your tampons.

But it is all needless. Many UN and FAO scientific reports are clear on the subject - chemical poisons are a dumb idea. Organic and other sustainable systems are a good idea, and rather than accelerate Global Climate Change as GMO-chemical ag does, the clean systems actually arrest and reverse the climate change chaos.

As is well known the GMO-chemical-pharmaceutical corporations have armies of Inet trolls dedicated to spreading misinformation hither and yon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RapSoDee (Reply #15)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 07:07 PM

16. "intelligence and skillful means"

 

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/

The sad truth is, factory farming is factory farming, whether its organic or conventional. Many large organic farms use pesticides liberally. They're organic by certification, but you'd never know it if you saw their farming practices. As Michael Pollan, best-selling book author and organic supporter, said in an interview with Organic Gardening,

What makes organic farming different, then? It's not the use of pesticides, it's the origin of the pesticides used. Organic pesticides are those that are derived from natural sources and processed lightly if at all before use. This is different than the current pesticides used by conventional agriculture, which are generally synthetic. It has been assumed for years that pesticides that occur naturally (in certain plants, for example) are somehow better for us and the environment than those that have been created by man. As more research is done into their toxicity, however, this simply isn't true, either. Many natural pesticides have been found to be potential - or serious - health risks.2

Take the example of Rotenone. Rotenone was widely used in the US as an organic pesticide for decades 3. Because it is natural in origin, occurring in the roots and stems of a small number of subtropical plants, it was considered "safe" as well as "organic". However, research has shown that rotenone is highly dangerous because it kills by attacking mitochondria, the energy powerhouses of all living cells. Research found that exposure to rotenone caused Parkinson's Disease-like symptoms in rats 4, and had the potential to kill many species, including humans. Rotenone's use as a pesticide has already been discontinued in the US as of 2005 due to health concerns***, but shockingly, it's still poured into our waters every year by fisheries management officials as a piscicide to remove unwanted fish species.

The point I'm driving home here is that just because something is natural doesn't make it non-toxic or safe. Many bacteria, fungi and plants produce poisons, toxins and chemicals that you definitely wouldn't want sprayed on your food.

Just last year, nearly half of the pesticides that are currently approved for use by organic farmers in Europe failed to pass the European Union's safety evaluation that is required by law 5. Among the chemicals failing the test was rotenone, as it had yet to be banned in Europe. Furthermore, just over 1% of organic foodstuffs produced in 2007 and tested by the European Food Safety Authority were found to contain pesticide levels above the legal maximum levels - and these are of pesticides that are not organic 6. Similarly, when Consumer Reports purchased a thousand pounds of tomatoes, peaches, green bell peppers, and apples in five cities and tested them for more than 300 synthetic pesticides, they found traces of them in 25% of the organically-labeled foods, but between all of the organic and non-organic foods tested, only one sample of each exceeded the federal limits8.


"Intelligence and skillful means" turns out to actually mean very, very aggressive use of very, very dangerous pesticides. Glyphosate is used in much smaller amounts because--shock--the crops are genetically-engineered to require less of it to fight pests. Organic food manufacturers, on the other hand, have to dump stuff like Rotenone--and apparently synthetic pesticides as well--on their fields to achieve the same pest control.

Oh, and do "intelligence skillful means" include literally using horse and cow shit as fertilizer--thus dramatically increasing the risk of feces-borne illnesses like E. coli--rather than using artificial fertilizers not made up of feces and irradiation to do the same?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RapSoDee (Reply #15)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 07:32 PM

21. And it is a really, really good thing

that we don't have any of those trolls around here!

Very reasonable and intelligent response.

Edit to add smilie!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RapSoDee (Reply #15)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 09:51 AM

112. Yield for organic crops IS lower than for non-organic crops.

 

As we plan to feed the world, that yield gap will become an issue. Especially as GMO's lead to higher yields.

FWIW, I favor STRICT regulation of not only GMO crop approvals, but also significant limits of patenting and licensing of seeds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #3)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 08:28 PM

22. Oh I don't know....People were eating for thousands of years before GMOs

 

Maybe it was magic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #22)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 08:44 PM

23. Actually we've been eating genetically modified food for as long as people have been around

 

Food sources, whether plant or animal have been evolving since long before people evolved.

We have been intentionally breeding plants for selected traits, including natural pesticides (which as noted up thread aren't benign to people) for 10,000 years. Go look at what an auroch looked like compared to a dairy cow from today.

Literally everything you've ever eaten has been genetically modified.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #23)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 10:47 PM

67. We have not been eating glyphosate - which kills our stomach bacteria

It's not just GMO foods that are contaminated with Roundup but most of our food supply. Not only is wheat sprayed right before harvest with glyphosate, but also beans and peas and potatoes. Potatoes - prior to planting, the field is sprayed with glyphosate, then sprayed with chlorothalonal fungicide and treated with another systemic pesticide - these combinations increase neurotoxic effects of glyphosate- then finally glyphosate is sprayed a second time to kill the potato vines - residues are now systemic - can't wash off.

Our fruit is contamined with glyphosate because it is sprayed between rows of fruit trees. Animals feeds have high levels of glyphosate.

Scientist Samsel on unsafe meat and potatoes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #67)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 10:51 PM

69. None of what you posted is accurate, and posting a video from a debunked scientist isn't...

impressive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #69)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 09:20 AM

96. Because you say so...



Your carefully scripted "personal" opinions are freighted with anti-gravitas. That could be yet another consequence of eating genetically-manipulated corporate foodlike product. Corporations will have to get their well-funded 'scientists' on the case to figure that out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RapSoDee (Reply #96)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 03:50 PM

186. Good one!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #23)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 11:07 PM

220. Genetic modification is much more powerful than artificial selection.

We couldn't selectively breed glow-in-the-dark rabbits, for instance.

People don't trust our regulatory bodies because of the influence of corporate money in all levels of government and their involvement with the funding of the studies they use to determine if things are harmful or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #22)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 08:49 PM

24. Right, a few problems with that.

 

First:



Within the next two years, we could very well have eight billion people living on this planet. As you can tell, this number is quadruple the population of just one hundred years ago, and since hunger hadn't exactly been wiped out in 1922, how exactly are agricultural techniques of centuries ago going to be able to feed billions more people than it has ever had to before?

Second, even if I give you that because the human race has managed to eat in the past, we should stick with what we've done, that completely ignores the fact that agriculture, like every other field and facet of human society, has been evolving for thousands of years, and civilizations have used the best technologies and practices available to them to maximize their yield and better feed their people. Crop rotation, hydroponics, mechanization, irrigation, and selective breeding didn't just pop up when the first seeds were planted, so why should we reject one of the biggest leaps in genetics and agriculture we've had in centuries?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Moliere (Reply #2)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 07:30 PM

20. It is a tactic meant to ridicule

and demean people who have questions about their food and the environment. I can't be 100% sure why the hostility is so prevalent, but it does appear that some people on the Internet have a very clear agenda. Sometimes it is best to ignore them, though it isn't always easy - they are good at what they do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Moliere (Reply #2)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 09:50 PM

46. What does this have to do with glyphosate? See, the conflation of issues, not to mention ignorance..

of biology and genetics is at the root of this concern trolling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #46)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 11:58 PM

75. This is an interesting video about how mice and squirels avoid GMO corn

I always feed my chickens organic grains only. One of the stores where I bought organic chicken scratch, told me they were not going to carry the organic anymore because the mice always broke into the organic bags - not the non organic. Very telling.

Emeritus professor Don Huber explains and demonstrates how glyphosate reduces mineral uptake in herbage and how that influences livestock well-being. When given a choice wildlife avoid GMO feed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to womanofthehills (Reply #75)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 09:15 AM

95. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 05:03 PM

6. To me

Its not that the GMO plants are poisonous its the fact they are designed to be able to withstand a shit load of herbicides and in some cases insecticides. Neither of which I want in my food chain. No matter how much they're washed there are still traces of the poisons on them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #6)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 05:16 PM

9. Plus, when the GMO cross pollinates with a crop grown on a neighboring non-GMO farm, the cross-

pollinated product becomes dependent on the GMO producer's licensed herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers that the GMO crop was developed to be dependent upon.

The non-GMO farmer has become an involuntary customer of the GMO producer (and if the GMO producer is Monsanto, the involuntary customer is likely to be sued for the crop modifications he involuntarily obtained).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #9)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 05:47 PM

10. Its a bad scene all around

I'd rather not have gmo's in my diet. Understanding full well right now that I do as I eat my meal this evening. I'd bet dollars to donuts that something on my plate will be GMO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #9)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 09:42 PM

42. You do realize that Monsanto actually pays the farmers as compensation for the contamination...

right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to CanSocDem (Reply #99)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 09:38 AM

104. Wrong.

Percy Schmeiser is a crook who intentionally "contaminated" his own fields with seed he knew to be patented and he also knew he didn't legally obtain license for. You won't find these things out from obviously biased sources.

In 1997, Percy Schmeiser found Monsanto's genetically modified “Roundup Ready Canola” plants growing near his farm. He testified that he sprayed his nearby field and found that much of the crop survived, meaning it was also Roundup Ready.[2] He testified that he then harvested that crop, saved it separately from his other harvest, and intentionally planted it in 1998.[2] Monsanto approached him to pay a license fee for using Monsanto's patented technology without a license. Schmeiser refused, claiming that the actual seed was his because it was grown on his land, and so Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement on August 6, 1998.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser

Intentionally =/ involuntary

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CanSocDem (Reply #99)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 12:23 PM

144. Schmeiser knowingly kept the seed to replant the next year and violated his current seed contract...

to do so.

Jesus, why do people post such easily debunked crap?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #9)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 09:30 AM

100. "likely"



Can you produce even one case where this has ever happened?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #6)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 07:23 PM

17. Yes

A perfectly rational reason to be opposed to GMO crops, but I know the Pro GMO folks will be here to try and bury this thread with taunts and mockery.

I don't want to be a corporate guinea pig.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #17)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 09:31 PM

32. I think I have most of those on ignore

fuck it I don't have time to argue.
Ignore is your friend around here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #32)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 09:42 PM

40. I've never put anyone

on ignore before, but I have to say I'm getting really tempted. There used to be just a few, but now I think it is up to at least 40. It makes any meaningful dialogue very difficult.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #6)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 09:40 PM

38. How is that unique to GMOs? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #6)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 10:48 PM

68. Actually the glyphosate is systemic and can't be washed off

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #6)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 09:26 AM

97. and now " the shit load of herbicides" increases as GMO crops need more and more herbicides

It's now the SUPERWEEDS!! - as this article is from Forbes - not exactly a liberal site

GMO Crops Mean More Herbicide, Not Less

One of the main arguments behind creating these engineered crops is that farmers then need to use less herbicide and pesticide. This makes farms more eco-friendly, say proponents of genetically modified (GM) crops, and GM seeds also allow farmers to spend less on “inputs” (chemicals), thereby making a greater profit.

