8 ms·

It's got nothing to do with the scare tactics and "actual science," the fact is, GMO crops are showered with pesticides that are finding its way into our food.

It's got nothing to do with the scare tactics and "actual science," the fact is, GMO crops are showered with pesticides that are finding its way into our food. Those pesticide laden crops are then classified as "generally considered safe," bypassing all further independent scientific testing, allowing us to consume them unabated. Food allergies and intolerance has increased exponentially since this started. This may or may not be related. I'm sorry, but I can't get behind "generally considered safe" until proven so - and it hasn't been, and in fact there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that draws healthy skepticism. Beyond that, I've got my own internal debate about whether or not GMO crops are safe without the pesticides... I mean, they may be... I've read the science and I've read the skepticism regarding the science. They're both about as conclusive to me as the argument that says that science negates all possibility of divine intervention and I can't honestly say, all things considered, that either negates any possibility of the other. Until someone can conclusively prove to me that GMO is 100% safe, I will continue to consider that they may be unsafe and will, where possible, avoid them. Anyway, that has nothing to do with my argument. My argument is that people have a right to know what they are consuming so they can make informed decisions. Starbucks are standing with Monsanto and protesting against GMO labeling. I will stand against anyone that argues against my right to know what I am eating. It's your choice to eat GMO and I respect that, completely. It's my choice to avoid eating GMO. Either way, you have a right to know what you're eating.

mathgeek 12y ago
> the fact is, GMO crops are showered with pesticides that are finding its way into our food. You're confusing pesticide usage with intentional genetic modification. Non-GMO food is also commonly treated with pesticidal products. Heck, even some GMO food is pesticide-free. One of the key selling points of many GMO products is that you don't need pesticides (or at least as many of them). Edit: For anyone wondering what this poster is referring to, here Starbucks' page regarding the allegedly false accusations. http://news.starbucks.com/views/starbucks-response-to-questions-and-litigation-regarding-gmo-labeling http://news.starbucks.com/views/starbucks-response-to-questi...
- balabaster 12y ago
  And you're confusing an argument about my right to know about what I'm eating with my understanding of genetic modification and pesticides. My argument is about where Starbucks stands with their labeling policy, not with their policy regarding GMOs - I have a right to know what I'm consuming and make informed decisions. Their label policy is completely counter to that.
  - mathgeek 12y ago
    No confusion here. You stated as quoted, and I responded to it. Here's a great list of GMO-free brands for you, so that you can continue your lifestyle choice while waiting to see if Starbucks finds that the market dictates going GMO-free. Just remember that it's likely these brands still use pesticide-treated products. Have a great day! http://gmo-awareness.com/shopping-list/gmo-free-brands/ http://gmo-awareness.com/shopping-list/gmo-free-brands/
  - gtaylor 12y ago
    > And you're confusing an argument about my right to know about what I'm eating Honestly, you don't necessarily know what you're eating with non-GMO crops, either. As a previous poster mentioned, we've been selecting for certain characteristics for hundreds of years, which is just a slower way to modify genetics. If the innovators in this sector would have avoided using the word "genetic", nobody would care. But just like "Nuclear" there are certain words that the uneducated Fox News-consuming public froths at. Being someone with no shortage of empathy (despite my obvious abundance of sarcasm), I like to try to understand people that I disagree with. But what's all this about pesticides? That's a separate matter entirely, and isn't specific to GMO crops. You are wanting to specifically avoid GMOs, which is your right to do, but you shouldn't expect everyone to add a warning label for something that science has conclusively stated is fine. Hell, some GMOs are engineered such that less pesticides are necessary. That's a big win to me, personally. It'd be like asking for warning labels on faucets because some people think the government puts mind controlling agents in the water supply. Some fringe nutjobs have 100% unfounded theories, therefore everyone else should have to humor them? Nah. You can avoid GMOs and stick to products that are clearly labeled, but that's not a realistic expectation for everyone else. Those non-GMO labels are just taking advantage of this poorly informed minority, kind of like the Gluten-free craze.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
conception 12y ago
100% is a pretty close minded point of view. Are the plants that have been forcefully and unnaturally hybridized over the last 1000 years 100% safe to you? You walk by cars that emit gasses that are definitely not safe for you every day but probably don't go out of your way to live in a country-side free of combustion engines. 100% is an unattainable goal post and is effectively saying, "I don't care what anyone says, there's a chance!" Life is full of risk, most far and away more dangerous than the remote possibility that some GMOs, in certain circumstances, may be harmful.

mathgeek 12y ago

> the fact is, GMO crops are showered with pesticides that are finding its way into our food. You're confusing pesticide usage with intentional genetic modification. Non-GMO food is also commonly treated with pesticidal products. Heck, even some GMO food is pesticide-free. One of the key selling points of many GMO products is that you don't need pesticides (or at least as many of them). Edit: For anyone wondering what this poster is referring to, here Starbucks' page regarding the allegedly false accusations. http://news.starbucks.com/views/starbucks-response-to-questions-and-litigation-regarding-gmo-labeling http://news.starbucks.com/views/starbucks-response-to-questi...

balabaster 12y ago
And you're confusing an argument about my right to know about what I'm eating with my understanding of genetic modification and pesticides. My argument is about where Starbucks stands with their labeling policy, not with their policy regarding GMOs - I have a right to know what I'm consuming and make informed decisions. Their label policy is completely counter to that.
- mathgeek 12y ago
  No confusion here. You stated as quoted, and I responded to it. Here's a great list of GMO-free brands for you, so that you can continue your lifestyle choice while waiting to see if Starbucks finds that the market dictates going GMO-free. Just remember that it's likely these brands still use pesticide-treated products. Have a great day! http://gmo-awareness.com/shopping-list/gmo-free-brands/ http://gmo-awareness.com/shopping-list/gmo-free-brands/
- gtaylor 12y ago
  > And you're confusing an argument about my right to know about what I'm eating Honestly, you don't necessarily know what you're eating with non-GMO crops, either. As a previous poster mentioned, we've been selecting for certain characteristics for hundreds of years, which is just a slower way to modify genetics. If the innovators in this sector would have avoided using the word "genetic", nobody would care. But just like "Nuclear" there are certain words that the uneducated Fox News-consuming public froths at. Being someone with no shortage of empathy (despite my obvious abundance of sarcasm), I like to try to understand people that I disagree with. But what's all this about pesticides? That's a separate matter entirely, and isn't specific to GMO crops. You are wanting to specifically avoid GMOs, which is your right to do, but you shouldn't expect everyone to add a warning label for something that science has conclusively stated is fine. Hell, some GMOs are engineered such that less pesticides are necessary. That's a big win to me, personally. It'd be like asking for warning labels on faucets because some people think the government puts mind controlling agents in the water supply. Some fringe nutjobs have 100% unfounded theories, therefore everyone else should have to humor them? Nah. You can avoid GMOs and stick to products that are clearly labeled, but that's not a realistic expectation for everyone else. Those non-GMO labels are just taking advantage of this poorly informed minority, kind of like the Gluten-free craze.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

conception 12y ago

100% is a pretty close minded point of view. Are the plants that have been forcefully and unnaturally hybridized over the last 1000 years 100% safe to you? You walk by cars that emit gasses that are definitely not safe for you every day but probably don't go out of your way to live in a country-side free of combustion engines. 100% is an unattainable goal post and is effectively saying, "I don't care what anyone says, there's a chance!" Life is full of risk, most far and away more dangerous than the remote possibility that some GMOs, in certain circumstances, may be harmful.