Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
128 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Post removed (Original Post) Post removed May 2014 OP
Treating "GMO" like one monolithic block has always been troubling to me Recursion May 2014 #1
So, you're saying other forms of genetic manipulation are a bigger issue? HuckleB May 2014 #2
They present much larger unknowns Recursion May 2014 #3
You're entire claim ignores how GMOs work. HuckleB May 2014 #4
There's not one single way that GMOs work, that's my point (nt) Recursion May 2014 #5
They can work in many ways, but they're far more specific ... HuckleB May 2014 #6
Plenty of GMO species are significantly hybridized Recursion May 2014 #7
Your answers seem to be the usual pat anti-GMO stuff. HuckleB May 2014 #8
How do they work? Put everyone on the same page, please, so they can converse using the same MADem May 2014 #10
You don't know, and yet you have an opinion about them? HuckleB May 2014 #11
Where did I say I had an opinion? I can't have one until you define the parameters. MADem May 2014 #47
Ah, so you're playing games. HuckleB May 2014 #53
Look, as I said below, I came here trying to learn something. MADem May 2014 #67
I'm not an idiot. HuckleB May 2014 #83
I'm not going to learn about it on a DISCUSSION BOARD? WTF? MADem May 2014 #89
So, you don't know how science works. OK. Now I understand. HuckleB May 2014 #92
I still don't know what your definition of "GMO" is--besides "It's technology!! It's SCIENCE!" MADem May 2014 #96
GMO is a technology. HuckleB May 2014 #22
No. That was my point. "GMO" is several thousand different technologies. Recursion May 2014 #54
If that's your point, then explain where your point goes from there, in detail... HuckleB May 2014 #57
Well, I can talk about the fish I worked with in grad school, if you want Recursion May 2014 #59
Talk all you want. HuckleB May 2014 #62
You insult even those people that agree with you? Democracyinkind May 2014 #99
I think you have a misunderstanding of the process mathematic May 2014 #27
Often it is Recursion May 2014 #37
then LABEL IT GMO, and we are good. don't force it on us. bettyellen May 2014 #9
So you support some corporations in their "fight" to make more profit ... HuckleB May 2014 #12
I support allowing the literal consumers to know what they are ingesting.. you don't? bettyellen May 2014 #14
No, you don't. HuckleB May 2014 #15
I do think it should be labeled. they try to force it on people- because GMOS suck. no one wants em. bettyellen May 2014 #23
So you have a belief, but you can't justify it. Got it. Religion sucks. HuckleB May 2014 #25
Why are you fighting with everyone? MADem May 2014 #64
Post removed Post removed May 2014 #66
And you KILLED it with your nasty and accusative tone. Heckuvajob, HuckleB. MADem May 2014 #71
+1. nt Democracyinkind May 2014 #79
In other words, you ignore the attacks against me. HuckleB May 2014 #84
What attacks? People make a comment, and you call them names. That's the bulk of this thread. MADem May 2014 #86
I like how you pretend. HuckleB May 2014 #88
I went out of my way to make clear my level of understanding, and you keep name calling. MADem May 2014 #93
Unless you actually ARE GMO food, there were no attacks against you. But you have been very bettyellen May 2014 #123
Odd that there is a whole article without a single mention of growing Bt reistance, not to eridani May 2014 #13
And, of course, those issues were around before GMOs even existed on the market. HuckleB May 2014 #17
Tell me all about ancient terminator genes please n/t eridani May 2014 #41
You might want to learn about this issue before posting. HuckleB May 2014 #43
Thanks to massive resistance on the part of the public eridani May 2014 #50
Nope. History is your friend. Learn it. HuckleB May 2014 #51
The article I posted was dated May 1, 2014 eridani May 2014 #56
The crappy sourced propaganda you offered? HuckleB May 2014 #58
OK, no URLs of your own, just name-calling. Fuck it n/t eridani May 2014 #61
This is like a self-destruct exercise. MADem May 2014 #73
Cool! HuckleB May 2014 #74
Typical of the GMO advocates. nt Cha May 2014 #77
Typical of anti-science nonsense advocates! HuckleB May 2014 #90
LOL like your stuff isn't propaganda. nt laundry_queen May 2014 #113
researched... and check...LOL Ichingcarpenter May 2014 #18
If you're into pseudoscience and bad sources. HuckleB May 2014 #20
Thanks for your thoughtful post, eridani, and the links to important research. n/t pnwmom May 2014 #28
"Thoughtful." HuckleB May 2014 #30
When will you stop pushing the Big Agri and Big Pharma propaganda? n/t pnwmom May 2014 #33
I've never done it, and I never will. Why do you lie? HuckleB May 2014 #36
