Hundreds of Farmers Block Roads in Protest of Monsanto’s GMO Crops

[RiverLover]

Last edited Sun Mar 1, 2015, 01:07 PM - Edit history (3)

In Poland.

Hundreds of Farmers Block Roads in Protest of Monsanto’s GMO Crops
3/1/2015

A convoy of Polish tractors on the road as part of the biggest farmers' uprising the country has ever experienced. Photo: via Land Workers Alliance.

Poland’s largest farmer uprising ever has occurred as convoys of tractors took to the roads recently in protest of GMO infiltration and land grabs by biotech and Big Ag corporations.

More than 150 farmers blocked roadways and held numerous demonstrations in order to bring attention to the important issue of food sovereignty in Poland. Their focus is a ban on GMOs and a restoration of small farmer’s rights after decades of oppressive health and safety regulations which take rights away from small farms and give them to mono-cropping, poisoning Big Ag mega-companies.

The farmers have been stalwart – refusing to call off their demonstrations until their demands are met. Rallies and demonstrations have littered the country – in over 50 locations. Hundreds are picketing government offices in addition to the road blockades.

In the largest organized farmer’s protest the country has likely ever seen, the farmers are demanding that legislators protect the small farmer from exploitation by monopolizing companies and refuse the sell off of their country’s land to these behemoths. As the farmers point out, once the land is sold, the Big Ag model can’t be stopped, and the land is forever lost.

Read: Record GMO Farmers Switching to NON-GMO Crops in 2015

Until government officials agree to talk with the farming unions, they have vowed to keep up their efforts. Edward Kosmal, chairman of the farmers protest committee for West-Pomeranian Region said:

“We are ready for dialogue. We look forward to meeting with you, Prime Minister, and beginning a comprehensive government commitment to solving the problems of Polish agriculture. If you do not enter into a dialogue with the Union, we will be forced to step up our protests.”...

http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/03/01/hundreds-of-farmers-block-roads-in-protest-of-monsantos-gmo-crops/

Editing to add info & refute comments below trying to smear this OP with lies, like Fox...

Key demands: land rights, no GMOs, legalize farm food sales

The four key demands of the farmers are:

Land rights - implement regulation to prevent land-grabs by Western companies and to protect family farmers rights to land - from 2016 foreign buyers will be legally able to buy Polish land.

Legalize direct sales of farm produce - the government must take action to improve farmers' position in the market, including the adoption of a law to facilitate direct sales of processed and unprocessed farm products (NB. Poland has the most exclusionary policies in Europe around on-farm processing of food products and direct sales, which make it impossible for family farmers to compete with bigger food companies).

Extend inheritance laws to include land under lease as a fully legal form of land use.

Ban the cultivation and sale of Genetically Modified Organisms in Poland

"We demand a legal ban on GM crops in Poland", said one protesting farmer and Solidarity member. "The value of Polish agriculture, unique in Europe, is the unpolluted environment and high quality food production. That's decisive concerning our competitiveness in global markets."

Another added: "We demand the introduction of legislation that will protect Polish land from exploitation by foreign capital! Agricultural land cannot be sold to commercial companies. It's part of Polish territory. Once sold it will be lost."...

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2747384/polish_farmers_block_motorways_for_land_rights_no_gmos.html

[GreatGazoo]

1. Another source makes no mention of Monsanto -- says protest is over loss of crops to wild boar

and Russia's embargo on imports:

Farmers are blocking main roads across Poland in a protest over the loss of their crops.

Farming organisations are demanding compensation from the government.

Crops have been ruined in many regions by wild boars.
...
“We simply do not have the money to pay our loans. All of the equipment we use is not ours. Everybody took out a loan.”

http://www.euronews.com/2015/02/05/protesting-farmers-block-main-roads-in-poland/

Monsanto's MON810 was banned years ago in Poland.

[Buzz Clik]

4. Hm. The OP seems to be guilty of having a FoxNews moment

Truth be damned! We have a message that must be conveyed!!!!!11

[arikara]

16. Maybe the MSM is having more faux news moments

I'm sure farmers are out protesting boars.

!!!!!1

[Buzz Clik]

25. Did you even bother to look it up yourself? (rhetorical question -- I know the answer)

Read this, and don't bother me again with ignorant drivel.

http://www.euronews.com/2015/02/05/protesting-farmers-block-main-roads-in-poland/

Oh, and don't forget to alert my post for being "hurtful."

[arikara]

39. And did you even bother to read the other links?

alert yourself.

I've had a shitty week and I really don't care what ignorant @ssh0les like you think.

[Buzz Clik]

43. Go away. You were caught blowing smoke.

[RiverLover]

56. Talking to yourself?

[Buzz Clik]

67. I sure as shit was not talking to you.

[MineralMan]

72. A jury left the post you replied to 4-3.

I was amazed about that. I was a later alert, so I don't have the comments.

[Buzz Clik]

73. I was not fazed by it.

DU tends to over-manage on the "let's be nice" frontier.

[sabrina 1]

100. Good jury result. The alert should have been on the post that caused that response. Did you alert on

that one btw? I rarely bother alerting. But if I were to do so in this instance, I would have alerted on the original post.

[snooper2]

71. that sucks, you posted this yesterday on Sunday- it's only ONE DAY into the week!

[Orrex]

6. They're probably wild GMO boars.

The second-worst kind.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

7. Shush you...

Facts aren't allowed in FUD or anti-GMO threads (and by anti-GMO, really I meant anti-Monsanto, but some can't distinguish the two) threads.

Also, bio of the author:

Christina Sarich is a humanitarian and freelance writer helping you to Wake up Your Sleepy Little Head, and See the Big Picture. She also writes exclusive articles for NationofChange. Her blog is Yoga for the New World. Her latest book is Pharma Sutra: Healing the Body And Mind Through the Art of Yoga.

[NuclearDem]

8. Some other sources I've seen mention GM crops

but in the context of large sections of farmland being sold to biotech companies.

To frame this as an anti-Monsanto protest is dishonest.

[HuckleB]

17. Exactly. This is more dishonest anti-GMO propaganda.

They can't argue their unjustified hatred of science honestly, so this is what we get from them, over and over and over again.

[Dont call me Shirley]

2. Same land grab MO big ag used in the Us in the 1980's. Big Ag are criminals against the earth.

[RiverLover]

58. Good way to phrase it & BigAg's land grabs are allowing the GMOs Polish farmers don't want.

While the Polish government has "banned GMOs", they have left a backdoor for GMOs to be grown on prime Polish farmland bought by Dutch, Danish and UK multinationals. This "backdoor" allows the "trading" of GM seeds, in compliance with an EU directive which calls for GM planting to be permitted in “special designated areas.”

The blockading of government land agencies continues in Poland, and has grown to include several demonstrations in a number of provinces.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/343133

[aspirant]

3. Is Big AG

too big to fail or jail? There seems to be a common denominator here.

[cap]

5. Small polish farmers are a big force in Poland

Polish agriculture was never collectivized under the Soviets because of the resistance of the small farmers. They will bring considerable pressure to the government.

[RiverLover]

60. That's really interesting, and good to know!

Thanks, I hope you're right!!

[marions ghost]

9. Up with the Polish farmers

against Big Ag and GMOS.

Go farmers.

[tomsaiditagain]

10. Its the powers of the world's shadow government

Those who sit at the Bilderberg Group tables are not going to stop until they have total control of the world's economic system. GMO's are included in this plan. Economic domination over all who inhabit the Earth with meager wages? Slave labor for pennies and government handouts of food to sustain the slaves?

