The anti-GMO movement is nothing but a pseudoscientific scam.

[alp227]

Stop shoving "Seralini! A personal anecdote! I read some cranky blog saying so!" in my face to prove your case that GMO's are evil and should have a scarlet letter/should be banned. Smithsonian Magazine: Some Brands Are Labeling Products “GMO-free” Even if They Don’t Have Genes:

It seems unneccessary for salt to be advertised as “GMO-free.” After all, it’s awfully hard to genetically modify salt because it has no genes. Nevertheless, last year the Austin, Texas-based Evolution Salt Co. added a label declaring its products to be GMO-free.

As the company’s owner, Hayden Nasir, tells Ilan Brat for The Wall Street Journal, if his salt is shelved next to one that “doesn’t say non-GMO on it, chances are somebody will bypass that.”

After decades of love affairs with processed food, many Americans are becoming more and more concerned with what goes into their meals. But despite there being little to no scientific evidence indicating that genetically modified organisms are bad for your health, the number of companies paying to have their food certified as GMO-free is skyrocketing, whether they need it or not, Brat writes.

In part, this is all about marketing. For some companies, like Chipotle, Ben & Jerry’s and Cheerios, declaring their food to be GMO-free could be seen as a good way to get a foothold in a rapidly growing market. Sales of products labeled as non-GMO have grown 30 percent to $1.1 billion in the last year alone, Brat writes.

It's so damn pathetic how this pseudoscience has infested the left. GMOphobia is at the same dishonesty level as The Rush Limbaugh Show, creationism, and Bigfoot sightings.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Whatever.

I'm not against all GM. Bring on the drought-resistant varieties that help with climate change issues.

But I'll take a miss on ones designed simply to make a specific pesticide manufacturer more profit.

[hunter]

35. Yep.

GMO is not one thing.

Some of it makes the world a better place, quite a lot of it does not.

[Lancero]

40. I've made mention of similar before...

It's a bit sad really. In the face of climate change, genetic engineering is going to be a necessity for survival. But so many people are doing all they can to make GMO's out as the most evil thing to ever exist.

And ofc, lets not forget the part that GMOs play in vaccines. Thats going to be a pretty amusing match up, once the anti-gmoers and anti-vaxxers ally... oh wait, they already have.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/fayeflam/2015/02/26/defying-science-and-common-sense-new-york-bill-would-ban-gmos-in-vaccines/

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

42. Saying that the reasons behind all GM's is the same, or the producers are the same or that

even all of the details are the same is such a gross oversimplification as to make the whole debate utterly meaningless.

Some GM work is done in universities, some in corporate labs. Some from altruism, some from profit motive. Some to solve a real problem, some to take a problem currently being dealt with in another way and set up a proprietary way to deal with it. Some uses genes that cross species, others that cross kingdoms.

So yeah, the broad brushing of all 'anti-GM' people as holding the same reasoning is just as silly as the broad brushing of all GM.

There are anti-Hillary folks of all stripes too. Some for good reasons, some for stupid reasons.

[Lancero]

46. Many, not all.

Not that it's a issue here - Here, at least, people who take issues with gmos are willing to be specific as to what type of gmo they are against or issues they with them have rather then generalizing themselves by saying they are 'against gmos'.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

47. I imagine if you talked to various anti-GM protesters out in the world

you'd find out that many or even most of them have specific reasons they're against GM, and probably that a lot of them are even willing to be nuanced as to WHAT GM they're against. But when everything is boiled down by the media, it goes to the barest 'They're against GM!' type of reporting. Here, you have advantage of talking to folks one on one.

[Lancero]

50. And being piled on, wanting to know what monesto is paying me for daring to support medical GMOs.

I've had some people do that - Pretty funny considering I was clear in my support for medical use gmos, and monesto being GM crops.

The broad brushing happens on both sides.

[eridani]

56. My insulin comes from genetically modified bacteria

But you know what? Sticking the human insulin gene into them isn't the only thing they do. They also slice out a lot of genes controlling key nutrient synthesis pathways, so that the bacteria cannot survive except in a very complex nutrient mix. Wonder why they think it would be a bad idea if these critters ever went wild successfully?

No, the problem isn't the specific technology--it is the end goals of Monsatot's GMO products that matter. I also have no objection to the Golden Rice project. Sure, just cheap vitamin A capsules are pretty effective right now, and you have to have adequate calorie and fat intake to even be able to absorb the beta carotene. Still--

1. If it isn't helping as much as they might wish, it isn't hurting. The carotene levels could conceivably be boosted a lot.
2. They aren't trying to dominate the agricultural sector in poor countries--they work through a non-profit foundation that gives the seeds away.
3. They aren't aiming to ramp up pesticide use
4. Beta carotene genes are already in the leaves of the plant anyway.

These folks are NOT Monsanto.

[X_Digger]

58. Funny thing is, once the Carotene levels in golden rice were brought up..

.. then the anti-GMO side claimed that it was dangerous.. you could poison yourself with it! (Nevermind that the body would simply excrete excess..)

Damned if you do, damned if you don't..

[Lancero]

81. Hear about the anti-gmo group that tried to scare diabetics into not using insulin?

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/07/01/anti-gmo-advocates-try-to-scare-diabetics-off-life-saving-genetically-engineered-drug-treatment/

No suprise, the group pulled that down the next day.

You do bring up a good point though - Most people are against Monsato, not GMOs. It'd really be nice if people could be more clear on that - Who knows, they might get better results with a more specific goal?

I suppose that's the issue though - Some people have let the fear control them, and they are lashing out against everything even remotely related to GMO technology.

[Humanist_Activist]

106. Even that doesn't make sense, they always cite Agent Orange and the actions of the government...

so, because of this, Monsanto can do no good, even 50 years later, when most of the people responsible for such decisions are dead.

Do these same people boycott Ford for being founded by an open anti-Semite, Volkswagon and BMW for being Nazi run and supported companies, Mitsubishi for building the Zero, or DuPont for the development of CFCs?

[eridani]

170. Monsanto is devoted to turning everyting into agribusiness, and then dominating that.

The non-profit golden rice people are not trying to do that.

[Humanist_Activist]

193. What does this post even mean? Monsanto is a for profit company, they are rather...

open about that point. Because of that, everything they do, science-wise, is suspect?

That makes no sense, and I hate to say it, you have more a problem with capitalism than Monsanto, it sounds like.

[HuckleB]

277. I have, and, no, they don't.

The rant and rave with the usual cliches. It's one of most outlandish movements in history. Sociologists are going to have a field day assessing it.

[virtualobserver]

2. the issue of the actual science is quite different from the marketing issue

your post doesn't prove that GMO foods are safe.....some may be and some may not be.
Labeling lets people decide for themselves. fat free, gluten free and GMO free salt is a scam that has nothing to do with the safety of actual GMO's.

[Lorien]

12. Well said

n/t

[alp227]

21. "Labeling lets people decide for themselves."

Based on their own ill informed opinion that disregards scientific FACT?

[nationalize the fed]

22. Candidate Obama thought labels were a good idea

Obama in 2007: "We'll let folks know whether their food has been genetically modified because Americans should know what they're buying"

(Of course that was when he was against mandatory corporate insurance and didn't like spying on everyone)

Labeling is important to 64 countries around the world

[SidDithers]

37. Green for victory!!...nt

Sid

[progressoid]

164. Candidate Obama also thought "clean coal" was a thing too.

[davidpdx]

177. I honestly don't know much about GMO

I am from Oregon and I voted for the GMO labeling requirement that failed last year.

Also I live in South Korea, which is one of the countries that requires labeling.

A few years ago Costco in Korea stopped selling the Nature Valley Granola Bars. I kept asking them why and after several inquires they told me because General Mills began using GMO ingredients and they couldn't import them anymore from the original source. I was told they could import them from South Africa (I guess they make them there as well), but it was too expensive.

The funny thing is sometime later the other grocery stores here in Korea began carrying the granola bars (the regular size boxes, not the large size that Costco sold), which I find bizarre.

[HuckleB]

249. Costco might not have been fully honest about that.

Who knows? Regardless, there is just no science-based reason to label a seed development technology.

[virtualobserver]

29. I have no reason to believe or disbelieve your supposed scientific FACT.....

but the FDA does not itself test whether genetically engineered foods are safe.

