General Discussion

DanTex

(20,709 posts)

304. Here's the thing. You're missing an opportunity.

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 09:14 PM

Mar 2015

You're a published scientist, just like I am. You know that the points I'm bringing up are valid, and you're ignoring them.

You could engage me in a rational discussion, but instead you decline, and try to pretend that "there is no science-based justification" for my claims, something you most certainly understand is false. At the very least, you understand that your "science-based justification" that the costs of GMO labeling are extremely high is tenuous at best. This is not a scientific question, it is an economic one, one in which you trust the industries have a profit motive.

You also understand full well my point that likelihood that the scientific community has missed something here, albeit low, are not zero. You understand that nutrition is not a well-understood field, adding to the likelihood of a "black swan". And you understand the point I've made about the asymmetric consequences of being wrong one way versus the other.

You know all this, and you'd rather just hurl insults instead of having a rational discussion. Too bad.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

385 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Dr Jane Goodall: supporters of GM food deluded & ‘anti-science’ (backs new anti-GM book) [View all] JohnyCanuck Mar 2015 OP

We need labeling either telling us a product upaloopa Mar 2015 #1

This message was self-deleted by its author Trillo Mar 2015 #4

A "contains GMO" label is as meaningful as a "Contains DNA" label. jeff47 Mar 2015 #7

I have a brain I don't need you to think for me upaloopa Mar 2015 #17

Well done, upaloopa! hedda_foil Mar 2015 #25

I'm not. I'm pointing out you need more information to make a rational decision. jeff47 Mar 2015 #27

I don't understand DUers who feel they upaloopa Mar 2015 #39

I'm not. Again, to make a decision you need more information. jeff47 Mar 2015 #46

I try to eat as much raw food as I can. upaloopa Mar 2015 #55

Nothing we eat is natural. jeff47 Mar 2015 #92

I use to live in the Joaquin Valley. I've seen them upaloopa Mar 2015 #146

Err, it's the San Joaquin Valley, unless there's another one I don't know about. LeftyMom Mar 2015 #183

Yes I left off the San and I said nothing about my being a farmer upaloopa Mar 2015 #270

Not exactly true. bvar22 Mar 2015 #166

MMMmmmmmm.... Dorian Gray Mar 2015 #246

And I can select tomatoes that have more salmon traits. jeff47 Mar 2015 #259

The Tomato druidity33 Mar 2015 #244

A gene coming from an octopus or spider isn't relevant. You're looking for what the gene does jeff47 Mar 2015 #262

that's the epitome of obfuscation right there... druidity33 Mar 2015 #296

So fiction-based ideology is what matters to you. HuckleB Mar 2015 #325

Science will back me up... druidity33 Mar 2015 #331

Science doesn't back up baseless faith, ever. HuckleB Mar 2015 #332

If this wasn't such a serious topic druidity33 Mar 2015 #339

It is a serious topic, and the science is against your stance on the topic. HuckleB Mar 2015 #341

I am going to hurt people? wtf? druidity33 Mar 2015 #352

I never threaten anyone. Cut the crap. HuckleB Mar 2015 #353

i'll tell you right now... druidity33 Mar 2015 #359

So you have nothing to say. HuckleB Mar 2015 #361

raw vs. cooked doesn't affect the GMO content of food CreekDog Mar 2015 #137

You like GMO eat them leave others to make upaloopa Mar 2015 #142

what am I supposed to do with that? CreekDog Mar 2015 #143

No one's suggesting they can't add ADDITIONAL information -- just that there should be a MINIMUM pnwmom Mar 2015 #80

And what would you base that decision on? jeff47 Mar 2015 #100

It should be up to the food producer how much additional information they wanted to include pnwmom Mar 2015 #136

Just because you don't want the information doesn't mean others don't. Just because you ND-Dem Mar 2015 #173

Just because fear mongerers have scared doesn't mean you should be scared. HuckleB Mar 2015 #179

i'm not scared. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #236

Then what is your excuse for ignoring the science on GMOs? HuckleB Mar 2015 #266

You haven't presented any science. In fact, I'm pretty convinced you don't even know what it ND-Dem Mar 2015 #349