Am I crazy?

http://www.rense.com/general86/bilder.htm

[NuclearDem]

11. "Am I crazy?"

[MoreGOPoop]

12. Solidarnosc!

Monsanto, Cargill, Syngenta, Dow, etc., need to be sliced and diced
into veg-all.

[Veilex]

13. So, this is a topic I'm constantly torn on....

I see both sides of the argument as having valid concerns and points. I'd like to see more concerted efforts to work toward finding answers, or if those answers exist, then, educating people over the facts. I definitely would like to see a cessation of the mud slinging I see happening over this issue.

I've posted are a few videos I've managed to find on the topic from high profile individuals.
The majority of them are more geared toward a cautious approach to GMOs... which I don't see as being unreasonable.
I also feel GMO, as a science, has enormous potential, and should not be demonized to the point where we stop looking into its benefits. I DO feel long time Agro bullies such as Con Agra and Monsanto should be banned from its use and study.

An idea I recently came up with, instead of labeling a product as GMO, what about labeling specific ingredients as GMO? For example: Water, Soybean Oil (GMO), Flour....
Ingredient labeling is already required by law...perhaps this could be a viable option?

In any case, I'm still undecided on this topic. Without further ado, here are the videos:

[HuckleB]

18. Nye has changed his views on GMOs, and will show that in an updated version of his book.

Maher is anti-science to the core. He is against vaccines, and has even denied germ theory.

That 14-year-old is the daughter of parents who own a billion dollar organic food and supplement company. She's a shilling for reals!

[Veilex]

37. "That 14-year-old is the daughter of parents who own a billion dollar organic food and..."

That doesn't make her wrong. More to the point, she's right about the lack of independent long-term studies.
She's also right about so-called "golden rice" being a failure.

[HuckleB]

45. Oh, goodness. That's funny.

Last edited Mon Mar 2, 2015, 03:23 AM - Edit history (1)

Golden Rice is a "failure" only because anti-GMOers have kept it from helping those in need. That history shows how the lack of ethics of the anti-GMO movement hurt people in a very real manner.

She's completely wrong about the science of GMOs. Pretending otherwise is simply dishonest. As for the "long term studies" routine, there are almost no studies on plants developed using mutation breeding, much less long term studies. Her parents sell products developed using mutation breeding, and any concern she has about GMOs go double or triple that for that technology. Yet, she doesn't care about that at all. And neither do you. That tells everyone all we need to know about the ludicrous nature of the anti-GMO movement.

[Major Nikon]

57. Exactly

The only "failure" of Golden Rice is it's inability to gain political approval from the EU, which is heavily influenced by a populace easily swayed by pseudo-science so long as it fits an agenda.

Golden Rice has been ready to go for over a decade and potentially could have prevented millions of deaths and disabilities of the most vulnerable people on earth. This will simply continue until people eventually realize that the blood of those children are on the hands of 1st world charlatans.

[Veilex]

77. The problem isn't just one of political approval...

Golden rice would only serve to add fraction of the needed vitamin A.

This rice, called "golden" rice because the inserted beta-carotene turns the grain a golden yellow color, could supply enough beta-carotene in a typical serving to supply 10% of the daily requirement for Vitamin A.

But this is a case of attempting to reinvent the wheel:

“It is ironic that some of the worst concentrations of xeropthalmia and blindness due to Vitamin A deficiency occur in populations surrounded by abundant sources of the vitamins and minerals in local vegetables and fruits, yet no country has yet mounted a successful campaign to solve the Vitamin A problem in this way.” Dr. Nevin Scrimshaw, 1991 Laureate of the World Food Prize

The reason Golden Rice is a failure is largely because it attempts to replace many cheaper local solutions available to many of the afflicted territories. In short, its an attempted money grab by big corporations, when by comparison, local alternatives cost pennies on the dollar compared to the costs aforementioned companies would levy.

UNICEF currently has solutions to Vitamin A deficiency, Mittal says, some of which cost mere pennies per person. Available solutions include Vitamin A tablets, food fortification (for example, adding the vitamin to sugar), and dietary approaches to educate people -- who may be completely unaware of the deficiency – about healthy diets. Moreover, unlike Golden Rice, these solutions will solve a whole range of micronutrient deficiencies. Furthermore, people's ability to absorb Vitamin A depends on their overall nutrition status. This underlines the need for global improvements in nutrition, not “magic bullets” of Vitamin A. “Are they going to give us a miracle rice that will be engineered with everything?” asks Chee.

Mittal and Chee say that all the hype and millions of funding dollars injected into Golden Rice, a product still five or even ten years in the future, is diverting much-needed resources from currently available solutions. “They keep telling us 'we are giving you one more tool.' They are not,” says Chee. As much as US$100 million has been spent on Golden Rice thus far, with funds from the Rockerfeller Foundation, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, the European Community Biotech Programme and the Swiss Federal Office for Education and Science.

This is not to say that Golden rice does not have potential. Clearly it does. However, the focus is on engineering a new solution which is patented and expensive, over existing methods of educational outreach, that we know without a doubt work... and for dramatically less cost to the local populace.

This is literally an argument of how to help localities who're suffering deficiencies.
One way will benefit big corporations, and may benefit local populations...
the other way will not only benefit local populations, but may also be a boon to local agricultural groups rather than large Agro corporations like Monsanto and Con Agra.

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~ethics/GoldenRiceCaseStudy.pdf

[Major Nikon]

82. You are quoting outdated information

Your reference is also non-peer reviewed written evidently by what appears to be non-grad students, which references other non-peer reviewed publications (mostly with obvious biases) or very obscure peer reviewed publications.

Golden rice would only serve to add fraction of the needed vitamin A.

This statement is true for every single supplement solution, including all the ones you mentioned which are more expensive and less practical. The 10% figure you quoted isn't even in the right ballpark. Golden Rice can supply 50% of the RDA with just one cup of rice per day. It should also be noted that the vast majority of poor populations worldwide consume rice as a staple. Compare this to fortified sugar which is not only a luxury food item, but is completely unavailable in many parts of the world.

http://asn-cdn-remembers.s3.amazonaws.com/1247eb83af3c2c77fb8cf75d5e158f1f.pdf

But this is a case of attempting to reinvent the wheel:

Sure the simple answer to solving Vitamin A deficiency is to make remote and extremely poor populations not poor. While certainly effective, that goal is far from easy and need not be abandoned in lieu of more immediate and effective solutions.

The reason Golden Rice is a failure is largely because it attempts to replace many cheaper local solutions available to many of the afflicted territories. In short, its an attempted money grab by big corporations, when by comparison, local alternatives cost pennies on the dollar compared to the costs aforementioned companies would levy.

The "big money grab" is complete nonsense. Golden Rice was developed and patented by non-profit interests. The only "big corporation" involved donated their technology and is under contract to produce the product at zero markup for poor farmers and has no intention of marketing the product commercially because there is no market for it. Richer markets have no need for it because their customers aren't vitamin A deficient. Poor farmers can also save their seed and reuse it just as effectively, so the cost to them is zero.

No solution is cheaper and more effective once realities like distribution and application are considered. With Golden Rice, all people have to do is continue doing what they are already doing. No distribution networks are needed and people don't have to be trained how to use it.

[Veilex]

83. Your link was a little insufficient... here's a better one:

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/6/1776.full.pdf

An interesting read to be sure... though even that research paper notes high logistical costs.
One concern I have is that the study was woefully under representative with only 2 men and 3 women involved.
Add to that, a complete lack of a control group.
Though the testing was considerably inadequate, the initial results look promising indeed.
Certainly interesting enough for additional testing.

