Skip to main content

In 49 countries around the world, including all of Europe, people have the opportunity of knowing whether or not they are eating food which contains genetically engineered ingredients. In the United States, we don't. That is why I have introduced, along with Sen. Barbara Boxer, an amendment to the agriculture bill which will give states the right to require labels on food products which are genetically engineered.

All over this country people are becoming more conscious about the foods they eat and serve their kids. When a mother goes to the store and purchases food for her child, she has the right to know what she is feeding her family.

Poll after poll during the past decade showed that nine out of 10 Americans agree that food with genetically engineered ingredients should say so on the label.

Almost 1 million Californians signed a petition to get labeling of genetically engineered food on this November's ballot. They want the right to know what is in their foods.

Vermont state legislators this year tried to pass a bill that would have required foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients to disclose that information on the label. There was a huge public response. The Vermont House Agriculture Committee heard from 111 witnesses in favor of the bill. Hundreds more showed up at the Statehouse to show their support.

Of course, there are those who disagree. Monsanto, one of the world's leading producers of genetically engineered foods, doesn't like the idea. It is also the world's largest producer of the herbicide Roundup as well as so-called "Roundup-ready" seeds that have been genetically engineered to resist the pesticide. So, once it seemed like the bill was headed for passage, Monsanto threatened to sue. The strong-arm tactic worked. Despite passing out of the House Agriculture Committee by a vote of 9 to 1, the bill went nowhere.

This week in The United States Senate we have an opportunity to affirm the right of California and Vermont and all states to label food that contains genetically engineered ingredients. Simply put, this amendment gives people the right to know. It says that a state, if its Legislature so chooses, may require that any food or beverage containing a genetically engineered ingredient offered for sale in that state have a label that says so.

The amendment also requires that the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and secretary of U.S. Department of Agriculture to report to Congress within two years on the percentage of food and beverages in the United States that contain genetically engineered ingredients.

There are strong precedents for labeling. The FDA already requires the labeling of over 3,000 ingredients, additives, and processes. If you want to know if your food contains gluten, aspartame, high fructose corn syrup, trans-fats or MSG, you simply read the ingredients listed on the label. The FDA also requires labeling for major food allergens such as peanuts, wheat, shellfish and others.

Unlike people in the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Ireland, Australia, South Korea, Japan, Brazil, China, Russia, New Zealand and other countries where labels are required, Americans don't know if the food they eat has been genetically altered.

There was concern among scientists at the FDA in the 1990s that genetically engineered foods could have new and different risks such as hidden allergens, increased plant-toxin levels and the potential to hasten the spread of antibiotic-resistant disease. Those concerns were largely brushed aside. Today, unanswered questions remain. In the United States, resolutions calling for labeling of genetically engineered foods were passed by the American Public Health Association and the American Nurses Association. In Canada, a landmark independent study by Canadian doctors published in the peer-reviewed journal Reproductive Toxicology found that toxin from soil bacterium engineered into corn to kill pests was present in the bloodstream of 93 percent of pregnant women. There is a great need for additional research because there have never been mandatory human clinical trials of genetically engineered crops, no tests for carcinogenicity or harm to fetuses, no long-term testing for human health risks, no requirement for long-term testing on animals, and only limited allergy testing. What this means is that, for all intents and purposes, the long-term health study of genetically engineered food is being done on all of the American people.

The Consumers Right to Know about Genetically Engineered Food Amendment is about allowing states to honor the wishes of their residents and allowing consumers to know what they're eating. Americans want this information. It is time that Congress affirms the right of states to give it to them.

Originally posted to Senator Bernie Sanders on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 03:39 PM PDT.

Also republished by The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party and These Green Mountains.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (131+ / 0-)

    Bernie Sanders was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006 after serving 16 years in the House of Representatives. He is the longest serving independent member of Congress in American history.

    by Senator Bernie Sanders on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 03:39:40 PM PDT

  •  Excellent news (20+ / 0-)

    any chance of addressing other practices such as making ingredient lists a certain minimum size i.e. legible by someone with normal or even slightly below normal eyesight and stopping for once and for all the practice of renaming ingredients to make them look more benign than they actually are.

  •  I respectfully disagree (9+ / 0-)

    I think we should follow the science on this and not let groups use scare tactics to move their agenda forward.

    No harm has been shown to come from genetically modified organisms. We've been hybridizing plants and animals for centuries. Should we label every product in the grocery store that has been hybridized because that's pretty much all of them.

    This is not environmentalism or consumer safety. This is junk science.

      •  Yes (7+ / 0-)

        The Anti-GMO hystaria in Europe was spearheaded by the manufacturers of other herbicides, ones with demonstrable harmful effects on humans and documented direct farmworker deaths - a far cry from the "we just can't KNOW" appeals to ignorance of anti-GMO organizations.

        Those who ignore the future are condemned to repeat it.

        by enigmamf on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 04:13:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Would you mind sourcing the allegation (15+ / 0-)

          of herbicide manufacturer involvement in the anti-GMO effort in Europe, for the thread's benefit?

          "And now we know that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob." -- FDR

          by Mogolori on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 04:22:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  pure hogwash. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gerrilea, victoria2dc, sockpuppet

            Romney - his fingernails have never been anything but manicured.

            by Pescadero Bill on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 05:04:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm asking for a link, not challenging, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sockpuppet, gerrilea

              just to be clear.

              "And now we know that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob." -- FDR

              by Mogolori on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 05:06:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I would like to know the source of that as well, (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sockpuppet, JesseCW, hnichols

                assuming it's not just an urban myth - as I suspect it is.

                Let the superstitious sorts make up the stories.  I have always said those who think GMO's might make you grow two heads could use one that works.

                Best,  Terry

                •  I personally am not afraid of GMO foods (7+ / 0-)

                  but I do think they should be labelled as such to allow people to make informed choices if they have concerns or simply choose  to avoid them.  Hard to see why one would object  that.

                  •  "Hard to see why one would object to labeling." (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    hnichols

                    Not hard at all.

                    It will raise the cost of groceries for no other reason than superstition.

                    You might as well require labels for garlic that is found to be more less able to repel vampires.

                    Best,  Terry

                    •  So? (9+ / 0-)

                      There is no scientific reason to avoid all animal products, but those who object for religious or ethical reasons have every right to know when they are  an ingredient in foodstuffs that are not obvious.  Who cares if there is a market impact for some corporations?

                    •  Also, though there is much unfounded (0+ / 0-)

                      hyperbole on this subject, any and all concerns as "superstition" as if there zero that could ever be valid under any circumstances is unreasonable.

                      •  One fellow posting is allergic to corn (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        bythesea, slinkerwink

                        Do you have any idea how gawdawful that would be?

                        A friend was allergic to legumes.

                        That is almost as bad.

                        Your never ever is as fanciful as the "lived happily ever after" of fairy tales.

                        Of course GMO's could be poisonous.

                        Many foods are now.

                        The only ones that must run a gauntlet of tests before marketing are GMO's.

                        Best,  Terry

                        •  Thanks, your language choices (0+ / 0-)

                          made me think you were absolutist.  Glad to be wrong.

                        •  There is no gauntlet of tests for (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          gerrilea

                          GMO's.

                          They're presumed safe.

                          “The administration should be worried about the level of despair here.” ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

                          by JesseCW on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:55:39 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Is So (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            hnichols, Hopeful Skeptic

                            Shame on you.  I recognize you as a generally responsible poster but it is not true this time.  Why must you and others join in the hysteria?

                            I could not copy and paste from this .pdf file but it does give a detailed description of safety testing by the Department of Agriculture.

                            If you or Sen. Sanders really gave a damn about safety rather than contemporary hystria, you would want to label corn when it is grown under drought conditions in the Midwest.

                            Drought conditions in the Midwest produce a small but noticeable rise in stomach cancer in Mexico from aflatoxin.

                            A real concern for the threat of bioengineering would be in the bioengineering of microbes for germ warfare or such as cancer research but then that would probably cost even more lives than screaming about GMO's.

                            Best,  Terry

                          •  Wow, did you read your PDF LINK???? (0+ / 0-)

                            Risk assessment is not science, the measurement of probabilities is not testing to see if you put a into b, will b be harmed.

                            The same BS that our FDA claims with their GRAS labeling.

                            Well, it's "Generally Recognized As Safe", so since we didn't, won't or can't test this, we'll just say it's okay!

                            Safety, false claims and bullshit aside...this isn't about anything other than knowing what's in the food we eat that DOESN'T OCCUR NATURALLY.

                            Food tampering is illegal and GMO's amount to this criminal act.

                            http://www.fda.gov/...

                            Federal Anti-Tampering Act
                            U.S.C. TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
                            PART I - CRIMES
                            CHAPTER 65 - MALICIOUS MISCHIEF

                            (b) Whoever, with intent to cause serious injury to the business of any person, taints any consumer product or renders materially false or misleading the labeling of, or container for, a consumer product, if such consumer product affects interstate or foreign commerce, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 07:01:06 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "Risk assessment is not science" Always has been. (0+ / 0-)

                            I don't think I want to know about your new science that doesn't bother with the old science but relies on imagination, hysteria, superstition and bullshit.

                            I am old-fashioned you see and a liberal to boot.  Not taken with your new science.

                            Best,   Terry

                          •  Risk assessment is not scientific method, where (0+ / 0-)

                            one tests, gets results, tests again, gets results AND tests again, gets results.

                            Double-blind studies that test a product (in it's final consumer form) to see if there are side-effects, both good and bad.

                            American's have been mislead to believe that "risk assessment" equals scientific testing.

                            Risk assessment rarely actually tests a product, especially true at the FDA.

                            It goes like this: If ingredient "A" is non-toxic and it's combined with ingredient "B" through process "C", the resulting finished product "X" is "Generally Recognized As Safe."

                            Since product "X" has not been tested in a real-world setting, there's no proof it's safe, just a created label claiming it is.

                            The history of how "risk assessment" replaced scientific testing has been hidden from the public to protect the profits of political donors.

                            If and when testing is actually done, that the testing is done and funded by the companies pushing for said new product.  Companies rarely, if ever, allow independent testing of their products.  We can only take their word that the testing done was actually based on sound scientific methodology.  

                            Peer review was intended to catch "problems" but we've witnessed over the past 20+ yrs a "rubber stamping" of those "studies" done by industry connected individuals and/or corporations.

                            So, that said: Show me the tests! Show me the double or triple blind independent studies!

                            And BTW, the only "imagination, hysteria, superstition and bullshit" occurring here is when someone tells me they are liberal and imply I'm not because I demand actual scientific proof.

                            Insulting.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:34:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Did you skip math and science in school? (0+ / 0-)

                            It's fine if you took art appreciation or ballroom dancing or whatever in school but they are not helpful at all in judging technology.

                            All testing is done by sampling with some few exceptions.

