Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ruffburr

(1,190 posts)
Sat Aug 1, 2015, 08:25 PM Aug 2015

Hillary supporters -

Straight up not bashing questions : #1 Why is Hillary pro GMO? #2 Why won't she take a position on Keystone nor TPP ? #3 Why is she against Glass Stiegle and wall street reform?
I ask these questions to try to understand what I might have vote for if that's the choice. . So sell me on Hillary.

20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hillary supporters - (Original Post) ruffburr Aug 2015 OP
Those are great questions. I hope you'll get some good answers. n/t CaliforniaPeggy Aug 2015 #1
Lets see... JaneyVee Aug 2015 #2
Science does not mean pro-GMO NRaleighLiberal Aug 2015 #3
I'm sorry that- ruffburr Aug 2015 #4
I completely agree - I think you misread my response. NRaleighLiberal Aug 2015 #5
I get it now- ruffburr Aug 2015 #6
GMOs aren't chemicals, quite the opposite... JaneyVee Aug 2015 #8
and what do you think that may do to the pollen that pollinators ingest? NRaleighLiberal Aug 2015 #9
Have any studies yielded negative results yet? JaneyVee Aug 2015 #10
The studies I've seen- ruffburr Aug 2015 #12
we will have massive crop failures if we kill off all of the pollinators NRaleighLiberal Aug 2015 #13
But are there studies suggesting that is occurring? JaneyVee Aug 2015 #17
the problem is it takes years to study this sort of thing. NRaleighLiberal Aug 2015 #18
Because the- ruffburr Aug 2015 #11
There are no chemicals in it. JaneyVee Aug 2015 #15
There seems to be some misunderstanding about what they are ismnotwasm Aug 2015 #14
nice - and thanks. NRaleighLiberal Aug 2015 #16
until the absolute truths are known can we agree to label? ruffburr Aug 2015 #19
I completely and utterly agree! NRaleighLiberal Aug 2015 #20
Here: George II Aug 2015 #7
 

JaneyVee

(19,877 posts)
2. Lets see...
Sat Aug 1, 2015, 08:36 PM
Aug 2015

#1: Science.
#2: Read her book.
#3: She released proposals to rein in Wall Street and has been since 2001.
#4: Vote for whomever you want.

NRaleighLiberal

(59,940 posts)
3. Science does not mean pro-GMO
Sat Aug 1, 2015, 08:57 PM
Aug 2015

Real scientists - maybe better said independent scientists not paid to have one opinion or the other - know that there is insufficient testing and data to make definitive conclusions.

ruffburr

(1,190 posts)
4. I'm sorry that-
Sat Aug 1, 2015, 09:09 PM
Aug 2015

Is not true ,daily New data comes out on GMO'S showing the harmful effects of the chemicals taken into the plants from GMO's being eaten by humans and bees is actually poisoning their systems , Consider the bees the canary in the coal mine, Corporate "scientists" will swear to anything for a buck.

NRaleighLiberal

(59,940 posts)
5. I completely agree - I think you misread my response.
Sat Aug 1, 2015, 09:11 PM
Aug 2015

I am saying that real science does not mean unequivocal support for GMOs. And I agree with you about canary in a coal mine - my other analogy is the butterfly effect - genetically engineered pollen's effect on pollinators - we've not studied this nearly enough.

 

JaneyVee

(19,877 posts)
8. GMOs aren't chemicals, quite the opposite...
Sat Aug 1, 2015, 09:29 PM
Aug 2015

Using GMOs means less chemicals on produce. No need for harsh pesticides when you can produce bacteria resistant genetics, leaving room for organic pesticides instead.

Eta: that being said, I am all in favor of labeling. Our body, our choice.

NRaleighLiberal

(59,940 posts)
9. and what do you think that may do to the pollen that pollinators ingest?
Sat Aug 1, 2015, 09:33 PM
Aug 2015

Sorry - insufficient studies. I am a scientist and have many issues with the whole topic - it is not a black and white issue - there is much nuance, and loads of studies that need to be done, carried out for much longer time.