Well, it's easy to convince you that GMOs are evil. HuckleB Mar 2015 #350

Exactly, labeling. I would not purchase A-D CentralMass Mar 2015 #200

Isn't that what you're doing? HuckleB Mar 2015 #48

I don't understand Duers that want a meaningless convuluted MattBaggins Mar 2015 #54

Neither you nor I know what the label, if it ever upaloopa Mar 2015 #78

July 1, 2016, just over a year from now labeling begins in Vermont GreatGazoo Mar 2015 #101

And I don't understand why any DUer would object to the labeling that would help people pnwmom Mar 2015 #82

You're not making up your own mind. jeff47 Mar 2015 #103

Yeah, right. You can try and piggy-back the popularity of vaccines onto GMO's all you want. pnwmom Mar 2015 #133

You can keep repeating your mantra, all you want. HuckleB Mar 2015 #149

You're right. It's true, and repeating it doesn't affect the truth. pnwmom Mar 2015 #155

You once pretended to care about science and evidence. HuckleB Mar 2015 #156

You, on the other hand, have been completely transparent. pnwmom Mar 2015 #160

I'm honest. I acknowledge reality. I accept the evidence. HuckleB Mar 2015 #182

'damage to real people' like what? ND-Dem Mar 2015 #235

Pushing anti-vaccine tropes leads to people not getting vaccinated. HuckleB Mar 2015 #271

and you pushed a clip by a far right winger associated with the kochs and the fraser institute. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #237

And thus you admit that you can't debunk the piece. HuckleB Mar 2015 #272

Fear just may be a good thing when it comes to GMOs Art_from_Ark Mar 2015 #167

No one is forcing anyone to eat anything. HuckleB Mar 2015 #189

of course people are forcing others to eat things. when people don't know if the food supply ND-Dem Mar 2015 #232

How? I guess that people are being forced to eat mutagenic food too! HuckleB Mar 2015 #326

Yes; when food is made or processed via techniques and processes, or with ingredients that ND-Dem Mar 2015 #344

So, all you have to offer is forced propaganda, based on fear mongering fictions? HuckleB Mar 2015 #345

Séralini was shot down by lots of folks Major Nikon Mar 2015 #218

The EU has labeling. All those europeans must be acting out of fear too. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #174

Show us the evidence. HuckleB Mar 2015 #210

The evidence that the EU labels GMOs? ND-Dem Mar 2015 #233

The evidence that there is a science-based reason for labeling them. HuckleB Mar 2015 #267

This guy disagrees: bvar22 Mar 2015 #289

He's a scientist now? HuckleB Mar 2015 #290

They are. jeff47 Mar 2015 #265

I'm acting out of anger not fear druidity33 Mar 2015 #346

They are acting out of fear their intellectual position may be incorrect or mmonk Mar 2015 #119

So you acknowledge that fear works. HuckleB Mar 2015 #122

Why? there are a lot of shills out there, and they're paid well. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #175

What? HuckleB Mar 2015 #178

Irrelevant to what I said. BTW, I have a science degree. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #234

Your degree has no bearing on the matter. HuckleB Mar 2015 #268

Well, because, you know "organic" is so cool! HuckleB Mar 2015 #86

Really? That's a new one to me. Elmer S. E. Dump Mar 2015 #28

He is finally admitting that different GMO foods "have diferent problems" GreatGazoo Mar 2015 #34

Is he an expert on all GMO food? Sounds like a science denier. Elmer S. E. Dump Mar 2015 #36

What science is "he" denying? HuckleB Mar 2015 #59

The science of logic and safety. EOM Elmer S. E. Dump Mar 2015 #242

So you got nothing at all. HuckleB Mar 2015 #372

If I don't have anything then you don't either. Elmer S. E. Dump Mar 2015 #384

like amateur psychoanalyst who tells 93% of us "Since you don't believe as I do, you are crazy" GreatGazoo Mar 2015 #121

You not understanding there are different GMOs is not a terribly useful metric. (nt) jeff47 Mar 2015 #50

