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

ZombieHorde

(29,047 posts)
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 01:42 AM Aug 2014

The Problem with G.M.O. Labels

By Michael Specter

~snip~

Americans are spending a lot of time worrying about what is in their food. This is understandable, given that so much of it is laden with sugar, highly processed flour, and saturated fat. In polls, an overwhelming majority of respondents say they want foods with genetically engineered ingredients to be labelled, and most people add that they would use those labels to avoid eating such foods. Dozens of bills have been put before the legislatures of more than half the states. Vermont and Connecticut have already enacted labelling laws, and many more are likely to follow.

Who, after all, wants to stand in the way of transparency? As John Mackey, of Whole Foods, the temple of organic consumption in America, has said, “People have a right to know what is in their food.” He is right, of course. Yet there is another, equally compelling truth to consider: the overwhelming scientific consensus, based on hundreds of independent studies, demonstrates that foods containing currently available G.M.O.s pose no greater health risk or environmental concern than any other foods.

~snip~

Since this kind of statement is often purposely taken out of context, let me be clear: genetically engineered products are not magic. They will not by themselves feed the poor or heal the sick. But the world needs crops that demand less from the environment and provide more nutrition, using less water, on the same amount of land. Without relying on progress and the advance of science, as we have for centuries, it’s simply not going to happen.