But a new study released by Food & Water Watch yesterday finds the goal of reduced chemical use has not panned out as planned. In fact, according to the USDA and EPA data used in the report, the quick adoption of genetically engineered crops by farmers has increased herbicide use over the past 9 years in the U.S. The report follows on the heels of another such study by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook just last year.

At the center of debate is the pesticide glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto MON -0.07%‘s Round Up. Food & Water Watch found that the “total volume of glyphosate applied to the three biggest GE crops — corn, cotton and soybeans — increased 10-fold from 15 million pounds in 1996 to 159 million pounds in 2012.” Overall pesticide use decreased only in the first few years GE crops were used (42 percent between 1998 and 2001) and has since then risen by 26 percent from 2001 to 2010.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/#649af97a371f

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Major Nikon (Reply #106)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 12:26 PM

145. not true - more pesticides than ever are being used because of SUPERWEEDS!!!!

The rise of glyphosate-resistant weeds has led to the use of yet more herbicides. And companies like Dow AgroSciences are developing crops that are resistant to even more herbicides, such as 2,4-D. But this will just lead to spraying of even more herbicides, more resistance in the future and the need for more herbicide-resistant crops in the future, Mortensen says. It’s a vicious cycle.

UPDATED | The world is awash in glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup, produced by Monsanto. It has now become the most heavily-used agricultural chemical in the history of the world, and many argue that’s a problem, since the substance comes with concerning albeit incompletely-determined health effects.

http://www.newsweek.com/glyphosate-now-most-used-agricultural-chemical-ever-422419

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #145)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 12:30 PM

148. Benbrook isn't full of shit, just ask Benbrook!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 05:08 PM

7. Why don't all the non-GMO food producers label their food products "GMO Free"?...

You'd think that would be a huge point of difference between them and their dirty, GMO-laden competitors.



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #7)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 05:50 PM

12. Monsanto vs. the Milkman (2004): A Maine dairy fights for the right to wear its hormone-free label.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/01/monsanto-vs-milkman

Monsanto vs. the Milkman
A Maine dairy fights for the right to wear its hormone-free label.

Susan Q. Stranahan
January/February 2004 Issue



Photo: Russel Kaye

Around the state of Maine, it's hard to miss Stan Bennett's fleet of red-and-white trucks. They're the ones with the Oakhurst Dairy logo emblazoned across the side and the Oakhurst guarantee (Our Farmers' Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones) spelled out in big bold letters below. That pledge is printed on every carton and jug of milk that family-owned Oakhurst, Maine's largest dairy, sells. And Bennett, who has spent the last decade inducing Maine dairy farmers to "swear off the needle," as he puts it, isn't inclined to change the wording around one bit. "We state what we are trying to do, simply and honestly," says Bennett, president and principal owner of the Portland-based dairy. "It's my right -- and obligation -- to inform [customers] of the facts."

These days, Bennett has been spending a lot of energy defending that position. Monsanto, the nation's largest (and only) producer of recombinant bovine growth hormone, rBGH, doesn't think that Oakhurst -- or other dairies around the country that have put similar labels on their milk -- has a right to tout its products as rBGH-free. Last summer, with Bennett poised to expand Oakhurst's market into the Boston area, lawyers for the St. Louis-based chemical giant struck. The company sued Oakhurst for "deceptive" and "misleading" marketing, and asked a federal court to order that the Farmers' Pledge be removed from the dairy's labels, advertising, and trucks. Monsanto's argument: The genetically engineered rBGH, which increases a dairy cow's milk output by about a gallon a day, has already passed muster with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Oakhurst's labels, contends Monsanto, might cause consumers to question the drug's safety, even though the FDA has found that milk from cows injected with rBGH is the same as regular milk and that the hormone poses no human health risks. Oakhurst's milk is the same as every other dairy's, maintains Monsanto spokeswoman Janice Armstrong: "Milk is milk. There's no scientist in the world who can tell them apart."

<>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #12)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 07:25 PM

18. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 05:12 PM

8. Flags on the play...

 





BTW, there is no requirement to label products as "Vegan", so...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #8)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 05:50 PM

11. Perfect!

Simply perfect!

Blow the whistle!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 06:26 PM

13. Monsanto is actually a pretty ethical company,

if we grade on a curve. Significantly more ethical than Apple, which is loved by many liberals and college students. Most of the bad press Monsanto gets is nothing more than lies put out by the massive and deceitful organic industry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #13)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 07:25 PM

19. Not really

But nice try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #19)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 09:15 PM

28. Why do you disagree? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #28)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 09:45 AM

108. Reasons

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #13)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 08:54 PM

25. What makes them ethical?

 

In what way are they more ethical then apple?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #25)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 09:03 PM

27. The factories they use don't require suicide nets to keep

their employees from jumping to escape the horrendous working conditions, yet Apple does. That alone is a big one, in my opinion.

Monsanto has won numerous awards for how they treat their employees and workplace diversity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #27)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 09:17 PM

29. But what about their business model, I am glad they treat their employees that way.

 

That is good to know, thanks for that. I think the OP means, how aggressive are they in the market and do they monopolize the competitive advantage of being one of the worlds biggest conglomerates?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #29)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 09:26 PM

30. I've never come across

any complaints about how Monsanto treats their employees. It has been more about the treatment of farmers and the effect the company has had particularly on farmers in third world countries. But like you, I am glad they treat their employees well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #30)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 09:30 PM

31. This entire debate, that has been my only wonder.

 

Fair business practices? I always hear about Organic being the evil empire, maybe so I don't know that one either. I am concerned with how a business treats its employees and other competitors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #31)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 09:49 PM

45. I haven't really come across

anything about Organic companies treating farmers or employees unethically, but I have found an awful lot about Monsanto and farmers that I find very disturbing.

This whole Evil Organic Empire meme really feels manufactured to me. There are so many days when one feels like they are living in opposite world!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #45)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 09:53 PM

48. I guess it is all about marketing and ultimately the two big players are Monsanto and Organics.

 

Or more like monolith vs populism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #45)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 11:24 AM

135. The organic food industry puts out a lot of false information to the public.

Their product costs more than non organic, and they still use poison. So in order to compete they have all these blogs filled with anti-science propaganda and lies. Their opposition to golden rice could lead to many deaths, but they don't give a shit. Their bottom line can't afford to have the world know how good some GMOs are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #30)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 09:38 PM

36. How do they treat farmers? From what I can tell, the only criticism...

is from some farmers who unethically cultivated crops in violation of standing contracts, then lying about it in court of all places.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #30)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 12:50 PM

154. Monsanto treats some employees very badly - gives them cancer and then sues them

just like the seed farmers only much worse.

Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear

In 1981 several former Nitro employees filed lawsuits in federal court, charging that Monsanto had knowingly exposed them to chemicals that caused long–term health problems, including cancer and heart disease. They alleged that Monsanto knew that many chemicals used at Nitro were potentially harmful, but had kept that information from them. On the eve of a trial, in 1988, Monsanto agreed to settle most of the cases by making a single lump payment of $1.5 million. Monsanto also agreed to drop its claim to collect $305,000 in court costs from six retired Monsanto workers who had unsuccessfully charged in another lawsuit that Monsanto had recklessly exposed them to dioxin. Monsanto had attached liens to the retirees’ homes to guarantee collection of the debt.

Monsanto stopped producing dioxin in Nitro in 1969, but the toxic chemical can still be found well beyond the Nitro plant site. Repeated studies have found elevated levels of dioxin in nearby rivers, streams, and fish. Residents have sued to seek damages from Monsanto and Solutia. Earlier this year, a West Virginia judge merged those lawsuits into a class–action suit. A Monsanto spokesman said, “We believe the allegations are without merit and we’ll defend ourselves vigorously.” The suit will no doubt take years to play out. Time is one thing that Monsanto always has, and that the plaintiffs usually don't.

In the meantime, the Nitro plant continued to produce herbicides, rubber products, and other chemicals. In the 1960s, the factory manufactured Agent Orange, the powerful herbicide which the U.S. military used to defoliate jungles during the Vietnam War, and which later was the focus of lawsuits by veterans contending that they had been harmed by exposure. As with Monsanto’s older herbicides, the manufacturing of Agent Orange created dioxin as a by–product.

As for the Nitro plant’s waste, some was burned in incinerators, some dumped in landfills or storm drains, some allowed to run into streams. As Stuart Calwell, a lawyer who has represented both workers and residents in Nitro, put it, “Dioxin went wherever the product went, down the sewer, shipped in bags, and when the waste was burned, out in the air.”



(It did play out and Monsanto settled)


http://www.barlettandsteele.com/journalism/vf_monsanto_3.php

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #154)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 01:02 PM

158. Okay

Now I have. It appears there is no bottom to how low they can go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #158)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 01:22 PM

167. Monsanto can go even lower - court records show Monsanto knew the health effects of PCB

Today, 37 years after PCB production ceased in Anniston, and after tons of contaminated soil have been removed to try to reclaim the site, the area around the old Monsanto plant remains one of the most polluted spots in the U.S.

People in Anniston find themselves in this fix today largely because of the way Monsanto disposed of PCB waste for decades. Excess PCBs were dumped in a nearby open–pit landfill or allowed to flow off the property with storm water. Some waste was poured directly into Snow Creek, which runs alongside the plant and empties into a larger stream, Choccolocco Creek. PCBs also turned up in private lawns after the company invited Anniston residents to use soil from the plant for their lawns, according to The Anniston Star.

So for decades the people of Anniston breathed air, planted gardens, drank from wells, fished in rivers, and swam in creeks contaminated with PCBs—without knowing anything about the danger. It wasn’t until the 1990s—20 years after Monsanto stopped making PCBs in Anniston—that widespread public awareness of the problem there took hold.

Studies by health authorities consistently found elevated levels of PCBs in houses, yards, streams, fields, fish, and other wildlife—and in people. In 2003, Monsanto and Solutia entered into a consent decree with the E.P.A. to clean up Anniston. Scores of houses and small businesses were to be razed, tons of contaminated soil dug up and carted off, and streambeds scooped of toxic residue. The cleanup is under way, and it will take years, but some doubt it will ever be completed—the job is massive. To settle residents’ claims, Monsanto has also paid $550 million to 21,000 Anniston residents exposed to PCBs, but many of them continue to live with PCBs in their bodies.

http://www.barlettandsteele.com/journalism/vf_monsanto_3.php



MONSANTO KNEW ABOUT PCB TOXICITY FOR DECADES

But as the company's own documents show, Monsanto went to extraordinary efforts to keep the public in the dark about PCBs, and even manipulated scientific studies by urging scientists to change their conclusions to downplay the risks of PCB exposure. Monsanto's conduct, throughout the entire period that the company made PCBs, was less than commendable. Their attempts today to backpedal on the science and shirk responsibility for the global saturation of PCBs is equally discouraging, as are their repeated attempts to "green" their image with flashy, expensive PR campaigns.

