I don't care if it's GMO!

[Archae]

Food is food.

GMO's are safe, according to *ALL* credible scientific studies.
It's only the anti-GMO hysterics and profiteers in the "organic" business that want us to believe otherwise.

My thanks to Progessoid...

[pnwmom]

1. And glyphosphate is a pesticide I'd rather avoid. Thanks anyway. n/t

[StopTheNeoCons]

3. Me too, those that want to eat GMO food should drink some roundup...

to show how safe it is

[Nailzberg]

33. That's a ridiculous test. Would you drink an organic pesticide like Rotenone, to prove its safety?

[SnakeEyes]

8. Please share..

your peer reviewed research explaining why this herbicide, not pesticide, is worse than other pesticides/herbicides that you will consume?

Monsanto is terrible but this and GMOs are not reasons why.

[pnwmom]

12. I'm just asking for labeling. We each can make our own decision after that.

If you want to consume a pesticide that the World Health Organization has, based on peer reviewed research, labeled a "probable carcinogen," then go ahead. I'd rather skip it.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/german-ministers-call-for-eu-wide-ban-on-monsantos-deadly-glyphosate-herbicide-roundup/5451831

[SnakeEyes]

27. Unfortunately, you have cited

a non-scientific source. Additionally, the WHO study is an outlier that is flying in the face of scientific consensus and in the face of all of it's previous studies.

[pnwmom]

44. So what? I could have found a thousand sources to show that the WHO has identified

it as a probable carcinogen, and the WHO is not an outlier.

[SnakeEyes]

57. Perhaps you're being intentionally obtuse

or maybe you just misread. But i did not state the WHO is an outlier. This one study from them is.

[pnwmom]

58. Are you saying the WHO made its recommendation based on research

it viewed as outliers?

Clearly, it didn't.

[Archae]

29. "Global Research" is a Canadian far-right web site.

This article is linked to their front page.

"With his unprecedented number of oppressive executive orders bypassing both US Congress and constitutional rule of law, the ex-constitutional lawyer himself President Obama has become a bona fide dictator and traitor exercising tyranny over the people of the United States."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/homegrown-terrorists-new-us-draconian-laws-usher-in-the-new-world-order/5469375

Try again, and find a credible source.

[pnwmom]

45. Not going to bother. You know as well as I do that the WHO has labeled it as a

probable carcinogen. Anyone who wants to can find it on the UN site and hundreds of other links.

I just took the first link that showed up on google, but the WHO's position on glyphosphate is a well known fact.

[Archae]

47. See that word in the description?

"Probable"

There are many common things in life that are "probable" cancer-causing agents.

Doesn't mean the substance will always cause cancer, or even sometimes cause it.

I know a woman who has been a chain smoker for 50+ years, somehow she never has come down with cancer.
Yet I lost a couple aunts, uncles and cousins who smoked for less time, but got cancer anyway.

Roundup should be treated like any other pesticide, my Mom and I do just that when we use it.

We wear protective clothes and wash up completely after using it.

[pnwmom]

50. Roundup gets absorbed by the plants, so it doesn't help to wash plant matter

that has been sprayed with it.

Go ahead if you want to use it -- but I'd rather not eat foods that have been sprayed with it.

[SnakeEyes]

56. As already mentioned

that study is an outlier and flies in the face of scientific consensus and their previous studies.

Citing it is like citing the one peer reviewed study showing climate change isnt happening.

[liberaltrucker]

35. Thank you

I've always said there are myriad reasons to hate Monsanto. Roundup
ain't one of them.

[pnwmom]

51. The WHO organization says glyphosphate is a probable carcinogen.

I'm not asking you to abstain from Roundup. Just not to force it on the rest of us.

[Live and Learn]

2. Good on you but I'd like the right to know. That is all I ask.

Why can't we just know what we are eating?

[SnakeEyes]

10. We already do

Labels already exist explaining nutrition content and ingredients. Since GMO is not an ingredient, it's many scientific processes (some that have ben going on intentionally or unintentionally for thousands of years), it's not on the labels.

[Live and Learn]

13. I'd like a label ty nt

[SnakeEyes]

24. So which GMOs do you want labeled?

[Live and Learn]

25. All of them. nt

[SnakeEyes]

28. At least I will commend you in consistency.

That way any fruits and veggies that don't look like these will get labeled:

[img][/img]

Also things like seedless grapes, watermelons, etc. Need to make sure they get labeled too.

[Live and Learn]

30. Sounds good to me. I never said I wouldn't buy any GMO products.

I would just like to know.

[immoderate]

53. You are equivocating.

--imm

[TexasProgresive]

4. Why the secrecy if it is all safe?

Why do cops want laws to make filming them illegal if they are on the up and up?
Why did they,(you know who they are) make it illegal for dairy products to be labeled hormone free? I know that is allowed know but it wasn't.

What is wrong will mandating correct and honest labeling?

[SnakeEyes]

11. So do you want all GMOs labeled?

You know, including the hybrid bred crops, or just where they skipped the breeding and generations and got to the end genetic result faster?