http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/problem-g-m-o-labels

GMOs save lives. Labeling GMOs will severely hinder their development, which will lead to great suffering for the poorest people. Organic food cannot feed everyone. GMOs can feed everyone. Like the anti-vaccine movement, the anti-GMO movement is going to hurt many people.
89 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Problem with G.M.O. Labels (Original Post) ZombieHorde Aug 2014 OP
The planet is overpopulated, screw GMOs, and I want full disclosure on my products' labels. NYC_SKP Aug 2014 #1
Churches have been trying to stop people from fucking for a long time now. ZombieHorde Aug 2014 #3
reposting this up here - a response to Specter, including a note from the editor Voice for Peace Sep 2014 #78
Especially "Food and Drugs"! Cha Aug 2014 #6
Selective starvation? Who decides? You? nt meaculpa2011 Aug 2014 #40
Wealth, duh. J/K sarcasm. In fact, Nature decides. NYC_SKP Aug 2014 #41
Wow, putting the question of GMO safety aside ... frazzled Aug 2014 #52
The alternative, YOUR alternative, is "whatever, let's breed and fuck the planet, just feed us." NYC_SKP Aug 2014 #61
It's not okay to let people starve. That is not the solution. kcr Aug 2014 #64
"Labeling GMOs will severely hinder their development" Cha Aug 2014 #2
How else will we be able to feed all the humans? nt ZombieHorde Aug 2014 #4
The corporate bullshit coming from the toxic GMO Co is pathetic. I won't be a part of their Cha Aug 2014 #5
You can't buy bananas in Hawaii? ZombieHorde Aug 2014 #20
Apple bananas can be bought easily in Hawaii, and they are awesome! Much tastier than that bland peacebird Aug 2014 #28
I assume that ZombieHorde is referring to the modified nature of bananas (and all foods) in general. randome Aug 2014 #42
"Toxic GMO." HuckleB Sep 2014 #65
Copy China nationalize the fed Aug 2014 #11
I hope China does well, and avoids more mass starvations. ZombieHorde Aug 2014 #18
China is also working on its own GMOs. So, then, all right. HuckleB Sep 2014 #67
So make that argument instead of trying to hide it Prophet 451 Aug 2014 #7
Or as those on the right always like to say rurallib Aug 2014 #12
+1 BuddhaGirl Aug 2014 #15
"you're opposing the right of consumers to know what's in their food" ZombieHorde Aug 2014 #19
"anti-science people" Voice for Peace Sep 2014 #86
Just put "May Contain GMO Ingredients" on every single product. Nye Bevan Aug 2014 #8
My objection is the Round up ready part. If they're that damn tough, they can do without it. EOM. freshwest Aug 2014 #9
This is not just about health eridani Aug 2014 #10
Good point. People should be able to reject them for their own reasons. nt pnwmom Aug 2014 #24
If GMOs are so great... ljm2002 Aug 2014 #13
'Cause they're big giant coporation chickenshit$. bok bok And, we have people defending Cha Aug 2014 #21
What GMOs actually are and people's perceptions of GMOs are so far apart, alp227 Aug 2014 #31
Whatever happened to... ljm2002 Aug 2014 #32
The marketplace can't make a decision of something it's ignorant of. alp227 Aug 2014 #33
Thank you for making my argument for me. ljm2002 Aug 2014 #35
Consumers are already ignorant of what a GMO is in the first place. alp227 Aug 2014 #36
Typical elitist BS. n/t ljm2002 Aug 2014 #39
Funny, when it came to scientific issues... NuclearDem Aug 2014 #46
Uh, sure... ljm2002 Aug 2014 #48
No, creationists react to people with better understanding of the subject NuclearDem Aug 2014 #49
Dodging the issue, I see... ljm2002 Aug 2014 #50
Actually, the more batshit of the anti-GMO crowd shot labeling efforts in the foot. NuclearDem Aug 2014 #51
Because the rabid anti-science fringe who can't separate science from economics NuclearDem Aug 2014 #44
I can't tell if you're joking or not. Donald Ian Rankin Aug 2014 #47
Jayzoo, Monsanto must be desperate. Shitty propaganda piece. A huge tell is this: Zorra Aug 2014 #14
+100 G_j Aug 2014 #17
Concur. immoderate Aug 2014 #30
Just because a silly website says so doesn't make it true. alp227 Aug 2014 #37
Let people who want to use it as a selling point label their produce as "GMO free". Donald Ian Rankin Aug 2014 #16
The GMO producers have even fought that. They don't think foods should be allowed to be pnwmom Aug 2014 #23
That's allowed. It's a non argument. HuckleB Sep 2014 #81
That's the same dumb argument they had against ingredient labeling in general, which they fought pnwmom Aug 2014 #22
I hope you're right. nt ZombieHorde Aug 2014 #38
She's not right. HuckleB Sep 2014 #82
Why is it frustrated_lefty Aug 2014 #25
Maybe because nothing, NOTHING will convince those with anti-GMO views. alp227 Aug 2014 #55
...and your Monsanto buddies are no better than the tobacco companies. U4ikLefty Aug 2014 #56
not a valid comparison alp227 Aug 2014 #57
The tobacco companies hid evidence of harm for decades. The also fought labeling when U4ikLefty Aug 2014 #58
You left off the sarcasm tag. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Aug 2014 #26
GMO staved off third world starvation. Google Norman Borlaug, The Man Who Saved A Billion Lives. n/t X_Digger Aug 2014 #60
Why do you pro-labeling folks hate science? U4ikLefty Aug 2014 #27
Bag this with "organic food isn't healthier for you". MH1 Aug 2014 #29
Specter is the author of a book on science denialism. alp227 Aug 2014 #34
GMO labeling is being pushed hard by the organic lobby. Archae Aug 2014 #43
GMO labeling is being fought by Big AG & Monsato. Who has more $$$? U4ikLefty Aug 2014 #59
Same reason. Archae Aug 2014 #63
If people want to pay more for GMO free foods, they should be able to. pnwmom Sep 2014 #72
Well, we (or, at least the GMO industry) can't leave decisions to the people. Tierra_y_Libertad Aug 2014 #45
Of course we can - that's what letting people label food "GM free" entails. N.T. Donald Ian Rankin Sep 2014 #68
This is the New Yorker article you need to read frazzled Aug 2014 #53
Monsanto apologist article marions ghost Sep 2014 #69
Denial is a river in ... frazzled Sep 2014 #70
Excuse me while I marions ghost Sep 2014 #73
GMOs kill people. Growing GMOs will promote their development, which will lead to great suffering. Chathamization Aug 2014 #54
Are you saying GMOs kill people? HuckleB Sep 2014 #66
Err...no. "Yeah, it's pretty easy to make baseless claims." It's baseless claim, like in the OP. Chathamization Sep 2014 #74
This topic went well. lol closeupready Aug 2014 #62
Labeling of GMOs won't hinder their development. That's a myth. pnwmom Sep 2014 #71
It is a matter of consumer awareness marions ghost Sep 2014 #75
If so, why don't the consumers make themselves aware of the science? HuckleB Sep 2014 #85
Consumers who have the time and ability marions ghost Sep 2014 #87
If GMOs are so great, why do they have to be sprayed roody Sep 2014 #76
Exactly A Little Weird Sep 2014 #79
And herbicides marions ghost Sep 2014 #88
Here's a response Voice for Peace Sep 2014 #77
Uh, can you prove that the article on Shiva is wrong? HuckleB Sep 2014 #80
You're incorrect about what permaculture is. Voice for Peace Sep 2014 #83
No, I'm not wrong. HuckleB Sep 2014 #84
So you're not obligated to read links, but your opponents are. closeupready Sep 2014 #89
 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
1. The planet is overpopulated, screw GMOs, and I want full disclosure on my products' labels.
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 01:46 AM
Aug 2014