I do also have to point out, this is a single study in the face of the amalgamated studies I provided through the link I posted.
Not saying your study is wrong... but the weight of research, at least on this topic, is a bit one sided.

[Major Nikon]

85. It's not a matter of this or that being right or wrong

Golden Rice was greatly improved several years ago. If you are referencing something that is not up to date, you have information that may have been correct at the time, but no longer applies.

It's just not that hard to determine the nutritional content of rice and the results are published in one of the most respected nutrition journals in the world, if not the most respected. I'm not sure you can say the same about the alternatives you listed and I just wasn't all that impressed with the link you posted. It wasn't hard to find the flaws.

[Veilex]

99. The fact remains that the study you list is significantly flawed.

A study with only five people is not representative. Add to that, as I've said before, it has no control group. It fails the very basic fundamentals of scientific method. Just as you were able to find flaws in the link I posted, I was able to easily do so in the study you referenced.

If what you and they claim is true, then excellent! More representative studies still need done to verify those initial findings

[Veilex]

78. "That history shows how the lack of ethics of the anti-GMO movement"

As a response to this, I direct you to my reply on line 77.

"She's completely wrong about the science of GMOs. Pretending otherwise is simply dishonest."

I respect that you have an opinion. However, do not mistake your opinion as having the weight of fact behind it. If you have support for your claim, please post it and I'll be more than happy to entertain whatever you post. I am after all, not convinced one way or another as yet.

What I wont entertain, however, is your attempt to divert from the topic of GMOs to mutagenic plants, except to say this: You are not an authority on what either she nor I care about. I won't tolerate your presumptions... particularly within the vacuum of evidence. Remember, you have yet to provide any substantive reason as to why I should value your judgments over hers.

If you can provide something of substance, and can be civil, I'm happy to engage in conversation with you.

[Major Nikon]

86. Ok, here are the facts

"Golden Rice was scraped..."

Golden Rice has never been "scraped".

"...because it didn't work"

A complete fabrication.

"in order for an 11 year old boy to get enough vitamin A from rice, he'd have to eat 11, no 27 bowls of rice per day."

The AJCN says that's bullshit.

That's just the first few seconds, and the person this child of privilege is debating about starving children corrected her on all her biased points that were just flat wrong, yet the commentator seems to think he just got his ass handed to him by someone who is slinging pure bullshit which is obvious to anyone who actually knows shit from beans about the subject.

[Veilex]

94. So, lets assume golden rice hasn't been scraped...

Another fact is that the sole research paper you've identified, has woefully substandard methods being employed, and would not be considered a credible authority on the issue by those following scientific method.

One essential debate is on the science of biotechnology. “This will never be a precise technology,” says Chee. “They can't defend it from a scientific basis because they haven't shown us good science yet.” Golden Rice is a so-called “Second Generation” GM product, meaning it purports to have benefits for consumers, not just for producers.

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~ethics/GoldenRiceCaseStudy.pdf

Ignoring the commentators and simply looking at reactions and body language, the male guest did indeed backpedal each time she countered one of his points. Calling her point of view biased or pure bullshit, doesn't make you right on the subject... nor do you gain the upper hand in the discussion by claiming " obvious to anyone who actually knows shit from beans about the subject" - Here, your dabbling with the classic fallacy known as false equivalency. Namely, you're trying to frame the argument that only those who know anything on the topic agree with you... which is patently false.

If you can back up your assertions, that's fine. But at present, you have a single study with a ridiculously small, non-representative, sample group of just two men and three women. Additionally, these purported finding compared to previous versions is nothing short of miraculous, if true. The simple fact that the claims are so dramatically different, alone, should have prompted a representative and rigorous study.

Thus far, its just one study, that fails to follow basic scientific method. I'd love to see more, particularly if its legit. But right now, the legitimacy potential of this study is rather poor... particularly given no other credible scientific journal has given credence to the study.

[Major Nikon]

95. You speak of fallacies

...and then pretend it's my job to disprove something that was never proven to begin with.

One doesn't have to assume Golden Rice hasn't been scraped. It hasn't been scraped. Period. The assumption was that it had, which was a piss poor assumption to begin with and not even remotely based in reality.

Another fact is that the sole research paper you've identified, has woefully substandard methods being employed, and would not be considered a credible authority on the issue by those following scientific method.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the opinion(not even close to a fact) of an obscure and non-credentialed activist (or yours) trumps the peer-reviewed and very well respected AJCN?

If this is what counts as a "fact" and you're going to argue from that basis, I just don't feel like playing by those rules. I've already refuted the obviously amateurish paper you keep flaunting and really have no interest in doing so over and over again.

Cheers!

[Veilex]

101. So I'll retract my statment that golden rice has been scraped. The 14 year old activist was still...

...right about long term studies. Something longer than a mere month or three.

"Are you seriously trying to suggest that the opinion(not even close to a fact) of an obscure and non-credentialed activist (or yours) trumps the peer-reviewed and very well respected AJCN?" No. I'm illustrating that there is plenty of arguments on both sides of the discussion, and that neither side has provided unimpeachable proof that their side is right. Certainly not in the form of the flawed study you reference.

Incidentally, the link I posted was from a research extension center with a university... which tend to do considerable research and are often on the leading edge of various studies. They are also quite credible... as opposed to what your "obviously amateurish paper" comment suggests.

The link I provided is not "fact" anymore than the link you've provided. They are studies. Science is a amorphous, evolving thing... details that are right today may be wrong tomorrow. But again, one study, does not a fact make.

[HuckleB]

102. She's still not right about anything.

And if she was, then she would be wrong because she's not asking for any studies of other seed development technologies, including the ones sold by her parents.

It's time to wake up. The anti-GMO crowd is lying to you and to everyone.

[Veilex]

103. "The anti-GMO crowd is lying to you and to everyone"

I doubt very much that lies are involved. It could be a fair bit of mistrust. Perhaps some confirmation bias (There's plenty of that to go around on both sides of the issue). It may be overly emotional reaction. People often fear what the don't understand. This is one of the reasons I'm an advocate of civil discussion. Civil discourse offers the opportunity for differing views to be heard and addressed. Education is often the ultimate panacea for fear.

What they fear, is not an unreasonable fear... particularly given some of the companies that are involved... most notably: Monsanto... a manufacturer of numerous extremely dangerous chemicals... and a company who started off as a chemical manufacturer who took an interest in Agriculture, and has a well established history of bad behavior.

It is entirely possible that Monsanto, and similar poorly behaving companies, may be the sole reason for the PR problem facing GMOs.
It is entirely possible that those fears are getting in the way of providing a much upgraded Golden Rice to those in significant need.

As for the young lady, I don't agree that not asking for studies of other seed development technologies is a qualifier for her to be wrong. For one, the conversation was directed at her rather than talking with her, so she was forced to answer reactively...that doesn't exactly provide much opportunity to voice one's opinion outside of the framing being forced her way.

Another issue is that you've presented another false connection... IE: she didn't meet my arbitrary rules and therefore is wrong on everything - This line of thinking is a logical fallacy. Even those who are authorities on issues, such as Global Climate Change, for example, can be wrong on specific details... but that doesn't make everything they say automatically wrong. Everyone on the planet is wrong at some point or another. The great thing about good scientists is, if they're wrong, they don't take it personally... they merely incorporate the new data and continue on... but back to the young lady... if she was wrong about long-term studies, please link them. I would very interested in reading it/them.

[Veilex]

38. "Nye has changed his views on GMOs, and will show that in an updated version of his book."