[TexasProgresive]

37. Why not

They could be labeled Cellular manipulated Genetically Modified and Cross and inbreeding Genetically Modified.

I don't know what the worry is most people do not read labels carefully.

[laundry_queen]

5. Good for you. Don't read the label then. nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. I don't worry about eating GMO foods,

but there are some very legitimate concerns about so-called "Round-Up ready" crops. When crops have been genetically modified to resist glyphosate, more of it can be used to kill weeds in the fields. Since glyphosate is applied before the corn kernels develop, it won't be present in the corn that's eaten, but, since nature always bats last, "superweeds" are now evolving that are resistant to glyphosate - there's a particularly nasty one called Palmer amaranth. Glyphosate has low toxicity in smaller amounts, but as more and more "superweeds" start to appear, more of it will be used to kill them, and then there will be problems, especially when the stuff gets into bodies of water. Mammals aren't particularly affected but it's very bad for fish and amphibians.

[SnakeEyes]

21. Two corrections...

Resistance in super weeds typically doesn't lead to more of the substance it is resistant too, different substance is used instead that the weed is not resistant too.

Additionally, "round up ready" crops does not automatically lead to an increase in their use. Usage exists based on whats needed to kill weeds that affect the crops. Farming is a business (whether thats family or corporate ag) so they will use as little as possible to conserve money, time, resources, and ensure the strongest crops/soils/and fields overall.

[Deadshot]

7. I'm just going to put this right here.

[cpwm17]

9. +1000 nt

[pnwmom]

14. The same non-argument can be made for labeling any ingredient.

If corn is so safe, why should it require a label? If iron is so safe, why should it be labeled?

[Deadshot]

17. It's an apropos argument.

[ruffburr]

15. I'm Amazed-

Your ignorance shows no bounds- http://www.organiclifestylemagazine.com/scientists-against-gmos. Enjoy your GMO's.

[Deadshot]

16. Using "Organic Lifestyle Magazine" as a source gives no credibility to your argument.

[ruffburr]

19. Obviously-

You did not bother to read or even look at the article as it is all renowned scientists from around the world and their reasoning about GMO's Once Again i am Amazed.

[Deadshot]

39. No. I didn't.

It came from a source that is no way impartial.

[SnakeEyes]

22. Appeal to authority

next logical fallacy?

[Archae]

34. Found this at your "source..."

Same web site, and same author.

http://www.organiclifestylemagazine.com/celebrities-who-have-spoken-out-against-vaccines/

Tell us all then, just how credible this author and web site is.

[DirkGently]

18. Eh. No. Labeling GMO isn't "woo."

If people are unjustly worried about GMO foods, the answer is to address that. It's not wacky or crazy or just like anti-vaxx or any of that bullshit that people would like it labeled. The parallel would be a demand for a ban, not a demand for information.

Sorry, but this is where the militant skeptics cross the line and become assholes. Everyone isn't crazy because they'd like to know where their food comes from.

[brentspeak]

20. This thread brought to you by Monsanto. n/t

[SnakeEyes]

23. Brought to you by science believers

Not deniers.

Monsanto sucks but this is not why

[brentspeak]

31. Thanks for the laugh

Here's another one -- Archae (the OP) defending Monsanto's carcinogenic weedkiller, Roundup, comparing it to water.

[SnakeEyes]

36. Well that's just silly and unscientific

[Deadshot]

40. Monsanto doesn't own the monopoly on GMOs.

[Vinca]

26. If GMOs are harmless, manufacturers should be proud to tout them on packaging.

[HuckleB]

67. If Mutation Bred Organisms are harmless, manufacturers should be proud to tout them on packaging.

But the organic companies don't want to do that. Why do you think that would be?

[deathrind]

32. Who need labels...

What could possibly go wrong with modifying the basic genetic make up of a food. Like for instance changing a seed to be suicidal so that it can only germinate once and then dies.

[hollysmom]

41. exactly, creating a product that infects other plants and turns them GMO, then suing the farmer

who accidently grew your crops.

I never will forget being at hte farmers market where some GMO crop blew into their farm area nd they had to identify and not sell that corm because they could get sued by Monsanto. that was weird. I think it was the pollen, not the initial seed that caused the problem, The seed was still sterile, but the pol;len poisoned the plant it got on.

[deathrind]

46. This is a horrible aspect of this subject.

Farmers who do not grow GMO's should be indemnified from the cross polinization due to the farmer next door planting GMO's. The courts ruling on this issue shows just how slanted the justice system is to business.

Many farmers in India have committed suicide and many others world wide have gone bankrupt because of this very issue. It's sickening.

[JEB]

49. I think the whole GMO thing is about

co-opting the food supply. Patents and calling property what used to be our common property. I will avoid them as much as possible.

[ananda]

38. Disagree strongly!

No pesticide is anywhere close to safe; and GMOs have not been
proven to be safe at all.

Count me out.

[X_Digger]

42. Umm, you do know that organic, non-gmo crops typically require *more* pesticides, right?

[hollysmom]

43. well, I used 2 BT, it was a bacteria that infected caterpillars, I used it to save my Oaks from

the gypsy moth. and it worked, one year of hell and they were never back.