You haven't shown ANY useful metric! All GMO is bad! Elmer S. E. Dump Mar 2015 #241

Then why would you ever oppose it? Let other smart people, like Dr. Goodall, make up their own minds pnwmom Mar 2015 #76

Because giving in to fear is bad. jeff47 Mar 2015 #105

So you are pro-labeling? GreatGazoo Mar 2015 #130

If i don't want to use a plastic cup druidity33 Mar 2015 #335

It's very meaningful to millions of people who do not wish to eat genetically altered 'food'. sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #383

This guy agrees with you, bvar22 Mar 2015 #162

I like Jane, but... I think people on both sides need to quit throwing around Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #2

When someone describes the technology as ‘Frankenstein Food’... Major Nikon Mar 2015 #68

You maybe can. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #70

She's responding to all the pro-GMO people who accuse people like her of being anti-science. pnwmom Mar 2015 #87

I'm fine with her saying she isn't anti-science. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #90

Recommended. H2O Man Mar 2015 #3

More about the book ‘Altered Genes, Twisted Truth’ JohnyCanuck Mar 2015 #5

BS. HuckleB Mar 2015 #292

Ok, if you'd like to make this about science, where's her paper? jeff47 Mar 2015 #6

30 countries have now banned Monsanto GMOs with more planning to do so. sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #11

You're absolutely correct that 160 countries haven't banned GMOs Orrex Mar 2015 #13

You're absolutely correct. Not that long ago 190 countries had not yet realized how sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #18

When we by food of any kind, even our dogs, we check to make sure Elmer S. E. Dump Mar 2015 #35

Yes, we don't buy commercial dog food anymore. Our puppy as it turned out, was allergic sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #56

Boom! And the checklist continues! Orrex Mar 2015 #107

Am I a public figure? No, but if I were, that standard would be okay with me. In fact I would sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #127

That logic would apply if we were asking them transcribe their spouses' pillow talk onto the GoneFishin Mar 2015 #165

Seriously? Orrex Mar 2015 #206

That's logical gibberish couched in grammatically well constructed sentences. GoneFishin Mar 2015 #250

"if they were to label their products, they would go out of business" = precisely. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #176

And that's why you need to demonstrate a compelling reason Orrex Mar 2015 #260

Also important to remember that at least 64 countries require labeling nationalize the fed Mar 2015 #31

If rice is included in the ingredients, then let us disclose that. Orrex Mar 2015 #111

we already do. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #177

Really? Because I'm looking at the label right now. Orrex Mar 2015 #205

"If rice is included in the ingredients, then let us disclose that." ND-Dem Mar 2015 #231

Well, yeah. That was kind of my point. Orrex Mar 2015 #247

"there's no compelling reason" = except most americans want it. the EU already does it,and ND-Dem Mar 2015 #249

Consensus simply isn't a compelling reason Orrex Mar 2015 #257

there was "no compelling reason" for previous labeling in the eyes of the industry either. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #258

That's not an argument. it's a tantrum. Orrex Mar 2015 #261

let me know when you have something other than personal attacks to make your points with ND-Dem Mar 2015 #263

Oh please Orrex Mar 2015 #269

What is "natural flavoring" that I see on packages of food? uppityperson Mar 2015 #211

(3) The term natural flavor or natural flavoring means the essential oil, oleoresin, essence or ND-Dem Mar 2015 #230

In other words some part of some animal, plant or processed part of them? uppityperson Mar 2015 #280

Wow. Orrex Mar 2015 #283

i think you don't know much about how flavorings are made. the language is very specific. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #307

Let me pull a box out of my pantry. "natural flavors" is listed. So what is it specifically beyond uppityperson Mar 2015 #330

it would help if you listed a brand and exact name, but you're eating some plant flavor extract, ND-Dem Mar 2015 #337

And what plant would it be? You know, allergies and just because I want to know exactly uppityperson Mar 2015 #338

fda lists the allowable plants. linked at the same place the definition is. the allowable ND-Dem Mar 2015 #340