Until the book comes out, we don't know what changes have occurred in his views.

[HuckleB]

46. You keep telling yourself that.

If you understood science, and cared, you wouldn't play that game. And you would know that Nye's opinion doesn't matter. BTW, your clear anti-GMO responses show that you were very dishonest in your original post. Lame!

[Veilex]

79. "If you understood science, and cared, you wouldn't play that game."

I don't accept your logical fallacy of "if this, then that". The two are not connected... and you have no idea what I do and don't care about unless I deign to tell you. I also note that you're quick to assign me to what you equate as "the enemy", which tells me trying to converse with you would be a waste of time. Your commentary has been less than engaging, so it looks like this'll be the end of our conversing.

[HuckleB]

97. I get that you are pushing anti-GMO propaganda.

And you're not being honest about your actual stance.

Outside of that, ...

[Chathamization]

64. Bill Nye actually still calls for caution:

Source:

We clearly disagree.

I stand by my assertions that although you can know what happens to any individual species that you modify, you cannot be certain what will happen to the ecosystem.

Also, we have a strange situation where we have malnourished fat people. It’s not that we need more food. It’s that we need to manage our food system better.

So when corporations seek government funding for genetic modification of food sources, I stroke my chin.

And this is from his book that just came out a few months ago:

If you’re asking me, we should stop introducing genes from one species to another, while at the same time taking full advantage of our ability to understand the genome of any organism - plant, animal, or fungus - in order to produce the healthiest, most sustainable food system possible. Here’s why: Although we can know exactly what happens to any organism we modify, we just can’t quite know what will happen to other species in that modified organism’s ecosystem. For me this is a big deal, though some other investigators don’t seem to find it as troubling.
…
Ecosystems come to be by means of the bottom-up nature of evolution. Natural systems come into existence over thousand of centuries; they end up being extraordinarily complicated. By introducing organism designed in top-down fashion, there is just a very good (or bad) chance that the designers, the gene-modifying scientists and engineers, will miss something - something subtle but important. So for me, evolutionary theory informs our decisions about GMOs.
…
I’d prefer to err on the safe side - not because I’m anti-corporation or anti-progress (not at all) - but because I recognize there’s just no way to predict an outcome.

[Veilex]

80. Good to know! Thanks for sharing that!

I tend to respect Bill Nye quite a bit as he's done a fair bit for science education... and he's done a fair bit of research on his own and with other scientists.

[HuckleB]

98. This is actually a past viewpoint. Nye has admitted that he has changed these views.

That's the reality I'm bringing up. Repeating his old views doesn't change his current views. Not that his old views mattered, since they did not consider the actual science in question.

[RiverLover]

21. FYI - Forbes Journalist Counters New York Times on GMO Food Claims

This might help clear some things up~

Forbes Journalist Counters New York Times on GMO Food Claims
2/17/2015

Authors: Christina Sarich | NationofChange | News Report

Beth Hoffman points out some deliciously pithy points about the scam that ‘science’ has perpetrated on the masses when it comes to GMO foods – just in time for a new round of propaganda being published by the corporate-owned media – the New York Times, Slate and Grist.

To get straight to the main course, Hoffman states:

“Let me be clear – I am not “afraid of science,” a claim that someone invariably writes at the end of an article like this one to try and discredit its argument. I, like millions of people around the world, am against genetic engineering, but not because of the proven or refuted science behind it.

So the question is why? Why am I part of a huge, and growing, group not willing to believe the “facts” (according to its proponents) about the benefits of genetic modification? Why am I against the creation of Golden Rice, even if it may stop millions of children from going blind?

The basic answer is simple: trust.

Science has a credibility problem. It has for too long been used to distort food and twist the natural into long lasting Twinkies and nutritionally void Lunchables. Tobacco was good for us, we were told, and DDT was fine to spray on our fields. Food dyes are all still considered safe for our kids to eat, and “natural” foods, we are made to believe, are made of naturally occurring ingredients.”

Are we really to believe that there is a race to ‘save the orange’ by altering its DNA, as the NYT suggests, or that consumers should be subjected to non-bruising apples that have been genetically modified, and recently approved by the USDA without any proof that these biotech creations are safe?

Do companies like Monsanto or Cargill really deserve our loyalty, our respect?

Love all, trust few, do wrong to none. ~ William Shakespeare

These are the same companies that told us DDT was safe, and the same mind-set that told us cigarette smoking was good for our health, that PCBs were harmless, and that we have been eating ‘natural’ ingredients when this has been proven untrue, and numerous companies have had to invidiously pay millions in out of court settlements and lawsuit damages for advertising falsely.

To wit:

Pepsi-Co paid $9 million in a class action lawsuit after promoting they’re several of their products as ‘natural’.
Coca-Cola has been the subject of numerous class action lawsuits for lying to the pubic about the ingredients in their products, among them artificial and carcinogenic ingredients.
Monsanto was ordered to pay $93 million to residents of the small town of Nitro, West Virginia for exposing them to toxic chemicals.
Cargill settled a deceptive advertising lawsuit which alleged Truvia’s stevia-based sweeteners were not ‘natural’ as the company has claimed.
Farmers have filed more than 360 lawsuits against biotech giant, Syngenta for claiming that GMO corn Agrisure Viptera was approved by international markets for sale, when it wasn’t.

Who cares about the ‘science’ behind GMO claims, when we can’t trust food makers and biotech? Their lies are redundant at this point, and anyone with two brain cells can see through their tomfoolery.

Furthermore, the collective body which represents these companies, the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association, (GMA) has stealthily, and illegally funded campaigns against GMO labeling. ...

http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/02/17/forbes-journalist-counters-new-york-times-gmo-food-claims/

Follow the money.

[HuckleB]

49. So, she says we can't trust "biotech," but she wants us to trust the anti-GMO movement?

You realize that you can go to any of their Internet pages and find that what they say about GMOs are lies, day after day, after day? Why, for example, is the anti-GMO movement pushing the Polish farmers protest as having much of anything to do with GMOs? Independent news sources don't show that to be a big part of the story, if much of any part. Yet, we see anti-GMO pages pushing it to the forefront, as if it is the main story. You do realize that they're not growing GMOs there, as it is.

http://rt.com/news/231519-poland-farmers-tractors-protest/

http://www.euronews.com/2015/02/05/protesting-farmers-block-main-roads-in-poland/

Her argument is ludicrous, based simply on that reality. Until the anti-GMO folks can be honest, they don't have a leg to stand on regarding the honesty of others. It's one of the most dishonest "movements" in the world, as it is.

[Major Nikon]

63. "seeds of death" has already been regurgitated in this thread

It's pretty much 80 minutes of continuous lies. I find it very interesting that people whine incessantly about being lied to by the bio-tech industry, by offering the flimsiest of proof, yet can't seem to identify the glaring bullshit in the stuff they gleefully parrot out.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Seeds_of_Death

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

53. She brings up good points, but I certainly wouldn't call it a 'trust' issue in re science itself.

Rather what she points out is that corporations misuse science to proclaim products 'safe', when the reality is that each individual study is a narrow window into what is actually going on with the things studied. So on down the road, someone does a different study that looks at a different aspect of the process or product, or looks at it in combination with other factors not included in prior studies, and lo and behold, that 'safety' was actually just ignorance of the real pathways through which harm was occurring. So the problem is not 'science', but rather the way people (who work for corporations) intentionally overgeneralize the results of actual studies to pretend they show far more than they actually do, especially when it comes to 'safety'.