                            Using equivalence is hardly unknown.

                            You ask for the impossible to prove that all GMO's be shown to be safe in all imaginable cases when no food of any kind or any thing else can meet such a standard.

                            Didn't you ever consider that it might be incumbent on you to show harm?

                            Nearly every food you consume unless you are hermit living in a forest eating only wild food is genetically modified for better or worse.  

                            Sometimes indeed for worse.

                            Bioengineering might even help with that "worse" if given a chance.

                            Show your evidence and then we can talk.

                            Best,  Terry

                          •  It is not my responsibility to prove something (0+ / 0-)

                            company x, y or z wants to sell to me is bad or harmful...It is their duty to prove it won't be.

                            And for the record, the evidence has been presented throughout this diary that GMO's are bad.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:33:19 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There has been zip, zero, nada, no evidence (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            SpeedyGonzales

                            that bioengineering is an evil in itself and a mass of evidence that the reverse is true.

                            Sure harmful plants could be bioengineered but so can beneficial ones.  The only ones you truly hinder are the good ones.

                            Superstition and kooky nonsense reign.

                            A peanut that might end most or all tragic deaths, mainly children, from peanuts has not gotten to market because of the huge obstacles placed in its way but no one objects to bioengineering of microbes that present a truly dreadful threat.

                            I was sure you would have no answer and take no responsibility for the harm you do.

                            How can lefties rail against the rightwing kooks denying global warming when they themselves aid the terrible threat to the planet?

                            I doubt I need to spell it out for you.

                            Best,  Terry

                          •  You are full of shit. (0+ / 0-)

                            If you continue this abusive personal attacks, I will report the behavior.

                            This is not about bioengineering or if it could be beneficial.  Anything "could be".  What has been proven thus far is that the GMO's that have been touted by Monsanto ARE NOT SAFE, period.

                            THIS ISN'T about the the children hon, it's about the destruction of every species on this planet that has survived through billions of years of evolutionary success.

                            You must take responsibility for your support of the destruction of our natural bio-diversity.  We've witnessed the genetic mutation of planets, flora, fauna and the killing of beneficial soil bacteria in our National Forests that is not slowing down but spreading.  

                            I now can conclusively state that your position, scratch that, your propaganda....IS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY AND NATURE.

                            Irresponsible genetic manipulation, promotion and implementation is destroying our ability to survive, this a crime against us all.  Your feeble false equivalencies will not work.

                            You need to find some other topic that you might actually know something about and stop the lying and the immature attempts at bullying those of us that have actually researched this and know the proven damage and dangers that have ALREADY OCCURRED.

                             

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 04:29:00 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Write to your government. (0+ / 0-)
                            Show me the tests! Show me the double or triple blind independent studies!
                            To the Department of Agriculture, to your senators, or representative or President if you wish.

                            They are the ones who are responsible for assuring the safety of food and all other products.

                            If they are not doing their job, then get on their case.

                            Fantasizing is not one of those things that is most admired except among the misinformed and uninformed.

                            As you know many GMO's have been kept off the market...

                            You do not know you say?

                            How is it you do not know?

                            Weren't you paying attention?

                            It is helpful to pay attention.

                            Some foods, like the deformed shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico, shouldn't be on the market.  There is no shortage whatever of evidence that ingesting petroleum and other chemicals poured into the Gulf is harmful.  

                            Yet you want to ban foods that have never been shown to be harmful.

                            Why?

                            Best,  Terry

                    •  Then why have labelling of (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Odysseus, JesseCW

                      ingredients at all?

                      I am not afraid of GMO foods, and would eat them without hesitation, but not everyone is like me (thank goodness!), and I respect that the food that you eat is for many an extremely personal choice.  Much of what surrounds these products is extreme hype from people who live fearful lives inho.

                      But it's like forbidding people from knowing that milk is rbst free.

                      The purpose of hiding this information is to fool people into buying your product.

                      I don't think that is either a liberal nor a free-market position to take.

                    •  No it wouldn't. You can still buy pink slime (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      gerrilea

                      and call it hamburger if you want - I just don't have to, because retailers now offer ground beef with a promise that no such garbage is in it.

                      You might as well say that allowing the sale of products certified Organic is raising the cost of food for everyone.

                      It's not.

                      “The administration should be worried about the level of despair here.” ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

                      by JesseCW on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:54:42 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Now you deny basic economics like the human robot (0+ / 0-)

                        Romney.

                        You might as well say that allowing the sale of products certified Organic is raising the cost of food for everyone.

                        It's not.

                        Of course it is.  Variety is not cost free.  Shelf space has cost.

                        I got a perverted chuckle once out of people buying contaminated bottled water.  [Slap myself for meanness.]  

                        For sure some drinking water is not safe and I sympathize with those seeking a remedy but commercial bottlers are not always looking out for their customers.

                        Best,  Terry

                        •  Insult word salad! Yay! (0+ / 0-)

                          What a wonderful substitute for actual argument!

                          Shelf space certainly does have a cost - to a corporate bottom line.  

                          Poor shareholders.

                          “The administration should be worried about the level of despair here.” ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

                          by JesseCW on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:27:39 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Poor Shareholders??? (0+ / 0-)

                            You, sir, pay the costs.

                            If the supermarkets were banks, you could get hit two or three times.

                            At least until now, you pick up the tab.

                            Just the facts of life.  You are insulted by facts?  Ummmm.  Don't know what to say.

                            Best,  Terry

          •  Not a primary source (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mogolori, Odysseus, rcbowman

            First, to be more specific, an instructor of a class at UC San Diego stated that Bayer and BASF disingenuously funded Greenpeace's early efforts to oppose GMOs. (I listened to a podcast of the lecture, but no longer have the files). It's an easy claim to accept on its face because of the readily apparent economic motivations at a time when they were behind the curve on bioengineering, along with the known and well quantified hazards to humans of many pesticides and herbicides produced by those corporations. Of course that doesn't make it true, and I don't know what (if any) primary sources there are to that effect.

            It was a class about biofuels from Spring 2011, and was a bit of an aside to the start of a lecture about the potential of genetically modified organisms for biofuels, sources of genes, methods of transfer, etc. Clearly, he has a personal bias that much of the opposition to current commercially-sold GMO crops is based on unfounded and anti-intellectual arguments, as do I.

            Unfortunately, the results for any searches I tried regarding GMO and Bayer/BASF almost entirely comprise fairly current articles about Bayer/BASF's own GMO research projects. I should probably look into this further before repeating the claim again.

            Those who ignore the future are condemned to repeat it.

            by enigmamf on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 07:43:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks for that backgrounder. (0+ / 0-)

              I agree it does seem plausible, but it's a charge I couldn't remember reading about.

              "And now we know that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob." -- FDR

              by Mogolori on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 08:13:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Why are you against testing GMO (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea

          crops?

          No one is saying "we just can't KNOW".  We're saying "we just don't know".

          There's a big difference.

          “The administration should be worried about the level of despair here.” ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

          by JesseCW on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:53:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  We'll probably end up with packaging like we (14+ / 0-)

      see on milk. "This product does not contain rBGH. Studies have shown there is no harm or risk associated with rBGH." That'll be on everything that doesn't have a known GMO in it. This is junk science, when the left bemoans global warming denial or vaxxers we need to look at our own house. Just because it's "Big Corn" doesn't automatically make it evil. Yes, Monsanto are assholes and have rigged courts across the US to rule in their favor. But there is no evidence that GMO foods cause any harm. Of course there is little evidence they do any good, either. If we want to complain we should focus on the real problem, their influence on government and reliance on subsidies to make billions on the backs of the taxpayers.

      All my sig lines are hand-crafted by demented elves living in my skull.

      by ontheleftcoast on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 03:55:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am about sick and tired (17+ / 0-)

        of being told that I shouldn't care if my food is GMO. Oh yes, I should just trust Monsanto's scientists and studies (noooo they couldn't possibly be rigged) and go ahead and eat my corn.

        So to all of you Monsanto apologists, fuck you. Yeah.

        The right to KNOW is all that is being asked for here. Get over it.

        While many minority groups are the target for discrimination, few face this hostility without the support and acceptance of their family as do many glbt youth.

        by azrefugee on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 04:35:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Get a girlfriend or boyfriend or both according (2+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          Catesby, hnichols
          Hidden by:
          happymisanthropy

          to your taste, if you can.

          So to all of you Monsanto apologists, fuck you. Yeah.
          I haven't read anyone here that has love of Monsanto.  

          Oh and, no, I don't want your love either.  Surely there must be someone.  The world is full of superstitious, science-hating people like yourself.

          Best, Terry

          •  Whoa, what? (0+ / 0-)

            Kinda tempted to HR this comment...  what does the OP's relationship status have to do with this discussion?  I may disagree with them, but that seems like a total nonsequitor and totally out of line.

            •  The comment from azrefugee was pretty (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              hnichols

              blatant. I have no love for Monsanto, I said so quite clearly. Or perhaps you think

              Yes, Monsanto are assholes

              means I'm an apologist? What I'm defending is science. I'm not thrilled it's being used this way but the science here isn't Frankenstein's monster. It's not even two-headed turtles. It's genetics, which clearly most people in this diary don't understand beyond what they were taught in 8th grade science class. But the commentor not only called me a Monstanto apologist but they added the extra "fuck you" for good measure. But since they clearly don't know shit from shinola when it comes to science I just brushed it off as something else they don't know much about. However, while terryhallinan didn't need to drag the relationship line into it if you're looking for someplace to drop an HR the "fuck you" deserves it far more.

              All my sig lines are hand-crafted by demented elves living in my skull.

              by ontheleftcoast on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 06:05:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Science isn't being attacked here. Public policy (7+ / 0-)

                regarding free-for-all capitalism, monopolies, and accelerated genetic drift are the issues, clearly.
                And yes, the Monsanto BoD is just as clearly top heavy with assholes.

              •  A non-stop Argument from Authority fallacy (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gerrilea

                doesn't actually add up to a valid argument simply because you keep at it long enough.

                “The administration should be worried about the level of despair here.” ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

                by JesseCW on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:00:38 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Read the comment history again and then (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  hnichols, rockhound, Hopeful Skeptic

                  get back to me. I made exactly one comment about GMO. And for that I got called a Monsanto apologist and told to fuck off. Wow. The mistake I made was thinking actual knowledge about genetics would have any bearing on a discussion about genetics. Apparently that's a big no-no.

                  All my sig lines are hand-crafted by demented elves living in my skull.

                  by ontheleftcoast on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 02:43:52 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So, you're just going to keep going with (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    gerrilea

                    the Pity Party after launching insult after insult about how everyone who disagrees with you is some slobbering dull-witted anti-vaxxer?

                    The mistake I made was thinking actual knowledge about genetics would have any bearing on a discussion about genetics.
                    This is exactly what I'm talking about.   Do you know what an Argument from Authority is?