So you say. But what else do you ever post about? n/t pnwmom May 2014 #39
Plenty. HuckleB May 2014 #42
You have yet to show any url indicating proof for no increasing resistance eridani May 2014 #45
This response indicates that you're quite confused. HuckleB May 2014 #49
GMOs are the direct cause of increasing Bt resistance eridani May 2014 #52
You've put up what? HuckleB May 2014 #63
Everyone knows that- it's the first nail in the GMO coffin, LOL. bettyellen May 2014 #124
No offense intended, HuckleB, but I got a chuckle out of your subject line. pablo_marmol May 2014 #16
Well, a decade or so ago, it did matter at DU. HuckleB May 2014 #19
I was polite! I said, "Please!" And yet... HuckleB May 2014 #21
You "politely" accuse everyone who disagrees with you of "thoughtlessness." pnwmom May 2014 #26
Prove me wrong in this case. HuckleB May 2014 #32
No, thanks. I know that you always win pnwmom May 2014 #35
I win because you can't support your fictions. HuckleB May 2014 #40
You said please, but you were not polite and DU gave you what you deserve. JVS May 2014 #125
Experts differ. So the solution is LABELING, which allows adults to do their own research pnwmom May 2014 #24
99 percent of experts don't differ. HuckleB May 2014 #29
You have no basis for that figure. Monsanto thanks you. n/t pnwmom May 2014 #31
And you stick your foot in your mouth. HuckleB May 2014 #34
Exactly. TroglodyteScholar May 2014 #38
Because experts don't differ so much? HuckleB May 2014 #46
You are clearly just looking for a fight TroglodyteScholar May 2014 #122
Is DU about what's right? About science? Or about anti-science propaganda? HuckleB May 2014 #44
LoL. Democracyinkind May 2014 #48
So you have nothing to say about the topic. HuckleB May 2014 #55
Hucky, we've had this discussion 6 times before. It's always the same OP... Democracyinkind May 2014 #69
So you've advocated for fiction based BS. HuckleB May 2014 #70
Case in point. All bluster, no substance. Democracyinkind May 2014 #76
Hogwash. HuckleB May 2014 #85
You are quite into idiotic OP's and responses for someone who isn't an Democracyinkind May 2014 #91
Come on, DU! That's all you have to offer? HuckleB May 2014 #60
This message was self-deleted by its author A-Schwarzenegger May 2014 #65
Derpity, Derp, Derp, Derp! HuckleB May 2014 #68
This message was self-deleted by its author A-Schwarzenegger May 2014 #72
Post removed Post removed May 2014 #75
This message was self-deleted by its author A-Schwarzenegger May 2014 #80
"Pro-GMO" HuckleB May 2014 #81
Goodnight, anti-science DUers! HuckleB May 2014 #78
The only thing the admins proved is that they don't... Democracyinkind May 2014 #82
Awwwwww. That's cute. HuckleB May 2014 #87
Haha. Judging the admins now, are we? Democracyinkind May 2014 #95
The admins did not kill anything like that. djean111 May 2014 #97
How do you like your pizza? L0oniX May 2014 #119
What pizza? JVS May 2014 #127
Just what I was thinking. djean111 May 2014 #94
Account status: Flagged for review ...Oh oh L0oniX May 2014 #121
This message was self-deleted by its author A-Schwarzenegger May 2014 #98
It's just sad that it takes so many juries to actually get a hide on his rudeness. Democracyinkind May 2014 #103
This message was self-deleted by its author A-Schwarzenegger May 2014 #105
I'm pro-GMO! Here's why: Zorra May 2014 #100
I'm pro-Nuke! Here's why Ichingcarpenter May 2014 #102
Admittedly I don't know as much about this subject as I'd like in fact the more I read the more Arcanetrance May 2014 #101
Oh noes! All gene manipulation is wondrous and good! Because SCIENCE! djean111 May 2014 #104
In all seriousness if people were to have similar reactions that would call for immediate labeling Arcanetrance May 2014 #106
In all seriousness, you are quite correct. djean111 May 2014 #107
I think there definitely needs to be labeling and transparency just like we would any other food Arcanetrance May 2014 #108
And now - I do not buy microwave popcorn for two reasons - djean111 May 2014 #110
Research Ichingcarpenter May 2014 #109
Since the poster was kicked out of his own thread laundry_queen May 2014 #114
Let's not let research get in the way of ....research. L0oniX May 2014 #117
Two great scientists discuss GMOs Ichingcarpenter May 2014 #118
LOL L0oniX May 2014 #120
My single argument about GMO's is not about the crop and it's genetic manipulation... Javaman May 2014 #111
And that's reason enought to boycott... Orsino May 2014 #128
What an intellegence insulting POS thread. 99Forever May 2014 #112
You aren't helping yourself sharp_stick May 2014 #115
I'm not opposed to GMO's in principle. I'm opposed to Monsanto because they're horrible. mattclearing May 2014 #116
Aaah...so if you're anti GMO you're anti-science, is that it? truebrit71 May 2014 #126

