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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
26. Actually, it IS the same.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 03:07 PM
Jun 2014

The plants where genetically modified when they were selectively bread and selectively MUTATED. It was the mutations that they wanted to create the modern strains. It's a genetic modification, no matter which way you look at it...

But sticking to the modern definition:

Monsanto was not the first to make a GMO. That was GE.

Then there was Humulin insulin, which was GMO.

Followed by the first GMO produce on the market: Flavr Savr tomatoes, made by California-based Calgene. That was 1994.

Monsanto didn't enter the GMO marketplace until the advent and wide-spread use of Round-Up, when the need for a glyphosate-resistant strain of foods arose. BTW - Round-Up (glyphosate) is water soluble, and will dissipate from the area it is sprayed on within a day or two, leaving NOTHING behind. I use it in my garden at the beginning of every season. Spray the area down, let everything else whiter and die, till the soil, replant. I don't generally use pesticides when I garden, as I spend enough time out there to take care of pests and weeds. But the Round-Up really helps clear out a large space in a quick time.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Defamation fail! KT2000 Jun 2014 #1
Interesting article. nt ZombieHorde Jun 2014 #2
I have not eaten corn or corn products since I first heard of this report, because I figured djean111 Jun 2014 #3
no-- the rapid push back was because it's a bogus study, (now) published in a fake journal.... mike_c Jun 2014 #7
For some reason, science is lost on some people... Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2014 #16
...and now the rapid full-bore corporate propaganda spewback is because... Chiron Jun 2014 #25
Well-said, Chiron. nt. appal_jack Jun 2014 #51
Thanks Chiron and WhiteTara Jun 2014 #57
ya'll are welcome Chiron Jun 2014 #70
No one likes the thought that WhiteTara Jun 2014 #73
Thank you for this crucial background information on the validity of the Seralini study Crowquette Jun 2014 #71
ROFL... SidDithers Jun 2014 #72
Thanks for the welcome Crowquette Jun 2014 #74
this is the climate change denial and chem-trails FUD of the left.... mike_c Jun 2014 #76
LOL-- it's a self pay-to-publish online "junk journal" with an impact factor of zero.... mike_c Jun 2014 #4
Questioning the messenger is fine, but tiny & obscure journals have their place. appal_jack Jun 2014 #17
Exactly. blackspade Jun 2014 #22
"Big science"? alp227 Jun 2014 #28
This thread is about GMO's. appal_jack Jun 2014 #40
well said, appal jack. Cha Jun 2014 #91
Tiny PAY TO PLAY journals Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2014 #32
Have you priced a subscription to any elsevier journals lately? appal_jack Jun 2014 #65
this is a FAKE journal, not just a small press.... mike_c Jun 2014 #75
Yup, junk science being defended by woo peddlers... SidDithers Jun 2014 #67
Suck it - Monsanto!! lark Jun 2014 #5
Sorry. Republishing an already-retracted study doesn't make it valid. alp227 Jun 2014 #6
And having the original study 'retracted' by a mystery panel of corporate shills does not Chiron Jun 2014 #35
Cue up the Monsanto shills blackspade Jun 2014 #8
Yep. Already happened. And I still won't buy anything with corn in it for my family. djean111 Jun 2014 #9
+1 blackspade Jun 2014 #14
Same here. No corn, no wheat. GliderGuider Jun 2014 #19
I don't buy anything with corn in it either arikara Jun 2014 #11
I buy GM free as much as I am able. blackspade Jun 2014 #13
Corporate infestation of the food chain Crowquette Jun 2014 #89
Yes, learning how to be objective Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2014 #15
All corn is not GM. blackspade Jun 2014 #18
Actually, it IS the same. Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2014 #26
You obviously know little about the origin of corn then. blackspade Jun 2014 #39
Hahaha... Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2014 #42
woo, that childish term again..... blackspade Jun 2014 #48
As soon as I see that stupid woo term arikara Jun 2014 #86
This is funny. HuckleB Sep 2015 #96
Do you really use round up in your yard? arikara Jun 2014 #85
Willful obfuscation much? appal_jack Jun 2014 #21