[GreatGazoo]

24. Nye has a undergrad degree in Mech Engineering

He is an actor. He blows his credibility on genetics in the first 90 seconds of that condescending pitch. Nye says that "one gene controls eye color" -- it is several genes.

Maher has made a career out of being provocative. He plays the rebel thing in a way that can appeal to the left or right but on any given issue one side or the other will say he is total wrong.

Rachel Parent spanks O'Leary and sends him home. She sticks to the facts and is not baited into the mythical GMO benefits that only seem to exist in talking points. She is credible and effective because she doesn't quote "Natural News" but rather readily verifiable facts.

[Veilex]

36. "Nye says that "one gene controls eye color" " - Thats not what he said at all.

Bill Nye suggested, and he's correct, that if you change one gene among the many potential gene combinations, you could impact the color expressed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color

Additionally, even were he inaccurate on one detail (which he's not), that doesn't negate his credibility... else, there'd not be a correct person on the planet, and all science and study would be automatically wrong. Being an actor is irrelevant to the conversation. Last, but certainly not least, you are not the de facto authority on if Bill Nye is credible, purely by your opinion.

With reference to Maher, all you've done is identified that he's human and can change his mind and opinion, and offered no substantive reason as to why his voice should carry less weight than your own.

Odd that you're willing to accept the word of a young teen who could very easily have been coached on what to believe and say, but not those who have a number of years under their belt, and who've likely done research into the subject... one of which has at least a 4 year degree which requires many of the same sciences that any scientist would need before getting into their field of study.

Perhaps you don't like Nye or Maher? That, at least, would feel like a more reasoned and honest response.

[GreatGazoo]

61. Nye's exact words at the 1:27 mark of that video

Bill Nye (reads a cue card or teleprompter likely written by someone else and) says "if you change one of the genes, you change one of the instructions so instead of Bill Nye the brown eyed guy you get Bill Nye the blue eyed guy." Eye color is influenced by several genes as anyone with even passing knowledge of genetics should know:

A number of groups surveyed associations of single-nucleotide polymorphisms with eye color, with fairly consistent results: variation in the HERC2 and OCA2 genes, which are next to each other on chromosome 15, plays a major role in determining eye color. However, variation in at least 10 other genes, plus complicated interactions between these genes, also influences eye color (reviewed in Sturm and Larsson 2009, with more recent results in Liu et al. 2010 and Pospiech et al. 2011).

http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mytheyecolor.html

What does Rachel Parent say that is factually wrong? Of course she was well coached by experts and O'Leary was coached too but he lost badly because he doesn't have the facts on his side. I challenge you to name one thing that Parent states in that debate that is wrong. She has been doing this for years and has faced much more knowledgeable people than she did in Mister Wonderful which is why he as useless as a butter knife in a gun fight.

I think it is odd that anyone would turn to a guy with only an undergrad degree in Mechanical Engineering for information on genetics. If Bill Nye was driving a race car instead of talking genetics, he basically would have just plowed into the wall in turn 1 with his "one gene controls eye color" thing. Perhaps we can agree that the speaker is not what should be evaluated but rather what they say and in that regard O'Leary bluffed with Golden Rice and got called on it, and Bill Nye was wrong about one of the most basic facts of human genetics. Nye could have lost a debate with an empty chair with that crap.

Happy to have an honest debate about the facts -- Fact: eye color is influenced by more than one gene.

Can you name one thing that Rachel Parent said in the O'Leary debate that is factually incorrect so that we can move this beyond ad homs and appeals to authority?

[Veilex]

81. "if you change one of the genes..."

And he's still right. If you change one of the genes involved in eye color, it can in fact alter eye color.

"Happy to have an honest debate about the facts -- Fact: eye color is influenced by more than one gene." - That is indeed a fact... but at no point did Bill ever state nor imply that it was only one gene that controlled eye color.
You're misinterpreting what he said.

[RiverLover]

84. Thank you.

This twisting of his words is used by RWrs to try to discredit his Climate Change facts.

Can't believe that particularly stupid lie is being flung around here at DU.

[DeSwiss]

50. If you believe in science.....

...then you must also believe in the scientific method. And the scientific method and knowledge base of mechanical engineers and astrophysicists don't count worth a hill of beans against one of the world's foremost geneticists (David Suzuki - see below) who has been warning against this GMO-SHIT since the 1970s. In fact I'm quite astonished at both these ''scientist'' who feel no compunction whatsoever in making statements outside their fields of expertise. If a medical doctor or a podiatrist were to comment on quasars or the proper methods for building a dam, I'd expect these men to counter with derision along with all sorts of claims of stupidity and a clear lack of knowledge in the subject area.

So who the hell is Neil Tyson and Bill Nye to be listened to with any degree of sagacity or knowledge in what the fuck they're talking about in regards to GMOs?

- No one, that's who.

[font size=3]Exogenous plant MIR168a specifically targets mammalian LDLRAP1: evidence of cross-kingdom regulation by microRNA[/font]

Abstract

Our previous studies have demonstrated that stable microRNAs (miRNAs) in mammalian serum and plasma are actively secreted from tissues and cells and can serve as a novel class of biomarkers for diseases, and act as signaling molecules in intercellular communication. Here, we report the surprising finding that exogenous plant miRNAs are present in the sera and tissues of various animals and that these exogenous plant miRNAs are primarily acquired orally, through food intake. MIR168a is abundant in rice and is one of the most highly enriched exogenous plant miRNAs in the sera of Chinese subjects. Functional studies in vitro and in vivo demonstrated that MIR168a could bind to the human/mouse low-density lipoprotein receptor adapter protein 1 (LDLRAP1) mRNA, inhibit LDLRAP1 expression in liver, and consequently decrease LDL removal from mouse plasma. These findings demonstrate that exogenous plant miRNAs in food can regulate the expression of target genes in mammals.

CELL RESEARCH: Full Study

It shouldn't take a college degree to see the stupidity of eating food that has been made into poison for bugs........

[laundry_queen]

55. +1000 nt

[Major Nikon]

70. "It shouldn't take a college degree to see the stupidity..."

You can very effectively kill bugs with an emulsion of vegetable oil and water that's completely safe to drink. The idea of something that's "poison" for bugs MUST be "poison" for humans is ignorant beyond belief and you don't need a college degree to see that stupidity either.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

52. It's not just about individual 'health'.

As noted in the addition above, GM as it is mostly practiced is also tied to a host of corporate-friendly environmentally-destructive practices. If all you're looking at is whether or not anyone has, as of yet, tied together enough bio-science variables to find ties between specific GMO products and specific health issues, you're only looking at one small piece of the puzzle. People are not up in arms over 'plants designed to withstand drought better' or 'plants with higher levels of vitamin A'. It's everything else that goes hand in hand with GM, and making the giant chemical companies like Monsanto an integral part of the food supply for much of the world.

[Major Nikon]

76. You mean like no-till farming?

If it's about sustainability, which appears to be the word you're after, then it seems a bit strange to focus on the varietal and less on the methods used. Being worried about a chemical company gaining market share in one aspect of the agricultural industry just kinda seems like chemophobia.

[GreatGazoo]

14. Me again. There are some solid reasons to be concerned about GMO crop systems

but citing slanted or easily debunked stories does NOT help the cause. The "snack food" industry is ready unleash hell over the Vermont GMO labelling law and they will have more of their trolls out with talking points as the court date nears.