FDA spokesperson Theresa Eisenman said, “it is the manufacturer’s responsibility to ensure that the [GMO] food products it offers for sale are safe…

Rachel Pomerance, “GMOs: A Breakthrough or Breakdown in U.S. Agriculture?” U.S. News & World Report, April 25, 2013.

Forgive me if I disagree with the notion that corporations are looking out for me. Hell, "Coca-Cola Funds Scientists Who Shift Blame for Obesity Away From Bad Diets" was a wonderful article in the NYT a few weeks ago.

Let's go with labeling, and we will let "well informed" persons like yourself feast on the delicious GMO items.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

41. That's how markets work.

The notion behind a market is that you exchange goods, with both of you getting a known quantity (unless you've specifically asked for a 'mystery box' or somesuch), and you can get sued if what you exchange is not what the buyer thought they were getting. If my decision to buy is because the item is purple, and you give me a box containing a yellow one, I can complain, take you to court, whatever. How I came to my like of purple is irrelevant. If it's ill-informed or not, it's still mine. If I like 'ASUS' more than Dell, again, based on an 'ill-informed' opinion, again, I have the right to know that the part I'm getting for my computer actually IS an ASUS and not a Dell.

Lots of consumers want to know, based upon their own 'ill-informed' decisions, and the reason GMO producers don't want labels is not some high and noble reason - it's to prevent profit loss from consumers choosing not to buy their product. Do you believe every industry should be able to simply prevent consumers from knowing what's in their products, or just agribusiness? Should corporations simply get to say 'Here it is, buy it!', or should the consumer maybe get to know if the product has air conditioning, brakes, seatbelts, power steering, whatever?

[Major Nikon]

152. Imposing unnecessary government regulation to increase one industry's market share...

is not how markets are supposed to work. Resisting that is actually a pretty high and noble reason.

[TBF]

173. "Imposing unnecessary government regulation"

Wait, I was looking for a website for a democratic party. I must have stumbled on to Free Republic by mistake ... my bag.

[davidpdx]

176. Owch

[Major Nikon]

179. Sure, because unnecessary government regulation is what the left is all about

I guess when logical arguments fail, there's always character assassination. Seems a bit lame and pathetic, but some seem to think it's a good idea.

[TBF]

187. Bashing the government is not

What I should be seeing from the party of FDR. Of course the "third way" wing loves capitalism. And here we are.

[Major Nikon]

188. You funny

The "government" happens to agree with me on this subject which by your own warped logic kinda puts you on the wrong side of the "party of FDR". Guess you didn't think that one through, eh?

For further reading see...

http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/Biotechnology/ucm346030.htm

[kcr]

189. The left doesn't like regulation just because they think it's a pretty word

Would you support legislation that requires the labeling of abortion to include the warning that it causes breast cancer? That's regulation. So we should support it by your logic.

[TBF]

200. I didn't say we support all regulation -

but you know that. Keep selling that product.

[Major Nikon]

208. No, you just claimed I was right wing because I don't support stupid chemophobic regulation

Then you doubled down by saying it was anti-government, even though that's exactly what the government's position is.

So keep selling that product, because it's utterly hilarious.

[Chan790]

228. Does it actually?

Mostly curious. That's the first time I've heard such a claim but scientifically I can see how it might.

[kcr]

239. Does abortion cause cancer you mean?

No, it does not.

[Chan790]

241. That was what I asked...

I didn't mean directly. I was curious if there was actual study of a correlation of whether termination increased risks for certain cancers to back up the assertion.

It wouldn't change my support of a woman's absolute right of bodily autonomy...I just think that people have a right to make fully informed health decisions and I'd never heard that assertion before so I wondered if it was even true (or had been even researched) or just something someone made up.

[Betty Karlson]

236. That's it! The OP seems to lump legitimate criticism and overzealous labelers into one category. n/t

[HuckleB]

243. "Legitimate criticism."

Name it, and justify it with a consensus of peer-reviewed science. Oh, and make sure it only applies to GMOs, and not to all seed development technologies. Thank you.

[GoneFishin]

3. It's fine by me. People want to know what they are eating regardless of whether Monsanto

thinks they are not entitled to that information.

[cpwm17]

4. Yes, the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, including

The US National Academy of Sciences, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and The American Medical Association consider GMO's safe.

GMO's have been thoroughly studied already. There is overwhelming consensus among scientists that they are safe and no adverse health effects have been documented.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

43. Great, they're safe.

Consumers still want to be able to choose to buy them or not. Why does it matter whether they're safe as to whether or not they get that choice? When you go to buy a car, don't you want to know whether it's a Ford, a Toyota, or a Hyundai? They're all safe, but you still want to know who made it, even though that doesn't matter 'scientifically'. Some folks would like to know whether Monsanto had a hand in the food they're buying.

[cpwm17]

45. Then companies can label their products as GMO free for people that are into that stuff.

The government shouldn't be trying to scare people with bad science by requiring meaningless warnings.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

48. And many are.

But we've seen industry even trying to block that - using the argument that because there's no 'scientific reason' to label as 'contains' or 'free', that there's something dishonest about labeling something as 'free'. But it still comes down to the same thing. It hurts their market share for consumers even to have that choice.

We saw it with companies labeling their milk as free of bovine growth hormone, where companies that still used it went to court to block the 'free' people from labeling it as such.

Consumers will be fine to go with 'free' labeling, as long as they're given that option.

[HuckleB]

136. No one is trying to block that.

However, as consumers, we would be wise to point out just how unethical the "GMO-free" labels actually are in reality.

[GreatGazoo]

49. No. The American Medical Association said:

AMA delegates said they support mandatory FDA premarket safety assessments of GM foods "as a preventive measure to ensure the health of the public." They also urge the FDA "to remain alert to new data on the health consequences of bioengineered foods."

BBC - Scotland bans GMO crops - August 9 2015

Germany banning GMO crops
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/agriculture-food/germany-initiates-move-ban-gmo-crops-317029

There isn't much in the EU to ban. After 12 years of testing The EU has only allowed one crop, one GMO -- MON810 which is not a Roundup GMO was the only one approved to be sold and planted. MON810 is a BT GMO.

Science = "mandatory FDA premarket safety assessments of GM foods", and "remain(ing) alert to new data on the health consequences of bioengineered foods."

There is no "overwhelming consensus" for the risk vs. benefits balance of GMOs.

[eridani]

55. Glyphosphate sure the fuck is not. And the purpose of Monsanton's GMOs is to--

--saturate all of our farmland with this poison.

[Major Nikon]

60. Really?

Can you name any adverse health effects from glyphosphate as a confirmed direct result of it's normal use? Just one will do. Good luck with that.

[handmade34]

157. we can just take for granted

that glyphosphate is harmless, until we find out it isn't…


http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BaqSolToU3oJ:www.blw.admin.ch/aktuell/index.html%3Flang%3Dde%26download%3DNHzLpZeg7t,lnp6I0NTU042l2Z6ln1acy4Zn4Z2qZpnO2Yuq2Z6gpJCEe4B3g2ym162epYbg2c_JjKbNoKSn6A--+&cd=2&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=ch

http://www.bioscienceresource.org/2015/07/from-ddt-to-roundup-by-evaggelos-vallianatos/

http://www-lsm.in2p3.fr/activites/basses_activ/Sabatier_et_al_2014_PNAS.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/44/15647.abstract

If there is a reason to restrict the use of Glyphosate, it is because it, like DDT, is too effective. A farmer must allow for “weeds” and insects that may be useful to bees, butterflies, beetles, spiders and other insects and birds. The soil is not just a container for the inorganic nutrients, but also a home to a living microflora that cannot be dispensed with. Thus a knowledgeable farmer should have sufficiently large regions in his farm where untreated reserves of soil and growth are left to the “needs of nature”, and properly understand the ecology of the farmed part of his soil.

[Major Nikon]

158. I'll take that as a no

[enough]

5. The New England Journal of Medicine does not agree.

GMOs, Herbicides, and Public Health
Philip J. Landrigan, M.D., and Charles Benbrook, Ph.D.
N Engl J Med 2015; 373:693-695 August 20, 2015DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1505660

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1505660



I recommend reading the entire article, but will post only four paragraphs:

snip>

Two recent developments are dramatically changing the GMO landscape. First, there have been sharp increases in the amounts and numbers of chemical herbicides applied to GM crops, and still further increases — the largest in a generation — are scheduled to occur in the next few years. Second, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified glyphosate, the herbicide most widely used on GM crops, as a “probable human carcinogen”1 and classified a second herbicide, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), as a “possible human carcinogen.”2

snip>

These developments suggest that GM foods and the herbicides applied to them may pose hazards to human health that were not examined in previous assessments. We believe that the time has therefore come to thoroughly reconsider all aspects of the safety of plant biotechnology. The National Academy of Sciences has convened a new committee to reassess the social, economic, environmental, and human health effects of GM crops. This development is welcome, but the committee's report is not expected until at least 2016.

