Is this a new Hillary meme? "Caring what you eat, makes you anti-science"?
If I want GMO labeling -- like 65-90% of the American public want, and over 60 countries
already have -- that makes me "anti-science"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=621869
And it gets worse: Caring what you eat makes you "anti-science, just like anti-vaxers"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=621869
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=622237
So, in essence, Team Hillary is telling Americans they are stupid for wanting to know what they eat?
What breath-taking arrogance.
Americans are now "like anti-vaxxers" if they don't shut-up & trust Hillary & Monsanto to
to tell them "what's good for them".
Geesh. This appears to be a new low for Team Hillary.
= new reply since forum marked as read
That is, the demarcation between what the anti-GMO folks screech about and what it means to genetically modify a lifeform is entirely blurry. There is no line of demarcation. All food is genetically modified. ALL OF IT! Humans have been doing so for thousands of years and nothing that you eat, whether it be animal or vegetable is not genetically modified.
And BTW, if one measures a human's mass, the vast proportion will be bacteria. Dine on that factoid for a while before one ignorantly starts screeching about Frankenfoods.
And no. I do not support Monsanto's often horrible behavior. However, I do support science, which unequivocally states that genetic modification is safe. And it has said so for thousands of years.
Pretty solid, if one takes the trouble to look at the facts.
The demarcation between plant and and animal husbandry and genetic modifications via engineering are sharp.
As you say, it's fucking biology.
Actually, millennia, since cross breeding is the same as gene splicing.
Roundup is a separate issue, and studies are being done. That is, as long as one ignores Seralini's fraudulent studies, which says a lot about the anti-GMO crowd. The extent that they cite falsified science is the extent that their arguments should not be taken seriously. That is a common trait with ideological arguments. Ignore the science and make shit up.
But Roundup should be studied. Just not by Seralini, or anybody associated with him.
My best to you, my friend.
However, understand that anecdotal evidence is not science, no matter what one thinks. That is just not the way science works. Without controls, anecdotes are worthless.
On the other hand, recent studies on glyphosate give rise to questions on its safety. (As long as one dismisses Seralini, whose science has been shown to be utter, ideological rubbish.)
However there is room for reasonable discussion here.
My points are the following:
1. There is no science that distinguishes cross-breeding from laboratory gene splicing. It is all in fact gene splicing.
2. There is no credible science that demonstrates that gene splicing, either via cross breeding or via laboratory, is in any way deleterious to people's health.
3. Some large corporations who have financial interest in these matters are acting horribly.
4. One must separate the science from the actions in the name of that science, for either good or bad. Science can only inform such ethical decisions. However, any ethical decision had better damned well be informed by the science, not by anecdotes, or crazy pseudoscience that laboratory genetic modification is somehow qualitatively different from cross-breeding as it has been practiced for thousands of years. The science says no.
So where does one go from here?
Labeling? That will never work since virtually all food one eats is genetically modified. Labeling will inevitably turn into a marketing term, like "organic" or "natural". Fucking arsenic is natural. So I cannot go along with that.
But reasonable regulation of genetic modification is appropriate. I could support that as long as it is based on science, not on rubbish.
My best to you.
The science is what the science is.
BTW, it's all natural. 
And are related. There is a lot of science behind this, but let's keep this simple.
You can start here:
On the Origin of Species
Then, there's genetics and DNA. But let's take it slow.
But yes, it's true that your organic tomatoes have flounder genes, and bacteria genes. That is what nature does. And fortunately science can find these things out, and weed out the false, like that somehow genetic modification is qualitatively different than cross-breeding because so-called flounder genes are spliced into a tomato. Well, nature has been doing that for 4 billion years. And ALL the science says so. Because that's what nature informs us. It is written in our very DNA, and that of your tomatoes, and the flounder, and bacteria, and, and, and,...
Thanks for your polite responses.
My best to you.
Sorry. It is what is termed falsified.
As always.
It is a fuzzy concept since all life on Earth has a common origin. And all life on Earth shares genetic information. That falsifies your hypothesis that genetic modification is in any way qualitatively different than cross-breeding.
All the science says that genetic modification is safe. They've been studying it for decades.
Thanks for your responses, but I do not think that continuing this dialog will get either of us anywhere. I would, however, encourage you to look at the science.
My best to you.
people like me are: naiive idealists, want ponies, believe in unicorns, are professional leftists, and now we're stupid anti-science nuts. But hey, Vote for Hillary!