Today Monsanto does not deny that everyone is contaminated with PCBs. They argue instead that since they have contaminated the entire planet they are innocent of all liability. In Monsanto's opening statement to the court in the trial of Owens v. Monsanto on April 4, 2001, the company's lawyers acknowledged only one health threat posed by exposure to PCBs: chloracne, a serious skin condition. According to the lead attorney for Monsanto, defending the company against allegations that its PCB pollution poses a health threat to residents living near its Anniston, AL chemical plant.
http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/dirtysecrets/annistonindepth/toxicity.asp










Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #167)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 01:29 PM

168. Why on earth would anyone here

defend this corporation? Of course, we know why, but we aren't allowed to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #29)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 09:32 PM

33. They are a corporation in a cash-oriented world.

That's why I said I was grading them on a curve. They've sued farmers and companies, such as DuPont, for using their seeds without paying or for breaking licence agreements, but they don't sue over trace amounts, as some blogs claim. They have never lost a lawsuit, but that could just be due to a large legal budget. If the legal system was working, then I don't blame Monsanto since using the seeds without paying is theft.

They are the biggest seed company that I know of, but that's because their seeds kick ass. Lower risk and cheaper is hard to compete against.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #33)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 09:37 PM

35. And monopolies are unethical, in my book. We have rules against such things for good reason.

 

Yeah that is my entire point, are they making money at the expense of the rest of us and the planet? That has been my only question, no doubt the like capital - we all do.

Being the biggest does not mean being the most ethical. Success and morality don't walk hand in hand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #35)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 09:39 PM

37. They aren't even close to a monopoly though, they have less than half the marketshare...

I think around 30 percent or so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #37)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 09:41 PM

39. And yet they are the biggest seed company on the planet?

 

30 compared to what of the rest? Again, if they are a boon to humanity, more power to them. I've given up on this subject, it is toxic on DU.

I hear there are two groups that want to kill us off - Organic and GMOs, I have a hard time believing that however stranger things do occur.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #39)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 09:46 PM

43. They are the largest seed company at 23%, that's not a monopoly...

Just looked it up, and that's compared to the world seed marketplace.

Neither side wants to "kill us off" that's stupid bullshit. Both want to make money, and, so far, the scientific consensus on safety and even effectiveness is on the GMO side. Organic markets itself as the healthier, more environmentally friendly alternative, but the fact is that there has been no scientific, peer reviewed research that has backed up such claims, its just marketing.

ON EDIT: An example of this marketing is in this very thread, poster madokie doesn't like GMOs because they are covered in pesticides, question is, are they aware that organic crops also have pesticides used on them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #43)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 09:51 PM

47. HA! Evidently you never read GMO-Organic threads!

 

No no no...they want to kill us off (organics) or give us 5 arms (GMOs) or something else. I have to admit, some of you know a lot about the subject. So one is bad marketing and the other is good marketing backed up by science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #47)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 09:59 PM

51. The thing is that modern Monsanto is actually quite ethical and bends over backward to be fair...

to both its customers(farmers), and workers.

For example, they have a program set up to compensate organic/non-gmo farmers who have cross pollination issues with their GMO crops. They have NOT sued farmers for accidental cross pollination, but only those who purposefully cultivated GMO crops and violated their seed contracts. Other farmers, generally have no complaints about how Monsanto treats them. Same for how they treat workers, though I've heard they outsource IT work to subcontractors all the time, and turnover is high. I live in St. Louis, and its typical talk in the industry here, great to work for, except the IT work is generally shit, but not unusual for the industry.

Now, you could say this is just done for the publicity, Monsanto is in the unenviable position of being under a microscope all the time, or it could be that, since it was spun off from the last buyout, the company isn't remotely connected to the Monsanto that has existed for the better part of the 20th century.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #51)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 10:01 PM

54. I've read a lot about that too and it does seem that way.

 

And I am all for stamping out famine in my lifetime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #54)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 10:09 PM

61. Don't know if GMOs can stamp out famine, but it doesn't hurt to try...

I generally try to avoid "guilt by association" but its very difficult when the same websites and advocates who align themselves against Monsanto, GMOs, Glyphosate, etc. also align themselves with Anti-vaxxers, Alternative "Medicine" advocates, the supplement industry, and conspiracy theorists(Chemtrails, etc.). They attend the same conferences, organize events such as "March against Monsanto" together, etc.

The issue is they all seem to share the same cognitive biases against critical thinking and the scientific method. Its fascinating to look at from the outside, but also frustrating. Especially when they make so many easily debunked claims about everything from biology to chemistry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #39)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 09:55 PM

49. The subject really isn't toxic on DU

It is just a small handful of people who make it appear so. The vast majority of liberal, intelligent people have serious reservations about Monsanto and its practices. Many people here avoid these threads, because of the aggressive treatment from a few, which I think is probably the intention of the latter.

Have a good night!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #49)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 09:58 PM

50. You too have a good night!

 

Maybe one day this debate can get sorted out, I know I eat both types of foods, so I do have a stake in this overall.

Love your avatar BTW!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #50)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 10:04 PM

57. Thanks!

I love Willie.

I've gone more and more organic wherever possible. As I get older, my health is of greater concern. There are ethical considerations as well that are important to me. Can't be perfect, but I can at least keep on trying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #57)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 10:07 PM

60. I hear ya, I eat both and at times wonder what organic actually means.

 

We eat the food out of our victory garden, to me that is as organic as it gets. Never anything but water and sunshine. Willie rules, I've grown up in Texas and hope to meet him one day...one of my heroes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #49)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 10:00 PM

53. Which practices? This is the issue, if there are real problematic practices, then list them for...

discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #53)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 10:05 PM

59. Nope

You've heard it all before! Nice try though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #59)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 10:10 PM

62. Its not difficult, as long as its not the same recycled and debunked claims of the past...

such as what's in the OP of this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #35)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 10:01 PM

55. I don't know if they are the most ethical, but they're not

the monsters some make them out to be. I don't believe they're the greatest people on Earth. I assume their biggest motivation is cash.


They don't currently have a monopoly, but they get closer and closer. I am in no way against breaking up large corporations, but I am not sure how to do that with Monsanto without driving up food prices, and promoting hunger in less fortunate places. There's some privilege involved in the arguments against them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #55)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 10:05 PM

58. Also ending famine in this century will come about by scientific endeavors.

 

At least that is my hope (in my lifetime). It won't be by us all drinking asparagus water.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #58)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 10:18 PM

64. An example of this is Golden Rice and Beta Carotene enriched plantains...

both supposed to solve the same problem in different parts of the world by replacing the staple crops in those regions to stop blindness and death from Vitamin A deficiency. They can't all eat carrots, nor can they all take vitamins, not practical and at best you get 70 percent coverage.

Then Greenpeace came in and literally destroyed test crops of Golden Rice and calls it poison, its a travesty. And protestors were protesting the testing of the plantains(bananas) in an American University, they were clinically testing for Vitamin A absorption in the blood from the consumption of the bananas.

Then there are anti-GMO advocates who are crowing and applauding the failure of Golden Rice(which hasn't failed yet). How unethical is that?

We should be working on workable solutions, regardless of source, for the world's nutritional problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #64)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 10:52 PM

70. Golden rice may save millions of lives.

The fight against it is either extreme ignorance or extreme sadism. Could also be pride, now that I think about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #70)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 08:47 AM

94. So where is this rice?

http://m.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2016/02/golden-rice-still-showing-promise-still-not-field-ready

And how much would one person have to eat to get 100% of the nutritional benefit?

I mean let's show some results instead of hype.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #64)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 11:14 PM

71. Not the golden rice stuff again - that's been going on for yrs and never came through

No one wants the golden rice esp the people of Asia nor do they want the enriched plantains

"Golden Rice" not so golden
So far, Golden Rice has swallowed up millions of research dollars over the past two decades and filled our media outlets with hype — but has failed to deliver. This failure is particularly harmful when one considers the enormous opportunity costs of the effort: diversion of attention, precious resources and support away from the established solutions that really work.

http://www.gmwatch.org/news/archive/2013/15045-golden-rice-not-so-golden




A group of scientists plans to pay young Iowa State Univ. women $900 to eat genetically modified plantains without doing animal research first

“ISU students are being asked to be the first to consume a product of unknown safety,” the activists said in a prepared statement. “The study is not being conducted in a transparent manner, and concerned ISU community members have not been able to receive answers about the research design, risks, nature of the informed consent given by the subjects and the generalizability of the study.”

Food-science professor Wendy White, who is leading the ISU end of the trial, confirmed through a university spokeswoman that the trial is expected to take place sometime this year. She said the details would be posted on a federal website, as required, before the trial starts.

In the summer of 2014, White’s team sent an email to ISU students seeking a dozen female volunteers for the study. White said that the volunteers would be paid $900 to eat the equivalent of three bananas each. Just one of the bananas would be the genetically modified type.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/health/2016/02/17/isu-still-plans-gmo-banana-trial-despite-controversy/80507378/


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #71)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 11:46 PM

73. And here you come demonstrating that lack of ethical concern, as long as your percieved side...

is considered right.

In addition, why would animal testing need to be done when they are talking about human nutrition? Oh, and the safety was already well known, ignorant activists proclaiming otherwise isn't evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #73)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 12:12 AM

76. Ethical concern??? Golden rice is too low producing compared to non GM




Today, the IRRI coordinates the Golden Rice Network and has been working to develop a viable strain since 2006. And so far, it's having trouble. On its website, the IRRI reports that in the latest field trials, golden rice varieties "showed that beta carotene was produced at consistently high levels in the grain, and that grain quality was comparable to the conventional variety." However, the website continues, "yields of candidate lines were not consistent across locations and seasons." Translation: The golden rice varieties exhibited what's known in agronomy circles as a "yield drag"—they didn't produce as much rice as the non-GM varieties they'd need to compete with in farm fields. So the IRRI researchers are going back to the drawing board.

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2016/02/golden-rice-still-showing-promise-still-not-field-ready



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #76)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 12:48 AM

79. You are hoping it will fail, hence the lack of ethics you display...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #79)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 01:09 AM

83. It failed - it failing has nothing to do with my ethics

give me a break . Plus it would have contaminated the non GM rice. The people said NO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #13)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 12:31 AM

77. Hello! Earth to ZH - Monsanto exposed their workers to Dioxin - how is that ethical?


Monsanto Fined $700 Million for Poisoning People with PCBs

Lawyers for more than 20,000 plaintiffs in federal and state trials over PCB pollution in Anniston reached an agreement Wednesday with the companies accused of chemical contamination.