So they won't tell me what it is. Thanks for your help in trying to figure out uppityperson Mar 2015 #354

Speak for yourself. If you don't care what you feed yourself and your family, that's your business. sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #365

Classic red herring and a false dichotomy as well Orrex Mar 2015 #366

Typical response from someone who wants to decide for the rest of us, what rights we have sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #367

I'm not deciding for anyone, so your accusation is bullshit. Orrex Mar 2015 #368

But GMOs are evil because anti-GMO groups say so! HuckleB Mar 2015 #43

"Anyone that says, 'Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,' I say is either unbelievably stupid, ND-Dem Mar 2015 #193

Why can't Suzuki support his claims with a consensus of science? HuckleB Mar 2015 #194

that's a post by someone called "orac," not a "consensus of science." and that's a stupid phrase ND-Dem Mar 2015 #202

In other words, you refuse the reality of the science of the matter. HuckleB Mar 2015 #208

1. i don't know who "orac" id or if he's the same person as the "skeptical raptor". 2. The "SR's" ND-Dem Mar 2015 #225

The content is what matters, but you focus on everything but the content. HuckleB Mar 2015 #301

if the content is what matters, what makes yours better than mine if all are written by ND-Dem Mar 2015 #303

The content in question wasn't written by anyone. HuckleB Mar 2015 #308

Here's what happens when Suzuki faces people doing actual science in this area. HuckleB Mar 2015 #195

that clip is laughable and it's not suzuki i'm laughing at. The person who spoke most often was: ND-Dem Mar 2015 #226

So you didn't bother to watch it. HuckleB Mar 2015 #228

I watched it all the way through. I guess you didn't bother to ready my comments all the way ND-Dem Mar 2015 #229

In other words, the scientists who questioned Suzuki showed that Suzuki doesn't know anything. HuckleB Mar 2015 #293

yeah, loved the right-wing commercial too. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #305

Thanks for digging yourself even deeper. HuckleB Mar 2015 #306

Like that right wing lobbyist has anything to do with science. He's a joke, and all your links ND-Dem Mar 2015 #311

Like that guy had anything to do with the scientists who were discussing things. HuckleB Mar 2015 #312

He talked more than either of them. He excerpted and edited the clips he wanted and laid them out ND-Dem Mar 2015 #318

So you don't care about honesty. HuckleB Mar 2015 #327

I didn't quote any Koch-funded organizations, nor any right-wing lobbyists. It's you who keeps ND-Dem Mar 2015 #322

You've never bothered to present any evidence. HuckleB Mar 2015 #328

My evidence is: I, like 80-90% of the population, want labeling. I don't have to prove anything. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #342

So your evidence is a logical fallacy. HuckleB Mar 2015 #343

I think you don't know what a logical fallacy is. I want labeling. As does most of the population. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #347

So label it voluntarily. HuckleB Mar 2015 #351

80-90% of the population has the same "baseless desire": hardly the "epitome of selfishness"; ND-Dem Mar 2015 #362

Not true. HuckleB Mar 2015 #373

If you ask people if they want gmos labeled, they say yes. GMOs aren't on most ordinary ND-Dem Mar 2015 #375

Labels are not about democracy. They need science-based justifications. HuckleB Mar 2015 #377

Ironic, considering it comes from the person repeatedly posting right-wing PROPAGANDA. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #378

So honesty is not your thing. HuckleB Mar 2015 #380

Why are they afraid to label their products? If THEY are even afraid to tell us what they are sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #369

Your comparison makes no sense. HuckleB Mar 2015 #370

Label the food. The people have a right to know what it is they are hiding. Period! sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #371

No one is hiding anything. HuckleB Mar 2015 #374

I want a label on ALL food, I want to know what food is genetically altered and what is not. sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #381

A few activists demanded labels for no good reason. HuckleB Mar 2015 #382

Where are these studies that you claim exist? HuckleB Mar 2015 #42

Ireland, Austria, Hungary, Greece, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Japan, New Zealand, Germany, sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #117

So the studies don't exist. HuckleB Mar 2015 #118

The studies do exist, lots of them. I mentioned one linking GMOs to cancer, another that links Rat sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #124

