it will spill it's cargo and they will run in circles yelling "oh , the SCIENCE - oh, the SCIENCE - oh, the SCIENCE.

They will show no objectivity.

Ask them if there are any problems and they go crazy.

I was thinking that too. Its always the same old hucksters shilling on about THE SCIENCE.

Do they honestly think we have to accept research into genetics as one-and-the-same as a monopolistic industry and its bag of engineering tricks?

The parallels they are drawing with climate science (which is mostly pure research) are strained to the point of being nonsensical.

Faster, easier to get results, more predictable.

GMO is all about patents and pesticide pairing systems.

Mmmmmmmm...pesticides.....

... not a lick.

Goggle Round Up and Kidney failure and see what you get. It's amazing that Americans think this is only happening in Sri Lanka and Central America. It's happening everywhere Round Up is used. It's as if Americans think they don't have hard water in some locations or that there are no hot places in the US. It's as if Americans are unaware of the ever growing need for dialysis in their own country. In 10 years, Kidney Failure caused by Round Up will be common knowledge much like lung cancer and smoking are linked.

Why are Americans so willing to risk their lives so some huge corporation can make more money off of poisoning them?

The burden of verifying a claim is on the poster, not the readers.

It is your responsibility to be informed.

You want science? That is how science works.

I check for my self...

BTW - did you find any of the info on Roundup and kidney problems?

I don't go on wild goose chases based on an unsupported claim. Particularly if I have never seen said claim in a bona fide scientific study. Sorry, but Google yields too much crap for me to try to track down every claim someone makes on DU.

please show me where -

You are stating a "fact" that I have never seen expressed before.

Welcome to DU.

who knew

my bad

See that wasn't so hard.

You have a responsibility to reference the original research that backs up your claim. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke.

to people who claim to be all about science?

Superweeds are a not a GMO-only problem. In fact, superweeds have slightly decreased in appearance rates since the advent of GMOs.

http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2013/05/superweed/

The question is why can't anti-GMO advocates be honest?

...which is precisely part of the marketing schemata of the main corporation pushing for GMOs.

Why can't GMO advocates be honest?

And reality is usually not found in dramatic headlines.

GLYPHOSATE AS A CARCINOGEN, EXPLAINED
http://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2015/03/glyphosate-as-a-carcinogen-explained.html

Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and cancer: A review
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230012000943

Expert reaction to carcinogenicity classification of five pesticides by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-carcinogenicity-classification-of-five-pesticides-by-the-international-agency-for-research-on-cancer-iarc/

Now, once again, we're back to the reality that the anti-GMO crowd is not being honest.

You're saying that the heavy use of glyphosates promulgated by Monstanto has nothing to do with the GMOs they also promote?

That it's all just coincidence, rather than part/parcel of the same corporate marketing "strategies?"

Are you even capable of uttering a single, critical syllable in Monsanto's direction? (Don't worry, that last was purely rhetorical).

Monsanto is not a part of the discussion. That is just one way that the anti-GMO crowd keeps the hyperbole up while it ignores the fact that it's stances are unsupported by science.

Well of course not. For you.

Last edited Fri Mar 27, 2015, 05:07 AM - Edit history (1)

You are using a lame gambit.

PS:

GMOs and the environment
http://thoughtscapism.com/2015/03/22/gmos-and-the-environment/

Indeed you are. Since your willed blindness allows you to discount financial motives in what gets researched, promulgated, etc.

All you have is a vague conspiracy about "financial motives."

As if organic companies don't have financial motives to push fear mongering about GMOs.

Hmm.

Because you're right.

And I will always ask more questions of those who want to dump their poisons, and copyright their seeds. As should anyone in a democracy.

You are just ignoring science, and pushing bad propaganda. Your actions are not ethical.

Neat trick, that.

You have pushed an anti-GMO agenda that is beyond the pale, and your dishonesty on the matter is only made all the more clear with every post you make on the topic.

Actually, what I think is that you're full-out projecting now that you've devolved into ad hominem attacks.

What do you think of Monsanto as a company?

I don't think much of them, so I don't participate in them.

mr science knows that

Please back up your extraordinary claims with reference to extraordinary scientific research papers or stop making those claims. I'm as interested as anyone in finding out if glyphosate is more toxic than we think or that GMOs are dangerous in some way. But I have yet to see a credible reference to scientific research that demonstrates the validity of either of those claims.

if you had tried. It's not that hard to find material.

For example, much higher cancer rates in Argentina where there is concentrated use of GMO crops and associated chemicals:

http://gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15506-cancer-deaths-double-where-gm-crops-and-agro-chemicals-used

And you might have been able to find credible research about negative aspects of GMOs, except that "Rigorous assessment of GMO safety has been hampered by the lack of funding independent of proprietary interests. Research for the public good has been further constrained by property rights issues, and by denial of access to research material for researchers unwilling to sign contractual agreements with the developers, which confer unacceptable control over publication to the proprietary interests."

http://www.enveurope.com/content/27/1/4

Last edited Sun Mar 29, 2015, 07:45 PM - Edit history (1)

Whoops.

This one comes from a provincial government in Argentina... call it "propaganda" if you wish.

But when the correlation is strong enough, we need to start thinking about the Precautionary Principle:

And you fail to realize that if you apply that to almost every other advance, you would have labels and bans on everything, including much basic technology, organic seeds developed using mutation breeding, and on and on.

You do not understand the science of the matter. You are parroting the usual anti-GMO propaganda.

...which, by the way, is codified into EU law. And they don't have "bans on everything" although they do ban some things our oligarchy dares not.

Seeing how they are not produced in an environment that lends itself to high concentration or refinement. So unless we were analyzing, say, how much energy it takes to transport pesticides, herbicides, etc. comparing dissimilar substances by weight is just misleading.

These reports provide actual context and present a more accurate picture:

n/t