Especially foods and drugs.

ZombieHorde

(29,047 posts)
3. Churches have been trying to stop people from fucking for a long time now.
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 01:57 AM
Aug 2014

It's not going to happen soon.

I want full disclosure on my products' labels


Kind of. The definition scientists use for GMOs is very different than definition anti-GMO people use. There is a difference between full discloser and warped discloser.
 

Voice for Peace

(13,141 posts)
78. reposting this up here - a response to Specter, including a note from the editor
Tue Sep 2, 2014, 06:46 PM
Sep 2014
http://permaculturenews.org/2014/09/02/seeds-truth-vandana-shiva-responds-new-yorker/

Editor’s Note: The New Yorker carried an article in its 25 August 2014 issue “Seeds of Doubt” by journalist Michael Specter, dedicated ostensibly to Vandana Shiva and the anti-GMO campaign, but is in truth a none-too-subtle ploy to discredit both in the service of the biotech industry. Specter had already published a book in 2009, Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives, purporting to defend science from its critics in denial of scientific progress (see a review of the book here: http://grist.org/article/2009-10-31-michael-specter-denialism-organic-gmo). This is her reply
.

I am glad that the future of food is being discussed, and thought about, on farms, in homes, on TV, online and in magazines, especially of The New Yorker’s caliber. The New Yorker has held its content and readership in high regard for so long. The challenge of feeding a growing population with the added obstacle of climate change is an important issue. Specter’s piece, however, is poor journalism. I wonder why a journalist who has been Bureau Chief in Moscow for The New York Times and Bureau Chief in New York for the Washington Post, and clearly is an experienced reporter, would submit such a misleading piece. Or why The New Yorker would allow it to be published as honest reporting, with so many fraudulent assertions and deliberate attempts to skew reality. ‘Seeds of Doubt’ contains many lies and inaccuracies that range from the mundane (we never met in a café but in the lobby of my hotel where I had just arrived from India to attend a High Level Round Table for the post 2015 SDGs of the UN) to grave fallacies that affect people’s lives. The piece has now become fodder for the social media supporting the Biotech Industry. Could it be that rather than serious journalism, the article was intended as a means to strengthen the biotechnology industry’s push to ‘engage consumers’? Although creative license is part of the art of writing, Michael Specter cleverly takes it to another level, by assuming a very clear position without spelling it out.

Specter’s piece starts with inaccurate information, by design.

Early this spring, the Indian environmentalist Vandana Shiva led an unusual pilgrimage across southern Europe. Beginning in Greece, with the international Pan-Hellenic Exchange of Local Seed Varieties Festival, which celebrated the virtues of traditional agriculture, Shiva and an entourage of followers crossed the Adriatic and travelled by bus up the boot of Italy, to Florence, where she spoke at the Seed, Food and Earth Democracy Festival. After a short planning meeting in Genoa, the caravan rolled on to the South of France, ending in Le Mas d’Azil, just in time to celebrate International Days of the Seed.