So you can't link to these studies? HuckleB Mar 2015 #126

Am I on your payroll or something? Google is a marvelous tool for those who actually want sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #132

So you can't support your claims, and you can't show any studies. HuckleB Mar 2015 #134

The study linking GM to tumors was dismissed the world over as quackery Major Nikon Mar 2015 #224

Many of thoseThird World countries would profit healthwise from golden rice uppityperson Mar 2015 #213

Yeah, africa is vitamin deficient because of a lack of genetically modified rice. Such bullshit. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #227

You seem to have cause and treatment backwards. Golden rice can help treat vitamin deficiency. uppityperson Mar 2015 #282

I know all about golden rice, and have for years. it's bullshit. If anyone wanted to heal ND-Dem Mar 2015 #364

I don't think she publishes anymore. DanTex Mar 2015 #16

Actually the opposite. jeff47 Mar 2015 #40

I'd be satisfied if GM foods were subjected to the same types of tests as pharmaceuticals PaulaFarrell Mar 2015 #58

Except there are plenty of people who claim those tests are not enough. jeff47 Mar 2015 #61

I am speaking for myself PaulaFarrell Mar 2015 #215

Tests actually happen. You would like more. jeff47 Mar 2015 #264

What about plants from other seed development technologies, like mutagenesis? HuckleB Mar 2015 #81

Here's my benchmark laundry_queen Mar 2015 #196

So, you think everything should be labeled, for whatever reason you can conceive. HuckleB Mar 2015 #220

I don't know what mutagenesis is PaulaFarrell Mar 2015 #216

So you admit that you know nothing about the topic at hand. HuckleB Mar 2015 #222

So why just test GM foods? Major Nikon Mar 2015 #106

Who said that? PaulaFarrell Mar 2015 #217

You specifically singled out GM products Major Nikon Mar 2015 #221

This message was self-deleted by its author brentspeak Mar 2015 #203

"What's enough?" is exactly the question. Apparently Jane Goodall doesn't think that what's been DanTex Mar 2015 #110

Why is she right? HuckleB Mar 2015 #153

I have nothing. I'm just asking. It's a valid question, how much testing is enough? DanTex Mar 2015 #161

Do you realize that the "concerns" about GMOs are multiplied if one discusses mutagenesis? HuckleB Mar 2015 #180

Fine. So let's be concerned about both. That doesn't begin to answer my previous question. DanTex Mar 2015 #184

I'm not concerned about either, or I wouldn't eat at all! HuckleB Mar 2015 #185

Well, until we get an answer to my question from two posts ago, we can't dismiss any concerns as DanTex Mar 2015 #186

So, you're saying that thousands of studies are not enough on GMOs? HuckleB Mar 2015 #187

I'm asking how much is enough? What is the standard for concluding that something is safe? DanTex Mar 2015 #190

Well, scientists are saying we've studied GMOs plenty. HuckleB Mar 2015 #192

And I'm asking why they think that (apparently not all of them do). DanTex Mar 2015 #198

Why label one seed development technology but not all of them? HuckleB Mar 2015 #212

"Why make food cost more for those who don't have enough to eat?" = bullshit. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #240

Yes, it will. It's time the anti-GMO crowd admits reality. HuckleB Mar 2015 #273

How much more expensive? Why aren't you answering my questions? DanTex Mar 2015 #245

I've looked at it for years. HuckleB Mar 2015 #274

The risk being higher for other types of seed development is irrelevant. DanTex Mar 2015 #284

No, it's not. HuckleB Mar 2015 #285

I don't care about the movement. I care about the truth. DanTex Mar 2015 #287

If you care about the truth, then why do want worthless labels? HuckleB Mar 2015 #288

Because they might not be worthless. And because the costs are very low. DanTex Mar 2015 #297

They are worthless, and the costs are not low. HuckleB Mar 2015 #298

Neither of those are rationally defensible claims. DanTex Mar 2015 #299

That's really, quite frankly, hilarious. HuckleB Mar 2015 #300

Here's the thing. You're missing an opportunity. DanTex Mar 2015 #304

The points you bring up are not valid. HuckleB Mar 2015 #309

Telling me I'd be laughed at is not a substitute for an intelligent response. DanTex Mar 2015 #310