In the meantime, we offer two recommendations. First, we believe the EPA should delay implementation of its decision to permit use of Enlist Duo. This decision was made in haste. It was based on poorly designed and outdated studies and on an incomplete assessment of human exposure and environmental effects. It would have benefited from deeper consideration of independently funded studies published in the peer-reviewed literature. And it preceded the recent IARC determinations on glyphosate and 2,4-D. Second, the National Toxicology Program should urgently assess the toxicology of pure glyphosate, formulated glyphosate, and mixtures of glyphosate and other herbicides.

Finally, we believe the time has come to revisit the United States' reluctance to label GM foods. Labeling will deliver multiple benefits. It is essential for tracking emergence of novel food allergies and assessing effects of chemical herbicides applied to GM crops. It would respect the wishes of a growing number of consumers who insist they have a right to know what foods they are buying and how they were produced. And the argument that there is nothing new about genetic rearrangement misses the point that GM crops are now the agricultural products most heavily treated with herbicides and that two of these herbicides may pose risks of cancer. We hope, in light of this new information, that the FDA will reconsider labeling of GM foods and couple it with adequately funded, long-term postmarketing surveillance.

end of article>

[cpwm17]

23. No, Philip J. Landrigan and Charles Benbrook don't agree.

It's an op-ed. Charles Benbrook also works for the organic foods industry and has also claimed that organic foods are more nutritious than non-organic foods, a claim not supported by science.

[GreatGazoo]

51. Dr Charles Benbrook found that organic foods had higher antioxidant levels and lower cadmium

and 4 times less pesticide residue in a July 2014 co-authored meta analysis of 343 prior studies. It was published by the British Journal of Nutrition:

Demand for organic foods is partially driven by consumers' perceptions that they are more nutritious. However, scientific opinion is divided on whether there are significant nutritional differences between organic and non-organic foods, and two recent reviews have concluded that there are no differences.

In the present study, we carried out meta-analyses based on 343 peer-reviewed publications that indicate statistically significant and meaningful differences in composition between organic and non-organic crops/crop-based foods. Most importantly, the concentrations of a range of antioxidants such as polyphenolics were found to be substantially higher in organic crops/crop-based foods, with those of phenolic acids, flavanones, stilbenes, flavones, flavonols and anthocyanins being an estimated 19 (95 % CI 5, 33) %, 69 (95 % CI 13, 125) %, 28 (95 % CI 12, 44) %, 26 (95 % CI 3, 48) %, 50 (95 % CI 28, 72) % and 51 (95 % CI 17, 86) % higher, respectively. Many of these compounds have previously been linked to a reduced risk of chronic diseases, including CVD and neurodegenerative diseases and certain cancers, in dietary intervention and epidemiological studies.

Additionally, the frequency of occurrence of pesticide residues was found to be four times higher in conventional crops, which also contained significantly higher concentrations of the toxic metal Cd. Significant differences were also detected for some other (e.g. minerals and vitamins) compounds. There is evidence that higher antioxidant concentrations and lower Cd concentrations are linked to specific agronomic practices (e.g. non-use of mineral N and P fertilisers, respectively) prescribed in organic farming systems. In conclusion, organic crops, on average, have higher concentrations of antioxidants, lower concentrations of Cd and a lower incidence of pesticide residues than the non-organic comparators across regions and production seasons.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9325471&fileId=S0007114514001366

[HuckleB]

138. Way to ignore the full results of a researcher who has been debunked over and over again.

And whose ties to the organic industry are well known.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/new-organic-farming-meta-analysis-what-does-it-really-show/

[chervilant]

6. Okay, if it's a "pseudoscience scam,"

then those who "manufacture" such "edibles" should have no problem labeling them.

[Major Nikon]

155. Likewise the organic industry should have no problem with "fertilized with cow shit" labels

Other than the purpose of such would be to decrease their market share while providing no useful information to the consumer.

[Chan790]

229. As someone who grew up on farms...

knowing the origin of the fertilizers used to grow my produce would make me more likely to buy a product with that label.

The other options are mostly petroleum-derivative fertilizers and we know those are bad for the environment.

[Major Nikon]

231. Actually synthetic nitrogen fertilizers are derived from natural gas

But all of this kind of misses the point. If the organic industry were forced to put "fertilized with cow shit" labels on their products, this would have the inevitable effect of lowering their market share by stoking irrational fear of e. coli poisoning (which actually does manage to sicken and kill people unlike GMO).

[laundry_queen]

251. Deal

If organic companies have to put 'fertilized with cow shit' labels, then conventionally grown food has to have a "fertilized with the products of fracking" as the equivalent.

[Major Nikon]

252. Except one has exactly shit to do with food safety

So hardly equivalent, no?

[laundry_queen]

253. Totally equivalent

Because you are pretending that farms that produce GMOs somehow don't use manure. What a load of...well you know.

[Major Nikon]

254. And you are pretending all synthetic nitrogen comes from fracking

What a load of...well you know.

So now I've gone a bit too far into the land of Absurdia. Feel free to go on without me.

[laundry_queen]

262. No I didn't

But you know that.

Anyway, you started the Absurdia. I just took it to its (il)logical conclusion.

[Coventina]

7. I predict greatness for this thread

Enjoying my Monsanto (TM) popcorn...

[Hydra]

8. Does it come with free ears?

[Coventina]

10. Oh heck no!

With Monsanto (TM) nothing is free!!

[Kali]

9. GMO-free salt

[Lorien]

11. Enjoy your Roundup Ready GMO corn with added pig proteins and antibiotics!

I prefer the heirloom organic variety that I grow myself, thanks.

[Hydra]

14. Bacon flavored popcorn right off the cob??

When are they coming out with the bacon flavored rBST? Bacon butter and pepperjack for everyone! Don't mind it squirming and squealing for help, that's an added bonus!

[MohRokTah]

135. Almost no sweet corn on the market is GMO.

The GMO crops are primarily used in ethanol, animal feed, corn oil, canola oil, HFCS, and some corn meal products.

But sweet corn on the cob is almost never GMO. They tried to do GMO sweet corn and the sweet corn farmers refused to grow it. Of course, sweet corn is a very tiny part of the overall corn market.

[odd_duck]

272. My thoughts exactly!

[HuckleB]

273. You agree with silly Internet fictions?

Really?

[hifiguy]

13. It isn't the science behind it all that i question

The inevitability of the law of unintended consequences i worry about.

Gigantic corporations obtaining patents on life forms and stamping out natural seeds I worry about.

I am open to persuasion, but not by the likes of Monsanto.

[Oilwellian]

19. Within a few weeks after the Iraq invasion

Monsanto was insisting Iraqi farmers couldn't use their indigenous seeds because they owned the patent. Bremer issued an order, and forced them to purchase GMO seeds instead. I wonder how many enemies we create while imposing this racket on the world.

http://www.alternet.org/story/62273/why_iraqi_farmers_might_prefer_death_to_paul_bremer's_order_81

[laundry_queen]

25. Yep

That's #1 with me as well.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

44. Jurassic Park time, eh?

Life will find a way...

[WDIM]

61. Corporate ownership of the food supply and ruined lives of farmers

Is my biggest protest against gmos and monsanto.

The idea one can put a patent on a seed and on life is not defensible.

The idea that monsanto can ruin a farmers life because monsanto's unnatural plants drift on to the farmers property is indefensible.

The idea that monsanto is poisoning and causing cancer in our farming communities is indefensible.

If it is safe then label it and let the consumer decide. Being informed of what is in our food and where it comes from is a human right that the corporations and their republican apologist are taking from us all.

[Bettie]

178. This is a big problem too

Farmers used to be able to save seed from this year's crop for next year's.

They used to know that if they planted in their fields, the crop belonged to them, even if pollen from the next farm over blew into the field.

Now, Monsanto can ruin people for the act of having a farm next to a proprietary seed using farm.