On April 26th, 2014, at the Deutsches Theater Berlin, one of Germany’s most renowned state theatres, I gave a keynote speech for a conference on the relation of democracy and war in times of scarce resources and climate change. From Berlin, I flew into Florence for a Seed Festival organized by the Government of the Region of Tuscany, Italy, The Botanical garden of Florence (the oldest in Europe), Banca Etica and Navdanya. I was joined by a caravan of seed savers, and we carried on to Le Mas d’Azil where we had a conference of all the European seed movements.
 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
41. Wealth, duh. J/K sarcasm. In fact, Nature decides.
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 10:41 AM
Aug 2014

Nature decided, it always decides, you can't fool Mother Nature....

frazzled

(18,402 posts)
52. Wow, putting the question of GMO safety aside ...
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 08:14 PM
Aug 2014

Your post is quite shocking to me.

You seem to be implying that, given the world's increased population, you think people should be allowed to perhaps starve in order to save the world so that ... I don't know, people like YOU can continue to eat what you like? Is it your belief that some impoverished person in Sri Lanka should have less right to existence than you? And isn't this an argument for eugenics of a sort? Is that a liberal position?

There are other reasons to oppose GMOs than safety (ecological ones, for instance, or even political ones) ... but it is also undeniable that rates of famine have decreased in the wake of biogentic engineering. So if we are going to rail against it, we really need to come up with some solution to address poverty, agriculture, and development. We can't small-organic farm our way out of this with precious heirloom tomatoes. So I'm fine if people want to argue against GMOs (though they will certainly be arguing against the vast consensus of scientific opinion, much like climate deniers) ... but if you do, you'd better come up with a better answer for addressing the issues of hunger and health than some sort of "let them eat nothing" attitude.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
61. The alternative, YOUR alternative, is "whatever, let's breed and fuck the planet, just feed us."
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 09:30 PM
Aug 2014

I mean really correct me if I'm wrong.

Think of the planet as a grocery store.

Do you just go in and take what you want???

Cha

(295,899 posts)
5. The corporate bullshit coming from the toxic GMO Co is pathetic. I won't be a part of their
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 02:07 AM
Aug 2014

campaign to take over the world. Damn them to hell.

peacebird

(14,195 posts)
28. Apple bananas can be bought easily in Hawaii, and they are awesome! Much tastier than that bland
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 07:15 PM
Aug 2014

Gluey stuff Dole sells....

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
42. I assume that ZombieHorde is referring to the modified nature of bananas (and all foods) in general.
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 10:48 AM
Aug 2014

I know truth doesn't often matter in debates like this but the processed sugars, preservatives and carcinogens that most people willingly put into their bodies is likely far more deleterious (toxic) to health than GMOs.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

nationalize the fed

(2,169 posts)
11. Copy China
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 04:34 AM
Aug 2014

for once?

Who is this "WE" anyway? As if other countries can't grow food?
It's about corporate control. The idea that the world needs GMO Corn to survive is a huge load of bollocks.

China pulls plug on genetically modified rice and corn
Dennis Normile Sciencemag.org 20 August 2014
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025427504

China has nearly reached self-sufficiency in producing rice using conventional varieties, so the ministry has decided there is no need to commercialize Bt rice in the near future, says Huang Jikun, director of the Chinese Academy of Sciences' Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy...
http://news.sciencemag.org/asiapacific/2014/08/china-pulls-plug-genetically-modified-rice-and-corn


From the OP: "Yet there is another, equally compelling truth to consider: the overwhelming scientific consensus, based on hundreds of independent studies, demonstrates that foods containing currently available G.M.O.s pose no greater health risk or environmental concern than any other foods."

So why have labels at all? Just put "Contains Molecules that pose no greater health risk or environmental concern than any other food."

I won't be eating this corporate engineered "food". Good luck to those that do. But don't expect lots of sympathy if something goes wrong. 10 year studies (by corrupt corporations) are not "long term" no matter what anyone says. F* Monsanto.