What I consider solid reasons to be against GMO crop systems:

- lower yields than conventional hybrid crops
- higher input costs for farmers
- death of bee populations
- lack of transgenic labeling denies critical information to vegans, kosher and others with self-imposed or medically based dietary restrictions
- diminished export opportunities as more countries ban importation, which in turn lowers revenue for American farmers
- patenting of gene sequences
- GMO crop systems expose farm workers to more pesticides and pesticide resistant strains of palmer amaranth and other weeds trigger the introduction of yet more pesticides, such as Dow Enlist Duo.

Vermont's law takes effect July 1, 2016 and will trigger similar labeling in adjacent states which have already passed labeling laws (but which are dependent on other states premiering the practice). Look for the war to heat up well before then and for the GMA and others to do all they can to muddy the waters in part by attacking the easiest and most embarrassing targets from Mercola to Natural News to Infowars (which btw comes up in Google searches for this Poland protest story). They are going to claim that you want children to starve and all kinds of other nonsense but the best defense is to stick to the facts and avoid the conflation and half-truths that the other side will employ.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/local/vermont/2014/11/29/vermont-gmo-fight-nears-court/19639519/

[Buzz Clik]

26. GMOs don't impact bees. sorry.

[GreatGazoo]

29. Aren't GMO corn seeds regularly coated with neonicotinoids ?

Notice I said above "GMO crop systems."

Harvard School of Public Health, May 2014

Boston, MA — Two widely used neonicotinoids—a class of insecticide—appear to significantly harm honey bee colonies over the winter, particularly during colder winters, according to a new study from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH). The study replicated a 2012 finding from the same research group that found a link between low doses of imidacloprid and Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), in which bees abandon their hives over the winter and eventually die. The new study also found that low doses of a second neonicotinoid, clothianidin, had the same negative effect.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/study-strengthens-link-between-neonicotinoids-and-collapse-of-honey-bee-colonies/

So is Harvard in on some vast anti-GMO conspiracy or is there a link between neonicotinoids and bee colony collapse??

[Buzz Clik]

40. Nice try.

Neonicotinoids are used to coat corn seeds regardless of their genetic origin.

[GreatGazoo]

62. So you think organic corn seeds are coated with Neonicotinoids? Good news:

We conducted an experiment where commercial bumble bee (Bombus impatiens) hives were placed during pollen shed next to corn (Zea mays) fields that were grown from "conventional" seed that was treated with neonicotinoids, or "organic" seed that was not treated with pesticides...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25194943

They aren't!

[Buzz Clik]

66. And you're under the impression that all GMO seeds are coated? They are not.

Just drop it. This has entered the silly phase of internet debate.

[GreatGazoo]

74. I said GMO corn seeds -- not ALL GMO seeds. Facts aren't "silly."

Statistics aren't "impressions."

neonicotinoids are currently used on about 95 percent of corn and canola crops

In addition to being on GMO corn seeds, Neo is used widely on GMO crops but not in Europe (due to a ban) or on organics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#Usage

I accept your surrender.

[Buzz Clik]

75. No surrender coming.

I am, however, not going to waste my time with your silliness. As soon as your comments develop some substance, I'll continue with you.

[HuckleB]

47. How would that coating affect bees?

Neonics aren't sprayed on most corn, and definitely not on GMO corn, so you might just find your statement being a little bit off base. Coatings on seeds affecting bees? Do you even know what the coating is for? And, as has been noted, all seeds have coating to help ensure they get started growing.

Also, you might want to look into the reality on bees. And you might want to realize that one or two researchers is not the entire school, ever.

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/the-harvard-study-on-neonicotinoids-and-ccd/


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_8761_b_6323626.html

[SoLeftIAmRight]

104. You are so very very very wrong

Why push bad ideas?

[Buzz Clik]

105. Make me laugh.

The Europeans, who are about 5 years ahead of us on this issue, uncovered various links, and GMOs have been totally eliminated from the list.

[Major Nikon]

69. "solid"?

- lower yields than conventional hybrid crops

Complete rubbish. GM crops are intended to improve overall effective yield in field conditions, not intrinsic yield in a pristine lab experiment void of weeds and pests. There's a pretty good reason GM corn has a 94% market share in the US, and that reason has a lot to do with effective yield.

- higher input costs for farmers

Meaningless when you consider farmers feed their families based on their profit margins, not input costs.

- death of bee populations

You get a zero on cause and effect here.

- lack of transgenic labeling denies critical information to vegans, kosher and others with self-imposed or medically based dietary restrictions

What exactly would that "critical" information be? GMO makes no food any less vegan. If a Kosher certifying entity wishes to withhold kosher certification from a product that is their business and at worst would simply prevent such certification. There is zero consensus among the Jewish community on GMOs and there's no shortage of Rabbis that will certify GMOs as kosher. There are no "medically based dietary restrictions" against GMO and those who want to self-impose their own personal restriction can simply buy foods labeled organic.

- diminished export opportunities as more countries ban importation, which in turn lowers revenue for American farmers

Kind of a self-defeating argument. If farmers were losing money by planting GMO, they probably wouldn't be planting GMO. I'm constantly amazed by the arguments that simply assume farmers are dumber than a stump.

- patenting of gene sequences

Has been going on for about the last 100 years, all over the world.

- GMO crop systems expose farm workers to more pesticides and pesticide resistant strains of palmer amaranth and other weeds trigger the introduction of yet more pesticides, such as Dow Enlist Duo.

Actually GM farm workers are exposed to less pesticides, not to mention volume is not the only issue. Some of the most effective pesticides approved by the National Organic Program are extremely hazardous which is why each pesticide, whether conventional or organic, has a list of requirements for safe application, enforced by OSHA and numerous state agencies.

[GreatGazoo]

90. Happy to enlighten you...

Lower yields

Since the late 1990s, US farmers had widely adopted GM cotton engineered to tolerate the herbicide glyphosate, which is marketed as Roundup by Monsanto in St Louis, Missouri. The herbicide–crop combination worked spectacularly well — until it didn’t. In 2004, herbicide-resistant amaranth was found in one county in Georgia; by 2011, it had spread to 76. “It got to the point where some farmers were losing half their cotton fields to the weed,” says Holder.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-hard-look-at-3-myths-about-genetically-modified-crops/

Another example: Golden rice has lower yields than other strains:

The first round of MLTs was conducted using one of the most advanced versions of Golden Rice: GR2 event “R” (GR2-R). This first round took place in 2012-13 to assess how well this version of Golden Rice would perform in different locations in the Philippines. Preliminary results were mixed. While the target level of beta-carotene in the grain was attained, average yield was unfortunately lower than that from comparable local varieties already preferred by farmers.

http://irri.org/golden-rice/faqs/what-is-the-status-of-the-golden-rice-project-coordinated-by-irri

You said >>farmers feed their families based on their profit margins, not input costs. <<

Profit margin = value of crop - input costs therefore higher input costs = lower profit (unless yields are significantly higher and they aren't see above). Simple.

Death of bees -- Neonic (clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiametoxamon) coatings on GM seeds are contributing, not the GM seed itself so if you want to split hairs...but the EU and our EPA are proceeding with caution and further testing:

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/intheworks/ccd-european-ban.html

Labeling and allowing consumer choice

One example of animal to produce transgenics: William O. Dawson, U of Florida, has created a transgenic orange that contains DNA from pigs. If people don't want that, they should have the disclosure and the right to choose other products.