[HuckleB]

184. All types of seeds can be patented.

Your "concerns" in this post have nothing to do with GMOs.

[jazzimov]

15. Then there shouldn't be a problem with labeling it.

Just label it.

[progressoid]

162. I want my food labeled that it contains no Leprechaun feces.

[H2O Man]

16. silly

[Hydra]

17. My bacon flavored popcorn told me to vote you an Un-Rec

It does not approve of you suggesting that it is less important than other forms of corn. It is in fact, SUPERIOR to normal popcorn, and demands to be labeled so.

The corn will be heard! Viva la revolución maíz!

[Major Nikon]

156. How serious is your problem on the RFS scale?

[roody]

18. What is your financial interest in GMOs?

[Humanist_Activist]

24. Wow, is everything a conspiracy to you? Your tinfoil hat is on a little too tight.

Seriously, every time someone questions the party line of the anti-GMO movement, it always comes down to accusations of somehow being "bought" by those evil corporations, or being a hired shill. Never is it honest disagreement.

[roody]

28. Your financial interest is still unknown.

[Humanist_Activist]

32. You are just reinforcing my point. n/t

[Lizzie Poppet]

93. Ironic, really: a "poisoning the well" fallacy committed by someone...

...worried about potentially poisonous food. Comedy gold.

[Humanist_Activist]

99. I guess he could go for guilt by association, I'm born and raised in St. Louis after all. n/t

[Major Nikon]

64. They are generally cheaper than the alternative

[pnwmom]

20. Right. And Dupont and Monsanto have never put a poisonous product on the market

and Roundup and their other pesticides -- the whole reason they've developed most of their GMO's -- are perfectly safe.

[JohnyCanuck]

26. When you want to peddle putrid shit to the public,

and call it sweet corn, it helps to have your agents inside the USDA and FDA etc, thanks to revolving doors and all (not to mention compliant politicians in Congress and the White House who know the importance of maintaining good relations with one big multinational, agri-chemical corporation in particular for winning election campaigns):

Long exposure to tiny amounts of Monsanto’s Roundup may damage liver, kidneys – study

In their study, published in Environmental Health on August 25, the scientists particularly focused on the influence of Monsanto’s Roundup on gene expression in the kidneys and liver.

In the new two-year study, which extended the findings from one conducted in 2012, the team added tiny amounts of Roundup to water that was given to rats in doses much smaller than allowed in US drinking water.

Scientists say that some of the rats experienced “25 percent body weight loss, presence of tumors over 25 percent bodyweight, hemorrhagic bleeding, or prostration.”

The study’s conclusions indicate that there is an association between wide-scale alterations in liver and kidney gene expression and the consumption of small quantities of Roundup, even at admissible glyphosate-equivalent concentrations. As the dose used is “environmentally relevant in terms of human, domesticated animals and wildlife levels of exposure,” the results potentially have significant health implications for animal and human populations, the study warned.

http://www.rt.com/usa/313806-monsanto-roundup-kidney-damage/

[pnwmom]

31. Thanks. So that was just published a few days ago in a peer-reviewed journal.

Maybe you should consider making this an OP tomorrow, JohnyCanuck.

http://www.ehjournal.net/content/14/1/70

Conclusions
It was previously known that glyphosate consumption in water above authorized limits may provoke kidney failure and reproductive difficulties [43]. The results of the study presented here indicate that consumption of far lower levels of a GBH formulation, at admissible glyphosate-equivalent concentrations, are associated with wide-scale alterations of the liver and kidney transcriptome that correlate with the observed signs of hepatic and kidney anatomorphological and biochemical pathological changes in these organs [17]. In addition, as the dose of Roundup we investigated is environmentally relevant in terms of human [4], domesticated animals [12] and wildlife [34], [44] levels of exposure, our results potentially have significant health implications for animal and human populations. Furthermore, data also suggests that new studies incorporating testing principles from endocrinology and developmental epigenetics, in particular to evaluate the endocrine disruptive capability of GBH/glyphosate, should be performed to investigate potential consequences of low dose exposure during early life as well as in adults.

[Major Nikon]

212. Séralini

[pnwmom]

214. Another intelligent response of yours. n/t

[Major Nikon]

226. Sure, because channeling Seralini is so smart

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gilles-Eric_S%C3%A9ralini

[immoderate]

207. Good that this is a long term study.

The ones cited (and financed) by Monsanto are not.

Also Monsanto finances "researchers" to compile lists of studies that they then espouse as documents of GMO safety. There are hundreds and sometimes thousands of documents on these lists. I've gone through quite a few of them and perused hundreds of titles. Almost none of them have anything to do with GMO safety.

And I have not yet encountered one that concludes "GMOs are safe."

Some of these meta-studies are severely methodologically flawed.

--imm

[Deadshot]

27. The anti-GMO crowd are just as bad as the anti-vaxxers.

Yes, Monsanto uses GMOs. But they don't own GMOs and aren't the only ones using GMOs.

[roody]

30. They own a number of patents.

[tymorial]

53. Yup.

It is purely anti-intellectual which fits perfectly in our postmodern culture where truth is relative. Facts are only useful to the point where they bolster emotionalism derived opinion.

[Oneironaut]

131. It's annoying how the anti-GMO crowd pretends to be as knowledgeable as scientists.

I'm not a scientist either, but I'm for actual scientists researching GMOs (which are ironically all labeled as "shills" by the anti-GMO crowd). I'm not inclined to believe some random blog post. I hate this trend of people having a belief, and then grasping at straws to defend it rather than admitting they made a mistake and were wrong.

[WDIM]

74. Monsanto is on record suing family farmers

For plant drift and for retaining seeds that the farmer grew with his own labor.

Monsanto is on record selling known cancer causing poison to our farmers.

They are a greedy corporation that will doing anything for increased profit including exploitation of science and our food producers.

[Deadshot]

86. Sounds like you have a problem with the poisons and not the GMOs.

[Major Nikon]

88. Nonsense

If you can't cite ate least one example (and you haven't) then your claim is just as easily dismissed.

Monsanto is on record selling known cancer causing poison to our farmers.

So are manufacturers of granite countertops, coffee, fluorescent light bulbs, and about half or more of organic pesticide manufacturers. If one doesn't consider dosage, words like "cancer causing", "toxic", and "poison" are meaningless.

[Oneironaut]

132. All corporations are greedy POS.

As far as corporations go, Monsato isn't in any way unique in that regard. They need more regulation.

[GreatGazoo]

159. Science relies on logic. Conflating the 93% of american who want GMO foods labelled with the 7% who

avoid vaccines is a logical fallacy.

You're wrong about what Monsanto owns. They own gene sequences and the proprietary preparation of glyphosate and secret adjuvants that is Roundup. Now they chase the world's biggest pesticide maker while they fight consumer choice:

In trying to swallow Syngenta, Monsanto is putting its money where its mouth isn't—that is, it's contradicting years of rhetoric about how its ultimate goal with biotech is to wean farmers off agrichemicals. The company has two major money-making GM products on the market: crops engineered to carry the insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt, which is toxic to certain insects but not to humans; and crops engineered to withstand the herbicide glyphosate, an herbicide Monsanto sells under the brand name Roundup.

www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/05/monsanto-syngenta-merger-45-billion-pesticides

[Deadshot]

160. Nope.

Both anti-vaxxers and anti-GMOers deny the science.

Read this article:Top Five Myths Of Genetically Modified Seeds, Busted: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted

Here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/08/09/whats-going-on-scotland/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+freethoughtblogs%2Fpharyngula+%28FTB%3A+Pharyngula%29&utm_content=FaceBook

Here " If your objection to GMOs is the monopolistic conduct of agribusiness, then focus on that.": https://www.facebook.com/neiltyson/posts/10204439688771816

And here: https://www.facebook.com/neildegrassetyson/posts/10152652892786613

[HuckleB]

271. +1,000,000 ... 000

[scarletwoman]

33. What's REALLY "so damn pathetic" is DUers shilling for multinational corporations who want

nothing less than to control and profit from globalized agriculture, while they poison us with their (highly profitiable) patented pesticides.