ZombieHorde

(29,047 posts)
18. I hope China does well, and avoids more mass starvations.
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 03:03 PM
Aug 2014

We have food labels so we can know the nutrition values and possible allergens in the food we eat.

10 year studies (by corrupt corporations)


There have been many independent studies as well.

Prophet 451

(9,796 posts)
7. So make that argument instead of trying to hide it
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 02:11 AM
Aug 2014

If GMOs are harmless, or even beneficial, make that argument. Because right now, you're opposing the right of consumers to know what's in their food. You're arguing that people knowing what's in their food will be bad for them. GMOs are already labelled here (UK) and it doesn't seem to have stopped people buying them. De-couple the argument about whether GMOs should be in food from the argument that people have a right to know what they're eating. Because right now, you're acting like you have something to hide.

ZombieHorde

(29,047 posts)
19. "you're opposing the right of consumers to know what's in their food"
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 03:11 PM
Aug 2014

There are already ingredient lists on food labels, so most US adults can easily tell what is in their food.

Because right now, you're acting like you have something to hide.


This is a fair accusation because there is something to hide. There are so many anti-science people in the US that there is concern enough people will avoid GMOs, which are currently our best option for feeding everyone.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
8. Just put "May Contain GMO Ingredients" on every single product.
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 02:43 AM
Aug 2014

Just like "may contain traces of nuts" and "chemicals used here are known by the State of California to cause cancer" (the latter one I started to totally disregard when it started popping up in Disneyland).

eridani

(51,907 posts)
10. This is not just about health
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 03:55 AM
Aug 2014

I reserve the right to object to GMO foods because I don't want corporate dictaroship over our food supply.

Cha

(295,899 posts)
21. 'Cause they're big giant coporation chickenshit$. bok bok And, we have people defending
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 05:14 PM
Aug 2014

them on DU.

alp227

(31,961 posts)
31. What GMOs actually are and people's perceptions of GMOs are so far apart,
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 07:56 PM
Aug 2014

labeling would do more harm than good.

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
32. Whatever happened to...
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 08:36 PM
Aug 2014

...that old "let the marketplace decide" thingy?

You are arguing to keep consumers ignorant of something they want to know, because according to you, they're ignorant anyway.

Which of course directly mirrors the attitude of the large corporations towards the general population.

What a load of crap.

alp227

(31,961 posts)
33. The marketplace can't make a decision of something it's ignorant of.
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 09:01 PM
Aug 2014

You say I'm calling consumers ignorant? Sadly, yes I am.

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
35. Thank you for making my argument for me.
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 09:07 PM
Aug 2014

"The marketplace can't make a decision of something it's ignorant of."

Which is exactly why Big Ag wants to keep consumers ignorant of GMOs in their food -- because then consumers can't decide for themselves if they want to buy it.

More occultism, less transparency. Because surely that's the way to a brighter future.

alp227

(31,961 posts)
36. Consumers are already ignorant of what a GMO is in the first place.
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 10:00 PM
Aug 2014

The easy mainstream "Frankenfood" definition of GMO is not science at all. For a GMO-free world, go in a time machine.

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
46. Funny, when it came to scientific issues...
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 03:44 PM
Aug 2014

...we only used to hear that "elitist BS" nonsense from creationists.

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
48. Uh, sure...
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 05:12 PM
Aug 2014

...because creationists have always been noted for seeking out information, and for making sure the population is MORE informed, not LESS so.

Yet somehow, when people want to be informed about what they are taking into their own bodies in the form of food, the GMO promoters suddenly want to keep people less informed... because, you know, they're ignorant anyway.

Yep. A load of crap.

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
49. No, creationists react to people with better understanding of the subject
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 06:22 PM
Aug 2014

by calling them elitists, as if to say people who might understand the issue better than them are somehow bad just by that virtue.

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
50. Dodging the issue, I see...
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 07:17 PM
Aug 2014

...that it's YOU and the GMO supporters in this instance, who want to force people to remain ignorant of what's in the food they eat.

Boo, hiss.

