Skip to main content

View Diary: GMO Free Idaho Pulls Out of March Against Monsanto (59 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So even when presented with dozens of peer (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Anne Elk, erush1345

    reviewed studies (which I directly linked you to) you refuse to believe that these studies exist.  You must be living in lala land.

    GMOs have been modified to be sprayed with a chemical that causes endocrine disruption and birth defects. They have been modified to express their own pesticide.
    Firstly if you don't want chemicals buy organic.

    Secondly, In the first instance the chemical itself hasn't been genetically modified.  Just the organism to resist these pesticides.  

    In the second instance, yes you can create a GM product to produce pesticides.  Heck you could theoretically create a GM product that produces cyanide gas.  But guess what?  You can smelt metals to create a nuclear bomb!  Does that mean we should ban the process of smelting?  Of course not.  That is silly.  The process of smelting metals is not what is in itself dangerous.  Just like the process of genetic modification itself is not dangerous, and there are dozens of scientific studies to back this up (which I posted a link to above).

    Just because a product is made through the GM process doesn't mean it has anything to do with pesticides.  Just like if you use smelting to make metal pieces for a car doesn't mean your car is going to cause a nuclear explosion.

    Many of the starving nations you speak of have banned it.
    Because of ignorant Luddites like you:
    http://www.slate.com/...
    •  Still wrong. (3+ / 0-)

      Monsanto's statement about human safety trials.

      http://www.monsanto.com/...

      The selling point of GMO crops was to reduce our pesticide usage. University of Washington Study shows an increase of over 420 million pounds of chemicals in 10 years. Those chemicals have consequences.

      GMOs that express their own pesticide do exist and they are in our food supply. It is BT crops.

      Sounds like you need to do some more research.

      •  Their website says gm products are (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        erush1345

        As safe as non-Gm foods.  I'm not clear what point you are trying to make.

        I know some gm products produce their own pesticides.  I addressed that alreafy.  But there are products made through smelting metals that can be used to make weapons of mass destruction.  Do you think we should ban the smelting of metals?  No because smelting metals produce a lot of good things also.  Just like not every organism produced through gm has anything to do with pesticides.  GM can produce a lot if good things as well.

        There is absolutely no safety hazard with the gm process itself.  There are dozens of peer reviewed studies to back this up.

        •  gras (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          enhydra lutris

          Generally regarded as safe and proven safe are two different things. Those peer re viewed studies did not prove human safety. They did not test human safety.
          Monsanto achieved the policy of substantial equivalence. This is how they avoided having human safety testing as a requirement. Substantially equivalent just means almost the same. Except one thing .... altered DNA and the introduction of a foreign species.
          With a change like that, consumers ought to be able to have the information and make their own decision at the point of purchase like they have in 62 other nations.

      •  There are pesticides and then there are pesticides (0+ / 0-)

        Replacing 2,4,D with glyphosate (Roundup) was a tremendous step forward in environmental protection. But, you know, given global warming is about to fuck humanity into the ground, who the heck cares really. GMO is just one more deck chair on the Titanic.

        For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life. - Albert Camus

        by Anne Elk on Mon May 06, 2013 at 10:02:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How ironic to quote Camus of all people (0+ / 0-)

          when one still has the moral choice to act even if the action is doomed to failure.

          Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

          by corvo on Wed May 08, 2013 at 03:22:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  starving nations (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Another Grizzle

      •    “We strongly object that the image of the poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant multinational corporations to push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly nor economically beneficial to us. We do not believe that such companies or gene technologies will help our farmers to produce the food that is needed in the 21st century. On the contrary, we think it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and the sustainable agricultural systems that our farmers have developed for millennia, and that it will thus undermine our capacity to feed ourselves.”

      – Statement signed by 24 delegates from 18 African countries to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, 1998

      •  That is a statement from 1998 (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MrAnon, erush1345

        And how many parent groups have come out against vaccines over the past decade?  Doesn't make them any less ignorant.

        Fact of the matter is the science is just not on your side.  I have presented you with dozens of scientific studies and you have presented me with none.

        The reason that a lot of people in Africa, Europe, and America are against GM is because they have been lied to by anti-science propagandists like yourself.  The vast majority of the scientific community is totally against everything you are saying.  And right now you are really hurting people by spreading this propaganda, and trying to make them believe that GM crops will harm them, which is totally baseless.

        There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food...

        Africa

        In 2002, Zambia refused emergency food aid from developed countries, fearing that the food is unsafe. During a conference in the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa, Kingsley Amoako, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), encouraged African nations to accept genetically modified food and expressed dissatisfaction in the public's negative opinion of biotechnology.[293]

        http://en.wikipedia.org/...
        •  american science? (0+ / 0-)

          First, there are a number of scientists opposed to GMOs for a variety of reasons. If you really want the links I will get them for you when I have access to my computer.

          Second I have not provided you with a link to human safety trials because THEY HAVEN'T BEEN DONE!

          third, are you suggesting that scientists in 62 nations have determined there is enough to worry about that they have banned or require labeling? Really, 62 other nations which include almost every first world nation.... they are all delusional conspiracy theorist, anti science who are under the spell of people like me? Hahahahahahah. OK.