The $700 million settlement, announced in federal district court in Birmingham, would resolve all outstanding Anniston PCB litigation.
Lawyers for more than 20,000 plaintiffs in federal and state trials over PCB pollution in Anniston reached an agreement Wednesday with the companies accused of chemical contamination. https://www.organicconsumers.org/old_articles/toxic/monsanto_pcbs.php


Monsanto begins compensating victims of dioxin exposure

Monsanto, a major biotech corporation and the world’s largest seed producer, shut down their Nitro plan in 2004. Decades beforehand, however, the company produced the Vietnam War-era herbicide Agent Orange at the facility. Dioxin, a chemical by-product of the weed killer, was later linked to causing cancer and other serious health problems in those exposed to it.
https://www.rt.com/usa/171312-monsanto-nitro-settlement-office/



and the list goes on and on ........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #77)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 12:54 AM

80. That was 40 years ago and I believe the case is still pending.

We'll see if they were being pricks 40 years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #80)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 01:06 AM

82. The PCP lawsuit was awarded in May 2016

and dioxin award July 2014

Big wins can happen in small places. The West Virginia State Supreme Court finalized a big blow to the biotech giant Monsanto this month, finishing a settlement causing Monsanto to pay $93 million to the tiny town of Nitro, West Virginia for poisoning citizens with Agent Orange chemicals.
http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-ordered-pay-93-million-small-town-poisoned-herbicide/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #82)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 01:10 AM

84. Yes, but they haven't made PCBs since the 70s.

The lawsuits are new, but the product is a couple of generations old.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #84)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 01:26 AM

86. The glyphosate/cancer lawsuits are recent -

and they might take the company down

Monsanto to Cut 3,600 Jobs as Public Protests Continue to Stymie Profits

“Monsanto Co. plans to slash another 1,000 jobs worldwide, bringing total planned cuts to 3,600 or about 16 percent of its global workforce, according to a filing Wednesday with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The job cuts are part of a broader, previously announced plan to target $500 million in annual savings by the end of fiscal year 2018."

According to a report by Allen on Jan. 13, “Monsanto reported a first quarter operating loss of $253m (€233m), a significant deterioration compared to the $243m operating profit generated for the same period last year."

Monsanto has faced repeated protests against its business practices and the harm to human health and the environment posed by its products. The annual March Against Monsanto attracted tens of thousands of participants globally in May. Russia to Europe have taken action to ban genetically modified crops, especially Monsanto corn. Increasing awareness of the cancer-causing potential of glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller, has also cut into profits.
http://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-to-cut-3-600-jobs-as-public-protests-continue-to-stymie-profi-1882161934.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #86)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 01:35 AM

87. The lawsuits are recent, but are for things that happened

40 years ago. I thought I was pretty clear in my last post. Even your first reply to me said as much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #87)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 09:28 AM

98. So for 40 yrs Monsanto chose not to compensate people with cancer until forced

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #98)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 11:12 AM

133. We'll see how the trial plays out. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #133)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 12:20 PM

141. The trial already played out

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 09:01 PM

26. Yes! Chemicals bad!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 09:37 PM

34. The problems you have with GMOs are endemic in all the food industry..

organic, conventional, GMO, non-GMO.

You keep pushing these inaccurate representations of the legal framework used.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #34)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 01:10 AM

85. Actually, organic cannot have glyphosate

which we all know can cause cancer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #85)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 06:18 AM

91. One study says that.

 

Up until about 10 years ago (and still currently in Europe), organic food manufacturers were happy to use Rotenone on their crops, which is known to cause Parkinson's.

Because, you know, Rotenone is a natural pesticide that's better for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #91)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 12:21 PM

143. It isn't even a study, it was a biased meta-analysis that many scientists of the source studies...

of the meta-analysis disputed their conclusions. It's junk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #143)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 07:27 PM

206. It's the cancer research division of the World Health Organization

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #206)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 09:21 PM

212. And? Even they say they didn't conduct any independent research on this issue...

on their own. They cherry picked some studies and came up with conclusions from those, and even the research scientists who authored many of those studies objected to this unethical practice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #85)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 12:20 PM

142. No it doesn't, how many times are you going to continue to lie? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #34)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 09:35 AM

103. Organic is becoming contaminated with glyphosate

Almost all organic wheat is now contaminated from glyphosate drift, water and air. Some organic companies like Tropical Traditions are testing all foods they sell for glyphosate before they sell - they have had a hard time finding organic grains with no glyphosate. They did find some glyphosate free wheat in western Wisconsin and some in Texas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 09:42 PM

41. Demonizing GMOs because of made up bullshit is like being an antivaxxer or a CC denialist.

 

What firm do you practice with? Gotta make sure if I ever need a lawyer in Texas I avoid the anti-science guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #41)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 09:47 PM

44. Considering the BS this poster keeps posting, I don't think their handle is accurate. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #44)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 09:59 PM

52. Maybe the work for

 

the organic industry, two sides to that coin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #52)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 10:04 PM

56. Not saying that, a lot of people have ideological reasons to support one side or another....

A lot of people think "the left" should be defined by certain principles and practices, for example, being pro-organic/anti-gmo as a matter of course. Hell, I used to be one of them, particularly when it came to the so called legal arguments, until I examined them with a critical eye and realized that all the scare tactics and claims fall apart under such scrutiny.

I usually recommend that people go to the pro-organic and/or anti-gmo websites and really try to read their claims, and then question them, examine them, and find the evidence for them. A lot of it is sorely lacking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #56)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 10:10 PM

63. Well I eat both types of food, the organic grown in my garden and of course food from HEB.

 

True we are progressives and then tend to our own mindsets as individuals. One of the things I love about Dems, we are a very diverse group of people.

When people in the city want organics, they drive through traffic to Whole Foods, when I want organic I pick it from my garden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #41)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 10:21 PM

65. Nothing like the little dramatics you present.

Avoiding gmos hurts no one. You can't endanger public health so that's just ignorant noise.

I know that the red bugs used to color food are perfectly safe. Bugs are safe to eat. Science is settled on that. But i chose not to eat them because if an eww factor that affects no one but me. Maybe you can beat people into being better consumers of scientifically sound food? ROFL

Since when do democrats demand less info... Less choice?

I don't like monsanto politics. They can't do anything right by me. Kinda like walmart. And koch industry products. My choice none of your business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to katsy (Reply #65)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 10:30 PM

66. What practices of Monsanto's do you not like? Can you articulate them?

Is it how they treat their workers?

Or how they treat their customers(farmer)?

Can you be more specific?

Also, I understand the "eww" factor in not wanting to eat certain foods, at least you are honest about it. Personal preference is personal preference, one isn't necessarily better than another unless its obviously unhealthy. I don't like some sea foods, like Lobster tail and Oysters, they make me gag, but I'm not going to go around claiming they are poison either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #66)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 01:00 AM

81. How about the practice of giving people cancer from dioxin, pcb's and Roundup

Monsanto plant in West Virginia gave workers cancer from dioxin (agent orange) $93 mill settlement - not a good way to treat your employees. Plus ...


U.S. lawsuits build against Monsanto over alleged Roundup cancer link

Personal injury law firms around the United States are lining up plaintiffs for what they say could be "mass tort" actions against agrichemical giant Monsanto Co that claim the company's Roundup herbicide has caused cancer in farm workers and others exposed to the chemical.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-monsanto-lawsuits-idUSKCN0S92H720151015



St. Louis jury orders Monsanto to pay $46.5 million in latest PCB lawsuit

ST. LOUIS • A jury on Wednesday awarded $17.5 million in damages to three plaintiffs and assessed $29 million more in punitive damages against Monsanto and three other companies in a suit here alleging negligence in the production of PCBs.

The 10-2 verdict in St. Louis Circuit Court ended a nearly-monthlong trial in one of a string of suits — some won by the defendants and some pending.[/di

This case, which went on trial April 28, involved just three of nearly 100 plaintiffs claiming that exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Some died and their claims were made by surviving relatives.


http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/st-louis-jury-orders-monsanto-to-pay-million-in-latest/article_08e25795-0d36-5155-999c-c6bd954a6c2e.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #81)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 02:52 AM

90. Roundup doesn't cause cancer, how many times do you need to be told this?

The other suits are related to Monsanto before its buyout and sell off, from about 30 to 50 years ago. I am surprised they are still handling claims, but whatever. Not to mention the Agent Orange fiasco rightly belongs at the feet of the U.S. government for failing to inform Monsanto and other companies of the dangers to their workers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #90)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 09:44 AM

107. Roundup does cause cancer - how many times do I have to say this back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #107)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 11:05 AM

130. Repeating nonsense does not make it any less nonsense

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #130)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 12:20 PM

140. The cancer is usually non-hodgkins lymphomia - many lawsuits

100 million lbs of glyphosate used in US annually

it's a chemical designed to kill living cells -

Roundup Weed Killer Declared Cancer Causing by IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) of World Health Organization

AMERICA'S TOP LAWYERS THINK DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #140)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 12:27 PM

146. Get back to us with there's one actual case attributable to glyphosate

Until then your assertion is bullshit the IARC doesn't even agree with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #146)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 01:02 PM

157. The IARC sticks by it's decision

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #157)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 01:43 PM

170. Which isn't in agreement with what you said

As I said, get back to us when glyphosate actually manages to cause one case of cancer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #66)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 02:16 AM

88. Please tell us who your employer is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roody (Reply #88)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 02:45 AM

89. Could you loosen the tinfoil hat? What business is it of yours?

Seriously, this shit needs to stop, go away with your conspiracy theory nonsense.

But if you must know, the answer is within my post history, here's a hint:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Humanist_Activist+prescriptions&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roody (Reply #88)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 09:31 AM

101. Oh, no, no, no

Some of these folks here are just carrying on these long, tedious debates to inform the rest of us very ignorant people about the virtues of GMOs, Monsanto, and glyphosate. We've been hoodwinked by the Evil Organic Empire!

I really didn't know how gullible I was until they were kind enough to tell me!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #66)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 07:26 AM

92. I trust no corporation that consumes 20% of their market share.

It takes a mind as frail as Trump's to believe that any corporation that large has the public's best interest at heart. They're not doing what they're doing for altruistic reasons to feed a growing population.

If they can find a way to invest three cents in order to make 5 cents and drive a competitor out of business then they will do it. It doesn't matter what the cost is to their consumer, health or otherwise.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if they are burying evidence. They certainly wouldn't be the first to do it. Big tobacco. Companies, car companies, gun makers etc..etc..etc... have all buried evidence that can be damaging to their market share.

There is also a history of corporations paying for their own research in attempt to muddy the waters of science. Monesto does have a history of paying for "third-party" research and claiming that it's an independent study. Unethical to say the least.