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
1. Treating "GMO" like one monolithic block has always been troubling to me
Thu May 1, 2014, 02:02 AM
May 2014

For instance, I see a difference between on the one hand altering an existing genotype for a specific reason, and on the other hand grafting large sections of foreign genome into that genotype.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
3. They present much larger unknowns
Thu May 1, 2014, 02:07 AM
May 2014

We don't know how a potato behaves with a significant section of salamander DNA in it. It could be fine, but large unknowns mean large-tail risks, which are always hard to evaluate.

So, for example, "golden rice" has saved literally millions of lives over the past decades. That's a demonstrated reward. We should just be cautious about introducing modified species into the biome without a high level of payoff like that.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
6. They can work in many ways, but they're far more specific ...
Thu May 1, 2014, 02:16 AM
May 2014

... than other forms of hybridization, which is why your post makes no sense.

Can we agree on that?

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
7. Plenty of GMO species are significantly hybridized
Thu May 1, 2014, 02:17 AM
May 2014

Those are what worry me more than deliberate point alterations (even significant ones).

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
8. Your answers seem to be the usual pat anti-GMO stuff.
Thu May 1, 2014, 02:18 AM
May 2014

If you have anything that's more thoughtful and science based, let me know.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
10. How do they work? Put everyone on the same page, please, so they can converse using the same
Thu May 1, 2014, 02:28 AM
May 2014

construct--or refute the one you're advancing.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
47. Where did I say I had an opinion? I can't have one until you define the parameters.
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:09 AM
May 2014

What is "genetically modified" to you? What are we talking about? A hybrid tea rose created by granny in the garden, a cross-bred tomato that resists insect infestation, or a carrot crossed with an iguana?

Do you want people to comment, or do you want to hold court?

"It's technology" isn't a cogent answer.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
67. Look, as I said below, I came here trying to learn something.
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:23 AM
May 2014

I am not playing games--you are. And you're being a real jerk to everyone, too. You're insulting people, calling them names, looking for a fight.

Well, go fight with yourself. You obviously don't have anything useful to impart to me or anyone else, by the look of your rude and confrontational responses.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
83. I'm not an idiot.
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:36 AM
May 2014

If you don't know jack about these issues, well, you're not going to learn about it at DU. If you want to know how to learn about it, then PM me.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
89. I'm not going to learn about it on a DISCUSSION BOARD? WTF?
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:42 AM
May 2014

The idea behind discussion boards is to discuss--not to "PM" and get super-secret opinions.

Why can't you answer my questions? Why are you hurling insults? Not just at me, at a lot of people--try rereading this thread like you're coming on it anew, you are not coming off well at all.

It helps anyone to know what the parameters of a conversation are. And "It's technology" is not an answer.

You may not be "an idiot," but you're pretty rude and nasty to people.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
96. I still don't know what your definition of "GMO" is--besides "It's technology!! It's SCIENCE!"
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:47 AM
May 2014

And I guess you're not going to provide it, either. You're going to continue to snark and be rude.

This thread has been instructive in one regard, anyway. I never perceived you as a "mean kid" before this. You've opened my eyes!

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
22. GMO is a technology.
Thu May 1, 2014, 02:54 AM
May 2014

Thus, it's not something anyone can say is bad or good. Each product must be looked at individually. Just like any other form of genetic modification to plants.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
54. No. That was my point. "GMO" is several thousand different technologies.
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:14 AM
May 2014

This is not one single thing.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
59. Well, I can talk about the fish I worked with in grad school, if you want
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:18 AM
May 2014

But that would take a long background in weakly electric organisms' tissues which you may not have (and the other readers almost certainly don't).

My only complaint, this entire time, has been with the collection of all modifications of genomes under the rubric "GMO". I'm agreeing with you, incidentally, if you could chill long enough to see that. There is not one single technology or industrial process that is "genetic engineering" or "genetic modification". Alterations to organisms should be handled individually as the breakthroughs are made.

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
99. You insult even those people that agree with you?
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:50 AM
May 2014

I'm starting to think that you're not about science at all. You clearly thrive on this.

mathematic

(1,439 posts)
27. I think you have a misunderstanding of the process
Thu May 1, 2014, 02:57 AM
May 2014

Genetic engineering changes a small digit's worth of genes, compared to conventional breeding which changes tens of thousands of genes. One type of genetic modification is to switch off genes. The type you refer to is an insertion of genes. The inserted genes can be from the same type of plant or it can come from a different organism altogether.

It's also useful to note that the genes aren't "salamander" or "fish" or anything like that. Those are classifications that only make sense at the organism level. They're genes that code for a protein. They're "XX protein" genes, etc.

You're in India right? You should be aware of the amazing success that BT cotton has had. Over the past 10 years India has gone from initial approval to nearly completely BT cotton and they've doubled their cotton output. This success really puts the lie to the activist literature that makes diehard claims about the failure of BT.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
37. Often it is
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:04 AM
May 2014
Genetic engineering changes a small digit's worth of genes

Generally, yes. That's exactly the kind of improvement I am ecstatic about.

You're in India right? You should be aware of the amazing success that BT cotton has had. Over the past 10 years India has gone from initial approval to nearly completely BT cotton and they've doubled their cotton output.

Yes, BT cotton is a complete success story (I do some NGO work on sustainable ag, and this is a huge part of that at least for Maharashtra and Kerala.) I think I came across as more GMO-skeptic than I am, for which I apologize. There have been some large-scale foreign-codon introductions that were quite literally taken wholesale from other organisms. Specifically given our lack of understanding of "junk" DNA, this -- and this alone -- worries me about the practice of genetic engineering.
 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
14. I support allowing the literal consumers to know what they are ingesting.. you don't?
Thu May 1, 2014, 02:41 AM
May 2014

it's fucked up trying to force people to but or eat it without their consent or knowledge.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
23. I do think it should be labeled. they try to force it on people- because GMOS suck. no one wants em.
Thu May 1, 2014, 02:55 AM
May 2014

MADem

(135,425 posts)
64. Why are you fighting with everyone?
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:20 AM
May 2014

Look, I came into this thread looking to learn a bit more. I am not a fan of people creating frankenfood--what good is a square tomato or watermelon that stays fresh longer, ships easier, and tastes like shit?