                    “The administration should be worried about the level of despair here.” ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

                    by JesseCW on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 03:40:13 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Do what you think best. (1+ / 1-)
              Recommended by:
              Hopeful Skeptic
              Hidden by:
              happymisanthropy

              The poster was the one inviting fucking.

              I don't want to fuck with him/her and I daresay few here do.

              Best,  Terry

            •  Since I don't "know" you and I do know and (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sockpuppet, gerrilea, Emmy

              respect Senator Sanders, I'll believe him over anyone else any day.

          •  Calling me (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            happymisanthropy, sockpuppet, JesseCW

            anti science and superstitious is ridiculous. I appreciate the contributions of science but I shouldn't need a degree in it to know that my food is safe.

            While many minority groups are the target for discrimination, few face this hostility without the support and acceptance of their family as do many glbt youth.

            by azrefugee on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 06:47:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Uprating this comment, only (0+ / 0-)

            because it ties into my comment that food is the most personal decision people make aside from sexual relationships.

            And you seem to pull that in from a different angle.

            I am a major lover of science, a dairy farmer, and not afraid of GMO, but I think people have the right to know.  I am anti-organic because I find it cruel.

            I do believe in an educated consumer.  And we are never going to have an educated consumer if they are forbidden from knowing what they want to know, however misguided we may personally find it to be.

        •  The issue is do consumers have the right to know? (11+ / 0-)

          Not whether GMO is good science.

          Victims of bigotry are the poorest, least influential members of society.......never the wealthiest, most educated, most overrepresented in high levels, and most influential. Bigotry hurts the least influential. To claim or say otherwise is absurd.

          by dailykozzer on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 06:11:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Initially, there was no evidence DDT did any harm (16+ / 0-)

        either. Initially.

        And with GM mutations, the potential effects have much deeper ramifications if it is ever shown. There's no putting that genie back in the test tube.

        Besides, we're talking about the right for people to know. Like a basic human right to know what goes in the food manufacturers are trying to sell you and your family.

        Romney - his fingernails have never been anything but manicured.

        by Pescadero Bill on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 05:08:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You know what, this is only a problem (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea

          of the rich of the world, those who go to bed each night not having to worry if they or their child is going to starve tomorrow.

          It is a problem of the elite, and not one experienced by many in this world.  It's not something I personally find of a pressing concern, and the science so far backs me up.

          But you have every right to disagree, and you have EVERY right to know what is going into your body.

      •  Food is probably the most personal (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gerrilea

        choice people can make after their sexual partner.

        I don't see the harm in people making their own decisions based on poor science or 'superstition'.  After all, the medical community has made enough of those mistakes themselves (margarine, anyone?)

        People buy the food they buy based on color, upbringing, price, all kinds of things that bear little relation to actual nutrition.

        Let them do so.

    •  Agent Orange in your food...no worries, no label (11+ / 0-)

      for you to know anything.

      Sorry, I and millions of others are NOT mushrooms!  We have eaten enough s@it lately as it is...

      We had success shutting down the pink slime plants - GMO products are next.

      Count on it.

    •  Not junk science. And the conflation of "centuries (23+ / 0-)

      of plant hybridization" with the likes of Monsanto's labs fairly well approaches junk reasoning.

      •  Yep. there is a big difference putting chemical (11+ / 0-)

        producing genes right into food. When I start bleeding from sores on my head/belly or from my gut and suffer painful scraped feeling blisters on my skin I want to know if it was my simple meal of hamburger patty and corn on the cob. I want to know if maybe I can eat non-GMO corn but all these people who tell us it is junk science are not going to allow any data to be collated to prove thier no harm claims. I grew up on farms and loved corn but now just a teaspoon of corn products makes my skin turn red with tiny very itchy bumps... more makes holes open up and my gut to bleed... more makes me have difficulty breathing. Oh yeah according to them I should shut up and eat it because  its not GMOs but how would we know that if we don't know if what we ate was. When I am lying in a pool of blood it will probably be my imagination.

        Reminds me of those invested in DDT saying it was harmless to humans as they sprayed children playing in the street. I am sure the scientist entrepeneurs of that time mocked those whos children developed health issues. In fact, there are chemical companies who have set communities on people who are suffering from thier products because jobs are on the line.

        They can call it whatever they want and make all the claims of 'no harm' without actual real field data just thier profit making investment in the product.  But I won't buy anything to eat any more unless I know what it is. I will either grow it myself or buy it from a country that doesn't allow GMOs to be sold unlabeled.

        Proud Slut...Fear is the Mind Killer

        by boophus on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 04:37:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You do know don't you that many common foods (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Hopeful Skeptic, Hyuga, Utahrd, rcbowman

          contain poisons, not to mention widespread allergies to many foods?

          Apples are just one example.  The seeds, stems, branches contain arsenic.

          A friend became allergic to legumes.  He wasn't always.  I guess corn allergy is even worse but what makes you think bioengineering caused your problem in any way?

          In fact a peanut has been produced by bioengineering that could lick most of the peanut allergies of kids mostly but it may never get to market.

          How many dead kids do you wish to sacrifice to superstition?

          Domestic crops and livestock are vastly different from their ancestors.

          Should we only eat foods we can hunt and gather in the world?

          It is really sad to see Bernie Sanders carrying the torch of superstition and ignorance against science like a Sarah Palin claiming dinosaurs are just funny-looking horses hiding in caves.

          But I guess even Sen. Sanders isn't perfect.

          About as close as you can get though.

          Best,  Terry

          •  You need to do your homework. (8+ / 0-)

            Your argument is common among industry pushers of this crap.

            "There are things in nature that are harmful too"

            Nice strawman.

            Vote Democrat! Because drinking piss is better than eating shit...

            by Tirge Caps on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 05:54:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Let me see if I can follow your strange logic (0+ / 0-)

              If an industry flack says something, I dare not say the same thing?

              Or what?

              Now could you possibly try to explain your strange delusion about GMO's when you eat them every day?

              Best,  Terry

              •  You are having a hard time following logic (0+ / 0-)

                And you aren't making any sense.

                I don't eat GMOS and I don't drink rBGH milk products.

                If you do, that might explain your suffering logic.

                Vote Democrat! Because drinking piss is better than eating shit...

                by Tirge Caps on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 06:41:09 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Do So (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Utahrd
                  I don't eat GMOS
                  Nearly all the foods we eat are vastly different than their ancestors.  Like our dogs, some are no longer even the same species as their wild ancestors.

                  A friend from Peru used to talk about hacking his way through the jungle vines with tiny sour fruits that were the ancestors of our tomatoes.

                  Your superstition is no more logical than belief in vampires and werewolves.  Less so even.  Vampire bats are quite real, quite unpleasant and can transmit a special kind of rabies.

                  Enjoy your dungeon.  It is all your imagination.

                  Best,  Terry

          •  Actually I had run-ins with corn in an external (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gerrilea, slinkerwink

            product that ate through my skin. It said talc and after holes opened up I read corn starch on label. I dismissed it until other products that only shared corn starch were affecting me. I still did not realize how many products corn is in. I have been resisting abandoning corn and corn products for nearly 5 years though I quit eating corn or corn meal. Every time symptoms appeared and I checked the ingredients in the products I ate ... Bang there was corn... THe symptoms this last time was huge and now I can not tolerate even a tiny amount. My husband rubbed lotion on my back without reading the label just this week and it blistered and burned and then bled. It had corn starch in it. Is it the corn starch or is there another chemical coming with the starch or the oil  or the silk or the sugar or the syrup or the meal or the grain??? I don't know Is it GMO, I don't know. But believe I am taking as little chances as possible. I am not gonna die for corn even though I love it. So if it is GMO I would like to know so I can still eat corn. HOW will I know without labels.

            You keep making leaps to claims of junk science and assuming I want to go back to hunter gatherer or a peanut that would help children with peanut allergies is a bad thing in my mind. I didn't know that mind reading was that easy at a distance. And I really would like to stop at a bakery occassionally and eat a donut and not have my belly swell hugely, get rashes, burning skin, blood blisters, etc. Yet when I make them at home without any corn products nothing happens.

            I am saying label it so that correlations can be made. I DO NOT trust those who make a profit to decide what is best for me. If I start crapping blood I want to associate with something I ate to avoid the pain and potential death. But for some reason you are very defensive against it.  How can one correlate what happens if one doesn't know what they eaten.

            Do I know it is GMOs? No but I do have lots of experience with any corn product causing symptoms and that lines up with 90% of corn being GMO. It would be clearer if I knew whether it was GMO and whether the added genes produce a particular chemical that is the offender. But NO can't have that... You are basically saying that some GMO peanut may save children and that is a good thing . How will we know if NO labels let people know so when problems arise data can be accumulated. Tthere are now 10 million people in this country who have reaction to corn. Are they disposable and how much will thier suffering and treatment cost the health care system.

            Tobacco at one time was consider medicinal... Despite Drs and despite users the industry fought back. It was only actual statistical studies of users and laboratory studies that exposed the salesmens tactics. Now I understand that MSG was at one time thought to be the source of headaches and a few studies now claim that isn't so. I have not been able to find any info on whether those studies were done by MSG manufacturers or were subsidized by them through grants. I don't personally have a problem with MSG because i make a lot of stuff from scratch.

            Anyway I am well aware of reactions. When I had a biopsy they used betadine at the site... The next day the skin began falling off in chunks... Metals that contain nickel dissolve my skin even faster ... It takes about 5 to 30 minutes... So I don't wear jewelry....I have no idea why I am so reative but it may come from years of working as a chemist. I need the data that labels give to know what to avoid so that I can enjoy the products that really have no effect on me at all.

            Proud Slut...Fear is the Mind Killer

            by boophus on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 06:04:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Many here, maybe most, can tell you about their (0+ / 0-)

              allergies.

              I can.

              I can even tell you a strange story about non-allergy.

              I spent one summer working around poison ivy.  I knew of none of the work crew that had a problem except one fellow that had his wife wash his work clothes with her and kids clothes.  And all suffered mightily.

              And then a friend I worked with told me the next summer the hillside had the brush burned off that included poison ivy and everybody got poisoned.

              None of this has anything to do with GMO's with the possible exception of hybrids that are quite common without genetic engineering.

              I have already said I know of the terrible allergy you have and can only sympathize.  

              Once again, nothing to do with GMO's that anyone has ever shown.

              In fact, GMO's could be an answer to your problem if scientists were encouraged to work on it.

              Best,  Terry

              •  You just acccept without data on the real (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gerrilea

                impact on people that it isn't GMOs. I simply do not accept that there is data to be trusted form those who derive commercial benefit. I want labeling so that the real world use can provide trustworthy data and the only data that is actually valuable.

                Labeling it provides the opportunity to do that. Without we are handcuffed and blindfolded and dependent on experts who have a vested interest.