They just ignore being called on their bullshit about selective breeding. djean111 Jun 2014 #23
Post removed Post removed Jun 2014 #30
Oh my - jackass? Hit a nerve, did we? djean111 Jun 2014 #36
No, just calling it like I see it. Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2014 #38
You know, eventually we will get GMO labeling. Why waste your precious time. djean111 Jun 2014 #41
YAY! And we can be like the ignorant courts in Europe Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2014 #45
only monsato science is the real science wisechoice Jun 2014 #62
Post removed Post removed Jun 2014 #92
You know Aerows Jun 2014 #58
Is the DNA of the resultant corn the same as the original corn? Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2014 #27
Your lack of understanding about agricultural science is on glowing display. blackspade Jun 2014 #43
Must suck for you if all the 'grown-ups' nearby are this clueless. appal_jack Jun 2014 #50
So, to you, genetic modification can ONLY happen in a lab? Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2014 #53
That is the very definition of "Genetically modified" MohRokTah Jun 2014 #55
You are my hero of today BrotherIvan Jun 2014 #56
Cheers, Brother. appal_jack Jun 2014 #64
Bullshit propaganda with no relation to the truth. eom MohRokTah Jun 2014 #54
You say Monsanto shills, I say followers of legitimate science. alp227 Jun 2014 #31
Fail. blackspade Jun 2014 #49
! Crowquette Jun 2014 #95
you have phobia wisechoice Jun 2014 #63
No I don't. I care about science. alp227 Jun 2014 #69
Really. It's like they have a personal stake in the proliferation of Roundup. Cha Jun 2014 #90
Intriguing. I wasn't aware that anyone endorsed consumption of Roundup. Orrex Jun 2014 #10
Welcome down the rabbit-hole, Orrex. appal_jack Jun 2014 #94
So, self publishing a retracted bullshit study that was peer-reviewed and deemed to be bogus Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2014 #12
Lumping the Anti-GM movement with blackspade Jun 2014 #20
Oh, they would lump us in with birthers , and still might, since the usual shite is being dismissed. djean111 Jun 2014 #24
Why is it the largest organic producers and retailers are AGAINST GMO labelling? Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2014 #37
And how does the "free market" know what "genetically modified" even means? alp227 Jun 2014 #33
A sham how? blackspade Jun 2014 #47
No, your arguments are the same. Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2014 #34
Then you have no clear understanding of the issue. blackspade Jun 2014 #46
It's completely valid. They use many of the same techniques... SidDithers Jun 2014 #78
Your entitled to your opinion. blackspade Jun 2014 #80
Hello? Do you really believe this parroted anti-GMO propaganda? HuckleB Sep 2015 #97
"Peer review" doesn't matter when your corporate handlers are instructing you to make "woo" posts... villager Jun 2014 #29
People need to study the history of how the original Seralini study was anonymously undermined Chiron Jun 2014 #44
... SidDithers Jun 2014 #66
Well, I was very happy to see some Non-GMO Jolly Time popcorn in the grocery store! factsarenotfair Jun 2014 #52
And -------did it cost four times as much? n/t djean111 Jun 2014 #59
Well, honestly, I didn't even compare prices because I was so happy to see it. factsarenotfair Jun 2014 #60
Although I do refuse to eat GMO food, there are aspects to this study which I question. MohRokTah Jun 2014 #61
Do you live somewhere that requires labeling? Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #77
Seralini's study was junk science that was properly retracted by Food and Chemical Toxicology... SidDithers Jun 2014 #68
'Junk science' seems a bit harsh. From the retraction statement - Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #79
I think the editors were being kind... SidDithers Jun 2014 #81
we have to use an article wisechoice Jun 2014 #83
You can use whatever article you want ... SidDithers Jun 2014 #84
And your sources are shit wisechoice Jun 2014 #87
Sure they are... SidDithers Jun 2014 #88
It's actually far too kind. HuckleB Sep 2015 #98
The original retraction reeks of corporate corruption Crowquette Jun 2014 #82
The corrupt critics of the Seralini study and their Pervert Science Crowquette Jun 2014 #93
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Seralini Redux: Roundup-R...»Reply #26