[Nye Bevan]

48. All of the DUers who have had relatives and friends killed by GMO food beg to differ.

[Nailzberg]

55. In other words, zero people disagree.

[NuclearDem]

52. Dashie is best rainbow pony.

[cheapdate]

54. Hooray for large scale, chemical intensive farming!

Hooray for life form patents! Hooray for monoculture!

[Crunchy Frog]

59. Then you should be very happy with the current status quo.

[Attorney in Texas]

60. Meat is food, too. Meat is safe, according to *ALL* credible scientific studies. Still, many prefer

to eschew meat in their diets. Are you also opposed to labeling whether products contain meat?

[Nailzberg]

61. Meat is food. GMO is a breeding method.

Food labeling should include the relevant information. What the product is, the nutritional value. Ingredients.

After that, its all equal. It doesn't matter if cattle were artificially inseminated or boned in the pasture, beef is still beef. Nutritionally its all the same, regardless of breeding.

[Attorney in Texas]

62. Some who eat chicken prefer to eat free range chicken; some choose not to eat veal at all because of

the treatment of the animal before it is slaughtered (as an aside, I'm not one of those people - I love veal).

This is information which some prefer to consider before making menu choices. The treatment of the animals prior to harvest is not an issue of nutritional value, ingredients, or product equivalency, and yet many people other than me make rational menu decisions based on that data. Why should you or I interfere if those people want that information?

Do you also oppose the labeling of free range chickens as distinct from cage-raised chickens?

[Nailzberg]

64. Treatment of the livestock is ethically important information to some consumers.

Farmers that use these methods label their product as such. And those consumers can find those products.

And I prefer grass-fed beef, I like the taste. But I can seek that out because these higher pirced items are volunterily labeled.

But we're talking about the product, not the breeding source. We spent millennia cross-breeding crops. In the last century we've introduced mutagenesis (bombarding DNA with gamma rays to scramble the genome of crops). All hoping to find favorable genes in crops.

Now we have the technology to isolate specific genes. And turn it on or off. A gene that allows the crop to grow in higher heat, or with less water? A gene that reduces a carcinogenic protein in potatoes? A gene that repels pests, meaning farmers can use less pesticides? Our current genetic engineering is exactingly precise, and safer than any other breeding method. Yet its the only one under fire. I can bombard a corn DNA with radiation all I want, and the resulting seed wouldn't be a GMO.

[Attorney in Texas]

66. GMO is important information to some consumers. Treatment of livestock is important to other people.

The production of food by sustainable methods is important for still other people. The marketing of food though fair trade practices is important to yet another group. The sourcing of food products from local markets is important to a separate group.

You share some of these preferences, and you mock other preferences. That's fine. There are people who would mock your preference for grass-fed beef; there people who might argue that you are a chump for paying more for grass-fed beef because there have been blind taste tests that suggest your belief that grass-fed beef tastes better is all in your head and there are farm-to-farm and cattle breed-to-breed taste differences that you are foolishly mistaking for the grass-fed versus grain-fed distinction:

Our testers liked several samples but discovered no universal preference for grass-fed or grain-fed, finding various degrees of beefiness and juiciness across the samples.

Whether someone thinks your preference for grass-fed beef over grain-fed beef is based on a real distinction or based on a misconception arising from your ignorance of the other factors that affect beef taste is irrelevant to the point that you prefer grass-fed beef and only a real jackass would dispute your right to know how the cow was raised because they hold the personal belief that your preference is rational.

In the same sense, some people may perceive your hostility toward the fact that some people would like access to information disclosing whether or not a particular food item is GMO or not.

PS - I eat GMO foods without any personal safety concern about them, but I'm not a big fan of GMO crops because it is a movement toward turning food into intellectual property and Monsanto uses its GMO seeds to crush small family farmers. If I had two equally priced options at the grocery store and one option was GMO and the other option wasn't GMO, I would skip the GMO and my preference has nothing whatsoever to do with food safety. Also, I generally agree with you about grass-fed beef -- while I mentioned above that some people might suggest that your preference was irrational, I am not one of those people, and I share your preference. With that said, I generally do not buy grass-fed beef because of the price difference, but when the prices are comparable, I prefer to buy grass-fed beef and I am glad to have that additional information about the food I chose to eat.

[Kali]

63. I don't have a problem with it either but I also don't have a problem with labeling.

I am dismayed at the numbers of people who don't even know what the term actually means, or that confuse herbicides with pesticides or understand that round-up ready actually means LESS herbicide is used. Or that big organic is probably equally environmentally destructive as big ag.

Seems to me the folks manufacturing non-GMO products would be the ones to play to all the fear and label their products as a selling point.

The COOL-labeling bullshit is (was?) more important to me.

Poor, hungry people anywhere don't give a shit about this. They just want to have something to eat.

[GreatGazoo]

65. THAT is your "Science" ?? Three Cartoons?

No cartoons aren't science -- as usual that is marketing and logical fallacies.

This is science:



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