                GMOs may be valuable. They certainly are to companies that created them and have the courts giving them the right to charge people who accidently have crops contaminated. For all the talk of the value for feeding the world it is dependent upon those companies getting thier profit.

                Label it if there is nothing wrong with it, so the statistical studies can be done on the larger population.

                Proud Slut...Fear is the Mind Killer

                by boophus on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 08:17:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  What Real Impact? (0+ / 0-)

                  Your questions are laughable, your presumptions plainly false, your scientific basis nonexistent.

                  GMOs may be valuable. They certainly are to companies that created them
                  Now to the truth of matters.

                  Monsanto may doing great with corn that is immune to its own poisons but corn that doesn't need Monsanto's poison has never made it to market.

                  Why?

                  All manner of plants that could help feed the hungry, rehabilitate poisoned land, decrease global warning are kept off the market by superstitious nonsense that has little more validity than belief in vampires.

                  Congratulations.

                  You do realize of course you are helping Monsanto and Dow and their ilk by destroying competition without their resources do you not?

                  Best,  Terry

          •  You're right. There are lots of dangerous (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gerrilea, blueoasis

            and toxic things we eat.

            That's just another reason we ought to be cautious and prudent when introducing novel toxins to our food supply.

            Why should we indulge your superstition that GMO products are, somehow, innately superior for human consumption rather than merely superior for the bottom lines of corporations notorious (even among transnational corporations, and that's saying some shit right there!) for destroying the commons in their quest for profits?

            “The administration should be worried about the level of despair here.” ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

            by JesseCW on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:10:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  hey Monsanto, is that you.... (10+ / 0-)

      it's not junk science... which is why they don't want it listed.  People won't buy their franken-crap.

      "It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save the environment." *Ansel Adams* ."Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there."*Will Rogers*

      by Statusquomustgo on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 04:11:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Speak for yourself (0+ / 0-)

        I will.  I don't really care as long as I know it's not swimming in horrible chemicals (which, if it's from Monsanto it probably is anyways, but that's a different story).

        Labeling it "frankenfood" is pure reactionary fearmongering with no substantial basis.  By what mechanism, tell me, does merely tinkering with a plant's genome (which we do anyways) necessarily make it harmful?  It could.  But in most cases it doesn't.  But that's why we test these things.  We could also make deadly poisonous strains of common crops through cross breeding and hybridization, without touching a single centrifuge.

        We modify our food all the time.  There's no reason a specific technique for making those modifications is necessarily harmful.

        •  Pure reactionary fearmongering? (5+ / 0-)

          I think it's rational to be highly suspicious of food cooked up in Monsanto's gene splicing labs.

          This is a company that KNEW about the horrible effects of the PCBs in its products for DECADES and they consciously hid the truth for profit.

          It's unconscionable.

          And you want us trust them with our food?

          How is that rational? How is suspicion of this company and its products, which it can NOT prove are harmless, how is that irrational fear mongering?

          Explain, please.

          Vote Democrat! Because drinking piss is better than eating shit...

          by Tirge Caps on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 07:04:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  thank goodness you speak for yourself... (0+ / 0-)

          "It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save the environment." *Ansel Adams* ."Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there."*Will Rogers*

          by Statusquomustgo on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 11:23:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  A Hybrid Strain Of A Plant (14+ / 0-)

      isn't the same as changing the DNA of a plant. It is one thing to breed two plants together. Another to use science to change that plant by taking out part of its sequence to do this or that.

      When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

      by webranding on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 04:12:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually it is, it just takes a lot longer (6+ / 0-)

        Mutations arise in all species, it's how we get different species (and eventually even greater taxinomic differences). You may argue that a gene from a fish could never be found in a gene for a tomato but you'd be wrong. There is lots of stagnant DNA. Bits and pieces of crud that is turned off by other bits of DNA or simply doesn't express itself because another piece it once relied on is no longer there. If you had enough time you could take millions, maybe billions, of plants and cross them. Hunt thru their DNA and find the ones that got closer to your desired out come and repeat until you have the DNA you want in the plant/animal/etc you want it in. All DNA is ACGT. Millions and billions of those molecules in patterns. In the end GMO is hybridization sped up a million-fold. Is that scary? Perhaps, mankind has been pretty bad at using new tools pretty much forever. But GMO is hybridization.

        All my sig lines are hand-crafted by demented elves living in my skull.

        by ontheleftcoast on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 04:24:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So you're saying (17+ / 0-)

          it's perfectly normal for winter flounder DNA to be found in naturally mutated tomatoes and strawberries?

          Or wax moth DNA in potatoes?

          Or salmon with bovine growth hormones?

          Food safety aside, how does this affect vegetarians and pescatarians? The ethical and moral issues confronting them is monumental if they arn't allowed to know if their tomato has fish genes in it or their fish has cattle genes.

          •  The Monsanto is strong in this diary. (11+ / 0-)

            Romney - his fingernails have never been anything but manicured.

            by Pescadero Bill on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 05:17:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  As is the ignorance of genetics. n/t (4+ / 0-)

              All my sig lines are hand-crafted by demented elves living in my skull.

              by ontheleftcoast on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 05:35:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yup, you are showing your ignorance. (0+ / 0-)

                Vote Democrat! Because drinking piss is better than eating shit...

                by Tirge Caps on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 05:55:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Naming calling will only get you so far (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Hyuga, Hopeful Skeptic

                  My wife did genetic engineering for years. I've had long discussions with her on this topic. What's your background and information source, wikipedia?

                  All my sig lines are hand-crafted by demented elves living in my skull.

                  by ontheleftcoast on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 05:57:29 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You are wrong off the start. I didn't call (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    native, JayBat, gerrilea, happymisanthropy

                    you names. You are freaking out over LABELING.

                    Who'd your wife work for?

                    Vote Democrat! Because drinking piss is better than eating shit...

                    by Tirge Caps on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 06:01:54 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It wasn't agribusiness related. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Hyuga, Catesby

                      It was pharmacological. Mostly involved in drug abuse prevention and treatment of depression. A lot of time and money goes into pulling DNA pieces out of one organism and putting them into another to produce (hopefully) useful compounds.

                      And I'm not freaking out about anything. The only freaking out is coming from those calling GMO products "Frankenfood". I'm defending science as an abstract. Unfortunately it's a bit like going into a diary complaining about racist screeds on the radio and defending First Amendment rights. It's OK though, I don't mind the abuse if I can get some ignorance erased.

                      All my sig lines are hand-crafted by demented elves living in my skull.

                      by ontheleftcoast on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 06:12:06 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  They are franken foods. read Marie-Monique Robin's (5+ / 0-)

                        book and get back to me.

                        There has simply not been enough research to make the claim they are not harmful and there has been a lot of work suggesting they have terrible side effects.

                        The FDA is a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto, and that is NOT disputable. They amount of revolving door activity between those two raises the question if they are actually one organization with two names.

                        Seriously. rBGH is a hormone that's sole purpose is to increase the economy of milk production. It destroys cows, it is dangerous to humans and it was passed with zero FDA testing (they relied on Monsanto's summaries).

                        Now this same company doesn't even want this franken food labeled. They don't want us to know it's disgusting. They haven't done the due diligence on it's safety.

                        And no one, not your wife, not the FDA, not Monsanto can definitively claim or prove these monstrous foods are safe because there simply has not been the work to prove it.

                        Vote Democrat! Because drinking piss is better than eating shit...

                        by Tirge Caps on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 06:31:09 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  See, that's hyperventilating (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Hyuga, Hopeful Skeptic, Mogolori

                          Even admitting they don't have evidence they make the claim it's "Frankenfood" to generate fear.

                          If you want to discuss the shit Monsanto has done with patent law, subverting not just the FDA but the court system in this country I'm all over that. That is evil and needs to be stopped. But claiming something is evil or harmful without proof led to the anti-vaccine movement which kills people for real, not in some imaginary way.

                          All my sig lines are hand-crafted by demented elves living in my skull.

                          by ontheleftcoast on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 06:36:54 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Unfortunately, without GMO foods (0+ / 0-)

                          like this, given the growth of the world population (and odds are good most of the people here upset have kids), we will soon no longer be able to feed everyone.

                          And don't come looking to my farm for food, because I will be taking care of my own.

                          Most people would be eating weeds from the side of the road and having fantasies about GMO food.

                          On the other hand, I think GMO is only delaying the inevitable.

                          •  GMO crops and modern fertilizers (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea, Pescadero Bill

                            often result in fewer calories per acre being produced when compared to traditional farming methods.

                            They're cheaper, right now, because human labor is relatively expensive.

                            In the distopia you project, human labor will be cheap and there will be no need for RoundUp or RoundUp Ready Corn (tm) when people are lined up for a chance to pull weeds in return for a few bushels.

                            “The administration should be worried about the level of despair here.” ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

                            by JesseCW on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:17:51 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  In the end, rBGH was dumped because (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          gerrilea

                          the extent to which it shortened the lives of cattle carried a heavier cost than the increased milk production could balance out.

                          It's almost out of our dairies now, because it didn't make economic sense.  It killed cows.

                          “The administration should be worried about the level of despair here.” ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

                          by JesseCW on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:14:05 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  Knowledge about genetic engineering is normally (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    gerrilea, Pescadero Bill

                    not obtained through coitus.

                    If your entire argument consists of nothing more than repeated assertions of authority, you should come with something a lot stronger than "my wife did X".

                    “The administration should be worried about the level of despair here.” ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

                    by JesseCW on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:12:36 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I was coming back to say exactly this...thanks (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      JesseCW

                      But I'm sure there's an argument to be made for knowledge by osmosis...

                      Okay, maybe not....

                      ;)

                      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                      by gerrilea on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 07:14:00 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  It wasn't just my wife, if you read my other (0+ / 0-)

                      comments, and since you've replied to most of them I know you have, you'll see I studied the topic in college though ultimately didn't choose it as a career. Another thing that comes from having a spouse in the field is you get to hang out with many other people in that field. I can count several genetic researchers in my group of friends. The discussions (and arguments) that arise from having 4 or 5 geneticists in your living room is a sight to behold. Genetic geeks aren't really that much different from computer geeks. They love to talk "shop" especially with someone who isn't in their field but can speak the langugage. But please, keep lobbing the insults, they're actually kind of amusing.

                      All my sig lines are hand-crafted by demented elves living in my skull.

                      by ontheleftcoast on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 02:04:56 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  As this the ad hominem... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ontheleftcoast, Hopeful Skeptic

              ...and confirmation bias.

              Don't worry--I get it. I understand where that comes from.  When I hear people ranting about what a "hoax" global warming I roll my eyes and think "Somebody's been getting their information from Exxon."

              The difference is in the science.  And there's no science to suggest that there's any harm in GMO crops as a whole.  There may be cases where it actually is harmful--but that's not a reason to fear the mere idea of it.