          Fourth, corporate sponsored scientists approve of gmo. Corporate sponsored scientists deny climate change. Are you so "pro science" that you cannot investigate further into funding behind them? I am a huge supporter of science.
          Your rules are basically this... American scientists who support American corporate goals are the legitimate science. All other science from the rest of the first world and beyond are wrong and delusional.

          •  You sound a lot like anti-climate change nuts (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MrAnon, erush1345

            The way science works is you don't cherry pick the scientists who agree with you.  That is confirmation bias.  You have to look at the overall preponderance of evidence, which is decidedly against your position .

            And no there isn't a secret cabal if scientists cooking the numbers.  That is conspiracy theory non sense.  There are tons of INDEPENDENT research against your position.

            Now when someone tells me they are anti GM I immediately think they are as crazy and ignorant as the anti-climate science nuts.

            •  The way science works (0+ / 0-)

              How can you claim to be such a lover of science and then hold fast at true to one notion?
              Here is how science works. Science changes with new information. This technology is new. It has only been in our food since 1996. There have been no long term human safety studies done. this is because the industries lobbying dollars successfully craft policies that eliminate requirements. It isn't conspiracy. It isn't loony. The FDA scientists did recommend further study but were over ruled by this policy.

              New information is showing there are all sorts of problems with GMOS not related to human safety. Do I think it is harmful to human health? I have no idea. Do I think people who buy the food should get to have the information? ABSOLUTELY.

              As these crops have continued to be planted, new problems have developed. Science is not absolute on the safety of GMOs. That is too broad. There are too many different aspects of GMOs. Here is some reading for you. If, as a lover of science, you are absorb new information.

              From Perdue University

              http://www1.umn.edu/...

              http://www.extension.purdue.edu/...

              Washington State University

              http://news.cahnrs.wsu.edu/...

              Hillary Clinton’s Senior Advisory on Biotech concedes GMOs are riskier than other technology:
              http://www.fwi.co.uk/...

              Industry prevents research:
              http://www.scientificamerican.com/...

              http://www.usgs.gov/...

              You can credit something with your steadfast position, but please don't credit love of science. Science knows it can change with new information. That is what is so great about science. Especially clean, independent science.

              Do you grow GMO crops or work for the industry in some way? I am just curious.

              Do you think GMO foods should be labeled in the US like they are in 62 other countries including China, Syria and Saudi Arabia? Or do you think Americans should just let corporations decide what consumers should and should not know about our food?

              •  A lot of those links aren't scientific studies (0+ / 0-)

                And the couple that are don't say anything about the negative health effects of genetic modification.

                On a separate point, if you want chemical free products just buy organic.  The fact that a product is GM doesn't necessarily mean it has chemicals on it.  I don't think you understand this concept.

          •  And I have never seen anywhere (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MrAnon, erush1345

            Where European scientists are against gm.  Maybe you can back up this claim?

            •  He's probably referring to the Seralini study (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              erush1345, Obamalover20122

              Which has been thoroughly debunked.

              Republicans are far more socialist than Democrats. Just because they want to redistribute the wealth upwards does not make it any better.

              by MrAnon on Tue May 07, 2013 at 08:31:27 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, I am not (0+ / 0-)

                I am aware of the Seralini study and I do not consider it clean science. It needs to be independent and Seralini is opposed to GMOs.
                That said, one of the criticisms of this study is that the rats they used were predisposed to tumors. I would say two things on this point:
                1. Some humans are also predisposed to tumors.
                2. They are the same breed of rats Monsanto used in their studies on animals. Seralini just used them for lifetime instead of a short two week study.

              •  Debunked my ass. All Seralini did was to take (0+ / 0-)

                the same criteria Monsanto had used and pushed it to the lifetime of the rats.

                If the criteria were flawed, it was because Monsanto chose them and the original study cut off point. They probably already know what happens when the study goes longer and are hiding the fact.

                GMO products, and glyphosate specifically are asbestos/tobacco type class action law suits waiting to happen.

                Watch for it. It's just a matter of time, and unfortunately human suffering.

                The science around human health (as opposed to the science of GE) will catch up to Monsanto.

                So no one here is anti science, just anti dangerous, careless and unregulated science.

                Physics is bulls**t. Don't let them fool you. Fire IS magic.
                (Facts brought to you by the Party of the Future - the GOP)

                by Pescadero Bill on Wed May 08, 2013 at 07:00:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Europe (0+ / 0-)

              They appear to have some rigorous standards on which they base their policy.

              http://www.efsa.europa.eu/...

      •  They are saying that because they are worried (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Obamalover20122

        that rich Europeans won't buy their crops; that's all.

        For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life. - Albert Camus

        by Anne Elk on Mon May 06, 2013 at 10:04:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  lots of issues (0+ / 0-)

          They are saying that for many reasons. Read their statement. Agricultural diversity, patent laws, economics of being beholden to contracts you must purchase every year, loss of their own time tested practices and more. And yes, exporting should be a major concern. It has been for us. We have lost export relationships due to gmo. Our corporations run to the WTO to bully other countries into accepting products they don't want with trade sanctions as a threat.

          Free market anyone?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site