TTFN

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
51. Actually, the more batshit of the anti-GMO crowd shot labeling efforts in the foot.
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 07:20 PM
Aug 2014

I am a supporter of genetic modification, though not a "GMO supporter" as you're probably trying to imply.

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
44. Because the rabid anti-science fringe who can't separate science from economics
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 01:17 PM
Aug 2014

has successfully turned "GMO" into a charged word along the lines of "eats babies" based on utterly shoddy reasoning.

They completely shot their own labeling efforts in the foot, and they have nobody to blame but themselves.

Donald Ian Rankin

(13,598 posts)
47. I can't tell if you're joking or not.
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 04:31 PM
Aug 2014

Are you trying to advance the argument that if genetically modified crops are harmless then people will not try to avoid eating them as a serious proposition, or just looking for a cheap shot?

Whether or not genetically modified crops are dangerous and whether or not people would boycott them are questions with very little connection, because most people are not very good at assessing scientific evidence.

All sorts of harmful or even beneficial things get boycotted (MMR vaccine, for example).

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
14. Jayzoo, Monsanto must be desperate. Shitty propaganda piece. A huge tell is this:
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 12:18 PM
Aug 2014

"Conventional techniques, often simply a random mixing of genomes, are not necessarily safer than engineering."

When propagandists use statements like this, that are intended to mislead, it's "Game Over". All dude is really saying here is, paraphrased,

"GMO's might be safe, we simply don't know if they are yet. But that doesn't meant that they aren't safe! We've put them into general use, and now all living things are our test subjects, and this general environmental testing will determine at some future date if GMO's are safe or not."

We already know that conventional techniques, such as hybridization within species using Mendel's same species natural inheritance process, have been tested over a long period of time, and proven to a very large degree to be safe. And there is no reason to believe they would not be safe. Mixing genomes within species is a heck of a lot different than altering the genome of a species by inserting genes of a different species into it's genome.

In contrast, GMO's are not time tested, and have not been proven to be safe.

Gene Modification is Not Specific, Precise, or Predictable
snip--
Modifying one segment of DNA does not have a single direct result; instead it can cause a spiraling effect of unintended consequences
snip---
“Genetic engineering is an experiment in the proposition that human institutions can perform adequate risk assessments on lab-created living organisms”
(more)
http://gmo-awareness.com/all-about-gmos/gmo-risks/

alp227

(31,961 posts)
37. Just because a silly website says so doesn't make it true.
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 10:01 PM
Aug 2014

Anyone can write anything via the Wordpress template and make the website look credible. i'll take the scientific consensus over some self-published outfit any day.



I proudly eat GMO's and will continue to do so.

Donald Ian Rankin

(13,598 posts)
16. Let people who want to use it as a selling point label their produce as "GMO free".
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 02:46 PM
Aug 2014

And let people who really care about avoiding GM food limit themselves to eating food marked as such.

But we should not force people who do not want to to pander to their stupidity.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
23. The GMO producers have even fought that. They don't think foods should be allowed to be
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 05:41 PM
Aug 2014

labeled GMO free because that implies that their products are not.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
22. That's the same dumb argument they had against ingredient labeling in general, which they fought
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 05:40 PM
Aug 2014

tooth and nail till Ted Kennedy finally pushed it through. (Although even he couldn't get them to label gluten, which the food industry especially didn't want labeled, because it is so pervasive.)

Labeling won't hurt the GMO producers. So much will be labeled that people will realize they've been eating it all along, and most people won't care.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
82. She's not right.
Tue Sep 2, 2014, 08:25 PM
Sep 2014

She has used the same techniques to fight vaccines, and other science based medicine, over the years.

The only thing that's interesting about her posts, is the consistency of the BS she pushes, regardless of the topic.

alp227

(31,961 posts)
55. Maybe because nothing, NOTHING will convince those with anti-GMO views.
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 08:57 PM
Aug 2014

They're no different from flat earthers or creationist or climate change deniers.