          •  Yup, but probably not in the configurations (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Hopeful Skeptic, native

            produced by Monsanto. You're arguing about methodology, not whether the genetic material can (or does) exist. And mutation of plants have already made Roundup next to worthless. The weeds it was designed to kill have mutated to the point it no longer works. We've got bacteria that can swim in antibiotics, rats and mice that can live on poison, and plants that ignore herbicides. None, not one of those, were created in a lab. Genetics works with billions individual pairing of quadrillions of possible combinations of potential mutations. It's the infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters, they're just stuck with ACGT as their only letters.

            All my sig lines are hand-crafted by demented elves living in my skull.

            by ontheleftcoast on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 05:35:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  There was lots of worm DNA (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Hyuga, Hopeful Skeptic

            in our homemade cider.  Somehow I bet there is in most.  Not one of us turned into a worm.

            Believe it or not.

            Best,  Terry

        •  I don't agree...what occurs naturally over (5+ / 0-)

          millions and even billions of years is not equal to what is being done today with GMO's.

          Could you provide evidence of this fish and tomato gene exchange?

          We do know that animals, if given a choice will not eat GM Corn.

          http://current.com/...

          http://www.biolsci.org/...

          Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn. In addition, unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the genetic modification cannot be excluded.
          Nature wouldn't create these things.

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 05:40:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nature has created far, far worse (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pico, Catesby, Hopeful Skeptic

            Like neurotoxins so deadly the LD50 is measured in picograms/gram. Of course people still eat the animal that contains that toxin, they just (mostly) hope it doesn't kill them. Or how about Botox, a naturally created poison some people pay to have injected into their face? Nature's lab is vast and has had billions of years to try random stuff. And it's also not very tidy, efficiency is the name of the game, it's why there is so much left over junk floating around in the pool. If it doesn't have to get rid of it why bother?

            All my sig lines are hand-crafted by demented elves living in my skull.

            by ontheleftcoast on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 05:50:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  These people supporting GMOs (2+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            aliasalias, Emmy
            Hidden by:
            Hopeful Skeptic

            are either ignorant or industry activists.

            Do not underestimate Monsanto's reach. They are truly one of the world's most evil entities.

            Vote Democrat! Because drinking piss is better than eating shit...

            by Tirge Caps on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 05:56:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You do realize that accusing Kossacks (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Hyuga, Hopeful Skeptic

              of being industry shills without proof is a bannable offense? If you continue with these unfounded and untrue comments you will be reported and most likely banned.

              All my sig lines are hand-crafted by demented elves living in my skull.

              by ontheleftcoast on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 06:31:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No one is accusing you of anything. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Emmy

                You just sound like a shill. Your arguments are full of obvious strawmen.

                If you can't take it, don't be a whiner. Just leave the diary.

                People here get accused of all kinds of things. Right now, I am apparently not a democrat. I am a troll. I am a bunch of things.

                But one thing you can't accuse me of is running off to Meteor Blades and complaining that  someone said something mean.

                Boy, you really are something. When you run out of strawmen, you threaten to try and get someone banned.

                Maybe you can get yourself some genetically modified skin to help you cope wit a world that doesn't see things exactly like you do.

                Vote Democrat! Because drinking piss is better than eating shit...

                by Tirge Caps on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 07:10:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well now (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Hopeful Skeptic

                  Unlike you I actually know something about the science here. While I didn't choose genetics as a major I studied it and I've got a better than layman's grasp of the subject. So that removes "ignorance". That leaves "industy activists" which you claim isn't calling me a shill. Maybe you think I'm an unpaid industry activist so that makes me some special kind of shill? As for strawmen, you wouldn't know one if it came up and slapped you in the face. But accuse away, it's your right.

                  All my sig lines are hand-crafted by demented elves living in my skull.

                  by ontheleftcoast on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 07:43:41 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You don't know something about the science (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Emmy, gerrilea

                    because there is NO science proving these products are harmless.

                    Go back to school.

                    Vote Democrat! Because drinking piss is better than eating shit...

                    by Tirge Caps on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 07:53:41 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You cannot prove a negative (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Hopeful Skeptic

                      you cannot prove anything is without harm.  A sock can be used to harm someone.

                      What you can do is prove something is predictably harmful.

                      Unfortunately that is how science works.

                      I believe people have the right to make the choice over what to put in their bodies.

                      •  OK. This isn't philosophy class. This is the food (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        gerrilea

                        we eat.

                        I am not talking about choking on a tomato.

                        Vote Democrat! Because drinking piss is better than eating shit...

                        by Tirge Caps on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 08:51:37 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  But it has been proven time and again that GMO's (0+ / 0-)

                        hurt, kill or maim test animals, people in India, goats in Brazil, the environment, the bees, everything.

                        GMO's are predictably harmful, from the evidence I've presented throughout this diary.

                        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                        by gerrilea on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 06:33:42 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  I have a degree in genetics... and you're doing (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ontheleftcoast, Mogolori

                    fine, ontheleftcoast. I haven't seen one mistake on your comments yet.  

                    I guess I'm an industry shill... or ignorant, too, huh?  L.O.L.

                     I appreciate your wading in here.

                    "The death penalty is never about the criminal. They've already done their worst. The question is always "will we join them"?" - jlynne

                    by Hopeful Skeptic on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 08:41:49 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  And you are the only one in the world (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      gerrilea

                      with a degree in genetics?

                      There is wide disagreement on the safety of these products within your field.

                      And there is still no proof these products are safe. Well, I guess there is the same kind of proof there was for PCBs.

                      I suppose forty years ago you would have been arguing the same for DDT.

                      Vote Democrat! Because drinking piss is better than eating shit...

                      by Tirge Caps on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 09:04:37 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  it's clear you don't know much about "my field" (0+ / 0-)

                        so I'm not surprised that you have a misconception about some non-existent "wide disagreement".

                        "The death penalty is never about the criminal. They've already done their worst. The question is always "will we join them"?" - jlynne

                        by Hopeful Skeptic on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 09:10:04 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I don't believe your claim. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          JesseCW, gerrilea

                          You are in genetics and you don't think there is wide disagreement on this?

                          Yeah right. Nice story.

                          Vote Democrat! Because drinking piss is better than eating shit...

                          by Tirge Caps on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 09:14:41 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  yeah, there's wide spread disagreement... just (0+ / 0-)

                            like there is about climate change among climate scientists.

                            L.O.L.

                            "The death penalty is never about the criminal. They've already done their worst. The question is always "will we join them"?" - jlynne

                            by Hopeful Skeptic on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 09:18:21 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So you are saying the genetic science (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JesseCW, gerrilea

                            community is in full support of GMO food? The ones not employed by GMO food producing companies?

                            Give me a break.

                            L.O.L.

                            Vote Democrat! Because drinking piss is better than eating shit...

                            by Tirge Caps on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 09:27:54 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You'll find a small pack defending everything (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea

                            from unregulated Nuclear Power, to the idea that we are idiot overgrown children with no right to decide what we eat, to arguing that paranoid drunks with guns under their jackets make the world a safer place, to arguing that it's a good thing to snuff the children of accused terrorists = all here at DailyKos.

                            These packs will try to bait you, and the members will send screeching emails begging for back-up for when you start scoring up on one of them.

                            If they can't win, they'll reach into a tired grab bag and start accusing you breaking rules so they can try to have you banned.

                            This site needs a separate Player V. Player server - but until that happens just be aware that when they resort to this shit they're admitting that you've bested them.  

                            They'll dead-thread this crap for days, trying to find any hook they can to get banned, because they simply do not believe that anyone else has a right to voice an opinion.

                            They are not here to debate issues - they're here to silence their opposition.  

                            Once you've won, you need to know when to walk away.

                            “The administration should be worried about the level of despair here.” ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

                            by JesseCW on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:28:34 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

            •  HR for this: (0+ / 0-)
              These people supporting GMOs
              are either ignorant or industry activists.
              Accusing people of being industry shills is over the line.

              "The death penalty is never about the criminal. They've already done their worst. The question is always "will we join them"?" - jlynne

              by Hopeful Skeptic on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 08:49:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  HR'ing this while passing right by (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gerrilea, blueoasis

              claims that people who support clear food labeling are "Anti-Vaxxers" "Ignorant" and "Anti-Science" is beyond hypocrisy.

              It's the behavior of a penny ante bully, throwing HR's in support of their sad little pack.

              “The administration should be worried about the level of despair here.” ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

              by JesseCW on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:22:32 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Prove it please. (0+ / 0-)

              Give me a link that shows that nature created these things and did so in less than 30 yrs and spread it throughout the planet.

              How about a link where nature created a biotoxic form of corn, soy, cotton or canola that animals wouldn't eat?

              How about a link that shows a tomato eating fish that had the tomatoes DNA in it. Or the reverse, a tomato eating fish with fish genes in it.

              Okay, I'll scratch the last one, I was thinking of Little Shop Of Horrors for a moment...."feed me sheba"!

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 11:20:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  You are wrong (0+ / 0-)

        But I don't suppose you will admit it.

        Of course any offspring of two parents has different DNA than the parents.  So far we don't clone kids nor most plants and animals.

        The only clone that immediately springs to mind is a banana that is a infertile hybrid of two inedible plants.

        GMO's may not even come from different species.

        Why do you hate science?  The facts are quite elementary.

        Best,  Terry

        •  Wow, we're superstitious, we can't think because (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          slinkerwink, quinn, Emmy, JesseCW

          we don't have a brain that works and now we hate science.

          Amazing, I'm not surprised I've rarely ever seen any of your postings or diaries or ever taken notice of them.

          You've attempted to derail this diary too many times with your fallacious arguments, insults and innuendo.

          There has been verifiable published research done throughout the world, except here in the US, that shows GMO foods are dangerous and GMO plants such as trees are killing our forests.

          Review my links provided up thread. This isn't about bashing science.  It isn't about fear-mongering.  It isn't about anything but the truth.

          Truth in advertising.  While I am obviously against a company that believes it can patent all life so as to turn a profit.

          I demand to know what the fuck I'm eating!

          Let me decide what goes into my own damn body!

          If you can present evidence that proves GMO's are safe for all species on this planet through valid scientific research, I might be willing to listen to you.

          You've continually made unfounded and undocumented claims.

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 08:00:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Water isn't completely safe (0+ / 0-)

            for many. many species.

            So I think your request is unreasonable.

            But I think you do have a right to be unreasonable when it comes to your own body.

            So we should have labeling.

            •  I'm sorry, what the heck does water have to (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JesseCW

              do with my request again?

              This poster has made empty claims throughout this thread and I'd like some proof.

              Where are the links that shows that GMO's are safe? Are the studies done by Monsanto themselves? Did they manipulate, lie and commit fraud in the findings?