That said, if they can make crops that resist infestation, taste good, don't hurt people or have "side effects," why not? People have been doing that for years before "science" by doing simple cross breeding.

Now, should these foods be labeled? Sure, why not? Will people initially resist? Probably--but less so if the producers bother to "brand" that tomato, call it a cute name, and then tell people what they did with it to make it better--then people may actually seek it out, especially if it tastes better than other tomatoes.

I have no idea who came up with "grape" tomatoes, but I can tell you this--when I was a kid, a zillion years ago, there were no "grape" tomatoes. In the "teeny tomato" universe, there were CHERRY tomatoes, and that was IT. There were big fat tomatoes on the vine, and there were green tomatoes, and plum tomatoes--but that was pretty much it. So...back to my grape tomatoes. Are they "GMO?" Are they mini plum tomatoes? I can buy ORGANIC grape tomatoes--can GMO stuff be "organic?"

I'm just a consumer. I like tomatoes. I like lots of food that could potentially be in the GMO universe. It would be nice to discuss these things in a positive as opposed to a name-calling way. Maybe we all could learn something...

Response to MADem (Reply #64)

MADem

(135,425 posts)
71. And you KILLED it with your nasty and accusative tone. Heckuvajob, HuckleB.
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:25 AM
May 2014

You are easily the rudest and most uncivil poster I've come across in a long, long while.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
86. What attacks? People make a comment, and you call them names. That's the bulk of this thread.
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:38 AM
May 2014

There's no discussion, there's just derision coming from YOU.

I didn't say anything to deserve the nasty shit you hurled at me--for no good reason.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
88. I like how you pretend.
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:42 AM
May 2014

You have offered nothing but feigned ignorance, after you were called out for your baseless attacks. You might want to pay attention to the full story next time. My OP asked for genuine discussion points, and none were offered.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
93. I went out of my way to make clear my level of understanding, and you keep name calling.
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:45 AM
May 2014

And what "baseless attacks" have I made?

Are you seriously trying to insist that you haven't been rude to people in this thread?

It's impossible for a person to provide "genuine discussion points" without having a grasp of the parameters of the conversation. I SAID that at the outset, and you replied with insults, and you've continued to insult me without let up.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
123. Unless you actually ARE GMO food, there were no attacks against you. But you have been very
Thu May 1, 2014, 01:46 PM
May 2014

personally nasty to everyone who does not agree with you. Way to promote your cause- keep it up, they'll outlaw GMOs if the likes of you is who promotes them, LOL.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
13. Odd that there is a whole article without a single mention of growing Bt reistance, not to
Thu May 1, 2014, 02:40 AM
May 2014

--mention terminator genes.

The golden rice thing could work, but the major reason it hasn't gotten very far is that beta-carotene is NOT Vitamin A. Unless you get enough fat in your diet, you can't absorb eta-carotene and transform it to Vitamin A. Levels are pretty low to be useful, but improved strains may do better. What I like about it is that the work is being done by a non-profit which will distribute seeds for free and encourage seed-saving--a far cry from Monsanto practices.

Resisance
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_26999.cfm

That pretty much describes the situation last year, according to a new report from the agribusiness research consultancy Stratus. Since the 2010 growing season, the group has been polling "thousands of US farmers" across 31 states about herbicide resistance. Here's what they found in the 2012 season:

• Nearly half (49%) of all US farmers we surveyed said they have glyphosate resistant weeds on their farm in 2012, up from 34% of farmers in 2011.
• Resistance is still worst in the south. For example, 92% of growers in Georgia said they have glyphosate resistant weeds.
• But the mid-south and mid-west states are catching up. From 2011 to 2012 the acres with resistance almost doubled in Nebraska, Iowa and Indiana.
• It's spreading at a faster pace each year: total resistant acres increased by 25% in 2011 and 51% in 2012.
• And the problem is getting more complicated. More and more farms have at least two resistant species on their farm. In 2010 that was just 12% of farms, but two short years later 27% had more than one.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17666-millions-against-monsanto-on-the-road-to-victory

After enjoying a year of maximum profits, record stock prices, the defeat of a major GMO labeling campaign in California, pro-industry court decisions, and a formidable display of political power in Washington, D.C. – including slipping the controversial Monsanto Protection Act into the Federal Appropriations bill in March - the Biotech Bully from St. Louis now finds itself on the defensive.

It is no exaggeration to say that Monsanto has now become the most hated corporation in the world.

Plagued by a growing army of Roundup-resistant superweeds and Bt-resistant superpests spreading across the country, a full 49 percent of American farmers are now frantically trying to kill these superweeds and pests with ever-larger quantities of toxic pesticides, herbicides and fungicides including glyphosate (Roundup), glufosinate, 2,4D (“Agent Orange’), dicamba, and neonicotinoids (insecticides linked to massive deaths of honey bees).

Reacting to this dangerous escalation of chemical farming, toxic residues on foods and environmental pollution, over a million consumers and organic farmers have pressed the Obama administration to reject a new generation of GE “Agent Orange” and dicamba-resistant crops, forcing the USDA to postpone commercialization of these crops, at least temporarily. ...............