Pretending that you wouldn't be laughed at is not a substitute for an intelligent response either. HuckleB Mar 2015 #313

Well, I guess we're done. I was hoping you would address some of the issues I brought up. DanTex Mar 2015 #314

I've addressed everything, while you have addressed nothing. HuckleB Mar 2015 #315

Meh. Maybe next time we'll have a scientific discussion. I'd be interested in that. Too bad. DanTex Mar 2015 #319

Show, don't tell. HuckleB Mar 2015 #329

a link to that 87% stat would be nice. nt. druidity33 Mar 2015 #355

You've been given it repeatedly. HuckleB Mar 2015 #356

This message was self-deleted by its author Th1onein Mar 2015 #168

So, four, overlapping and cherry picked bits, overcome 2000 other studies? HuckleB Mar 2015 #357

And this is why I think GM foods should be labeled LittleBlue Mar 2015 #8

Yes, they should be labeled. It's outrageous that a corporation gets to force food on the public sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #22

Most scientists disagree with her. HuckleB Mar 2015 #44

And that's fine LittleBlue Mar 2015 #47

Did someone take that ability away from you? HuckleB Mar 2015 #49

Labeling would help to inform consumers LittleBlue Mar 2015 #51

How would labeling one seed development technology help inform consumers? HuckleB Mar 2015 #53

Aaaand there it is LittleBlue Mar 2015 #62

That's disingenuous at best. HuckleB Mar 2015 #64

Nope LittleBlue Mar 2015 #73

You really need to actually read my posts. HuckleB Mar 2015 #75

I am not interested in debating what you're talking about LittleBlue Mar 2015 #88

And, thus, you have no point at all. HuckleB Mar 2015 #93

No, my point is that I'm tired of our relatively small state being flooded by money LittleBlue Mar 2015 #97

Actually, you should be tired of fear mongerers pushing BS initiatives to promote their business. HuckleB Mar 2015 #98

I'm the same way with preemptive war, LittleBlue Mar 2015 #104

Those are not comparable. HuckleB Mar 2015 #113

no, it's you who are disallowing choice. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #255

Not in the real world. HuckleB Mar 2015 #275

yes. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #254

Prove it. HuckleB Mar 2015 #302

yeah that 87% stat is BULLSHIT druidity33 Mar 2015 #358

In other words, you don't like reality. HuckleB Mar 2015 #360

Umm perhaps Jane Goodall isn't as great a scientist as you think MattBaggins Mar 2015 #57

It doesn't matter LittleBlue Mar 2015 #63

Why can't you tell us what the labels would tell you? HuckleB Mar 2015 #65

See post 69 LittleBlue Mar 2015 #72

Is that why you ignore all other seed development technologies? HuckleB Mar 2015 #77

Link LittleBlue Mar 2015 #84

In other words, you continue to admit that you haven't read my posts. HuckleB Mar 2015 #89

Apologies, I just don't have an interest in discussing that LittleBlue Mar 2015 #94

And now everyone knows that feigning that you are ok with GMOs, as you did here and elsewhere is BS. HuckleB Mar 2015 #96

I'm absolutely fine with GMOs LittleBlue Mar 2015 #99

Hogwash. HuckleB Mar 2015 #102

Do you know who stands to profit from labeling? Organic food manufacturers and food coops/health uppityperson Mar 2015 #214

there's a fda definition which i already posted for you. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #256

This message was self-deleted by its author uppityperson Mar 2015 #279

You mean this one that tells me nothing beyond made of plant and/or animals or processed them? uppityperson Mar 2015 #281

No the labels would be meaningless and a nightmare. MattBaggins Mar 2015 #66

And once again, we're done LittleBlue Mar 2015 #69

So, you admit that you want one seed development technology labeled. HuckleB Mar 2015 #74