Patenting of gene sequences

The USSC banned the patenting of naturally occurring gene sequences in 2013. Synthetics are still fair game (as they should be). Patenting genes in the US goes back to the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act, but the first patent is not issued until 1982 -- 33 years ago, not as you so confidently asserted "about the last 100 years." So on this one you are clearly yet confidently wrong. Will you admit it? Likely no, so here is the citation for the more reasonable among us:

The first gene patent (US 4,447,538) did not appear until 1982

http://www.cas.org/news/insights/science-connections/gene-patent

Exposure to more pesticides

Glyphosate resistant weeds now appear in fields around the world due to the combination of repeated pesticide use and natural selection. Palmer amaranth has been a probably through out the corn belt. This has led to last years much publicized EPA approval of Enlist Duo. Two pesticide to replace one. More pesticides = more exposure.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2014/06/22/superweeds-choke-farms/11231231/

http://www2.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/registration-enlist-duo#decision

Solid.

[Major Nikon]

92. If this is what counts as enlightenment, that exaplains quite a bit

Lower yields

Your singular example would be true regardless of whether a GM or conventional crop were used. Pesticide resistance has been observed for the past 100 years and is completely unrelated to GMO. The answer to pesticide resistant weeds is to develop new herbicides or till the ground deeply prior to planting, which is what farmers have been doing for 100s of years. So the worst case is that farmers can't use no till techniques that were made possible by those very same herbicides.

Another example: Golden rice has lower yields than other strains:

I guess you didn't read the whole page:

As previously stated, this means that Golden Rice

will only be made broadly available to farmers and consumers if

it is: (a) successfully developed into rice varieties that

retain the same yield

, pest resistance, and grain quality—agronomic and eating traits acceptable to farmers and consumers—as current popular rice varieties; (b) deemed safe and approved by national regulators; and (c) shown to improve vitamin A status under community conditions. If Golden Rice is found to be safe and efficacious, a sustainable delivery program will ensure that Golden Rice is acceptable and accessible to those most in need.

Profit margin = value of crop - input costs therefore higher input costs = lower profit (unless yields are significantly higher and they aren't see above). Simple.

So why do farmers grow it? Do you think they are just too "simple" to see your superior reasoning?

Death of bees -- Neonic (clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiametoxamon) coatings on GM seeds are contributing, not the GM seed itself so if you want to split hairs...but the EU and our EPA are proceeding with caution and further testing:

Seems like a tacit admission that you are no closer to cause and effect than you were before. I'm not sure why you'd even offer this.

Patenting of gene sequences

A attempt at patenting bacteria? Seriously? Is there any sort of relevance contained in this argle-bargle? You know, like to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Patent_Act_of_1930

[GreatGazoo]

96. As expected you can't admit you are wrong -- the PLANT Patent Act ?!

Plant patents from the 1930s don't mention gene sequences (how could they?). Here is the crude language from one issued to Burbank, the father of Plant Patents:

This invention relates to a new and distinct variety of peach.

This new variety of peach has resulted from years of experimenting with a definite objective in view, that is, to produce a satisfactory yellow freestone peach which ripens halfway between the ripening periods of the known varieties, the June Elberta and the Early Elberta. It is similar to the Hale peach except that it has a large pit. Its blood and seed are similar to the Muir, but the fruit is more golden in color. It is a stronger growing tree than the Valient and is not sub- Ject to peach curl and disease (Bacteria imsize pruni) as is the last named variety. This new variety produces a very lar e fruit which averages about one-half poun Its golden color with maroon shadin modified by a grayish pubescence, adds to its effectiveness in A though the skin of the fruit is thin and tender, tests have proven it to be a remarkable shipper; coupled with its great size, impressive coloring, excellent quality, and being a freestone, it represents an outstanding commercial peach. When cut in half, a pleasing apricot yellow flesh...

https://www.google.com/patents/USPP15

But hey it's all Argle-bargle to those who don't understand the difference between gene sequences and either plants or "bacteria" (?).

Here is the AMA detailing in argle-bargle about what gene patents really are:
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-science/genetics-molecular-medicine/related-policy-topics/gene-patenting.page?

As for your baseless theories about the alleged profitability of GM crops like corn and soy:

Last spring, for the first time in 20 years, Indiana farmer Jim Benham planted his fields entirely with soybean seeds that hadn’t been genetically modified to withstand herbicides.

It wasn’t because the 63-year-old suddenly had embraced the anti-GMO movement. Instead, he was drawn to a nearly 14% per-bushel premium for non-GMO soybeans offered by a local grain terminal, which sells them to Asian feed processors.

Mr. Benham is among a small but growing number of Midwestern farmers moving away from biotech seeds developed by Monsanto Co. , DuPont Co. and other companies in response to lower crop prices over the past two years that have slashed farm profits.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/fields-of-gold-gmo-free-crops-prove-lucrative-for-farmers-1422909700

US Taxpayers to pay $6.8 to $8.4 billion in Subsidies to GM farmers for their losses in 2014:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/22/bumper-crop-could-cost-taxpayers-billions-in-farm-subsidies/

[vkkv]

15. I was HOPING that this was happening here in the U.S...

Why are Americans so fucking stupid?

[RiverLover]

19. + a MILLION!!!!

And thank you for saying this!

We are so lazy & so misled by the media. Its disgusting.

[Buzz Clik]

28. You only get one vote. +1 is max.

Feel free to follow your +1 with a million exclamation points, but +1 is all you get.

[RiverLover]

30. Ha!

A million thanks for setting me straight, er, I mean ONE thanks!

[onecent]

20. I don't think americans are just stupid but they REALLY are apathetic...

No one seems to give a shit. The people in their 30's and 40's don't even watch the news...EVER...working 2 or 3 jobs got kids that have sports.....I cant figure it out

[NuclearDem]

22. Funny, when I think stupid...

I think a 51 point gap between the public and scientists.

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/pi_2015-01-29_science-and-society-00-02/

Face it, if those numbers were for evolution or climate change, people here would be deriding the idiots who so clearly deny the science.

[immoderate]

31. The 11% who say it's not safe are the geneticists.

There has never been an epidemiological study of the effects of GMOs on people. Never. So what are their opinions based on that you find reliable? Opinions of scientists is not science.

When people point me to the data dumps that supposedly assert a consensus that "GMOs are safe," I find some of the articles propose better methods of testing the safety of GMOs. Why would they do that if they are already sure the food is safe? The best you could say about the Pew Poll is that 88% of scientists are unaware of problems with GMO foods. They surely haven't studied it.

--imm

[NuclearDem]

33. Where did you get the information that the 11% are geneticists?

[immoderate]

35. It was sort of a joke. I made it up. Doesn't it seem likely, though?

Actually, I was trying to show how meaningless that Pew Poll was. It was one question. And it is a complex topic. Do those same scientists think GMO foods should be labeled? How about ecological effects? Did they ask? Does a physicist or a geologist know more than you or I about genetics? And does a geneticist coming from a microbiological background have a different view than one from an ecological point of view? There is data on this.

Where did these scientists hear that GMOs are safe? Safety assurances would seem to require epidemiological studies -- like vaccines get. Do you know of any? The animal studies I have examined demonstrate good methodology and show cause for concern. The criticisms rather than being refutations, are technical, and should amount to reasons for further, and perhaps improved, study.

I have also looked at the "meta-surveys" going around. They are not line ups of scientists attesting to the safety of GMOs. They are technical papers mostly. Some tell of methods of mixing DNA. I have only sampled a few, but I am sure there are none that claim all GMOs are safe. There is no way they could know that.

--imm

[nolabels]

68. And another question, who exactly is funding PEW

Even if someone is correct 99% that margin of error can be quite terrible.

I don't know if anything is safe but i would bet with the house on natural as opposed to man made seven days a week. That is say it took billions of years of evolution to build the biosphere but a bunch of knuckle heads funded by small group of rich people with a hording complex want to tell us its okay to eff around with such things.

Being skeptical of all things is a good start, keep up the good work

Here is link to another short DU thread with a real interesting link to a Youtube video. The video has a thousands of views and i found it very interesting

Everything is a Rich Man's Trick
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017245474

[HuckleB]

48. +1,000,000 ... 000

[GreatGazoo]

23. it IS happening here (Unless you mean 'protesting Russian embargoes on Polish produce')

The headline on the OP is very misleading. The latest event in the on-going protest by Polish farmers over various agricultural policies in Poland is the block of trains between Warsaw and Moscow. What could THAT possibly have to do with Monsanto ?!

Feb 27 -Service on the international railway line between Warsaw and Moscow has been paralyzed by protesting farmers in Poland, according to the Polish Cultural and Business Center in the Russian city of Kaliningrad, which cited Polish media.

The incident occurred after 10 a.m. local time on a stretch of line in the town of Borki-Kosiorki in the Siedlce County. The farmers are set to continue blocking trains for another few hours

The protests by farmers affected by Russia's counter sanctions were prompted by the Polish government's failure to support them. The protests were organized by the All-Poland Alliance of Farmer's Unions and Farm Organizations (OPZZ).

http://rbth.com/news/2015/02/27/polish_farmers_block_warsaw-moscow_train_service_during_protest_44056.html

As for the fight in America for GMO-free options, the battle and progress is on-going. Feel free to join it:

http://modernfarmer.com/2014/11/mcdonalds-refuses-buy-genetically-modified-potatoes-fries/

http://www.greenretaildecisions.com/news/2014/03/06/kroger-safeway-reject-gmo-salmon-regardless-of-fda-ruling

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-farmers-losing-domestic-markets-while-japan-sets-new-restrictions-for-gmo-corn-imports-72874202.html

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/local/vermont/2014/11/29/vermont-gmo-fight-nears-court/19639519/

[Buzz Clik]

27. GMOs were developed in the US because...

they are EXACTLY what the farmers wanted. Period.

[immoderate]

32. Superweeds and all!

--imm

[Buzz Clik]

41. They also wanted DDT to be widely available, and they got it.

[druidity33]

34. Do you actually know any farmers? nt.

[Buzz Clik]

42. Damned straight I do.

I also happen to know more than a few geneticists who worked on developing roundup-ready soybeans, and they are the definitive source for why those crops were developed.

[Major Nikon]

59. Which just happens to be the exact same reason all other commercial produce is developed

Period.

[Buzz Clik]

65. Yep.

[Art_from_Ark]

87. But they are not necessarily what farmers in other countries want

Last edited Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:52 AM - Edit history (1)

Here in Japan, for example, nearly all, if not all, farmers' cooperatives are against GMOs.　And the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries had this information about GMO soybeans:

現在、我が国で都道府県が普及奨励している大豆の品種は、全て日本国内で育成された品種か、日本に古くから伝わる在来種です。 これらの大豆品種には遺伝子組換え技術は使われていません。
Today, the varieties of soybeans that are being promoted in the various prefectures (states) are all varieties that have been developed in Japan, or varieties that have long existed in Japan. GMO technology is not used with these soybean varieties.

全国農業協同組合連合会及び全国主食集荷協同組合連合会は、国内における遺伝子組換え大豆の生産・販売が消費者のニーズに反するだけでなく、国産大豆の流通に混乱を来すとの観点から、農家から販売委託を受ける大豆については遺伝子組換え大豆を除くこととしています。
From the perspective of not only the production and sale of GMO soybeans being in opposition to the needs of consumers, but also for the trouble that this may cause in the distribution of soybeans in Japan, the National Association of Agricultural Cooperatives and the National Association of Staple Food Shippers have decided not to handle GMO soybeans consigned to them for sale by farmers.

http://www.maff.go.jp/j/seisan/ryutu/daizu/d_idensi/

[Buzz Clik]

88. Don't want to plant GMOs, then don't.

There is this ridiculous myth running around that only GMO seeds are available on a large scale.

[Art_from_Ark]

89. Even if you don't plant GMO seeds yourself,

your crops can be contaminated by GMOs planted in nearby fields, as was the case a few years ago in Ibaraki Prefecture.

There's a damn good reason why Monsanto's experimental corn and soybean fields in Ibaraki are QUARANTINED-- the local farmers don't want that shit contaminating their crops.

The sign says: "Monsanto Japan Inc.
Quarantined field"

[CanSocDem]

91. And then there's this:

[Art_from_Ark]

106. Thank you for posting that video!

[CanSocDem]

108. My pleasure!

Here's another from a batch of them on YouTube:

[Buzz Clik]

93. Sounds like they've worked themselves into quite a tizzy.

I hope their anxiety doesn't ruin their health. The GMOs surely will not.

[Art_from_Ark]

107. Ha ha ha

Science can't even decide whether eggs are good or bad for me, how can science say definitively that GMOs don't have long-term health effects?

And watch the video that CanSocDem posted if you need further proof as to why farmers in Japan and elsewhere don't want GMOs contaminating their crops.

[Buzz Clik]

109. Wow. Have you been reading from the Sean Hannity playbook of rebuttals against science?

Your attitude is not new to me nor is your attitude rare here at DU: fear the unknown, and ignore the science that you don't agree with.

if you need further proof as to why farmers in Japan and elsewhere

some farmers. Just some. Profits are profits, and when seed companies observe that the market is strong for non-GMO seeds, those seeds are available.

[Art_from_Ark]

111. Cut the Sean Hannity shit already

You have no idea what you are talking about. I've spent the last 20 years involved with the scientific community, in one of the world's premier science and technology cities. I have seen the good sides, and the not-so-good sides of science. Science is not a religion for me, like it apparently is for you. Science does not have all the answers, especially science that is funded by companies that are concerned, first and foremost, with not only making a huge profit, but also with controlling market share.

In this part of the world, GMO crops are completely unnecessary, and in fact could lead to the decimation of meticulously-run family farms which form the backbone of Japan's domestic food supply.

[Buzz Clik]

113. I see. Science by assimilation. You let your immune system filter out the bad science?

Sorry, but I'm not impressed by your "scientific environment" particularly when it results in the words you put on the printed page.

If you don't like the observation that you are talking like Hannity, then quit talking like Hannity. Case in point: "Science is not a religion for me, like it apparently is for you." Good one, Sean -- those are words spoken by people who don't like scientific results.

We're done. You get the last word.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

54. We have been trained to revere giant corporations, through generations of

'What's good for corporations is good for America' propaganda brought to us by people who believe that the wealthy (ie, people who own lots of corporate stock) are magical 'job creators' who 'create jobs' out of noblesse oblige.

[Rex]

44. About time these GMO foods are getting out of hand.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

51. They're doing it right - addressing the major issues associated with GM.

Not going at it from a 'health' angle, but rather noting that GM is tied to a host of dysfunctional, corporate-friendly, environmentally-destructive agricultural practices, and trying to stop all of them, not just 'GM'.

[Buzz Clik]

110. I'm curious -- did you ever acknowledge that this protest was NOT about GMO crops?

[Art_from_Ark]

112. Here are some signs from the protest in Poland-- Enjoy!

?itok=V2__3SRQ

[Buzz Clik]

114. This is the kind of dishonest bullshit that you guys pull all the time.

The OP has been massively edited, and you are posting pictures from a different protest entirely.

The problem is you think I'm as intellectually lazy as you are.

Go away. Try to fool some ignorant dupe, but your crap won't work on me.

If you had a shred of dignity you would be massively ashamed.