GMO Bt Cotton Crop Failure Leads to Cotton Ban: Sorry Rockefellers

http://www.nationofchange.org/gmo-bt-cotton-crop-failure-leads-cotton-ban-sorry-rockefellers-1397140543

Following crop failure in seven different districts in Karnakata, where cotton growers faced devastating losses, Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd.’s (Mahyco) GMO Bt cotton has been permanently banned. Though not one of the biggest biotech companies, the news is still a remarkable blow back to the Big Ag monopolies trying to take root around the world.

Mahyco was founded by “a man who dared to venture beyond visible possibilities and showed immense confidence in his vision. Post independence, when India was still in the process of fortifying her weak economic strength, Badrinarayan Ramulal Barwale sowed the first seeds of economic development,” or so says their website. But it also goes on to mention that funding was provided by none other than the Rockefeller Foundation.

The order was issued by the Director of Agriculture after, “the Bt cotton hybrid MRC-7351 and Nikki Plus supplied by Mahyco failed to give expected yields during kharif (pulses harvest) 2013. In Karnataka, 54,157 farmers who have grown Bt cotton supplied by Mahyco in 58,195 hectares suffered yield loss of more than 50 percent,” reports the Indian newspaper, The Hindu.


http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17666-millions-against-monsanto-on-the-road-to-victory

It is no exaggeration to say that Monsanto has now become the most hated corporation in the world.

Plagued by a growing army of Roundup-resistant superweeds and Bt-resistant superpests spreading across the country, a full 49 percent of American farmers are now frantically trying to kill these superweeds and pests with ever-larger quantities of toxic pesticides, herbicides and fungicides including glyphosate (Roundup), glufosinate, 2,4D (“Agent Orange’), dicamba, and neonicotinoids (insecticides linked to massive deaths of honey bees).


US farmers may stop planting GMs after poor global yields

http://www.fwi.co.uk/articles/06/02/2013/137518/us-farmers-may-stop-planting-gms-after-poor-global-yields.htm#.UW0FGkb9SGd.twitter

Some US farmers are considering returning to conventional seed after increased pest resistance and crop failures meant GM crops saw smaller yields globally than their non-GM counterparts.

Farmers in the USA pay about an extra $100 per acre for GM seed, and many are questioning whether they will continue to see benefits from using GMs.

"It's all about cost benefit analysis," said economist Dan Basse, president of American agricultural research company AgResource.

"Farmers are paying extra for the technology but have seen yields which are no better than 10 years ago. They're starting to wonder why they're spending extra money on the technology."

One of the biggest problems the USA has seen with GM seed is resistance. While it was expected to be 40 years before resistance began to develop pests such as corn rootworm have formed a resistance to GM crops in as few as 14 years.


Terminator genes

http://www.banterminator.org/The-Issues/Biosafety/Terminator-Technology-and-Genetic-Contamination

Terminator could be a biosafety hazard with serious consequences for Indigenous peoples, local communities, peasants and small-scale farmers

If Terminator were to be accepted under the guise of biosafety, it would have devastating consequences for farmers, food security and food safety. Irrespective of any capacity to produce sterile seeds, pollen movement from Terminator crops would take place and lead to contamination of other (open pollinated) plants nearby, at least in the first generation. Seeds (e.g. grain for food) from those plants would contain the initial trait gene (e.g. pharma gene, herbicide resistance gene or Bt-endotoxin gene) plus the Terminator genes intended to make them sterile. This contamination would affect related crops as well as wild relatives.

Terminator would have serious impacts on food security and food sovereignty for farmers and communities. Farmers who saved their seeds for replanting and whose crops had been cross-pollinated by Terminator plants grown in the area, could find that a percentage of their seeds did not germinate. This percentage could translate into significant yield loses. Farmers would not be able to identify the Terminator seeds until they replanted seed from the first harvest, and found that the seed does not germinate. People who depend on humanitarian food aid would risk particularly devastating crop losses if they kept food aid seed that contained Terminator genes for re-planting.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
17. And, of course, those issues were around before GMOs even existed on the market.
Thu May 1, 2014, 02:45 AM
May 2014

Come on, if you want to discuss the matters, that's awesome, but you have to be fully up front and honest, and you can't start off with the good old Gish gallop.

Oh, and on edit, you can't push BS sources. I'm trying to actual science, not pseudoscience.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
43. You might want to learn about this issue before posting.
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:07 AM
May 2014

There are no terminator genes on the market.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
56. The article I posted was dated May 1, 2014
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:15 AM
May 2014

Biotech companies are still trying to sell terminator genes. All you say is that they haven't succeeded so far. How about an article disproving the proposition that they are still pushing the technology?

MADem

(135,425 posts)
73. This is like a self-destruct exercise.
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:26 AM
May 2014

The poster is fighting with everybody and doesn't even want a conversation.

Very odd.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
74. Cool!
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:26 AM
May 2014

You know that I've provided plenty in the past. You know that you could educate yourself. But you don't.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
20. If you're into pseudoscience and bad sources.
Thu May 1, 2014, 02:48 AM
May 2014

Hmmmmmmmm.

You have to have actual science behind you, not the usual anti-GMO crap. Thus, the question goes: Do you give a shit about reality or not? If you don't, then you can go with that. If you do, then things get much more difficult... and the real world is damn difficult.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
30. "Thoughtful."
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:01 AM
May 2014

Apparently, you think bad propaganda is "thoughtful." When will you challenge your preconceptions?

eridani

(51,907 posts)
45. You have yet to show any url indicating proof for no increasing resistance
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:08 AM
May 2014

There was no such research referenced in the OP.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
63. You've put up what?
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:20 AM
May 2014

You do realize that "superweeds" were an issue before GMOs, right?