They're a corporation, plain and simple, and the only thing they believe in is the bottom-line.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #92)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 09:34 AM

102. The lack of ethics alone

should be reason for concern. We've been through this debate before with industries like tobacco and lead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #92)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 12:37 PM

149. So do they have every bio-science lab in the world in their back pocket or what?

No one is saying they are a charity, but this singling out and demonization of Monsanto is ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #149)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 06:39 PM

201. No, they don't have every bio-science lab in their back pocket, but

They do have a history of demonizing those that find research they don't like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to katsy (Reply #65)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 07:35 AM

93. Why are you talking about Monsanto?

 

We're talking about GMOs. Contrary to popular belief, GMO =/= Monsanto.

Do try to keep up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #93)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 09:50 AM

111. GMO's and Roundup = go together like a horse and a carriage, peas and carrots .....

Gosh Golly -

Monsanto just happens to be the leading world producer of Roundup, and the largest producer of GE seeds on the planet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #111)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 09:54 AM

113. No, they do not.

 

A small percentage of GMOs are made to be resistant to RoundUp. That is the vast MINORITY of what we're talking about.
Please, TRY and keep up.

Wait, aren't you one of our resident anti-vaxxers as well?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #41)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 09:41 AM

105. Projection - Most of the world has rejected GMO's and Roundup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #105)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 09:47 AM

109. Wrong

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #109)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 09:58 AM

115. NOT WRONG


Official GM crop cultivation bans: (LONG LIST - SCROLL DOWN)

Africa (2)

The picture on GM cultivation bans across Africa is not clear due to the current pressure being put on many African governments by the Biotech industry and the Gates Foundation to lift long-standing bans on the import of unmilled GMO seeds or unmilled GMO food aid, however two countries do still have full legal bans on GM crop cultivation:

Algeria (since 2000)

Madagascar (since 2002)

Asia (4)

Turkey,

Kyrgyzstan

Bhutan

Saudi Arabia

Americas (4)

Belize

Peru

Ecuador

Venezuela

Europe (28)

Scotland

Wales

Northern Ireland

Germany

France

The Netherlands

Malta


Cyprus

Greece

Bulgaria

Russia

Serbia

Croatia

Italy

Denmark

Hungary

Moldova

Latvia

Lithuania

Austria

Poland

Slovenia

Azerbaijan

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Luxembourg

Ukraine (although there is massive GM contamination in the country)

Norway

Switzerland

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #115)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 10:14 AM

117. Still wrong

"cultivation bans" =/ ban

The countries you listed (which don't constitute "Most of the world" to begin with) still allow the importation of GMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #117)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 10:32 AM

121. Putin: Russia Will be World’s Largest Supplier of Healthy Organic Food

As the world rejects GMOS - our food supply is contaminated with cancer causing, bacteria disreupting Roundup.

In June, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich has announced that Russia will not use genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to increase productivity in agriculture, while he was speaking on Friday at a session of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.

“Russia has chosen a different path. We will not use these technologies”, he said.

As a result of this decision Russian products will be “one of the cleanest in the world” in terms of technology use, Dvorkovich continued. A bill for a full ban on the cultivation of GM crops is currently going through the State Duma.

http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/12/03/putin-russia-will-be-worlds-largest-supplier-of-healthy-organic-food/#.V59qLI41R-I

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #121)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 10:39 AM

123. So when your BS is busted you just sling some more

"sustainablepulse" is another one of your pseudoscientific sources that has zero credibility.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Glyphosate_detected_in_breast_milk

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #105)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 09:55 AM

114. No, they haven't.

 

And legislating science works out SO well, doesn't it.

Just because other countries make feel-good, anti science legislation doesn't mean that we have to.

And here I thought the Demoratic party was the party of reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #114)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 10:26 AM

120. World’s Largest Country, Russia, Bans GMO Food Crops

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dorkovich told an international biotechnology conference in Kirov September 18, “As far as genetically-modified organisms are concerned, we have made the decision not to use any GMO in food productions.”

Rich organic soils

The decision to build up domestic Russian food production is a huge one. Russia today has some of the richest most fertile agriculture soil in the world. Because during the Cold War economic restraints dictated that products of the chemical industry were dedicated to national defense needs, the fertile Russian soil has not been subjected to decades of destruction from chemical fertilizers or crop spraying as the soils in much of the west. Now this becomes a blessing in disguise, as EU and North American farmers struggle with the destructive effects of chemicals in their soils that have largely destroyed essential micro-organisms. Rich agriculture soils take years to create and can be destroyed in no time. Where the climate is moist and warm, it takes thousands of years to form just a few centimeters of soil. Cold dry climates need far longer.
http://www.mintpressnews.com/worlds-largest-country-russia-bans-gmo-food-crops/210085/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #120)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 10:47 AM

124. Russia also bans homosexuals.

 

They aren't exactly paragons of progress or science.

Here's a handy dandy map of countries where GMOs are banned.



Only a couple countries. Kinda blows your "most of the world" bullshit meme out of the water.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #124)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 04:03 PM

187. Diversionary tactic

Bans on homosexuality have nothing to do with bans on GMOs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #187)

Tue Aug 2, 2016, 12:30 AM

224. They're both asinine things to do, based in fear and hatred, not facts.

 

And the poster seems to be a BIG fan of Russia and their backwards legislation.
Also, how about addressing the map that blows the poster's "most of the world" bullshit out of the water.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #224)

Tue Aug 2, 2016, 08:18 AM

230. False equivalency

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #230)

Tue Aug 2, 2016, 09:25 AM

231. What, stating that a country has draconian laws WRT sexuality and science?

 

No, it's truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #120)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 05:29 PM

193. Russia's ban on GM crops has nothing to do with health and safety

 

and everything to do with giving the middle finger to Western agricultural firms as part of a response to the sanctions the US put on Russia for the Crimea invasion.

As the PM said himself: If the Americans like to eat GMO products, let them eat it then. We don’t need to do that; we have enough space and opportunities to produce organic food,” he said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #41)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 11:24 AM

136. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 09:48 AM

110. Food labeling should be about safety....

 

not facilitating your personal "ethical" crusade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #110)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 10:06 AM

116. Funny how that part gets conveniently ignored

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #110)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 10:20 AM

119. Safety is not putting Roundup on America's food supply and corporations are getting it

Here are some of the companies that obviously agree. I could post these all day.
'













Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #119)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 10:35 AM

122. Wrong

Non-GMO =/ non-Roundup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #122)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 10:48 AM

125. It's like talking to a brick wall.

 

This poster is impervious to facts and reason. Only hyperbole and FUD gets through.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #119)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 11:26 AM

137. I don;t have an issue with companies labeling as non-GMO

 

if they think it will help their business (and it's true, of course).

And GMO, as a concept, is independent of whether or not the crop is sprayed with glyphosate.

If you have an issue with glyphosate, go after glyphosate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 10:15 AM

118. I read an interesting book on the subject, and know some people directly affected by Monsanto.

"Seeds of Reprisal" by J. Somerville Park. Good reading for those who might not yet have formed an opinion one way or the other.

Before Monsanto spun it off to Eastman chemical, they owned a chemical company they named "Solutia." Solutia used to make a hard plastic called Resinox. To make this stuff, their workers used to dump bags of asbestos into the goo as a hardening agent. Their workers used to get called "Santa Claus" by their kids when they came home because of all the asbestos fibers sticking to their faces.

The father of a good friend of ours was high up in the Navy during the Vietnam conflict. The navy swift boats that patrolled the Mekong River initially had an 84% casualty rate because the foliage along both sides of the river was so dense, it completely camouflaged VC snipers. The navigable river was in parts so narrow, the Swift Boats couldn't even do a U-turn. Monsanto came up with the defoliant Agent Orange, which proved very effective at killing plants. Monsanto assured our friend's father that it was perfectly safe to humans. This was important to him, not only because he was concerned for the lives of the people serving under him, but also because his son was serving on those boats. As the first Secretary of the Navy to allow women and blacks to become officers (he even allowed beards on men--horrors!), Nixon hated his guts and tried, unsuccessfully, to have SecDef fire him the night he resigned (Schlesinger refused). Our friend's brother, who served on the Mekong, like so many others who came in contact with Agent Orange, died a horrible death from cancer at an early age, and their dad never forgave himself for allowing Monsanto to convince him to use Agent Orange. None of this is some kind of National Secret. Our friend's name is Zumwalt, and her father's name was Elmo (after St. Elmo). Anyone can look him up.

There are people who claim to have reason to like and trust Monsanto. I am not one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #118)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 10:56 AM

126. hey friend, glad to see you back!

Hope you and your family are well!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Reply #126)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 12:29 PM

147. We are nearing the end of our vacation.

Had a great time, sorry to be leaving. This is such a beautiful, tranquil part of the world, inhabited by educated, down-to-earth real people. It's always a pain in the ass to get to from Düsseldorf, but worth it every time.

We're outta here Saturday, and the real world (i.e. my day job) begins again Tuesday. Looking for an interesting day or two in between--3000 miles to travel in the meantime, but we had to travel 4500 miles to get where we are now, so who's counting?

Spending our last week here with a full house--our daughter who lives in the USA came up from NYC with a friend, one of our housemates from Dallas is coming for a couple of days, and our friends who I mentioned in the previous post will be leaving tomorrow. The ship that bears her father's name will be commissioned in October, and we are making plans to be there with them when it happens.

I hope all is well with you likewise!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #118)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 10:57 AM

127. I support GMOs.

 

I am opposed to Monsanto.

The two are not interchangeable terms, nor are they equivalents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #127)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 12:38 PM

150. I understand that

GMOs make me nervous. Monsanto makes me sick.

I respect your choice on GMOs, and I hope you would respect mine. Due to what happened to my friends' family, and what I have been able to learn about Monsanto, even after discounting for hyperbole, I find them more suitable for membership in an Axis of Evil than Iran ever was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #150)

Tue Aug 2, 2016, 12:31 AM

225. So long as you're not rallying for feel-good legislation with no basis in fact

 

we're cool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #225)

Tue Aug 2, 2016, 12:40 AM

226. I'm not rallying for anything of the sort.

Like I said (and most on DU know), I live in Europe. All I want is to be able to know what it is I'm eating and where it came from. In Germany, for the most part, I have that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #118)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 12:40 PM

151. Monsanto didn't invent Agent Orange, it was invented before Monsanto was even a company...

they also weren't aware of the human health effects when the government ordered them to manufacture it. In fact, they tried to warn the government, and the government told them to keep manufacturing it or face takeover.

