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
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: Jeffrey Smith admits GMO labeling was never his goal [View all]Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)10. 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?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
58 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
What fun! Dancing on the graves of the people who want information about their food!
RapSoDee
Jul 2016
#2
OK, that's understandable, they donate to Republicans about 3 times more than Democrats...
Humanist_Activist
Jul 2016
#24
No, I am calling out a belief that anti-science, anti-intellevtual, and
Agnosticsherbet
Aug 2016
#36
I'm a fan of science and also of informed choice. Why are you anti choice?
NightWatcher
Jul 2016
#13
I saw paper plates labeled and some salt both labeled "gluten free". Why aren't they all labeled th
uppityperson
Aug 2016
#54
Because there's nothing more natural than bombarding seeds with ionizing radiation
Major Nikon
Aug 2016
#37
Glyphosate is far less toxic than quite a few other chemicals we have in our foods...
Humanist_Activist
Jul 2016
#21
Glyphosate runoff kills downstream vegetation and aquatic life, needed for the local biosystems.
TheBlackAdder
Aug 2016
#31
So do most other herbicides, many of which are also piscicides. Not sure what your argument is. nt
Humanist_Activist
Aug 2016
#32
Wow, what an "I'm full of it" response. Also, non-Agent Orange based Herbs, breakdown within 48 hrs.
TheBlackAdder
Aug 2016
#35
Defending GMOs on grounds that they are not poisonous is like defending manufacturers who exploit
Attorney in Texas
Jul 2016
#10
Uhm, that's not an issue unique to GMOs, do you oppose all agriculture? n/t
Humanist_Activist
Jul 2016
#22
The GMO Bill that Obama signed is, what Food & Water Watch calls: "Monsanto's Dream Bill"
TheBlackAdder
Aug 2016
#30
Kinda funny how Big-OrganicŪ is blaming GMO for increased cost to organic farmers
Major Nikon
Aug 2016
#52