 

JaneyVee

(19,877 posts)
10. Have any studies yielded negative results yet?
Sat Aug 1, 2015, 09:40 PM
Aug 2015

I'm curious. And what is the plan to feed 9 billion people with possible mass crop failures?

ruffburr

(1,190 posts)
12. The studies I've seen-
Sat Aug 1, 2015, 09:49 PM
Aug 2015

Have shown organically grown crops out produce factory farm output 2 to 1 per acre.

NRaleighLiberal

(59,940 posts)
18. the problem is it takes years to study this sort of thing.
Sat Aug 1, 2015, 10:18 PM
Aug 2015

We are going down a road that hasn't been sufficiently, independently tested. Are there studies that guarantee that it will not happen? Because that is the issue - just because we can do something doesn't mean we should until we are sure.

Way, way, way too complex an issue - and not a black and white issue. And no politician has the scientific capability to be unequivocal on one way or another.

My qualifications - as one with an Ivy League PhD in Science and an avid gardener who has been watching and observing my surroundings for 30 years, and major seed saver of open pollinated crops, everything in my thought process tells me that we do not know nearly enough about genetically engineered crops to know for sure what all of the impacts will be.

ruffburr

(1,190 posts)
11. Because the-
Sat Aug 1, 2015, 09:42 PM
Aug 2015

"Chemicals" are engineered into the seed there by genetically altering the whole plant so instead of on they are In the plants, Thanks for being for labeling though, At the very least that is what should be done.

 

JaneyVee

(19,877 posts)
15. There are no chemicals in it.
Sat Aug 1, 2015, 10:03 PM
Aug 2015

They only alter the DNA to make it resistant, by either adding genes or removing them.

ismnotwasm

(41,921 posts)
14. There seems to be some misunderstanding about what they are
Sat Aug 1, 2015, 10:03 PM
Aug 2015

I know you would know--and obviously have an informed opinion, but a lot of science blogs are dismissive of the anti-GMO movement. One argument for, which I find disingenuous is the "humans have been manipulating genes for thousands of years" one--since I don't feel that is a valid comparison to whT is happening today.

On the other hand, eventually farmers are going to run out of good top soil-- this has already happened many times in many areas through human agriculture, (often leading to famine and war) and we're going to have to do something involving modification of food sources to optimize our shrinking farmable lands.

I think this Scientific American article is pretty good--it's a couple of years old

The Truth about Genetically Modified Food

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-genetically-modified-food/


Anyway, to answer the OP--much of mainstream science does support GMO's, and dismisses concerns. Hillary is not a scientist, so she's going to listen to those who are.

NRaleighLiberal

(59,940 posts)
16. nice - and thanks.
Sat Aug 1, 2015, 10:05 PM
Aug 2015

Money and the truth (which hopefully science helps bring us closer to) have a complex dance. You can't have research without money. But big money often pre-determines the results.

It is a tangled web we weave!

George II

(67,782 posts)
7. Here:
Sat Aug 1, 2015, 09:21 PM
Aug 2015

1. She's explained it herself:

https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/video-hilary-clinton-endorses-gmos-solution-focused-crop-biotechnology

2. She's explained why she won't on Keystone, not sure if she has or hasn't on TPP

"I am not going to second guess (President Barack Obama) because I was in a position to set this in motion," Clinton said, referencing environmental reviews conducted by the State Department that began when she was secretary of state. "I want to wait and see what he and Secretary Kerry decide."

3. She explained that one, too:

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/23/hillary-clinton-strongly-defends-planned-parenthood-and-cites-nuance-on-glass-steagall/

It's not a yes/no...black/white issue.

We here don't need to sell anyone on Hillary Clinton, one needs to read her positions and decide on oneself.

As they say, "google is your friend".

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Hillary supporters -