Where do these myths of yours come from?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #151)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 12:45 PM

152. So they weren't aware? Or they tried to warn the gov't?

'Cause it hardly seems likely they would try to warn the gov't of something that they themselves weren't even aware of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ret5hd (Reply #152)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 12:58 PM

155. Correction, Monsanto warned the U.S. government about dioxin contamination in 1952...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange

While I'll argue it was highly unethical for Monsanto and Dow to manufacture Agent Orange, knowing who was buying it, they shouldn't get the lion's share of blame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #151)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 12:48 PM

153. From the family of Elmo Zumwalt

They are good friends of mine and are visiting with me at this very moment. They lost their brother, Elmo, Jr., to Agent Orange and heard many accounts from their father, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, who was Secretary of the Navy at the time.

Your turn. Where do you get yours?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #153)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 01:02 PM

159. Evidence? Like Wikipedia and its many sources?

it's not like this is a secret any more, it was all exposed in the 1980s and 1990s.

Understand that Monsanto isn't blameless, but I would argue the U.S. military and governmental leadership were just as guilty, if not more so.

And it should be pointed out that none of the leadership of either the government or Monsanto from that time period are in charge of these organizations today.

I mean, if you want to boycott Monsanto for this, fine, but do you also boycott Coca-Cola, IBM, Ford, Bayer, Hugo Boss, and many other companies for the terrible things they or their founders did generations ago?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #159)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 01:56 PM

171. I don't use wikipedia. Ann's dead brother is a rather powerful source of evidence

As for the U.S. military sharing the blame, her dad never STOPPED blaming himself for his role in accepting Monsanto's assurance that Agent Orange was harmless to humans. He was crushed when the physicians told him the likely cause of the cancer. By that time, it was a common affliction among former Swift Boat vets. Ann's husband, who is a physician, says that the fact that Agent Orange left nothing alive that it touched should have sounded alarm bells, but like you pointed out, it was another era.

Her dad, Admiral Zumwalt, was felled by the complications of asbestos fibers in his lungs, but that can hardly be laid at the feet of Monanto, as asbestos was widely used on our ships from the time he was commanding them in World War II.

I live in the German Rheinland. Monsanto has very little presence in Europe. Bayer's proposed purchase of it fell through. So it's not like I am presented with the option of boycotting it. You can't boycott something that isn't there.

I'm sure I have a jacket by Hugo Boss somewhere, and like I said, the Bayer deal with Monsanto died. As for the rest of them, it's not due to a conscious boycott, but I do not use things made by Coca-Cola, IBM, Ford, IG Farben, or a host of other companies with checkered pasts (or presents). In our part of the Rheinland, it is still possible to get your food and clothing from local farmers/craftsmen who make/grow their wares the same way they did a hundred years ago. That's the cool part of living in my area of Central Europe. You can live something close to an 18th century life and still be a 20 minute taxi ride from an intercontinental airport.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #171)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 02:46 PM

183. Monsanto warned the US government about Agent Oranges harmful effects in 1952...

there's documentation to that effect.

The fact that you ignore it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #153)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 01:04 PM

160. from the wiki article

In mid-1961, President Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam asked the United States to conduct aerial herbicide spraying in his country. In August of that year, the South Vietnamese Air Force conducted herbicide operations with American help. But Diem's request launched a policy debate in the White House and the State and Defense Departments.[1] However, U.S. officials considered using it, pointing out that the British had already used herbicides and defoliants during the Malayan Emergency in the 1950s. In November 1961, President John F. Kennedy authorized the start of Operation Ranch Hand, the codename for the U.S. Air Force's herbicide program in Vietnam.

Agent Orange was manufactured for the U.S. Department of Defense primarily by Monsanto Corporation and Dow Chemical.[4]:6 It was given its name from the color of the orange-striped barrels in which it was shipped, and was by far the most widely used of the so-called "Rainbow Herbicides".[5] The 2,4,5-T used to produce Agent Orange was contaminated with 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD), an extremely toxic dioxin compound. In some areas, TCDD concentrations in soil and water were hundreds of times greater than the levels considered safe by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.[6][7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #151)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 01:00 PM

156. So when Monsanto became aware that they poisoned an entire town with agent orange

they did nothing to clean up the town or compensate their poisoned employees until taken to court - even then they did not clean up the town. Dioxin dumped in rivers and streams. Actually, Monsanto sued the employees who had cancer - sound familiar?

“Systemic Intoxication”

Twelve miles downriver from Charleston, West Virginia, is the town of Nitro, where Monsanto operated a chemical plant from 1929 to 1995. In 1948 the plant began to make a powerful herbicide known as 2,4,5–T, called “weed bug” by the workers. A by–product of the process was the creation of a chemical that would later be known as dioxin.

The name dioxin refers to a group of highly toxic chemicals that have been linked to heart disease, liver disease, human reproductive disorders, and developmental problems. Even in small amounts, dioxin persists in the environment and accumulates in the body. In 1997 the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization, classified the most powerful form of dioxin as a substance that causes cancer in humans. In 2001 the U.S. government listed the chemical as a “known human carcinogen.”

On March 8, 1949, a massive explosion rocked Monsanto’s Nitro plant when a pressure valve blew on a container cooking up a batch of herbicide. The noise from the release was a scream so loud that it drowned out the emergency steam whistle for five minutes. A plume of vapor and white smoke drifted across the plant and out over town.Residue from the explosion coated the interior of the building and those inside with what workers described as “a fine black powder.” Many felt their skin prickle and were told to scrub down.




http://www.barlettandsteele.com/journalism/vf_monsanto_3.php

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #156)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 01:12 PM

164. Your info is out of date:

Granted it took 7 years of litigation, which, in my opinion is too long:

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:-1px -1px 3px #999999 inset;"]CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- The West Virginia Supreme Court on Friday upheld approval of the settlement in a landmark lawsuit over pollution of the community of Nitro with dioxin from the former Monsanto chemical plant.The court voted 4-1 to affirm a January ruling in which Circuit Judge Derek Swope approved the class-action settlement aimed at resolving longstanding allegations that Monsanto contaminated Nitro with toxic pollution from the production of the defoliant Agent Orange. Chief Justice Brent Benjamin dissented.In a 14-page decision reached without oral argument, the court said it found "no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error" in various appeals filed over Swope's nearly 400-page settlement-approval order.Under the settlement, thousands of Nitro-area residents will be eligible for medial monitoring and property cleanups as part of the $93 million deal.


http://www.wvgazettemail.com/News/201311220094

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #164)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 07:25 PM

205. From July 25, 2014 - Monsanto to pay $93 million


Monsanto Ordered to Pay $93M to Small Town for Poisoning Citize


The West Virginia State Supreme Court finalized a big blow to the biotech giant Monsanto this month, finishing a settlement causing Monsanto to pay $93 million to the tiny town of Nitro, West Virginia for poisoning citizens with Agent Orange chemicals. The settlement was approved last year, but details were worked out only weeks ago as to how the funds were to be spent.

The settlement will require Monsanto to do the following:

$9 million will be spent to clean dioxin contaminated dust from 4500 homes.

$21 million will be spent to test to see if people have been poisoned with dioxin.

Citizens will be monitored for such poisoning for 30 years, not just a few months.

An additional $63 million is to be allotted if additional tests for dioxin contamination testing is necessary.

Anyone who lived in the Nitro area between Jan. 1, 1948, and Sept. 3, 2010 will be tested for dioxin. Although they must show proof they lived in the area, they will be eligible for testing even if they no longer live in Nitro.

Former or present employees of Monsanto are not eligible for any of these benefits.

An office will be set up to organize testing for Nitro citizens. The registration of participants is to be overlooked by Charleston attorney Thomas Flaherty, who was appointed by the court.

Residents have a right to file individual suits against Monsanto if medical tests show they suffered physical harm due to dioxin exposure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 10:58 AM

128. Defending GMOs and corporations is not a progressive stance.

 

Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bananakabob (Reply #128)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 11:06 AM

131. Bullshit

Anti-science is not a progressive stance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #131)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 11:11 AM

132. Being against GMOs has nothing to do with "anti-science".

 

Being against GMOs is pro-science. Rational minded people are against corporations injecting chemicals in food for the pursuit of profits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bananakabob (Reply #132)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 11:16 AM

134. So what exactly is the scientific argument for being against GMO?

There's a pretty good reason why the anti-GMO movement has to rely so heavily on pseudoscience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bananakabob (Reply #132)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 01:11 PM

163. Welcome to DU

Please don't judge all of Democratic Underground by what you may encounter in this thread!

And I agree that being against GMOs is pro-science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #163)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 02:11 PM

177. So where's the science?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #177)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 05:33 PM

194. Certain posters here have yet to produce any substantive arguments for their side.

 

Unless one counts "rubbish" or one-line snarktastic responses as substantive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #163)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 04:41 PM

190. :D

 



I'm used to it. Most people give the same pro-Monsanto line whenever I try to point out about GMOs, even on supposed liberal sites (not here but like Raw Story for example). -.-

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bananakabob (Reply #190)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 06:19 PM

196. There does seem to be a certain consistency

doesn't there? Prolific too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bananakabob (Reply #128)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 11:26 AM

138. Dogmatic stances like this are not progressive.

 

I'm more interested in data than political orthodoxy, and the anti-GMO side just doesn't seem to have anything but junk science and appeals to emotion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bananakabob (Reply #128)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 01:17 PM

166. This is a perfect example of the ideological blinders I mention in post 56. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bananakabob (Reply #128)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 09:38 PM

215. Says a new poster.

Hmm. Following scientific consensus is a progressive stance. That makes anti-GMO propaganda the opposite of progressive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 11:03 AM

129. Why do so many expect others to pay for their chemophobia?

Labeling has costs and by some estimates those costs will be in the hundreds of dollars for the average family due to the logistics of trying to separate or identify all the processing and transportation modes used in the food supply.

If you want to exercise your consumer preference, buy organic or GMO-free foods. Don't expect everyone else to pay for your preference which has zero to do with food safety and nutrition, which is the whole purpose of food labeling.

You are also conflating the labeling of what is actually in foods vs how they are produced. There's zero precedent for labeling seed breeding methods. Sugar is labeled as sugar regardless of whether it comes from sugar beets or sugar cane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #129)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 04:12 PM

189. rubbish

Labeling has costs and by some estimates those costs will be in the hundreds of dollars for the average family due to the logistics of trying to separate or identify all the processing and transportation modes used in the food supply.


No problem in 64 other countries around the world.








Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public

This book uncovers the biggest scientific fraud of our age.


...Altered Genes, Twisted Truth provides a graphic account of how this elaborate fraud was crafted and how it not only deceived the general public, but Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Barack Obama and a host of other astute and influential individuals as well. The book also exposes how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was induced to become a key accomplice--and how it has broken the law and repeatedly lied in order to usher genetically engineered foods onto the market without the safety testing that's required by federal statute. As a result, for fifteen years America's families have been regularly ingesting a group of novel products that the FDA's own scientific staff had previously determined to be unduly hazardous to human health....
https://www.amazon.com/Altered-Genes-Twisted-Truth-Systematically/dp/0985616903

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nationalize the fed (Reply #189)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 05:43 PM

195. Ah, that book.

 

The one that (falsely) argues that genetic modification causes tryptophan overdoses and EMS, bases most of the rest of its argument on Seralini and Pusztai, and then finishes it off with tinfoil hat nonsense that "everyone is under the control of Monsanto."