              As was established through a German Courts order to Monsanto to release their data:

              Genetically Modified Corn Study Reveals Health Damage and Cover-up

              In addition, the study is so full of flaws and omissions, critics say it wouldn't qualify for publication in most journals and yet it is the primary document used to evaluate the health impacts.

              All I want are legitimate studies, not fabrications. Or links to such from this poster.

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 11:10:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  All of that, from people who are butt-hurt and (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gerrilea

            crying that they're very unfairly being subjected to Ad Hom's.

            You've gotta love it, don'tcha?

            “The administration should be worried about the level of despair here.” ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

            by JesseCW on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:30:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Hilarious (0+ / 0-)
            There has been verifiable published research done throughout the world, except here in the US
            Yeah.  Right.

            Our scientific journals just refuse to publish real truth.

            I would like you to know an American fundamentalist journal proved the power of prayer.  

            Plants the congregation prayed for thrived.  Plants the congregation cursed withered and died.

            One reader pointed out calculating the pressure needed to move water to the tops of the plants could led to finding the horsepower of prayer and thus the prayers needed to move mountains.

            But you fundamentalists aren't real good at math and science so I guess we will never know.

            You've continually made unfounded and undocumented claims.
            Not a single one.

            Might want to work on that math.  Most people can count to zero.

            Best,  Terry

      •  I think a far more nuanced look at this (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hopeful Skeptic

        is required by all concerned.  You do have a valid point in your comment but your first sentence is flat out wrong.  Hybridization is EXACTLY changing the DNA of a plant.  If one of my students wrote this I would be smacking my forehead quite hard.  However, depending on the details of the genetic modification you might have a case that you would proceed more cautiously  based on the degree of novelty in the new genotype.

        "We are normal and we want our freedom" - Bonzos

        by matching mole on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:09:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The reason to label and not consume (20+ / 0-)

      GMO food at this juncture -- and it's a powerful reason -- is to prevent the monopolization of the food supply by unaccountable corporate forces.  The science is still developing on the physical harm it presents.  The evidence that monopolization by corporations of a social necessity is harmful is no longer in dispute.

      "And now we know that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob." -- FDR

      by Mogolori on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 04:21:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No in fact, there's almost no science done on (16+ / 0-)

      potential long-term effects to either humans, animals, or the environment in whole.

      Mostly because no one will fund it. At least not here in the U.S.

      Besides, it's not just the GMO, it's the fucking cocktail of herbicides most GMOs are mutated to resist that's the serious issue.

      As is, the effects of this kind of gene manipulation, far beyond what nature would otherwise tolerate, could have implications a century or more down the road. Talk about a legacy left to our great, great, great grand children.

      GM scientists have no fucking clue. And GMO profiteers have no fucking conscience.

      Romney - his fingernails have never been anything but manicured.

      by Pescadero Bill on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 05:04:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's not junk science (8+ / 0-)

      Neither was the science which defied the tobacco industry's claim that nicotine wasn't addictive, nor the science which dared suggest that stomach ulcers might be due to an infection.

      In both cases, the science was labeled junk by powerful commercial interests.

      The debate over the safety of GMO is hardly as clear-cut as you would make it seem. Even a casual wiki read which can seem at 1st glance to be supportive, should make it clear that GMO's risks to health and environment are not yet understood, and the science which aims to better understand these risks is hardly junk.

      link

    •  Consumers be allowed to choose. (10+ / 0-)

      By allowing corporations to avoid having to provide that information, consumers aren't allowed to make that choice.  It's amazing how much corporations hate informed consumers.

    •  Here's an example of the harm caused by GMOs (9+ / 0-)

      ... Roundup-Ready GMO crops have already led to the rise of pesticide-resistant superweeds.

      NY Times: Farmers Cope With Roundup-Resistant Weeds

      Just as the heavy use of antibiotics contributed to the rise of drug-resistant supergerms, American farmers’ near-ubiquitous use of the weedkiller Roundup has led to the rapid growth of tenacious new superweeds.

      … Sales took off in the late 1990s, after Monsanto created its brand of Roundup Ready crops that were genetically modified to tolerate the chemical, allowing farmers to spray their fields to kill the weeds while leaving the crop unharmed. Today, Roundup Ready crops account for about 90 percent of the soybeans and 70 percent of the corn and cotton grown in the United States.

      But farmers sprayed so much Roundup that weeds quickly evolved to survive it. “What we’re talking about here is Darwinian evolution in fast-forward,” Mike Owen, a weed scientist at Iowa State University, said.

      Now, Roundup-resistant weeds like horseweed and giant ragweed are forcing farmers to go back to more expensive techniques that they had long ago abandoned.

      So ... we plant this GMO stuff, which leads to increased use of pesticides — contaminating the environment, with unknown effects on both the ecosystem and human health ... and then in just a few years, the weeds evolve to become resistant. Making the whole exercise pointless, in addition to toxic.

      But very profitable for Monsanto, of course.

      I for one would like to avoid paying into a system that harms the environment like that.

    •  Clearly... (7+ / 0-)

      You do not have food allergies.

      In particular, you obviously have no food allergies that only started after all kinds of horrible non-food was added to cattle food in feeder lots.  You're lucky.

      It was years before I found out about those additives and finally realized why I couldn't eat certain meat and veggies without becoming deathly ill.

      Corn and other veggies were added to my list of food ingredients before that from when I discovered the connection between eating foods with MSG and the resulting three-day migraines, plus a couple of other foods that produced the same three-day migraines when I ate them..., and, again, it was years before I made the connection back to the start of GM foods being sold in stores and used in restaurants.

      I've paid for my ignorance by becoming horribly sick only when eating certain foods...., then realizing years later after information was finally put out for public consumption: 'Oh..., duh!  GM foods just might have something to do with it!' - then feeling like an idiot because I hadn't made the connection sooner.

      I had an uncle with a calm and placid nature who had a Grade A Dairy farm who went ballistic when BGH was mentioned.  He adamantly refused to put it in the feed for his milk cows.  Even with that, and knowing about genetically modified foods and additives fed to cattle and chickens and turkeys, etc., I still didn't make the connection to GM additives or GM foods the first few times I got sick.  [My uncle's Grade A dairy barn was equipped with an automatic gutter cleaner to take manure outside frequently.  He whitewashed the floors.  He very carefully washed and dried every udder before milking each cow, and the milk went straight to the large container in a separate wing of the barn away from where the cows were where it stayed until it was transferred to a milk truck and taken to a creamery and milk processing plant.  The milk and milk products never saw the light of day until milk or cream or butter or ice cream was opened in someone's home.  The cleanliness of the barn never ceased to amaze me since there was barely any smell other than hay in it.]

      When I was first diagnosed with food allergies the first thing I did in following visits to the grocery store was stand in the aisles and read every label on every can or package of every food item I picked up. I'd already gone through a lengthy process with all the pollen allergies and have two+ pages of those listed.  For those, I still take antihistamines.  For food allergies, the only thing one can really do is avoid ingesting them since eating foods to which one is allergic can result in anaphylaxis which can, if left untreated, result in death.  I'm not the only person in my family with multiple allergies.  My brother has various allergies, so do his kids and grandkids; our parents were each allergic to various things.  We have assorted cousins who are allergic to pollens, foods, etc.  Allergies run in our family.

      Thank you, but I prefer labels on everything.  Whether it's GM foods or other things, reading labels can save me a lot of misery, medical costs, and save my life!

      I have my own reasons for not wanting to have GM grains and animal and fowl foods, and I really don't think they will be good for us in the long run.  For Monsanto and other corporations that are in the business of genetically modifying foods... it means buku bucks, and they don't really give a bleeping damn about the health of humans, animals, plant life, or the planet.

      Put food labels on everything and leave me to determine whether or not I want to eat something that will make me sick or not.  Period.

      I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

      by NonnyO on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 05:41:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We learned this the hard way years ago (6+ / 0-)

        My son is highly, highly allergic to GMO wheat, corn and soy.  At first we thought it was wheat, corn and soy, but when we switched to organic flour and making our own bread, he had no reaction.  We still avoid any and all processed food.  On occasion something slips by us, because without labeling, it's hard to know what is in our food.  When that happens we always know within minutes, his reaction is so strong.  

        All we're asking for is labels.  I don't understand how the comments here devolved into this quagmire of "junk science" and strawmen.  All we want, is labels.  

      •  Umm, as a dairy person (0+ / 0-)

        Grade A myself, anyone who milks commercially large or small carefully washes, dries AND sanitizes udders, and the milk goes to a separate tank well away from the milking parlor.

        That's not anything special.  FYI.

        Your other points, fair enough.

        •  Actually, I know that... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea

          I was raised in a small farming community so I'd seen many barns where the floor was not coated in whitewash, stalls didn't have fresh straw added frequently, and did not have auto-gutter-cleaners and smelled pretty bad.  True, even in those barns the farmers/milkers did wash and dry the udders and teats (I even milked one cow with two teats at a neighbor's farm, and I remember cleaning both the cow and my own hands thoroughly per the instructions, dried both her and my hands with a clean towel before I milked her - it was the first time I milked a cow and I was actually successful), but the fact that there was so little "barn smell" inside my uncle's barn was so distinctively different, it always impressed me.

          I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

          by NonnyO on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 10:31:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  All crops are genetically modified (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hnichols

      Either through selective breeding, or though direct genetic modification.  All this GMO stuff is pure FUD, and not worth wasting a lot of breath on.

      I'm okay with studying it, but just saying "more studies are needed" is silly considering that all studies have shown that there's no harm or causal reason to believe their would be any.

      If a vital cancer drug were being developed and all studies showed that side effects were either rare/nonexistent or trivial compared to the disease, we wouldn't hold it off the shelf for "more studies" if all the studies thus far had reached the same conclusions (if the conclusions were all over the map that would be different--and that is not the case for GMO crops).

      At worst I find some of the economic and legal issues behind GMOs to be quite shady and unsavory.  But it doesn't make the food any less good, much less make it require labeling.  If I felt that way I would also argue we should label all crops picked by underpaid immigrants under practically slavery.

      •  Yes, we actually would hold it off the market (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gerrilea

        until all required trials had been completed.

        More importantly, though, Round Up Ready crops aren't cancer fighting drugs.  They're not essential to anyone's survival.

        No kid ever died because the soybeans they ate came from a field weeded by hand.

        “The administration should be worried about the level of despair here.” ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

        by JesseCW on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:33:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You haven't done your homework. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NonnyO, Emmy

      Stop spreading lies.

      Vote Democrat! Because drinking piss is better than eating shit...

      by Tirge Caps on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 05:48:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  GMO != hybridizing (11+ / 0-)
      We've been hybridizing plants and animals for centuries.
      Hybridizing means interbreeding two closely related organisms. They must be very closely related, because, well, otherwise they couldn't interbreed. Hybridization is by nature a very conservative process.