U4ikLefty

(4,012 posts)
56. ...and your Monsanto buddies are no better than the tobacco companies.
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 09:02 PM
Aug 2014

They were against labeling as well

U4ikLefty

(4,012 posts)
58. The tobacco companies hid evidence of harm for decades. The also fought labeling when
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 09:20 PM
Aug 2014

the evidence finally was brought to light.

Maybe we should wait for decades until the harm is already done (and billions in profit are made).

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
26. You left off the sarcasm tag.
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 06:28 PM
Aug 2014

Oh wait, you seriously believe GMO corn and soy are saving lives and can feed everyone? I've got these five GMO beans to trade you...


Last I heard, GMO was NOT producing any greater yields than non GMO crops. Not that we actually need it. We're already capable of feeding the world, we just don't, because it's not cost-effective for those growing the food. Feeding people who can't pay for the food doesn't make the Cargills of the world line up to do good. Growing GMO vs non-GMO isn't going to do squat to feed any of the starving people who can't afford to buy the food, no matter what type it is.

MH1

(17,537 posts)
29. Bag this with "organic food isn't healthier for you".
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 07:20 PM
Aug 2014

Totally and completely missing the fecking point.



alp227

(31,961 posts)
34. Specter is the author of a book on science denialism.
Sat Aug 23, 2014, 09:03 PM
Aug 2014
Denialism : how irrational thinking hinders scientific progress, harms the planet, and threatens our lives - read this a few years back.

When it comes to science, you can't pick and choose what parts of science you accept. I think it's hypocritical to condemn global warming denialism and creationism while spouting GMOphobia.

Archae

(46,261 posts)
43. GMO labeling is being pushed hard by the organic lobby.
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 12:45 PM
Aug 2014

You really think organic foods isn't a multi-BILLION $$$ business?

Why are they lobbying so hard?

Simple. They already charge double or even triple grocery prices for their organic food, with a label, they can charge even more.

And don't say "They won't do that."
They will.

U4ikLefty

(4,012 posts)
59. GMO labeling is being fought by Big AG & Monsato. Who has more $$$?
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 09:22 PM
Aug 2014

Why are THEY lobbying so hard...even here on DU?

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
72. If people want to pay more for GMO free foods, they should be able to.
Tue Sep 2, 2014, 06:20 PM
Sep 2014

The market will decide that.

There is no ethical argument for not labeling, anymore than there was for not labeling ingredients on food labels -- which the producers fought tooth and nail for decades.

frazzled

(18,402 posts)
53. This is the New Yorker article you need to read
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 08:27 PM
Aug 2014

Out just this past week: long but extremely comprehensive, fair, and well documented. Fans of Vandana Shiva will likely not be happy about it. There are dozens of paragraphs that could be quoted here. But really, it won't help those who are determined to maintain their ideas. For those more open-minded and inquisitive, read the whole thing, here:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/25/seeds-of-doubt

marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
69. Monsanto apologist article
Tue Sep 2, 2014, 06:08 PM
Sep 2014

the usual talking points. Not comprehensive, fair or well documented in my book. Pro-industry. Much disrespect for the zealous Indian woman who can't possibly be taken seriously.
(And she wouldn't talk to him in India--wah wah)

But thanks for posting.

frazzled

(18,402 posts)
70. Denial is a river in ...
Tue Sep 2, 2014, 06:12 PM
Sep 2014

you know the rest. It's great that you're such a free spirit that you feel free to disagree with the preponderance of the scientific community on this issue. When people do that with climate change, we call them ... well, you know the rest.

marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
73. Excuse me while I
Tue Sep 2, 2014, 06:22 PM
Sep 2014


I'm familiar with the preponderance of the scientific community--quite familiar LOL. And I know that scientists are flawed humans like everybody else, and tied to the corporate money cow.

Science is not as objective as you like to pretend.

Chathamization

(1,638 posts)
54. GMOs kill people. Growing GMOs will promote their development, which will lead to great suffering.
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 08:52 PM
Aug 2014

Like the anti-vaccine movement, the anti-GMO movement is going to hurt many people.

Yeah, it's pretty easy to make baseless claims. Somewhat ironic when these claims come from people that act as if they're defenders of science.

Chathamization

(1,638 posts)
74. Err...no. "Yeah, it's pretty easy to make baseless claims." It's baseless claim, like in the OP.
Tue Sep 2, 2014, 06:25 PM
Sep 2014
GMOs save lives. Labeling GMOs will severely hinder their development, which will lead to great suffering for the poorest people.


GMOs kill people. Growing GMOs will promote their development, which will lead to great suffering.


People are more than happy to make up and throw out silly unsupported claims (or overlook them, while attacking posts that mock them) if it supports their cause. Doing so while pretending to speak for science takes a certain amount of chutzpah.
 

closeupready

(29,503 posts)
62. This topic went well. lol
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 09:30 PM
Aug 2014

People aren't buying GMO corporate bullshit anymore.

Give them the truth, not your lies.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
71. Labeling of GMOs won't hinder their development. That's a myth.
Tue Sep 2, 2014, 06:16 PM
Sep 2014

Once GMO's are labeled, people will realize how many of their ordinary foods are GMO's and they will go right on eating them.

But the few who do want to avoid them will be able to do, and researchers will be able to track their use in the general population.

marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
75. It is a matter of consumer awareness
Tue Sep 2, 2014, 06:31 PM
Sep 2014

which we are allowed to have when it's convenient for the producer, but not when it's not.

Labeling is easy but they won't do it.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
85. If so, why don't the consumers make themselves aware of the science?
Tue Sep 2, 2014, 09:37 PM
Sep 2014

You can't have one without the other.

marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
87. Consumers who have the time and ability
Wed Sep 3, 2014, 07:28 AM
Sep 2014

to read are aware of the science, as far as we are allowed to understand it by the various invested sources. And consumers wish to make their own decisions. But consumers in the US are treated like babies who don't have the right to know what is in their food.

The fact that the industry fights consumers in a very obvious way--like not allowing labeling--leads one not to trust the industry. And the practices of Monsanto and others leads one not to trust the industry. They don't have a good track record regardless of "science."

"You can't have one without the other."

And you can't have trust without transparency.

roody

(10,849 posts)
76. If GMOs are so great, why do they have to be sprayed
Tue Sep 2, 2014, 06:36 PM
Sep 2014

with tons and tons of poison? Oh......because Monsatan sells it!

marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
88. And herbicides
Wed Sep 3, 2014, 07:38 AM
Sep 2014

----Roundup has been found in all of these crops. We are eating it.

And the scientific data for GMO consumption only runs for 90 days, after which the study animals are harvested. As anyone in the field knows, this is not enough.

WE are the test population for GMOs and glyphosates in humans. In the old days they would do invasive testing and post-mortems on prison populations but not any more. We are it.

 

Voice for Peace

(13,141 posts)
77. Here's a response
Tue Sep 2, 2014, 06:37 PM
Sep 2014
http://permaculturenews.org/category/why-permaculture/gmos/

which I can't comment about because I haven't read it yet.


Seeds of Truth – Vandana Shiva Responds to The New Yorker
Posted September 2, 2014 by Vandana Shiva & filed under Economics, GMOs, Health & Disease, Soil Erosion & Contamination, Water Contaminaton & Loss.

Editor’s Note:
The New Yorker carried an article in its 25 August 2014 issue “Seeds of Doubt” by journalist Michael Specter, dedicated ostensibly to Vandana Shiva and the anti-GMO campaign, but is in truth a none-too-subtle ploy to discredit both in the service of the biotech industry. Specter had already published a book in 2009,… Read more »

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
80. Uh, can you prove that the article on Shiva is wrong?
Tue Sep 2, 2014, 08:23 PM
Sep 2014

You do know that "permaculture" is just propaganda nonsense, right?

Right?

 

closeupready

(29,503 posts)
89. So you're not obligated to read links, but your opponents are.
Wed Sep 3, 2014, 07:51 AM
Sep 2014

LOL - your schtick is wearing so thin, I'd suggest changing into a speedo pretty soon, amigo.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Problem with G.M.O. L...