Absolute rubbish, but that's about the level of argument I've come to expect from you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nationalize the fed (Reply #189)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 06:20 PM

197. You really should better educate yourself on the subject

But I suspect you are one of those for whom no amount of evidence is going to change your agenda driven mind.

The Real Cost Of Mandatory GMO Labeling
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/the-real-cost-of-mandator_b_8865742.html


Steven Druker's book: Not worth reading | Dr Terry Simpson
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2015/03/steven-drukers-book-not-worth-reading.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #197)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 09:09 PM

211. Dr. Terry Simpson (whoever that is) vs these people

Perhaps you should let them know they've endorsed a fraud.

“A fascinating book: highly informative, eminently readable, and most enjoyable. It’s a real page-turner and an eye-opener.”--Richard C. Jennings, Ph.D., Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, UK



“This incisive and insightful book is truly outstanding. Not only is it well-reasoned and scientifically solid, it's a pleasure to read--and a must-read. Through its masterful marshalling of facts, it dispels the cloud of disinformation that has misled people into believing that GE foods have been adequately tested and don't entail abnormal risk.” --David Schubert, Ph.D. molecular biologist and Head of Cellular Neurobiology, Salk Institute for Biological Studies



“Altered Genes, Twisted Truth is lucid, illuminating, and alarming. As a former New York City prosecutor, I was shocked to discover how the FDA illegally exempted GE foods from the rigorous testing mandated by federal statute. And as the mother of three young kids, I was outraged to learn how America’s children are being callously exposed to experimental foods that were deemed abnormally risky by the FDA’s own experts.”--Tara-Cook Littman, J.D.



“Steven Druker has written a great book that could well be a milestone in the endeavor to establish a scientifically sound policy on genetically engineered foods. The evidence is comprehensive, clear, and compelling; and its credibility is irrefutable. No one has documented other cases of irresponsible behavior by government regulators and the scientific establishment nearly as well as Druker documents this one. His book should be widely read and thoroughly heeded.”--John Ikerd, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Missouri – Columbia



“Altered Genes, Twisted Truth will stand as a landmark. It should be required reading in every university biology course.”--Joseph Cummins, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Genetics, Western University, London, Ontario



“Steven Druker's meticulously documented, well-crafted, and spellbinding narrative should serve as a clarion call to all of us. In particular, his chapter detailing the deadly epidemic of 1989-90 that was linked with a genetically engineered food supplement is especially significant. I and my Mayo Clinic colleagues were active participants in the attempt to identify the cause of this epidemic. Druker provides a comprehensive analysis of all the evidence and also presents new findings from our work. Overall his discussion of this tragic event, as well as its ominous implications, is the most comprehensive, evenlybalanced and accurate account that I have read.”--Stephen Naylor, PhD CEO and Chairman of MaiHealth Inc., Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, & Pharmacology Mayo Clinic (1991-2001)



“Steven Druker has done a beautiful job of weaving a compelling scientific argument into an engaging narrative that often reads like a detective story, and he makes his points dramatically and clearly. The examination of genetic engineering from the standpoint of software engineering is especially insightful, exposing how the former is more like a ‘hackathon’ than a careful, systematic methodology for revising complex information systems. I will recommend this book to my friends.”--Thomas J. McCabe, developer of the cyclomatic complexity software metric, a key analytic tool in computer programming employed throughout the world



“Based on over 30 years of teaching computer science at universities and on extensive experience as a programmer in private industry, I can state that Steven Druker has done an excellent job of demonstrating the recklessness of the current practices of genetic engineering in comparison to the established practices of software engineering. His book presents a striking contrast between the two fields, showing how software engineers progressively developed greater awareness of the inherent risks of altering complex information systems – and accordingly developed more rigorous procedures for managing them – while genetic technicians have largely failed to do either, despite the fact that the information systems they alter are far more complex, and far less comprehended, than any human-made system.”--Ralph Bunker, PhD



“Steven Druker has written one of the few books I have encountered, in my many years of public interest work, with the capacity to drive major change in a major issue. What Ralph Nader’s Unsafe at Any Speed was to the auto industry and what Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring was to synthetic pesticides, Altered Genes, Twisted Truth will be to genetically engineered food. It is profoundly penetrating, illuminating, and compelling, and it could stimulate a monumental and beneficial shift in our system of food production.”--Joan Levin, JD, MPH



“Altered Genes, Twisted Truth is a remarkable work that may well change the public conversation on one of the most important issues of our day. If the numerous revelations it contains become widely known, the arguments being used to defend genetically engineered foods will be untenable.”--Frederick Kirschenmann, Phd Distinguished Fellow, Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University, Author of Cultivating an Ecological Conscience



“Druker's brilliant exposé catches the promoters of GE food red-handed: falsifying data, corrupting regulators, lying to Congress. He thoroughly demonstrates how distortions and deceptions have been piled one on top of another, year after year, producing a global industry that teeters on a foundation of fraud and denial. This book is sure to send shock waves around the world."--Jeffrey M. Smith, international bestselling author of Seeds of Deception & Genetic Roulette



“Altered Genes, Twisted Truth is very readable, thorough, logical and thought-provoking. Steven Druker exposes shenanigans employed to promote genetic engineering that will surprise even those who have followed the ag-biotech industry closely for years. I strongly recommend his book.”--Belinda Martineau, Ph.D., a co-developer of the first genetically engineered whole food and author of First Fruit: The Creation of the Flavr Savr™ Tomato and the Birth of Biotech Foods



“Altered Genes, Twisted Truth reveals how the inception of molecular biotechnology ignited a battle between those committed to scientific accuracy and the public interest and those who saw genetic engineering’s commercial potential. Steven Druker’s meticulously researched book pieces together the deeply disturbing and tremendously important history of the intertwined science and politics of GMOs. Understanding this ongoing struggle is a key to understanding science in the modern world.”--Allison Wilson, PhD molecular geneticist, Science Director, The Bioscience Resource Project

Guess who I'm going to believe...And so much for all "scientists" believing that GMO's are super

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nationalize the fed (Reply #211)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 10:05 PM

219. I was tempted to post

those reviews, but I'm quite sure all so PhDs must be quack pseudoscience people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nationalize the fed (Reply #211)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 11:45 PM

221. Sure, because using Seralini junk science is rock solid

Kinda funny how you decided to cut and paste book reviews (most or all of which are quid pro quo), while conveniently ignoring the facts presented which firmly debunk Druker's nonsense.

Also kinda funny how you also conveniently ignored the information presented on the cost of labeling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nationalize the fed (Reply #189)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 08:01 PM

208. And you know,

I am old enough to remember when companies were not required to list all ingredients in all foods. I am sure that those companies protested loudly about the expense of detailed labeling back then as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #208)

Tue Aug 2, 2016, 12:09 AM

222. You must be really old then

The requirement to list ingredients was created in 1938. Nutritional information was added in the 60's, and standardization happened in the 1990's.

What you are sure about is complete nonsense. Manufacturers embraced ingredient listings because it prevented unethical producers from selling inferior products for the same price. Not to mention all of this has a sound basis in reality, unlike the labeling of GMO.

You claimed being against GMO is "pro-science" and when I asked you for your "science" not surprisingly all I got was crickets for a response. Very telling that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #222)

Tue Aug 2, 2016, 08:11 AM

229. Not all ingredients in ALL foods

Ice cream for some reason did not have to list their ingredients when I was a young adult. The requirements were not nearly as strict as they are today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #229)

Tue Aug 2, 2016, 09:54 AM

232. All additives had to be listed as of 1938 by law

Those standards have been constantly evolving, always based on actual ingredients and not how they are produced. Pretending that labeling GMO is not precedent setting is simply wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 12:02 PM

139. please don't feed the anti-science hysteria....

The anti-GMO hysteria is the climate change denialism of the left. Sheesh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #139)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 01:07 PM

161. Oh my!

"The climate change denialism of the left"??? You're really funny, though I'm suppose you are being serious, sigh.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #161)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 01:57 PM

172. Pseudoskepticism

The correct, though less common, use of the term refers to those who declare themselves merely "skeptical" of a concept, but in reality would not be convinced by any evidence. Common targets of this kind of pseudoskepticism are global warming,[1] evolution, AIDS, and GMOs. This essentially is cloaked denialism, as there is a vast amount of real evidence which is willfully ignored by these pseudoskeptics. Saying "I am skeptical of X" seems more reasonable than saying "I don't accept X and never will regardless of the evidence", even if the latter is more accurate.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #172)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 02:02 PM

174. Okay

That was pretty funny too. Sometimes I think you forget where you are. I think this is still a grass roots liberal site.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #174)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 02:07 PM

176. I don't agree that woo is a liberal trait. YMMV.

Woo goes over a lot better in freeperville, BTW. Has a lot to do with critical thinking skills, or rather the lack thereof.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #176)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 02:16 PM

178. I'm not seeing a whole lot of critical thinking

from the GMO apologists. I see a lot of scripted redundancy though.

Have a good day. Enough for now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #178)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 02:25 PM

180. Probably because you don't know what it looks like

Few of these threads go by without the anti-GMO crowd quoting Mercola (who is far right wing, BTW), Globalresearch, NaturalNews, Mae Wan Ho, Food Babe, and other batshit crazy sources that promote nothing but woo. The OP references Seralini and other anti-GMO pseudoscience cranks.

As my previous link alludes, pseudoskepticism is a trait of those who will never be convinced of anything which goes against their agenda, regardless of the evidence. Regardless of what you pretend, that's not a liberal or progressive trait just because some people who call themselves either choose to abandon their critical thinking skills in favor of mindless woo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #174)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 02:38 PM

181. Grass roots liberals are anti-science?

 

I think not. Just because YOU don't (or won't) understand the science, doesn't mean everyone else doesn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #139)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 01:14 PM

165. I would call it bipartisan, mostly, with a slight left leaning slant. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #139)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 03:01 PM

184. Yes, let's invoke "science by name-calling, and proof by analogy!"

 

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to immoderate (Reply #184)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 04:06 PM

188. It tends to work for some people evidently

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 01:10 PM

162. I have no problem eating GMOs

and nothing here convinces me otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki Liesmith (Reply #162)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 01:58 PM

173. Actually GMO's are just part of the problem

Our entire food supply being contaminated with glyphosate is a really big part. Over 160 foods have residues of glyphosate. Besides the regulars - grain, potatoes, soy, beans, corn, eggs, meat - others also contaminaed are artichoke, asparagus, avocado, banana, beet, carrots, dates, figs, olives,pineapple, pinegrabate, rice, shellfish, sugar etc. etc etc.