If you didn't, then sit back down.

pablo_marmol

(2,375 posts)
16. No offense intended, HuckleB, but I got a chuckle out of your subject line.
Thu May 1, 2014, 02:44 AM
May 2014

Since when has actual knowledge about a subject ever been required to spout off on said subject?

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
21. I was polite! I said, "Please!" And yet...
Thu May 1, 2014, 02:53 AM
May 2014

I've gotten nothing but the usual thoughtlessness. Is this all DU can offer?

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
40. I win because you can't support your fictions.
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:05 AM
May 2014

I actually love being prove wrong, it's just that you can't do it.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
24. Experts differ. So the solution is LABELING, which allows adults to do their own research
Thu May 1, 2014, 02:56 AM
May 2014

and draw their own conclusions.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
29. 99 percent of experts don't differ.
Thu May 1, 2014, 02:59 AM
May 2014

The labeling campaign is all about one set of corporations trying to con you, via fear, into spending more money on their food products. Wake up, dude.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
46. Because experts don't differ so much?
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:09 AM
May 2014

Because your preconceived notions might not be supported by the actual science? By reality?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

TroglodyteScholar

(5,477 posts)
122. You are clearly just looking for a fight
Thu May 1, 2014, 11:28 AM
May 2014

It's amazing to me how viciously and condescendingly you chose to attack a person who was simply advocating for clear labeling. You also made unfounded assumptions about what I think.

You are not worth interacting with on this or probably anything else.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
44. Is DU about what's right? About science? Or about anti-science propaganda?
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:08 AM
May 2014

What does DU stand up for...?

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
48. LoL.
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:09 AM
May 2014

And the fail goes on and on and on and on and on.

What is it about this topic that makes you unable to be civil and reasonable?

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
69. Hucky, we've had this discussion 6 times before. It's always the same OP...
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:23 AM
May 2014

And no matter what I write, you never have any other response than "Wrong11!!!, But LOGIC!!1, SCIENCE!"

To recapitulate, my reasons why I don't consume GMO products are the same as ever, the long term effects are not yet apparent (how could they be, so shortly after introduction to the market), GMO plants are mostly overexposed to toxins since they're designed to withstand them, etc, etc. I've made many more points in previous threads.

Being against GMO labeling is anti-democratic, anti-transparent, anti-consumer and anti-regulated-market. All of which doesn't sound very liberal to me.

Plus, there is almost no independent research on GMOs. Pharma uses it's patent rights to deny independent research, which is an absurd practice and a dangerous precedent.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
70. So you've advocated for fiction based BS.
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:25 AM
May 2014

Yeah, see I'm not going to go along with that. I'm an actual progressive. Science means we don't push BS!

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
76. Case in point. All bluster, no substance.
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:27 AM
May 2014

And you wonder why people don't even care to respond civilly or with careful argumentation? How very unscientific of you.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
85. Hogwash.
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:38 AM
May 2014

I've spent plenty of time addressing the minute details at DU, and the anti-science responses ignore reality.

You seem to think that I'm an idiot. PM me, and try me.

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
91. You are quite into idiotic OP's and responses for someone who isn't an
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:43 AM
May 2014

idiot. And I really don't think that you are an idiot. But you are nasty, uncivil, rude and unwilling to even discuss this topic. Plus you are very confused about science. And your thinking is very binary. While that isn't idiotic per se, it also falls far short of the kind of objectivism that you claim for yourself but refuse to ascribe to anyone else.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
60. Come on, DU! That's all you have to offer?
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:18 AM
May 2014

I get better arguments out of classic anti-GMO facebook pages.

Really? That's all you have to offer?

Ouch.

Response to Post removed (Original post)

Response to HuckleB (Reply #68)

Response to A-Schwarzenegger (Reply #72)

Response to Post removed (Reply #75)

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
78. Goodnight, anti-science DUers!
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:29 AM
May 2014

I know there are still a few DUers who care about the real world. And I appreciate all of you! You give me hope. Alas, the mass of ignorance that provides most of the responses to pro-science posts at DU makes my hope go down desperately.

DU administration have made it clear that they don't care. And that sucks. It just sucks.

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
82. The only thing the admins proved is that they don't...
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:35 AM
May 2014

take the whining of rude and uncivil posters seriously. Which is perfectly reasonable. You're very quick to dish out but quite delicate about receiving. Not a very healthy combination.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
87. Awwwwww. That's cute.
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:40 AM
May 2014

Unfortunately, the reality is that the admins killed DU's chance to be a force in the public eye.


THAT FUCKING SUCKS@!

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
95. Haha. Judging the admins now, are we?
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:46 AM
May 2014

Would you like to lecture them about anything else?

Is this like your self-destruct OP or something?

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
97. The admins did not kill anything like that.
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:49 AM
May 2014

You honestly think the admins are the only reason you cannot get DU to become a cheerleader for GMOs? Bwah!

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
94. Just what I was thinking.
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:45 AM
May 2014

Maybe, if ALL GMOs are so wondrous, label the GMO stuff and explain just what was manipulated.

As far as the wonders of Bt cotton in India - a closer look here:

http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/in-india-gm-crops-come-at-a-high-price/

Though of genetically modified agriculture, as well as some independent studies, say that higher yields offset the costs of the seeds, farmers have seen other costs rise as well. The Hussainpur farmers said their crops were now affected by aphids, which replaced the bollworms that Bt cotton was designed to resist. The new pesticides require fewer applications, they said, but are far more expensive.

“The old pesticide used to cost us 200 rupees per liter,” said Mr. Reddy, who has been planting Bt cotton for six years. “Now I have to pay between 2,000 to 3,000 rupees. And I need to apply it more and more every year.”

Some critics of genetically modified seeds see a cycle of rising costs – and debts – for farmers.

“Farmers buy the seeds, and the costs of the pesticides, which they buy from the same companies, are probably tenfold what they used to pay,” said Shivani Shah, a campaigner for Greenpeace in India. “So it’s creating a system of dependency. It is a deliberate idea of increasing costs and increasing royalties – there is no intention of reducing those costs through economies of scale.”



Dependency is the ultimate aim of Monsanto.

Response to Post removed (Original post)

Democracyinkind

(4,015 posts)
103. It's just sad that it takes so many juries to actually get a hide on his rudeness.
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:58 AM
May 2014

BTW- HuckleB is now "flagged for review" without having 5 hides. It seems that admins have finally caught on.


I have participated in 6 such threads by HuckleB and I never, ever have gotten a serious or civil response out of him no matter how carefully or friendly I responded. He insults everyone, even the people he agrees with. I don't see how his behavior isn't that of a classic troll, just under the clever cloak of being "pro-science".

Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #103)

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
100. I'm pro-GMO! Here's why:
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:54 AM
May 2014

Huge Agribusiness corporations are paying me a buttload of cash to post their profit driven propaganda here.



Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
102. I'm pro-Nuke! Here's why
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:58 AM
May 2014

I'm pro-Nuke! Here's why:

HugeNuke corporations are paying me a buttload of cash to post their profit driven propaganda here.

BESIDES NUCLEAR ENERGY IS SCIENCE YOU ANTI SCIENCE FREAKS.

Arcanetrance

(2,670 posts)
101. Admittedly I don't know as much about this subject as I'd like in fact the more I read the more
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:57 AM
May 2014

Questions I seem to have. For example in the article they use the example of a tomato they've spliced with fish genes to help with cold resistance. Well in reading another article it mentioned soybeans in the 90s that contained a gene from a Brazil nut and ended up causing allergic reactions. I'm curious would people with seafood allergies have a similar reaction to the tomatoes.

Arcanetrance

(2,670 posts)
106. In all seriousness if people were to have similar reactions that would call for immediate labeling
Thu May 1, 2014, 04:07 AM
May 2014

If not outright pulling those from the shelves.

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
107. In all seriousness, you are quite correct.
Thu May 1, 2014, 04:14 AM
May 2014

That's why I believe we need GMO labeling, with-an explanation of just what, exactly, was manipulated.
Sure, nature is, over the course of millennia, a master hybridizer. But I doubt nature inserted nut or lizard genes into plants.
That's the big lie from the GMO pushers - that nature does the same thing.
And nature likes a variety. That's why we fuck things up by introducing things like kudzu. If Monsanto could turn a buck by introducing kudzu all over the world, they would cheerfully do so, and then charge up the butt for kudzu herbicide.

Arcanetrance

(2,670 posts)
108. I think there definitely needs to be labeling and transparency just like we would any other food
Thu May 1, 2014, 04:26 AM
May 2014

I mean people choose foods by label everyday whether it be nutrition labels or brand name gmo foods shouldn't be exempt. Who knows down the line gmo foods will be as common as microwave popcorn and such and we could be looking back and go I can't believe this was a big deal. But I'd definitely like to use some caution especially since there are a lot of questions left to be answered

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
110. And now - I do not buy microwave popcorn for two reasons -
Thu May 1, 2014, 04:47 AM
May 2014

I stopped buying it initially because I pretty much have cut corn and corn products out of my diet. Corn is just another carb I don't need. Used to buy it for an occasional snack for grandson, but now I read that the innards of the bag are quite harmful.

http://blog.aarp.org/2012/03/22/microwave-popcorns-health-problem-its-the-bag-not-the-corn/

The problem is the chemicals used in the lining of the bag, including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).

PFOA is also used to make Teflon and other stain- and stick-resistant materials, including pizza boxes. It’s part of a number of compounds that have caused liver, testicular and pancreatic cancer in animals. The chemicals may also be linked to infertility in women, according to a recent study at the University of California, Los Angeles.


Science guided by profit. The gift that keeps on giving.

eta - popcorn is most likely a GMO food now.

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
109. Research
Thu May 1, 2014, 04:44 AM
May 2014

1.

GMO's have not been shown to increase production.In fact, some genetically modified produce does NOT have the ability to reproduce on its own. This forces farmers into a contract to buy seed from Monsanto year after year, effectively making the population's food supply reliant on one company rather than the Earth itself.

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html

2.
GMO's have had anything but a positive impact on nutrition. GM foods have been linked to cancer and many other ailments. Look into the French Rat Study. Monsanto spent millions and fought adamantly to fight the legitimacy of this study by claiming the rats were of a different breed that were prone to cancerous tumors. But, the rats that were used were the exact same breed used in Monsanto's own, self-funded study. Funny how the results differed so greatly in an independently funded study. Controversy continues to stir surrounding this study, although I implore those with any doubts to contact a professional or local university to conduct the study themselves. Make all information public. Monsanto will have a hard time denying 100’s of French Rat studies with identical results.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19654825


3.
Former Monsanto executives are now serving on the board of the FDA, and the Monsanto Protection Act was recently passed, essentially putting Monsanto and its activities past, present, or future ABOVE the law. This stands in stark contrast to current president Obama's campaign promise to label GMO's and country of origin immediately after taking office. http://rense.com/general33/fd.htm
Monsanto owns the patent for these GMO seeds. If a patented seed blows from a factory farm to an organic farm, Monsanto will sue the organic farm to effectively force them to accept these GM seeds or be put out of business. There is a fantastic documentary entitled, "The Future of Food" that outlines the whole dilemma. It is of note, that Monsanto sends scouts out at night to search for the "patent infringement."

http://www.thefutureoffood.com/


4

Monsanto spent millions to defeat prop 37 in California, which would have forced food manufacturers to label GM ingredients. Strangely enough, public opinion polls say that 82% of Americans are in favor of knowing what is in their food. This leads many to question the legitimacy and financial influence involved in our democratic system.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/04/gmo-poll_n_2807595.html


5
Monsanto's GMO's have been banned in Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg, Madeira, New Zealand, Peru, South Australia, Russia, France, and Switzerland. Please do your part to extend this wise decision to the United States as well.

http://politicalvelcraft.org/2013/03/23/monsanto-has-been-removed-and-banned-by-austria-bulgaria-germany-greece-hungary-ireland-japan-luxembourg-madeira-new-zealand-peru-south-australia-russia-france-and-switzerland/

Edit: Add Hawaii’s Big Island to the list! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/05/big-island-biotech-ban_n_4395521.html


6
Over 800 scientists from around the world recently published an open letter to end the “dangerous GMO experiment” and the patenting of bio-organisms. Paragraph 2 states “ It is becoming increasingly clear that current GM crops are neither needed nor beneficial. They are a dangerous diversion preventing the essential shift to sustainable agricultural practices that can provide food security and health around the world.” The open letter can be read at the following link with cited sources for their claims.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php

7
Annston, Alabama PCB's: Monsanto’s Anniston, Alabama plant contaminated thousands of citizens with PCB runoff the agri-giant neglected to tell them about. Men, women, and children all fell ill and suffered greatly. Monsanto really followed through on their pledge to “respect the religious, cultural, and ethical concerns of people throughout the world. The safety of our employees, the communities where we operate, our customers, consumers, and the environment will be our highest priority.“

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0101-02.htm


8
GM crops are becoming even more ineffective as some Iowa corn rootworms have already evolved an immunity to GM corn. The largest of the root worms survive eating this corn and therefor have already evolved a population of larger, more robust, toxin-resistant specimens.

http://gizmodo.com/what-are-gmo-foods-and-are-they-okay-to-eat-1524547249/1547154883


9
Lastly, if Monsanto is proud of their "safe and healthy" products, why do they spend so much money and time fighting tooth and nail to prevent their labeling?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/prop-37-donors-revealed-f_n_2065789.html


laundry_queen

(8,646 posts)
114. Since the poster was kicked out of his own thread
Thu May 1, 2014, 09:04 AM
May 2014

Let me see if I can give you a response he would be proud of:

That's not science that's propaganda! You can't come up with anything but dubious sources like scientists and peer reviewed journals! Only MY propaganda is science!

for the impaired.
How did I do?

Javaman

(62,521 posts)
111. My single argument about GMO's is not about the crop and it's genetic manipulation...
Thu May 1, 2014, 08:43 AM
May 2014

it's the licensing and trademarking of a genetic mutation that I'm against.

the ability of a giant corporation being able to sue a farmer because of natural cross pollination, to me goes against everything within the fiber of my being.

and the strong arm tactics of giant corporations employed to keep farmers from saving their seeds is just criminally wrong.

this is why I hate gmo's.

Orsino

(37,428 posts)
128. And that's reason enought to boycott...
Thu May 1, 2014, 01:56 PM
May 2014

...but sellers of GMO foods don't want to have to label, because you might boycott.

Funny how this is ignored in the OP's talk of research.

mattclearing

(10,091 posts)
116. I'm not opposed to GMO's in principle. I'm opposed to Monsanto because they're horrible.
Thu May 1, 2014, 10:06 AM
May 2014

Whether they are selling pesticides that kill the bees, suing farmers who happened to be adjacent to their crops, or patenting a wide variety of existing seeds which they can't legitimately claim responsibility for, Monsanto are horrible corporate citizens who consistently put profit ahead of the safety of their customers, the environment, and the well-being of farmers.

I don't see tinkering with the genetic makeup of plants to be a dealbreaker in and of itself, but Monsanto has demonstrated recklessness and outright malevolence repeatedly and consistently, so as long as they are the market leader carrying the banner of GMO's, I'll be growing and buying organic.

 

truebrit71

(20,805 posts)
126. Aaah...so if you're anti GMO you're anti-science, is that it?
Thu May 1, 2014, 01:50 PM
May 2014

Not so much.

Label it, honestly disclose testing results, let the consumer decide if they want Frankenfood or not...

Simple.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Post removed