You can read all about it here LittleBlue Mar 2015 #79

Thank you for admitting that you have not read the content of any of my posts. HuckleB Mar 2015 #83

How should I politely say that I'm not interested? LittleBlue Mar 2015 #91

You clearly were not honest from the get go. HuckleB Mar 2015 #95

Once you turn off an RNA structure somewhere, you have effectively altered it's outcome in some way. mmonk Mar 2015 #9

Oh boy, here we go... Sancho Mar 2015 #10

I tend to forget that she's an expert in genetic engineering and food science. Orrex Mar 2015 #12

Genetic enngineering has a certain risk factor just as interjecting a species mmonk Mar 2015 #14

If only we had thousands of studies confirming the safety of GMOs Orrex Mar 2015 #15

I don't think those pushing rapid expansion of GMO's are too interested in that approach. mmonk Mar 2015 #20

Yeah. If only we had thousands of studies confirming the safety of GMOs Orrex Mar 2015 #23

Many issues take time to reveal any damage. mmonk Mar 2015 #29

Stop and evaluate indefinitely is a lousy argument Treant Mar 2015 #38

From those thousands you would think you could find one. immoderate Mar 2015 #30

Boom! And the checklist continues! Orrex Mar 2015 #109

And each time, no answer. immoderate Mar 2015 #112

You have ignored the answer every time it's been given Orrex Mar 2015 #115

Because it's not the answer to my request. It's a diversion. immoderate Mar 2015 #123

Keep looking. Orrex Mar 2015 #141

As I am not as great a thinker as you... immoderate Mar 2015 #144

Funny how anti-GMO zealots always roll out the personal attacks. Orrex Mar 2015 #152

Dishonest? Zealot? Ah the perils of questioning you. immoderate Mar 2015 #199

Does Suzuki engage in personal attacks like you do? No? Orrex Mar 2015 #207

I imagine he does. Maybe more, maybe less. immoderate Mar 2015 #219

No. He doesn't. He's quite good-natured, unlike the pro-GMO folks here. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #348

As are all the DU GMO pushers upaloopa Mar 2015 #19

Careful! Orrex Mar 2015 #21

Hey just what I need more lectures from you upaloopa Mar 2015 #26

You free to use your brain. Find me one post anywhere on DU where I've suggested otherwise. Orrex Mar 2015 #114

My brain says ignore you upaloopa Mar 2015 #120

So your brain doesn't like the real world? HuckleB Mar 2015 #151

Your "brain" is smart on that.. you're missing NOTHING. Cha Mar 2015 #209

So you live in a fiction-based world? HuckleB Mar 2015 #294

You're the bully here. Bradical79 Mar 2015 #385

Work for Monsanto, do you? gregcrawford Mar 2015 #32

+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000...where's the infinity symbol on my keyboard? Dont call me Shirley Mar 2015 #52

The shill gambit is BS. HuckleB Mar 2015 #60

Boom! And the checklist continues! Orrex Mar 2015 #108

This message was self-deleted by its author gregcrawford Mar 2015 #33

In the voice of Sheldon, "Anthropology is not a real science anyways." good luck with your quackery dilby Mar 2015 #24

. Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2015 #37

I have no problem at all when GMO technology is used to develop a hedgehog Mar 2015 #41

After having some difficulty in demonstrating the "go ahead" in RNA manipulation might have risks, mmonk Mar 2015 #45

just dropped in to see Jane ridiculed and tossed under the bus. G_j Mar 2015 #67

And instead you found some people who disagreed with her, and some who agreed with her. HuckleB Mar 2015 #71

You are perhaps the meanest person I have ever met in DU ... Trajan Mar 2015 #163

Why? HuckleB Mar 2015 #188

+1 bazillion. nt laundry_queen Mar 2015 #197

It's interesting that you can't support your claims. HuckleB Mar 2015 #223

What claims? laundry_queen Mar 2015 #248

You haven't made any claims about GMOs, ever? HuckleB Mar 2015 #276

I didn't. Check my posts. I think it has been pretty civil but I do stand with Jane in a proper mmonk Mar 2015 #85

it's a good point G_j Mar 2015 #169

Dishonesty is never civil. HuckleB Mar 2015 #334

Right, because there's no middle ground. NuclearDem Mar 2015 #170

yes G_j Mar 2015 #172

Jane Goodall also believes in bigfoot and telepathic parrots Orrex Mar 2015 #116

If those are true, I need links. HuckleB Mar 2015 #125

I'll post them later this evening--not in a convenient place to do it right now Orrex Mar 2015 #140

link Rex Mar 2015 #147

Is NPR still considered a reliable source? Revanchist Mar 2015 #159

Here you go: Orrex Mar 2015 #204

I believe persons who may be incorrect in one subject are always incorrect in any subject. mmonk Mar 2015 #128

How about Goodall producing a consensus of science to support her claims on GMOs? HuckleB Mar 2015 #129

Nor have I have seen scientists for profit build theirs for GMO's. mmonk Mar 2015 #131

Your post doesn't make sense. HuckleB Mar 2015 #135

What is your specialty? is it in biology and genetics and DNA and RNA strands as well as mmonk Mar 2015 #138

You responded to yourself. HuckleB Mar 2015 #154

says the guy who posted the video moderated by a guy paid by the Kochs and various other ND-Dem Mar 2015 #238

Says the guy who can't argue with actual evidence of any kind. HuckleB Mar 2015 #277

Feel better after your little tantrum? Orrex Mar 2015 #139

Thank you all knowing god. I will throw away any contrary questions or evidences mmonk Mar 2015 #145

I imagine that you think your attempt at snark (or whatever that is) is clever. Orrex Mar 2015 #148

Well when I want a authority on GMO's, a anthropologist is not on the list. EX500rider Mar 2015 #150

I'm bowing out to tackle this issue another day. Yes, I know it looks like a nerd foodfight. mmonk Mar 2015 #157

So you can't answer the questions given to you. HuckleB Mar 2015 #158

You didn't look at my questions. But arrogant people never do. mmonk Mar 2015 #164

I've looked at your questions a million times. HuckleB Mar 2015 #181

Your citation doesn't include GMO safety as a "fact." immoderate Mar 2015 #201

Want a fact? The burden of proof should lie with those that tamper with a consummable product mmonk Mar 2015 #243

And that's why so much science has been done on GMOs. HuckleB Mar 2015 #278

Oh, well if she said so, it must be right, correct? X_Digger Mar 2015 #171

How can one argue with the writer of 'Seeds of Hope'? mathematic Mar 2015 #191

GMO's suck SoLeftIAmRight Mar 2015 #239

#36 of the Woo Woo Credo... SidDithers Mar 2015 #252

"You can't prove that what you don't know will hurt you. So eat whatever the fuck we trick you into GoneFishin Mar 2015 #251

All this over wanting labels on foods that are GMO...OH MY! Rex Mar 2015 #253

How Scare Tactics on GMO Foods Hurt Everybody HuckleB Mar 2015 #286

ouch - that hurts SoLeftIAmRight Mar 2015 #363

AAAS Scientists: Consensus on GMO Safety Firmer Than For Human-Induced Climate Change HuckleB Mar 2015 #291

First you quote an organization funded by the Kochs, now you quote Sense about Science. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #316

Can you find any inaccurate statements from Sense About Science? HuckleB Mar 2015 #317

Look, why should I pay any attention to non-scientific sources? The right-wing crap you're ND-Dem Mar 2015 #321

Why are you so dishonest? HuckleB Mar 2015 #323

Genera Database On Studies Re: GMOs. HuckleB Mar 2015 #295

GMOs are Social Darwinism on an industrial scale. DeSwiss Mar 2015 #320

You actually complained about people who passed chemistry and biology? HuckleB Mar 2015 #324

K & R nt mother earth Mar 2015 #333

Anti-science advocates are freaking out about Google truth rankings HuckleB Mar 2015 #336

To mention google and truth in the same sentence is a cruel joke. google is an intelligence ND-Dem Mar 2015 #376

You like to spread that propaganda far and wide. HuckleB Mar 2015 #379