[Octafish]

90. ^ ^ ^ THIS ^ ^ ^

Seeing his friends drafted into the army by the colonial powers, seeing other friends join the rebels; Saki Mafundikwa opted out of the revolution in Rhodesia and came to the USA and became a scholar of graphic arts. He returned to Zimbabwe and started the first school for the digital arts. He also backs farming, having a traditional home in both the city and the country. He mentioned the GMO killer seeds that require farmers to buy new ones each planting season, rather than doing it the traditional -- and best -- way where the farmers use their best plants' seedlings to plant the next year's crop.

http://www.ted.com/talks/saki_mafundikwa_ingenuity_and_elegance_in_ancient_african_alphabets

An enlightened being, Mafundikwa is profound in every way.

[Major Nikon]

92. Myth 4: Before Monsanto got in the way, farmers typically saved their seeds and re-used them

By the time Monsanto got into the seed business, most farmers in the U.S. and Europe were already relying on seed that they bought every year from older seed companies. This is especially true of corn farmers, who've been growing almost exclusively commercial hybrids for more than half a century. (If you re-plant seeds from hybrids, you get a mixture of inferior varieties.) But even soybean and cotton farmers who don't grow hybrids were moving in that direction.

This shift started with the rise of commercial seed companies, not the advent of genetic engineering. But Monsanto and GMOs certainly accelerated the trend drastically.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted

[Octafish]

95. Oh. So farmers do get to use their crops' seeds?

On the Monsanto Director of Millenial Engagement:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/10/29/359836350/monsanto-hired-this-guy-to-help-it-win-over-millennials

Up with corporations!

[Major Nikon]

102. They can reuse them all they want

There's no shortage of seed with no patent or licensing restrictions.

[Gormy Cuss]

97. Myth 4, detail.

Up until the 1970s most farmers who purchased seed did so from small, local seed producers. Then big players in the chemical and pharmaceutical industries-Monsanto being one of those players- consolidated the market.

Monsanto controls the bulk of the commercial corn and soybean seed production in the U.S. Monsanto and its policies are dictating what varieties are available. Monsanto has a deep financial interest in preventing GMO labeling in this country because science aside, the label "GMO-free" will have an impact on their bottom line.



There is overwhelming popular support for GMO labeling of the food supply in the U.S. That won't change by calling people anti-science or believers pf pseudo-science. If anything that approach will just make people MORE resistant to GMO foods.

[Major Nikon]

104. Myth 5: Most seeds these days are genetically modified.

Actually, surprisingly few are. Here's the full list of food crops for which you can find GMO varieties: Corn, soybeans, cotton (for oil), canola (also a source of oil), squash, and papaya. You could also include sugar beets, which aren't eaten directly, but refined into sugar. There's also GMO alfalfa, but that goes to feed animals, not for sprouts that people eat. That leaves quite a lot of your garden untouched.

GMO versions of tomatoes, potatoes, and rice have been created and approved by government regulators, but they aren't commercially available.

There is overwhelming popular support for GMO labeling of the food supply in the U.S.

Then why isn't the vote on GMO labeling referendums overwhelming?

The reason is because most people have no idea what GMO means and really don't care to learn. The problem with misinformation campaigns is that when they start to become popular, so are the debunkings of the pseudoscience they rely. If you want to force someone to label something in the name of safety, your argument should be better than, "because I want it".

[Gormy Cuss]

111. It's more work to find NON-GMO seeds for corn and soybeans

which is why myth #5 is phrased in a disingenuous manner.

As to why labeling referendums aren't overwhelmingly successful, I haven't got an analysis of that at hand but referendum votes are swayed by the side with the most money/best PR to throw at them --- that's how Prop. 8 and other anti-marriage equality referenda were passed only a few short years ago.

I agree that most people don't know what GMO means precisely but then, the scientific community isn't going to educate them by calling those who are leery anti-science and harrumphing out of the room. We have foods labeled "natural" which means nothing, yet there's no big move from the science community to get rid of that. "GMO-free" labeling foes seem more invested in keeping the public attention off of this technology than in education. IMHO that usually means it's about MONEY more than science.

[Major Nikon]

115. Voluntary, albeit disingenuous, labeling and mandatory labeling are two different things

Mandating a label in the name of safety should have some basis in fact.

[Gormy Cuss]

116. Yes, they are.

So you'd support proliferation of the voluntary, unregulated label instead?

[Major Nikon]

118. I could care less really

As long as it's not a violation of law, anyone can put any label they want on their product and many do.

[progressoid]

163. I don't shill for multinational corporations. I loathe them.

But I am a shill for science, knowledge and progress. Unfortunately many DUers can't distinguish the difference.

[Lorien]

166. Exactly.

Someone sunk a lot of stock in Monsanto, has seen their profits dropping, and is feeling desperate.

Every pro-GMO article can be linked back to a multinational megacorp. The first several pages on Google always turn them up, but dig just a little deeper and you'll find plenty by honest scientists who find GMOs extremely alarming. We aren't talking traditional hybridization here; we're talking about adding genes to plants that cause them to "commit suicide", absorb grotesque quantities of toxins without dying, and carry genes from other non-plant species (such as mammals). Anyone who believes there's no risk there is either lying, or an idiot.

[Ron Green]

34. You know, it's good that the conversation is

continuing about what Big Food is doing. A little more heat, a lot more light can't hurt.

[SidDithers]

36. DU rec...

And anyone still quoting Seralini can immediately be laughed at.



Sid

[immoderate]

210. I went through Seralini's study.

I thought it was methodologically sound. It should be replicated. I laugh at your laughter.

--imm

[SoLeftIAmRight]

38. WRONG WRONG WRONG

For many, particularly the wise ones, it is about the agricultural system as a whole.

They are not needed and they promote a system that is not sustainable.

We need a complete conversion of the agricultural systems.
It will not be fast, easy, or cheap.
The issue is too important to let corporations control make the decisions.


This is only the beginning – hope to spend the time to expand

Sustainable production – less input – co2 sequestration – no gmo's


Start with

Allan Savory – Ted Talk

http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change

Then
Gabe Brown
Soil health

This talk is directed to farmers that have a anti-environmental bend – so less emphasis on environmental issues – when speaking to a more enlightened group his talk is less country twang and more science based

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=gabe+brown+soil+health&FORM=HDRSC3#view=detail&mid=4145088DB3EF49DFB8CF4145088DB3EF49DFB8CF


Mike Hands – this is only a little info on this subject – see the full documentary

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=mike%20hands%20inga%20frontline&qs=n&form=QBVR&pq=mike%20hands%20inga%20frontline&sc=0-0&sp=-1&sk=#view=detail&mid=46F489526F819D99DF6E46F489526F819D99DF6E



People to start with

Allan Savory
Gabe Brown
Mike Hands
Michael White

Concepts to start with

monoculture
alley cropping
no-till
cover crops
mob grazing
soil health
local production
crop diversity
composting
green manure


Other issues

Is it wise to send our soil to feed livestock in other countries
where do farm subsidies go and is that where they should go
are big agri-businesses promoting a form of agri that is sustainable
where is the rain – where is the agriculture


Other resources





Much more to come

If you want more science try Dr. Jill Clapperton

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=gabe+brown+soil+health&form=HDRSC3&first=1#view=detail&mid=A0CCD0CA92DCF1C4A621A0CCD0CA92DCF1C4A621


The problems with big agri corps and their products

Michael White vs Monsanto –

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017282430


Mike Hands – more about inga

http://www.ingafoundation.org/mike-hands/




Ted Talk on neighbor gardens

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017281878



food variety

http://www.upworthy.com/we-used-to-have-307-kinds-of-corn-guess-how-many-are-left


4000 potato varieties

http://cipotato.org/potato/facts/




rice – 40,000 varieties

http://www.riceassociation.org.uk/content/1/10/varieties.html



Apples

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/04/heritage-apples-john-bunker-maine

[CanSocDem]

54. Good post. Good links. Kickin'... (eom)

[Major Nikon]

62. When attempting to contradict, it's best to include relevant facts

Whether or not GMOs are as safe as the alternatives is a separate issue from sustainability.

Your first source has been well debunked, BTW. After that I didn't see the need to read on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Savory#Criticism

[Humanist_Activist]

68. Some of what you brought up are valid concerns, they have nothing to do with GMOs...

and in fact, are practices that pre-date modern techniques in genetic insertion and deletion.

You have a problem with industrial farming in general, fine, then argue against that, not against technology that can actually help produce sustainability.

[Bradical79]

186. I find that sad

I think you seem to bring up some very good "big picture" points regarding agriculture, but I find it sad that such dishonesty and paranoia about the technology itself seems to be the main vector of attack against these corrupt corporations. It's the main reason I stay limited in these discussions. I know enough about the scientific studies to see a lot of anti-GMO talk as bullshit, but I know zilch about almost every other agricultural issue. Maybe the more Machiavellian approach of ends justifying the means is the way to go in this case... I'm not sure. Seems to work for the Republicans in a number of areas.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

190. GMO's are like tattoos

They are great until you do not like it anymore - then what?

If you understand how little we really know about biology and food science you must come to the conclusion that we should be cautious.

Not anti science just careful.

GMO's are a prop for a failing destructive agricultural system.

[pnwmom]

39. That's a straw man. No one is asking for salt to be labeled GMO-free. We are asking for the opposite:

for foods to be labeled IF they contain GMO's.

If there is no GMO, then no GMO labeling should be required. If there is a GMO, it should be identified.

[Major Nikon]

63. You can ask all you want

But if you want mandatory labeling, then your reason should be a bit better than because I want it.

[HuckleB]

123. Oh, she'll bring up her favorite organic shill as soon as she can.

http://www.science20.com/science_20/the_dying_gasp_of_chuck_benbrooks_credibility-156906

[pnwmom]

126. Thank you for revealing your "pro-free market," climate denial, Koch colors so clearly!

In your effort to discredit a Washington State Faculty member who has done responsible research on GMO's, you site a piece written by the President of the ACSH, a right-wing foundation set up to counter environmental researchers with the claim that the environmentalists and "activists" are engaging in "junk science."

So you are solidly on the team of George W. Bush, the WSJ, and the Heritage Foundation -- the only endorsers the ACSH chooses to note on its website.

Bravo! We may disagree, but thanks for coming clean about your sources. I really appreciate that.

You're claiming support from an explicitly anti-progressive, pro-fracking, Koch-funded group. So what are you doing on DU? Trying to reform us dumb progressives?

Below, the ACSH both reveals and brags about its right-wing connections -- and asks for some money to help pay for its important "pro-science, pro-technology and pro-free market approach."


http://acsh.org/about-acsh/

What people are saying about us

“By increasing our understanding of complex issues, you help Americans make sound decisions about their well-being and influence public policy.”

– President George W. Bush

“ACSH knows the difference between a health scare and a health threat.”

– The Wall Street Journal

“On one issue after another in recent years, ACSH has stood as a bulwark against the contemporary Luddites who see the beginning of civilization’s end in every technological advance that reaches the market place.”

– Edwin Feulner, President The Heritage Foundation


Your tax-deductible gift would go to work instantly in promoting a pro-science, pro-technology and pro-free market approach to the important issues related to food, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, lifestyle the environment and human health. Together, we can make our world a better place.






______________________________

From Mother Jones:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/american-council-science-health-leaked-documents-fundraising

Leaked Documents Reveal the Secret Finances of a Pro-Industry Science Group

The American Council on Science and Health defends fracking, BPA, and pesticides. Guess who their funders are.

SNIP

From Greenpeace:

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/front-groups/american-council-on-science-and-health-acsh/

American Council on Science and Health (ACSH)

Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group

$155,000 received from Koch foundations 2005-2011 [Total Koch foundation grants 1997-2011: $155,000]

The American Council for Science and Health is an industry-funded group that works to undermine not only climate change science, but the health threats associated with controversial company products like bisphenol-A (BPA) and atrazine, a pesticide. According to Andy Kroll, writing for Mother Jones, “Elizabeth Whelan, a Harvard-trained public-health scientist, founded ACSH in 1978 as a counterweight to environmental groups and Ralph Nader’s consumer advocacy movement.”

In 1997, ACSH released a position paper titled “Global Climate Change and Human Health,” which claims that cutting greenhouse gas emissions, because it would hurt the economy, would be more detrimental to public health than global warming. “[P]olicymakers can safely take several decades to plan a response, and scientists will have enough time to develop cost-effective and anti-climate-change strategies.”

[HuckleB]

134. As usual, your response is less than honest.

Boring. Sad, but boring. Benbrook's work has been debunked. His ties to industry have been shown. He is unethical to the core. End of discussion. In fact, the title to your response fits supporters of Benbrook to the T.

[pnwmom]

137. Mine is completely honest. I don't trust Koch- funded "debunkers" and climate science deniers,

like the ACSH.

For some reason, you do.

P.S. I added the Koch funding information to the previous post. But you probably already knew and didn't care.

[HuckleB]

139. Hogwash.

You simply do not understand how science works. You have preconceived notions that you always defend with the most despicable methods. This is yet another one of those methods. You have never proven any of your pseudoscientific notions to be anything but bogus, and yet you fail to realize that over and over again.

Goodbye. It's time to block you for good.

[pnwmom]

144. I understand that when corporations are the ones doing the funding, the "science"

can end up being biased toward the corporations.

I also understand that credentialed scientists funded by the "American Council on Science and Health" are doing Koch-funded "research" that supports fracking and denies climate change, along with pushing for GMO safety.

And I understand that you haven't made any effort to defend the ACSH -- and I understand why. The organization really isn't defensible -- from a progressive viewpoint that is. It is explicitly against progressives, on it website.

Now we shall see if you really have blocked me this time.

[Major Nikon]

237. That's funny as hell

In this very thread you praise the research of Séralini, which has been widely discredited over and over and receives personal profit from anti-GM, homeopathic quack organizations, and his own books and shell companies, yet fails to disclose his own conflict of interest in his pseudo-science studies.

CRIIGEN, the institute behind Séralini's study, has some worrying issues. Their current president is a homeopath/acupuncturist,[49] and several articles have found financial connections to the French supermarkets Auchan and Carrefour.[50] Carrefour launched an advertising campaign for their GM-free product range a mere five days after Séralini's study was published. CRIIGEN's funding is funneled through CERES, a shell foundation whose funding sources are shrouded in secrecy. The Foundation for Human Progress is another organization that funds Seralini's research — and this foundation has direct ties to anti-GM activist groups.[51] CRIIGEN was also caught manipulating the embargo system in order to have articles on their study published without having an expert review the results.[52]

Séralini published a book titled "Tous cobayes!" (which translates to "We're all guinea pigs!&quot right around when he released his 2012 study.[53] He is a consultant for Sevene Pharma[54] (a homeopathic pharma company),[55] and there is also evidence that he is linked to Invitation to Life, a New Age faith healing cult.[56][57]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gilles-Eric_S%C3%A9ralini#CRIIGEN

No bias there, right?

[pnwmom]

244. So if you reject Seralini because of his connections, why don't you reject all the research

promoted by the ACSH?

[Major Nikon]

250. Glad you asked. The answer is because that would be completely fucking stupid.

By your warped logic if the ACSH promoted the Theory of Relativity, I'd have to reject it.

What's truly fascinating about your false equivalencies is you really don't see the slightest difference between promoting research and producing research.

The idea that just because the ACSH who takes money from right wing interests makes everything they promote invalid is not just ridiculous, it's damn ridiculous. If your half-fast ad hominem had any validity, that puts you in the same boat as right wing quacks Mercola and Mike Adams who vapidly promote your widely discredited darlings Gilles-Éric Séralini and Chuck Benbrook.

[tymorial]

52. God. How I love a well formed non "feelings" based opinion.

"It's so damn pathetic how this pseudoscience has infested the left. GMOphobia is at the same dishonesty level as The Rush Limbaugh Show, creationism, and Bigfoot sightings."

I tip my hat to you.

[edhopper]

57. The problem is that the anti-GMO

has solidified around anti-agribusiness, which I feel is a legitimate concern.

[Humanist_Activist]

65. And in the process deligitamize such concerns, similar to how some anti-vaxxers have...

legitmate concerns about general drug safety and testing, but because they argue and advocate for the nutballs as well, its difficult if not impossible to take them seriously.

[edhopper]

71. I don't disagree

with that.

[WDIM]

69. GMOs are anti-farmers and anti-family farms.

The idea that a farmer cannot keep and does not own the seeds from the plants they grow on their land with their labor goes againat all reason. The idea that a farmer has to go back and buy seed from monsanto every growing season goes against all sensibility.

The idea that monsanto can sue our food producers because their plants drift onto the farmers property is indefensible.

It is a sicking pathetic attempt at complete corporate control of the food supply.

[edhopper]

72. Yes

it's not the GMOs themselves. It is how it affects farming and how agribusiness uses them.

[mike_c]

127. so why not call for "sustainably farmed" labels rather than "GMO free?"

The anti-GMO movement continues to flail about in search of some reasoning more compelling than "we fear change," and it has been largely unsuccessful. Even the complaints about sustainability begin to ring hollow when you examine them closely. But if the real issue isn't genetic modification per se, why not focus on whatever the real issues are?

[HuckleB]

141. Probably because they wouldn't be able to support the claim.

[Major Nikon]

75. That's not unique to GMO

Anyone can develop their own seeds and patent them without GMO. If someone signs an agreement not to reuse seed and does so and gets sued, they have nobody to blame but themselves.

The idea that monsanto can sue our food producers because their plants drift onto the farmers property is indefensible.

It's also a myth that this happens.

[WDIM]

77. That is not a myth.

Im done debating this topic today. You are obviously uninformed with that last statement.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/agricultural-giant-battles-small-farmers/

[Major Nikon]

78. Then post just one instance of it happening

And if you think you are informed and cite Percy Schmeiser, you obviously aren't.

Just sayin'

[WDIM]

80. I added a link of Monsantos harrassment. and intimidation after you replied

There are more examples of Monsantos extortion of the family farmer the information is easy to find.

[Major Nikon]

82. Just one instance of Monsanto suing someone for overseeding

That's all I asked for.

If you can't provide one, just say so. If you really are as informed as you think, it really shouldn't be that hard, no?

[WDIM]

85. No you ask for one example due to seed drift

And i did.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/agricultural-giant-battles-small-farmers/

[Major Nikon]

89. Wrong

Your article says nothing about them being sued and clearly specifies seed drift as speculation by the farmer in question.

Just so you know, a lawsuit requires a court filing.

[WDIM]

94. Ok so I know your problem you cant read.

74-year-old Mo Parr is a seed cleaner; he is hired by farmers to separate debris from the seed to be replanted. Monsanto sued him claiming he was "aiding and abetting" farmers, helping them to violate the patent.

Go on defending greedy corporations harassing and extorting our farmers Mansanto's actions against the farming community are well documented.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases

Since the mid‑1990s, Monsanto indicates that it has filed suit against 145 individual U.S. farmers for patent infringement and/or breach of contract in connection with its genetically engineered seed.

Corporate appologist like you make me sick. Im done wasting my time on you. None are so blind as those who will not see.

[Major Nikon]

100. You funny

Evidently I can't read, but you can't even manage to comprehend what you wrote yourself.

The idea that monsanto can sue our food producers because their plants drift onto the farmers property is indefensible.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027123042#post69

To add to the hilarity, you even post the reason Mo Parr was sued which contradicts your own words.

Nothing like a good faceplant to get the day going.

[WDIM]

107. He was sorting seeds he believed to be non-gmo

I guess those GMO seeds just magically appeared in the non gmo fields had nothing to do with seed drift. Yeah right.

Like any predator Monsanto goes after the weakest links the people that cannot afford the high price corporate hit squads like Monsanto can.

Monsanto extorts and harasses our farmers for one purpose greed.

By Monsanto's own admission they have harrassed farmers 146 times in the last 20 years. This greedy multi-national corporation going after mom and pop farmers just to increase their stock share. It is shameful and violates the natural right of humanity to possess and propagate plants. And people like you that defend their greedy inhumane tactics shows the selfishness greedy corrupt system that exploit humanity for money.

[Major Nikon]

112. You funny

You have yet to support your assertion that you wrote and I reposted twice, yet somehow you think you can allege my inability to read is what's responsible for your ineptitude.

Regardless of what your claimed informed position is, Mo Parr wasn't sued for seed drift, nor was the farmers he was cleaning seeds for. Now you are simply making up nonsense which has even less basis in fact.

Here's what Mo Parr's customers had to say about him:

Gary Williams, one of Parr’s seed cleaning customers, was advised by Parr that it
was permissible to save Roundup Ready soybeans and replant them on this farm.

Fred and Jim Inskeep testified that they were convinced by Parr that it was
permissible to save Roundup Ready soybeans and replant them on their farm.

So Mo Parr was deliberately and fraudulently misinforming his customers, convincing them to reuse seed they had agreed not to reuse per their own signed licensing agreement. It has exactly jack shit to do with "seed drift" and everything to do with him conning his customers.

You can read all about it in his injunction after he was successfully sued:
http://www.fr.com/files/Uploads/publications/DSU-Medical-Corp-v-JMS-Co-Ltd/Monsanto_v_Parr_NDIN_4-07-cv-00008_Apr_22_2008.pdf

Now please do tell us again how everyone else is uninformed because that is getting funnier by the minute.

[Deadshot]

87. It is a myth.

Bill Nye is writing a book about GMOs and he said he has found no evidence that Monsanto has sued anyone for plant drift.

[Major Nikon]

91. NPR article

Myth 2: Monsanto will sue you for growing their patented GMOs if traces of those GMOs entered your fields through wind-blown pollen.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted

In fact, Monsanto was proactively sued by an organic organization for seed drift and they couldn't provide one single instance of it actually happening. Not surprisingly they lost their suit.

[Deadshot]

98. Yep.

But those who perpetuate the myth won't even pay any attention to the article you posted.

Monsanto has never sued anybody over trace amounts of GMOs that were introduced into fields simply through cross-pollination. (The company asserts, in fact, that it will pay to remove any of its GMOs from fields where they don't belong.) If you know of any case where this actually happened, please let me know.

[WDIM]

59. Another apologist for the mega corporations

We know corporations are so trust worthy they would never sell anything dangerous to the public.... They are so trustworthy we should just trust them all to regulate themselves and trust their own research that says their own products are safe.

While we are at it we should do away with the fda and epa and just just blindly trust our corporate masters because they will never sell poison to the public.

just in case you couldnt tell.

[Major Nikon]

66. GMOs are regulated by the FDA, EPA, and USDA

We know that the government is completely incompetent and we should just keep cutting it till we can drown it in the bathtub.

just in case you couldn't tell.

[WDIM]

70. If a company submitting its own research

And saying a product is safe and that being good enough is regulation... then i guess we should believe the fossil fuel industry and climate change has nothing to do with co2.

What do we need government for? just trust the greedy corporations.

[Major Nikon]

73. That's exactly how transport aircraft are certified

Do you think they are unsafe?

[WDIM]

76. Do you think tobacco is safe?

The tobacco industry use to produce study after study that their product is safe and doesnt cause cancer.

[Major Nikon]

79. Caution: Cigarette Smoking May be Hazardous to Your Health (1966)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_packaging_warning_messages#Cigarettes

[WDIM]

83. The Tobaccos industry's manipulation of science is

Well documented.
We are speaking of corporate self oversight and studies and how they manipulate research.
http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/20071114_cardio-tobacco/

[Major Nikon]

84. And yet warning labels have existed at least since 1966

So you might want to rethink the example you are hanging your hat on.

[WDIM]

96. Only because of independent studies

Not because of corporate self regulation or the studies submitted by the tobacco industry.

[Major Nikon]

101. Because they are regulated by the government

This isn't that hard to follow.

[Major Nikon]

114. I'm not going to respond to a personal attack other than pointing it out

As I find the behavior rather lame and pathetic.

[HuckleB]

122. Anti-GMO activists are the ones practicing “tobacco science”.

http://fafdl.org/blog/2015/05/19/anti-gmo-activists-are-the-ones-practicing-tobacco-science/

[Major Nikon]

67. Ever notice how those who get their feathers ruffled over this use words like 'poison' and 'toxic'

...which only reinforces the point.

http://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/203188108697677824

[HassleCat]

103. Wrong target

Our food contains too much salt, too many preservatives, artificial flavors, etc. The Department of Agriculture doesn't have enough inspectors to check on meat packing plants. We waste billons of gallons of water by growing hay in the desert. And so on. And so on. The problem with GMO foods is not that they will poison you; they won't. Some of them are genetically modified to resist herbicides that would ordinarily kill them, so the grower can spry, spray, spray with the Roundup or whatever. We do need to make sure GMO crops are free of herbicide residue when they get to your table, but we need to do that for all foods.

[WDIM]

109. Certain types of GMOs have pesticides in their DNA

The poison is part of the plant.

[Major Nikon]

129. Which is also true for most non-GMO plants

[Nailzberg]

149. 99% of the pesticides we ingest are produced in plant DNA. And that goes for organics, too.