      Transgenic genetic manipulation is not hybridization. You can't interbreed a plant and an animal so that the resulting plant contains toxins that are normally produced by the parent animal, for example, because plants and animals cannot interbreed.

      Your argument "Should we label every product in the grocery store that has been hybridized" is a straw man. Nobody is proposing that.

      What I want is to know whether the food I buy is the result of potentially radical transgenic procedures. That is a reasonable point of view, I think.

      Thanks, -Jay-
      
    •  Wow...here's some info for you: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aliasalias, slinkerwink, Emmy

      http://www.biolsci.org/...

      Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn. In addition, unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the genetic modification cannot be excluded.
      http://www.gmfreecymru.org/...

      And let's not forget the thousands of dead farmers in India, shall we?

      And then we have the criminal acts of Monsanto knowingly poisoning people.

      http://naturalsociety.com/...

      And finally, the notable mention of Árpád Pusztai, a biochemist and researcher for 36+ yrs that was railroaded and destroyed by Monsanto in 1998 for publishing his results.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      JUNK SCIENCE THIS IS NOT!!!!!!!!!!!

      The Very Real Danger of Genetically Modified Foods

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 06:44:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If there is nothing to be afraid of- (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea, quinn, JesseCW, JayBat

      then there is no reason for Monsanto to fight it.

      If Monsanto's food is better, then they should ultimately profit from us knowing that.

      Their coverup and bullying is why I am afraid. Products in Grocery stores have been labeled all my life. More common sense labeling does not phase me. Monsanto being so determined not to tell me what they are up to- that terrifies me.  Now I am determined to grow my own food.

    •  Except that we don't know yet (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea

      Guess we oughta go ahead and perform a giant biological experiment on the planet's human population.

      Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

      by Simplify on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:20:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "The Science" indicates we should properly (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea, JayBat

      test all novel products added to our food supply in order to prove that they are safe, before feeding them to people.

      Don't worry, though.  No one wants to take your GMO foods away from you.  This is only about disclosure.

      Now, how is allowing states to require disclosure "junk science"?  

      “The administration should be worried about the level of despair here.” ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

      by JesseCW on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:51:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So withholding info's just fine w/ you (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea, JayBat

      No need for ignorant plebes to know what they're putting into their bodies.

      Don't let millionaires steal Social Security.
      I said, "Don't let millionaires steal Social Security!"

      by Leo in NJ on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 03:56:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wonderful! (8+ / 0-)

    Honestly I shouldn't have to take my laptop with me when I shop so I can look everything up.

    Tracy B Ann - technically that is my signature.

    by ZenTrainer on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 03:48:41 PM PDT

  •  I Have Gone To Almost All Local Food (16+ / 0-)

    well about 65%. I want to know what I eat.

    Unlike people in the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Ireland, Australia, South Korea, Japan, Brazil, China, Russia, New Zealand and other countries where labels are required, Americans don't know if the food they eat has been genetically altered.
    Is it really asking that much to know if my food has been genetically engineered?

    When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

    by webranding on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 03:57:44 PM PDT

  •  Refreshing viewpoint (22+ / 0-)

    as with your other posts here recently.

    People should have every right to know as much as possible about their food and make intelligent choices based upon that knowledge.

    It's not like government would be mandating or even advocating for any specific choices on the part of consumers.  Just basic honesty in labelling.

    99%er. 100% opposed to fundamentalist/neoconservative/neoliberal oligarchs.

    by blueoasis on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 04:01:29 PM PDT

  •  I honestly don't care if (18+ / 0-)

    my bananas are genetically modified or not, but hell, it just seems to me that honesty is the best policy. If people want to know if their food is modified genetically, they have every right to know, IMO. I don't see the harm in putting extra stuff on the label. If anything it makes consumers more educated and better able to make decisions about their food products.

    Makes sense to me

    Yes, it is bread we fight for - but we fight for roses, too! Sick of the endless battles, namecalling and hostility? Join Courtesy Kos -- A group dedicated to respect and civility.

    by rexymeteorite on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 04:06:07 PM PDT

  •  Great News. (5+ / 0-)

    Obama wants your guns = Romney wants your Medicare Stop choosing your guns over your health You're shooting yourself

    by blueoregon on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 04:09:19 PM PDT

  •  thank you Senator (8+ / 0-)

    "It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save the environment." *Ansel Adams* ."Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there."*Will Rogers*

    by Statusquomustgo on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 04:12:34 PM PDT

  •  If a testable difference exists... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hopeful Skeptic, pico

    Perhaps rather than blanket-labeling GMO, require that it be labeled if the modified crop contains a measurable amount of some substance that is not present in existing crops - for instance, BT-Toxin.

    Those who ignore the future are condemned to repeat it.

    by enigmamf on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 04:25:49 PM PDT

  •  Country of origin and genetic labeling needed (11+ / 0-)

    to provide the real advantages of free markets,   except that we don't have free markets, because our owned corrupt politicians work diligently to muzzle all transparency.

    Americans have a right to know who picks our food, where it comes from, how it is planted,  whether it comes from a food factory in Mexico or USA, etc and what are the GMO connections?  

    The producers,  sellers, and politicians that are owned by both do not want us to know about our food supply.

    Victims of bigotry are the poorest, least influential members of society.......never the wealthiest, most educated, most overrepresented in high levels, and most influential. Bigotry hurts the least influential. To claim or say otherwise is absurd.

    by dailykozzer on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 04:47:49 PM PDT

    •  The problem in America is corruption, and not (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis, gerrilea, aliasalias

      right or left ideology that the pundits and media portray.    

      Another related problem is the ethnic favoritism that typically defines ethnic based cronyism that makes the few very wealthy and the masses very poor.    

      Victims of bigotry are the poorest, least influential members of society.......never the wealthiest, most educated, most overrepresented in high levels, and most influential. Bigotry hurts the least influential. To claim or say otherwise is absurd.

      by dailykozzer on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 04:51:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't agree that this should be at state level (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Argyrios, blueoasis, NonnyO

    It should only be done at the national level, because otherwise you make a patchwork of incompatible and competing laws that makes food labeling more difficult and expensive everywhere.

    It's kind of like health insurance - due to all the differences state to state, writing up multi-state contracts for a national insurance company (or national company trying to buy a comprehensive plan for all their employees) is extremely complex and painful.  If we had a level playing field with the same rules for everyone it'd cut billions (at least) from healthcare costs annually.  

    Atheism is a religion like Abstinence is a sexual position. - Bill Maher, 2/3/2012

    by sleipner on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 04:58:20 PM PDT

    •  Yes, I thought this should be national as well. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NonnyO

      Tracy B Ann - technically that is my signature.

      by ZenTrainer on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 05:09:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  But things get done at state level (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      native, gerrilea, JesseCW

      While corrupt politicians and powerful lobbies prevent it from being done at the national level.    Instead of fixing problems at the national level they  typically create dog and pony shows that are broadcast on CSPAN but nothing is ever accomplished.  

      Victims of bigotry are the poorest, least influential members of society.......never the wealthiest, most educated, most overrepresented in high levels, and most influential. Bigotry hurts the least influential. To claim or say otherwise is absurd.

      by dailykozzer on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 06:07:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh. We wouldn't want to make anything (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea

      more expensive for corporations, would we?

      That would just be a horrible tragedy in an era of record breaking corporate profits.

      “The administration should be worried about the level of despair here.” ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

      by JesseCW on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:47:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We end up paying for it (0+ / 0-)

        Corporations are eminently capable of using conflicting state laws and playing states off against each other to make a profit, or to drive their opponents out of the market and grab a de facto monopoly.  Not to mention buying legislation favorable to themselves by carefully placed campaign donations - state and local legislatures are FAR cheaper to buy off than federal ones, and you have less competition and visibility.

        Atheism is a religion like Abstinence is a sexual position. - Bill Maher, 2/3/2012

        by sleipner on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:28:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Monsanto is EVIL. Stand up to them! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NonnyO, aliasalias, gerrilea

    Vote Democrat! Because drinking piss is better than eating shit...

    by Tirge Caps on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 05:47:31 PM PDT

  •  I am torn on the issue (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hopeful Skeptic

    I think freedom of information is very important, but I think a lot of people falsely think genetically modified food is bad and dangerous. At the same time, the efforts by the food industry to prevent labeling probably feeds into this unjustified fear.

    We would need an education campaign to go with labeling. Unfortunately the debate would then becomes how to fund that campaign.

    Marion Nestle's "Safe Food: Bacteria, Biotechnology, and Bioterrorism" provides a good breakdown of the GMO debate.

    M, 22, School: MI-12(new) (Old MI-15), Home: NY-18 (new) (Old NY-19)

    by slacks on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 07:13:24 PM PDT

  •  Since evolution involves genetic engineering, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    enigmamf, Hopeful Skeptic

    this would be rather like the California "known to cause cancer" signs that appear on gas pumps as well as everything else.

    Genetic engineering  has been practiced in a low tech fashion for many thousands of years.   We used to call it breeding.  

    Are you going to put scary labels on wheat and corn, because without human intervention, most of the bred forms that feed most of humanity would simply die off.

    Should we put labels on all wheat and corn products because they're "artificial" and "engineered?"   I don't eat the stuff, but what about beef?   Has there been any human induced genetic alteration of cows?   Ducks?   Pigs?

    Frankly Senator, it should be the responsibility of our elected officials to open science books from time to time.

    The human genome has been sequenced, happily with government participation.    It has been discovered that much of that genome consists of viral inserted genes.

    That's right:   Most of what you are involves inserted genes.   Should we all wear stickers on our foreheads?

    The Republicans are famous for their hatred of molecular biology as far as it involves evolutionary science.

    Why the rush to join them in politicizing science?

    Our government has sat by while the atmosphere was destroyed by indifference, with a good dollop of fear, ignorance and superstition thrown in.

    Can you point out ONE human being who has been injured by a genetically engineered crop?   If not, it may prove far easier to demonstrate people who have starved to death in famines.

    You may not recognize it - especially with your well known penchant for trying to destroy the largest single climate change gas free energy in your state - that would be Vermont Yankee - but we are about to experience record breaking droughts and temperatures that are extreme.   (It won't be very helpful, by the way, when Vermont starts burning newly fracked gas and dumping its wastes in the atmosphere because someone has screamed loudly and insipidly about tritium.)   You may be a small state, but you count.

    Reading aloud back issues of The Whole Earth catalog isn't going to feed people.  

    There are genetic engineers right now working to insert genes for drought resistance and heat tolerance.

    Are these bad or immoral people?

    How are you qualified to stand in judgement of their work, to make it harder?

    Are you aware that almost all of the industrial genetic scientists are losing their jobs in Europe, and that those who have saved their jobs are now moving to North Carolina?

    What should we do now?   Send all their expertise to China?  

    All the railing against the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free energy - that would be nuclear power - is only working to destroy any chance we have to save our atmosphere.   This recognized, I think it's a dubious enteprise to insist that we chase after every gene to make sure it's, um, "natural."    Genetic selection is going to take place no matter what we do, especially because of the stress on the climate.   Wouldn't it be smart to try to understand how to manage genetic changes?

    Since I began blogging 10 years ago - a little before "An Inconvienent Truth" became an overnight sensation, the concentration of dangerous fossil fuel waste in our atmosphere has risen from 373 ppm to 396 ppm.

    And you want to talk about labels on genomes?

    Reading Ralph Nader's old rhetoric on nuclear power plants and water fluoridation isn't going to save either our atmosphere or our precious bodily fluids.

    There is an international crisis at hand, and yes, an understanding of genetic science and related technology will almost certainly be an important tool in facing it.

    I have met some genetic engineering folks, and whether you buy it or not, they are motivated by the highest ideals one can imagine.

    With the current level of hatred for science in this country and elsewhere, it is more likely that the matter will be managed by catastrophe, but frankly, we might have done more to have managed it.

    You know, the left used to have people like Einstein, like the Oppenheimer brothers, Weinberg et al...   It's quite a long list.

    And what have we now?

    We're certainly not living up to their legacy.

    Labels on genomes...

    I can't help but to grow more and more and more cynical every day when I read this kind of stuff.

    Have a great week.

    •  What utter bullshit! (0+ / 0-)

      If you wanted to write about all your personal gripes then you should post them in your own diary!

      1. Breeding is not equal to GMO.  If you tried cross incompatible species, nothing happens.  You do know that they shred the DNA of the target plant to get the foreign genes into it, correct? That's not nature honey.

      2. Where are your links to the claims our "bred species of corn and wheat would die off"??? Funny, man has been cultivating wheat and/or corn for millennia. What has occurred due to the "scientific advances" since the industrial revolution is that there are a lot less varieties now, that's it.

      3. Your false equivalencies that GMO's equal planetary evolution are insulting.  

      4.  Your diatribe equating Mr. Sanders with Republicans & the false claim that he is politicizing science should be HR'd, but I wanted to address your BULLSHIT!

      How the fuck does putting a label on a product that I ingest politicize anything??? I can't be allowed to know what it is I'm buying and eating???

      5.  How has our gov't sat by while the atmosphere was destroyed?  Did you forget the Clean Air Act?

      6.  I can point you to hundreds of thousands of dead Indian Farmers that were hurt by GMO Crops. Not to mention the thousands of sheep that died eating GMO cotton!

      7.  Fucking Vermont Yankee??? Are you kidding me? Their safety record IS an environmental disaster! WE DO NOT NEED Uranium Fission Plants.  The only reason we have them is for NUCLEAR WEAPONS.  We could actually use LFTR Reactors based on Thorium.  There is no nuclear waste and nor any chances of a "nuclear accident" with a release of deadly radiation. Did you not hear about Fukushima or Chernobyl???



      REALITY IS THAT OUR MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX HAS DICTATED OUR ENERGY POLICY SINCE WWII.

      We have enough Thorium in Utah to power the entire US for 1000 yrs.  500 grams of Thorium represents the total lifetime consumption of 1 American.

      Get your head out of your ass on this one!

      8. GMO's currently are not feeding the masses or are even coming close, they are creating crops that have no nutritional value that will lead to a lifetime of disease and premature death for billions.  GMO crops do not uptake the minerals we eat them for!

      9.  Climate change has no bearing on labeling the food we eat. Nor does your false beliefs that GMO's will feed the world.

      10.  YOUR "industrial genetic scientists are losing their jobs in Europe" is meaningless...poor babies, adapt or perish...isn't that what the majority of unemployed Americans have been told to do??? Oh, that's right they aren't counted anymore in the official unemployment stats!

      11.  Why do you believe we need to "manage" evolution? Are you one of those genetic scientists or a believer in Transhumanism? Thanks but no thanks, many millions will not willingly become the Borg©!

      12.  Your "international crisis" has only a tangential link to the labeling of GMO's.  We must stop the Fascist controls of our governments brought about by the likes of Monsanto, et al.  I will not knowingly support or buy anything they create, manufacture or sell.  I vote everyday with the choices I make when I spend my money! That's called freedom of choice honey, deal with it!

      13.  As for the bullshit claim that those "engineering folks are of the highest ideals" is meaningless...their works are controlled by the Corporations they work for, period!  

      14.  If you want Americans to believe in science and scientists again, then tell them to get back to the "scientific method" and leave their personal politicking and monetary goals at the door.  Modify or abolish "peer review".  Funny thing, Einstein's works never needed to be "reviewed" before publishing.  And yes, sadly, the scientists of today don't even come close to him.

      You see, for me, the layperson, it's impossible to know which scientist to believe is telling the truth.  The one that says eggs are bad for you or the one that claims they are now good for you.  Which is it? Are they only good to eat on Tuesdays, Thursdays and of course Sunday's but avoid them on Mondays, Wednesday's and Fridays?  But what about Saturday's?????

      What about the thousands killed by Pfizer's fraudulent studies??? The one where they finally found out over a decade later???

      The disillusionment many of us have is that the scientists today are profit driven. For Christ's sake, I can't trust doctors half the time when the "recommend" a drug or  treatment without wondering if they are getting kickbacks from the manufacturer or worse from the Health Insurance Companies if they prescribe dangerous generic drugs from China and India so that they can save a buck!

      This mess we're in is of their own making, not Senator Sanders bill to allow me to know what the fuck I'm eating before I buy it, if I buy it!

      Here's an eye-opener study of "scientists moral and values."  Sadly, over 15% of them admit they would change study results if told to or to get a contract or a job. And a full 1/3 of them knew someone whom did so.

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 10:54:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Um, you might benefit by opening a science book... (0+ / 0-)

        ...but perhaps not.

        From where I sit, you may be the reification of the hatred of science and scientists.

        What's pretty funny is that you're railing so on a computer.

        You might not be so smug and supercilious if you understood what goes into a computer - how it's made - but you don't.

        Just as well...

        Thanks for satisfying me that this country and probably the rest of humanity deserves what it's going to get.

        Have a great week end!

  •  should they also know (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hopeful Skeptic

    that their shrimp was raised in something approaching raw sewage in India? Should they know that the pork they are eating was killed by electrocution? Should they know that the strawberry they are eating was genetically selected to look great but be virtually tasteless? Should they know that the cookies they are eating contain trans-fats that can double the risk of heart disease?

    Is it OK that dogs have been genetically selected for certain cosmetically attractive features but suffer debilitating disorders from brain tumors to hip dysplasias? The list goes on and on.

    Just another bourgeois fetish.

    Just for the record, there is no and never has been any demonstrated harm that has arisen from genetically modified organisms in the environment.  

    The universe may have a meaning and a purpose, but it may just specifically not include you.

    by Anne Elk on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 09:20:39 PM PDT

    •  Yes, they should know their shrimp (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea

      came from India.

      Yes, they should be able to find out how their pork was killed, if they want to know.  If 90% of Americans want a label on all pork products telling them how the hog was slaughtered, we should require it.

      Yes, we should require the labeling of products containing more than one gram of transfats per serving.

      You're effectively arguing against labeling tobacco products.  Every "point" you've made is being reused (not even recycled) from that debate.

      “The administration should be worried about the level of despair here.” ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

      by JesseCW on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:51:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If you really believe this: (0+ / 0-)
      Just for the record, there is no and never has been any demonstrated harm that has arisen from genetically modified organisms in the environment.  
      then you haven't been paying attention.

      Go back upthread and review the links many of us have provided AS PROOF of the dangerous nature of these things.

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 07:37:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Your final sentence is untrue. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gerrilea, blueoasis

    What is so upsetting to you about people wanting to know if they are eating genetically modified food?  You must know there have been no long term
    human feeding studies done, no investigation of the effect these foods might have on the offspring of women who eat them, etc.

    Please go back and re-read the diary; note all the countries who have given their citizens the right to choose whether or not to eat gm foods.   I'm Canadian and we too do not have the right to make this choice,  yet surveys have shown, that like Americans, 90%+ of Canadians want labelling.

  •  Super Majority Vote (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gerrilea

    Why did the Senate leadership agree to subject this amendment to a 60 vote, super majority for passage?

    'You give me a water board, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I'll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders.' -Jesse Ventura

    by NepentheRising on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 03:57:00 AM PDT

    •  Follow the money... n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 07:39:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Angie in WA State, hazey, PhilK, Chi, Odysseus, slinkerwink, native, SaveDemocracy, Gooserock, alicia, Debby, Shockwave, Pescadero Bill, VetGrl, shermanesq, bronte17, susakinovember, Pithy Cherub, stevej, ovals49, fumie, Cedwyn, sockpuppet, Kamakhya, Miss Jones, businessdem, ranger995, roseeriter, gerrilea, cosette, astronautagogo, dailykozzer, JayBat, Emmy, vacantlook, azrefugee, Gowrie Gal, Tirge Caps, maybeeso in michigan, 3goldens, Jersey Girl, Simplify, reflectionsv37, Sara R, Kayakbiker, Sandino, Isara, deep, Lindy, Alan Arizona, Asinus Asinum Fricat, Reality Bites Back, Mother Mags, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, Keone Michaels, 417els, hungrycoyote, Russgirl, tonyahky, victoria2dc, EthrDemon, yojimbo, blueoasis, DarkestHour, MJ via Chicago, gooderservice, tapestry, CTLiberal, onionjim, doingbusinessas, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Lovo, blueoregon, kurt, Statusquomustgo, Delta Overdue, Nulwee, ZenTrainer, NonnyO, Habitat Vic, rchipevans, Opinionated Ed, terryhallinan, DvCM, terabytes, aliasalias, bnasley, gchaucer2, carpunder, uciguy30, Azubia, Ralphdog, JDWolverton, kimoconnor, wayoutinthestix, ScottyUrb, bythesea, Ocelopotamus, dagolfnut, envwq, Karl Rover, psilocynic, lilsky, Mislead, Old Man from Scene 24, FrugalGranny, JesseCW, fToRrEeEsSt, kevinpdx, Mom in Maine, mahakali overdrive, Randtntx, Larsstephens, commonmass, rb137, eXtina, jethrock, wvmom, sunny skies, gulfgal98, SoCalHobbit, beverlywoods, Funkygal, rja, ericlewis0, Craig S, USHomeopath, slowbutsure, Bluerall, FarWestGirl, lexalou, boophus, mrsgoo, Cinnamon, dle2GA, StateOfGrace, DRo, ParkRanger, zenbassoon, Heart n Mind, IndieGuy, Joieau, This old man, redstella, Noddy, GradyDem, Glen The Plumber, Lily O Lady, BlueEyed In NC, Pritty Brains

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site