Within 30 minutes, glyphosate can be detected in your blood.

http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/widespread_glyphosate_contamination

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #173)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 02:02 PM

175. Mom's across America????

 



More like Quacks Across America. Bunch of antivax, anti gmo, anti science loonies with ZERO basis in reality. If you get your science news from there, then you are hopeless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #175)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 02:17 PM

179. That's not even the best one

She's sourced this place numerous times
http://www.globalresearch.ca/genetically-modified-organisms-gmos-planned-sterilization-of-humanity/5511206

Also a big fan of right-wing Mercola and the village idiot Food Babe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #179)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 02:39 PM

182. Oh, I've seen....

 

This isn't the only science she's railed against. She's one of our resident anti-vaxxers as well, I believe...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #179)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 06:34 PM

200. Why do you hate a woman who has been so successful fighting corporations?

I guess because she is fighting against GMOS . Let's see - you are on DU and you hate a women fighting to clean up the food supply but you love Monsanto.

Plus, I don't believe I have ever sourced Mercola.



Food Babe successes in getting antiobiotics, hormones, food coloring, gmos, artificial flavors, etc. out of our food:


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #200)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 06:42 PM

202. Wrong as usual

Originally published by Dr. Mercola
February 17, 2013

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7882438

Your hero, Food Babe, simply regurgitates whatever the uber quack Mercola says, even if it's something so mindnumbingly stupid as running water through a blender to make it healthier, and no I'm not kidding.

When I got an invite from Dr. Joseph Mercola’s team asking if I’d like to come visit their headquarters, meet Dr. Mercola and have lunch with him… I pretty much squealed in excitement like a little girl.

http://foodbabe.com/tag/vortex-water/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Reply #200)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 08:06 PM

209. I would think it is because

she is successfully fighting corporations. If she was an ineffective failure, they would pay her no mind.

Great list by the way!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #175)


Response to Post removed (Reply #203)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 07:14 PM

204. "misogynistic"? You mean like your anti-abortion right wing hero, Mercola?

Mom's across America are anti-vax loons

So tell us again how you aren't anti-vax, but somehow always come to the defense of anti-vax dipshits, even when it includes completely ridiculous false accusations of misogyny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #204)

Tue Aug 2, 2016, 12:28 AM

223. Awww, I missed the comment before the jury got to it! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #204)

Thu Aug 4, 2016, 11:46 PM

233. How do you show anti-vaxxers are wrong about everything else?

 

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to immoderate (Reply #233)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 02:32 AM

234. Because they display the same lack of critical thinking, reliance on faulty data and ancedotal...

data that the anti-vaxxers and other deniers use to support their anti-GMO positions.

It's not hard, in many cases, you could literally substitute just a few key words in one argument to apply to another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #234)

Fri Aug 5, 2016, 09:55 AM

235. It's that easy?! Who woulda thunk it?

 

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 04:48 PM

191. Easy answers:

Defending GMOs on grounds that they are not poisonous is like defending manufacturers who exploit child labor overseas on grounds that the products are indistinguishable from ethically assembled products.


Except it's not, because the charge most commonly made and therefore most commonly defended against is the charge that GMO's are poisonous. Want to hear less of that and more about the ethics of how these products are deployed by their manufacturers? Then tell the fifteen scientifically illiterate clowns to your left and right to stop saying GMO's are poisonous and talk about how these products are deployed by their manufacturers instead.

Seeing as there are people here who defend GMO's against criticisms of safety yet nevertheless can't stand Monsanto's business practices, that is discussion that might actually go somewhere.

Why are so many progressives opposed to allowing consumers to have information to use as their basis to choose products?


Because it isn't really about information. It's a cynical business move made to give one sector of the ag market a leg up over another by peddling fear to an impressionable, largely scientifically illiterate consumer base. Anti-vaxxers pull the same crap. They'll couch their absurdity in cautionary language to make their positions seem more rational. They won't say vaccines cause autism, they'll say instead that we need to think about revising the vaccination schedule, or somesuch nonsense.

I'm not a vegan, but I certainly have no beef (ha, a pun) with labeling that allows vegans to follow their preferences when choosing food products. Regardless of whether you share my preference to avoid GMOs because I disapprove of the business model that creates them, why can't we agree that I should be entitled to the information necessary for me to exercise my own consumer preference when spending my own money?


Because no other manufacturer in the country is required by law to tell you how their product is made. And if this is what you want, then I make a modest proposal: implement this policy equally. If we're going to label GMO for unethical business practices, let's label organic for the untold gallons of fertilizer they dump into the soil so environmentalists will know to avoid them. Let free range chicken farmers label their product, noting how their business model greatly increases the risk of transmitting avian flu to humans. Let's label almonds for their water inefficiency. So on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 04:54 PM

192. Non-GM, patented hybrid seed monopolized agribusiness 50 years ago.

If your concern is the monopolization of our food supply, you're 50 years late to the party.

Once hybrid crops derived from conventional cross-breeding hit the farming scene following the Green Revolution of the 60's and 70's, it was game over for open-pollinated, heirloom seed strains that farmers could save year after year. Sure, the COULD save their own seed, like they had for generations, but new hybrids (which you can't save seed from, GM or non-GM) yield so much more per acre that only a fool wouldn't buy them every spring from the big agribusiness firms.

Think you're fighting the good fight against monopolization by eating organic? Think again: organic farms get their seed from subsidiaries of big ag companies like Monsanto and Syngenta, because Big Ag has been making non-GM, hybrid seed for decades already.

You could remove every GM seed on the face of the planet, and your food supply would still be owned by a small conglomerate of mega-national seed companies.

And beyond that, most organic farms these days are now industrialized mega-farms, just like the non-organic farms that us GM crops. Think 1,000 acre fields, massive GPS-guided tractors, sprayers with 50-ft booms (only they spray organic herbicides and pesticides instead of synthetic), etc. The organic produce you eat doesn't come from small, independent farms anymore; it mostly comes from mega-farms just like everything else. You think places like Walmart would be sourcing from hundreds of small farms? Hell no: http://grist.org/food/why-you-should-be-skeptical-of-walmarts-cheap-organic-food/

But what do I know? My entire family has been almost entirely farmers for the past century, and several of them currently farm large-acreage organic farms.

Personally, I hate it. If I were Emperor, I'd return us to the days of small, 100-acre family farms with dozens of fields, woodlots, ponds, streams, etc, and re-vitalize the rural community. Food prices would double or triple, but I really don't like factory farms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #192)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 06:30 PM

198. Yes

I think we lost a lot when the family farms started to disappear. I suppose some would call it progress, but I don't think so. We've lost the small rural towns and the diversity of crops and produce. Too many things to list, but you said it better than I could.

Thank you for the link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #192)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 06:33 PM

199. The vast majority of farms in the US are already smaller than 100 acres

Small family owned farms are thriving all over the US

Five Facts to Know about Family Farms

1. Food equals family – 97 percent of the 2.1 million farms in the United States are family-owned operations.

2. Small business matters – 88 percent of all U.S. farms are small family farms.

3. Local connections come in small packages – 58 percent of all direct farm sales to consumers come from small family farms.

4. Big business matters too – 64 percent of all vegetable sales and 66 percent of all dairy sales come from the 3 percent of farms that are large or very large family farms.

5. Farming provides new beginnings – 18 percent of principal operators on family farms in the U.S. started within the last 10 years.

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdamediafb?contentid=2015/03/0066.xml&printable=true

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #199)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 08:37 PM

210. Your link doesn't say that, though (smaller than 100 acres)

It does say "small family farms" but provides no context for their definition of "small", or whether such farms are a primary source of income for the family, a side business, or even a hobby farm.

This is important, because most small farms are far from being profitable, and thus their contribution to our overall food supply is relatively small: http://www.salon.com/2015/02/10/what_nobody_told_me_about_small_farming_i_cant_make_a_living/

According to USDA data from 2012, intermediate-size farms like mine, which gross more than $10,000 but less than $250,000, obtain only 10 percent of their household income from the farm, and 90 percent from an off-farm source. Smaller farms actually lost money farming and earned 109 percent of their household income from off-farm sources. Only the largest farms, which represent just 10 percent of farming households in the country and most of which received large government subsidies, earned the majority of their income from farm sources. So, 90 percent of farmers in this country rely on an outside job, or a spouse’s outside job, or some independent form of wealth, for their primary income.


I can totally relate. My parents farmed corn, soy, alfalfa, cattle (dairy and beef) and hogs on a 120-acre farm from 1980-2012, and I can count on one hand the number of years my parents weren't below the poverty line for a family of 5 in our state based on our net income. We worked our asses off, and still relied on government assistance, to the point of food stamps in the 1980's, to get by. Subsidized state health insurance, free school lunches, driving beat-up trucks and cars, wearing clothes until they practically fell apart. My mom got a part-time job to make ends meet, and I was able to get a full ride to college on Pell Grants and scholarships due in large part to our piddly income.

From another source, it appears the average US farm today is actually 441 acres: http://www.agday.org/media/factsheet.php

And even your own link shows that only 3% of US farms contribute 60+% of all vegetable and dairy sales.

64 percent of all vegetable sales and 66 percent of all dairy sales come from the 3 percent of farms that are large or very large family farms.


I shudder to think what the figures are for grain farming, with the boom and bust years as you chase commodity prices.

I would note that, by the definition of "family farm" your link provided, the 800 acres my Uncle Ralph operates qualifies as a "family farm", even though he's running multiple, 200-acre fields of corn and soy most years on it with $100,000 tractors, $250,000 combines and a half dozen farm hands he hires. Family-owned and factory farm are not mutually exclusive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #210)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 09:37 PM

214. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #210)

Tue Aug 2, 2016, 07:42 AM

227. You are confusing average and median. They mean very different things.

4% of farms in the US are >2,000 acres which means the average is going to be top weighted. The median farm size in the US is 80 acres.

The average size of U.S. farms in 2012 was 434 acres, 4 percent larger than five years earlier. (Table 1) Median farm size (that is, the point at which half the farms are larger and half are smaller) remained unchanged, at 80 acres.

https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/Highlights/Farms_and_Farmland/Highlights_Farms_and_Farmland.pdf

Vegetable and dairy operations lend themselves much better to large operations. This isn't a bad thing because they are far more efficient, less resources are used, and there is less environmental impact. Small farms fill in the gaps for specialty items which includes organic which increases diversity for consumers. This is a very good thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 09:24 PM

213. How do GMOs exploit children?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Tue Aug 2, 2016, 07:45 AM

228. WTF GMOs are home grown.

Terrible analogy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread