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
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: GMOs are bad for biodiversity, bad for non-corporate farming, bad for the public's right to natural [View all]NickB79
(19,647 posts)180. Now you're (mistakenly) talking about Terminator seed technology
It was never introduced to market; all GM and non-GM hybrid seed available today is self-fertile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology
I'm really starting to question your knowledge of farming.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
246 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
GMOs are bad for biodiversity, bad for non-corporate farming, bad for the public's right to natural [View all]
Vote2016
Jun 2016
OP
This article has about 100 links to different peer-reviewed research papers at the end.
Dr Hobbitstein
Jun 2016
#2
Your article is about whether GMOs are safe. I'm not saying they are safe or unsafe. I'm saying that
Vote2016
Jun 2016
#8
If all a farmer cares about in his seedstock is germination, he's a piss-poor farmer
NickB79
Jun 2016
#177
the skeptical raptor - you have to be KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
womanofthehills
Jun 2016
#186
Would you be more comfortable with the label "Monsanto apologist"? It's a little more precise.
Vote2016
Jun 2016
#9
Would you be more comfortable with "charlatan". It's a little more precise.
Major Nikon
Jun 2016
#21
Agreed. The GMO problem is about Monsanto and others monopolizing agribusiness at the expense of
Attorney in Texas
Jun 2016
#6
Even more suspicious is the missing element of reality in the anti-GMO astroturf
Major Nikon
Jun 2016
#22
What does that even mean? Monsanto has a financial interest in creating an agribusiness monopoly and
Attorney in Texas
Jun 2016
#28
"Because some people who believe in A, also believe in B, A has no validity."
Major Nikon
Jun 2016
#167
How is anything so full of shit able to withstand without bursting? GMO is a legal calamity visited
Attorney in Texas
Jun 2016
#86
You might understand the law, but you don't understand the first thing about the scientific process.
HuckleB
Jun 2016
#128
HuckleB's "scientific process" links always written by MONSANTO SHILLS
womanofthehills
Jun 2016
#135
You mean from "skeptics" who have never seen a corporate press release worth "questioning?"
villager
Jun 2016
#226
Monsanto doesn't farm anything, so zero market share hardly makes a monopoly
Major Nikon
Jun 2016
#182
They made and patented dioxin, actually and their GMO product has harmed many many farmers
larkrake
Jun 2016
#183
Grandma can't patent a DNA sequence unless she has a PCR machine in the basement.
lagomorph777
Jun 2016
#70
Plant patent is not a DNA patent per se, for the reason you yourself admit.
lagomorph777
Jun 2016
#73
Sure, we should just go back to using methods far less precice and more ambiguous
Major Nikon
Jun 2016
#77
If Monsanto didn't think DNA is powerful, they wouldn't spend billions on shuffling it.
lagomorph777
Jun 2016
#78
Off to the ignore-bin. It's cruel to fight with an unarmed opponent and I won't do it any more.
lagomorph777
Jun 2016
#87
You could make the same argument about any private monopoly. Often people need the product which a
Attorney in Texas
Jun 2016
#14
What's with all the pro-GMO stuff? You'd think this was CorporateMonopolist Underground.
Attorney in Texas
Jun 2016
#29
Science is good but the tobacco companies misled with a false veneer of science just as you mislead
Attorney in Texas
Jun 2016
#88
You are wrong and you know you are wrong. My anti-GMO views are based on the ill effect it has on
Attorney in Texas
Jun 2016
#93
You keep posting arguments that GMOs are "safe." I'm not saying GMOs are unsafe. GMOs illegally
Attorney in Texas
Jun 2016
#97
Compare the markets that ban GMOs with the markets that ban non-GMO patented seeds. Oh, wait, there
Attorney in Texas
Jun 2016
#99
So you compare tobacco to GMO, then freely admit the issues are completely different
Major Nikon
Jun 2016
#156
Marc Brazeau is a life-long progressive and labor activist who cares about science.
HuckleB
Jun 2016
#241
Sure, you just promote crank magnets like Michel Chossudovsky and Mae-Wan Ho
Major Nikon
Jun 2016
#199
Ignore the evidence base, because people who go with scientific consensus are "curious."
HuckleB
Jun 2016
#44
Actually the courts have overthrown the BS attacks on Seralini. He was right.
Scientific
Jun 2016
#101
I get that someone who believes in homeoquackery doesn't have much use for things like facts
Major Nikon
Jun 2016
#238
I'm not debating the science. It is an intellectual property scam, and the labelling issue is a
Vote2016
Jun 2016
#64
It almost seems that way, but why would anyone not being paid respond so swiftly defending Monsanto
Vote2016
Jun 2016
#59
Cool website. It's on the internet. It does not excuse the genetic piracy from pollen drift or
Vote2016
Jun 2016
#66
Author of your above link on organic farming - Pamela Ronald - "SCIENTIFIC" research questioned
womanofthehills
Jun 2016
#194
Sure, because they are the ones channeling Mike Adams, Mercola, Food Babe, ...
Major Nikon
Jun 2016
#75
Your refusal to provide any relevant examples of your assertion is telling all on it's own
Major Nikon
Jun 2016
#162
The problem is that the focus of the anti-gmo people is very broad...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#90
Can you link to any one of those studies? In addition, the WHO may end up reversing its decision...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#111
The first link didn't attempt to separate out whether it was glyphosate...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#114
I said none of those things, you are just making things up, for what reason I don't know...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#123
What spin? I literally pointed out a shortcoming of the first paper that was pointed out...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#157
Good point, but it appears this poster isn't interested in honest discussion.
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#118
You do understand the difference between individual, cherry picked studies, and consensus, right?
HuckleB
Jun 2016
#116
So okay then, what do we do about the other thousand or so conglomerates that run the planet?
Rex
Jun 2016
#95
Your view is "we've been abused by Goldman Sachs and Haliburton so why complain about Monsanto?"
Vote2016
Jun 2016
#131
But they make some rich people richer and that's the most important thing in the world.
valerief
Jun 2016
#103
No surprise that the last link doesn't even mention how GMO's saved the papya crops in Hawaii
progressoid
Jun 2016
#105