[HuckleB]

230. Why are you blowing their minds with reality?

That's just mean!

[RufusTFirefly]

105. Reuters:Germany starts move to ban GMO crops: ministry letter

Germany has initiated a move to stop the growing of genetically modified crops under new European Union rules, documents seen by Reuters showed on Monday.

German Agriculture Minister Christian Schmidt has informed German state governments of his intention to tell the EU that Germany will make use of new "opt-out" rules to stop GMO crop cultivation even if varieties have been approved by the EU, a letter from the agriculture ministry seen by Reuters shows.

<snip>

Widely-grown in the Americas and Asia, GMO crops have divided opinion in Europe. Britain is among those in favor of them, while France and Germany are among those opposed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/24/us-grain-germany-gmo-idUSKCN0QT1ID20150824

The voter initiatives and propositions in the U.S. aren't even calling for anything as drastic as banning GMOs. All they ask is for labeling.

[HuckleB]

275. Politics, not science.

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/will-gmos-hurt-my-body/

[Trajan]

110. Bullshit

To say that every possible modification is automatically safe without proving that every possible modification is absolutely, positively safe, well, where is the evidence that ALL possible gene modifications are absolutely, positively safe, in every single possible case?

I don't see that ... There is no such evidence ...

So, these broadsides against those who hold concerns for GMO foods are strictly polemical ...

The OP is free to eat whatever they want to put into their own mouth, but they are not free to belittle good citizens with legitimate concerns ...

[Major Nikon]

151. Is this really your bullshit call?

A "legitimate concern" would be relevant if GMOs were more of a risk than the alternative, and the evidence of that is nonexistent, assuming one believes the overwhelming scientific consensus.
http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf

What I find quite strange is that the "concern" for GMO seems to be great (assuming DU represents the public at large which is probably a poor assumption), yet the "concern" for mutation breeding is non-existent. Nothing more natural than bombarding plants with ionizing radiation to produce random mutations, and labeling them as organic, eh?
http://www.organicproduceclub.com/Organic-GrapeFruits-Star-Ruby-redCalifornia-per-lb_p_1054.html

Very telling that.

[Rex]

113. I agree, but the seperate issue of labeling food and transparency by a private corporation

still remains despite all those that wish it would just go away. Many side topics can be created out of whole cloth, labelling is still going to be there and a burning issue. Don't get mad, take it up with the fact that people like to know what they put into their bodies.

But yeah a lot of the 'GMO-Free' bullshit is just to make their product worth that extra buck.

[KamaAina]

117. I do not make a case that GMO's are evil and should have a scarlet letter/should be banned.

I would simply like to know what forms of genetic modification were used in my food. The only type that worries me is the transgenic stuff, the classic being the strawberry with fish genes (!) to help the plant survive frost.

[Major Nikon]

125. You ever eat an Ruby Red grapefruit?

...or Rio Star, Ruby-Sweet, or Rio Red?

You might be surprised to know what forms of genetic modification were used to create them.

[progressoid]

165. It comes in pretty handy in saving lives.

Some of the most promising and powerful applications of genetic engineering are in the field of medicine. Researchers are using it to diagnose and predict disease, and to develop therapies and drugs to treat devastating diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, and cystic fibrosis. Explore more about ways genetic engineering techniques can be used for medical purposes.

Recombinant DNA
Recombinant DNA is one of the core techniques of genetic engineering. It is the process of removing DNA from one organism and inserting it into the DNA of another organism, giving it new traits. Recombinant DNA can be used to make crops resistant to pests or disease, it can be used to make livestock leaner or larger. In medicine, the technique can be used to develop drugs, vaccines, and to reproduce important human hormones and proteins. By engineering human DNA into a host organism, that organism can be turned into a factory for important medical products. Insulin production is an excellent example of the recombinant DNA process. Host organisms can range from bacteria like E. coli, to plants, to animals.

Genetically Engineered Pharmaceuticals

- insulin for diabetics
- factor VIII for males suffering from hemophilia A
- factor IX for hemophilia B
- human growth hormone (GH)
- erythropoietin (EPO) for treating anemia
- three types of interferons - fight viral infections and cancer
- several interleukins
- granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) for stimulating the bone marrow after a bone marrow transplant
- tissue plasminogen activator (TPA) for dissolving blood clots
- adenosine deaminase (ADA) for treating some forms of
- severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID)
- angiostatin and endostatin for trials as anti-cancer drugs
- parathyroid hormone

http://www.iptv.org/exploremore/ge/uses/use2_medical.cfm

[jeff47]

202. Ever eaten a seedless watermelon?

To make a seedless watermelon, you take a regular watermelon and dump a highly toxic chemical on it, which causes it to make an additional copy of all its genes. So now it has 4 copies instead of the normal 2 copies.

Then you breed that plant with a "regular" watermelon, producing a child with 3 copies of its genes. The odd number of genes completely screws up seed production, so you get seedless watermelon.

Btw, doing this requires no testing before sending the new crop to market. You can even sell it as organic.

The horror of strawberry/fish at least had industry testing.

[Major Nikon]

238. How about a Ruby Red grapefruit?

They are produced by bombarding seeds with gamma rays to produce completely random genetic mutations. Nothing more natural than that. They are also sold as "organic".

[jeff47]

247. Yep, was just covering chemical mutagens since grapefruit was in another reply. (nt)

[HockeyMom]

119. Anyone remember Genetically Modified Tomatoes

with CHICKEN DNA from 20 years ago???? They did not want to label these as such. Media back then was all over this. Hello? You have a Chicken/Egg allergy? You are a Vegan? Would you want Poultry DNA in your PRODUCE? No right to KNOW?????

[Major Nikon]

128. No

Please enlighten us.

[Oneironaut]

133. [Citation Needed]

[TBF]

120. If GMOs were so safe you wouldn't need a marketing campaign

to sell them, and Europe wouldn't be requiring labels. Sorry, no sale.

[cpwm17]

124. I go with the scientists.

They are the experts in the field:

The American Association for the Advancement of Science:
http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf

There are several current efforts to require labeling of foods containing products derived from genetically modified crop plants, commonly known as GM crops or GMOs. These efforts are not driven by evidence that GM foods are actually dangerous. Indeed, the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. Rather, these initiatives are driven by a variety of factors, ranging from the persistent perception that such foods are somehow “unnatural” and potentially dangerous to the desire to gain competitive advantage by legislating attachment of a label meant to alarm. Another misconception used as a rationale for labeling is that GM crops are untested

The US National Academy of Sciences:
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/24/science/la-sci-gmo-food-safety-20121025

But among scientists, there is widespread agreement that such crops aren't dangerous. The plants, they say, are as safe as those generated for centuries by conventional breeding and, in the 20th century, by irradiating plant material, exposing it to chemical mutagens or fusing cells together to produce plants with higher grain yields, resistance to frost and other desirable properties. Now they want to insert other genes into plants to make them more nutritious, resistant to drought or able to capture nitrogen from the air so they require less fertilizer, among other useful traits.

"There's no mystery here," said UCLA plant geneticist Bob Goldberg. "When you put a gene into a plant ... it behaves exactly like any other gene."

The American Medical Association
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2012/06/american-medical-association-opposes.html

During a conference in Chicago, AMA's House of Delegates also adopted a report reaffirming there is no evidence that the genetic modification process presents any unique safety issues and recognizing the potential benefits of the technology.

The council's decision to oppose labeling comes amid California's consideration of legislation that would require genetically modified foods sold in grocery stores to be labeled. Beyond its potential to create unnecessary alarm for consumers, a review by the independent state legislative analyst points out the measure would cost the state and its taxpayers millions of dollars to implement and to pay for lawsuits.

The AMA report is consistent with the findings of a majority of respected scientists, medical professionals and health experts. As the AMA has cited previously, a highly regarded 1987 National Academy of Sciences white paper states there is no evidence that genetically modified foods pose any health risks. The report also reaffirms the council's policy recommendation in a December 2000 report stating "there is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods."

Additionally, there have been more than 300 independent medical studies on the health and safety of genetically modified foods. The World Health Organization, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association and many others have reached the same determination that foods made using GM ingredients are safe, and in fact are substantially equivalent to conventional alternatives. As a result, the FDA does not require labels on foods with genetically modified ingredients because it acknowledges they may mislead consumers into thinking there could be adverse health effects, which has no basis in scientific evidence.

Perhaps you know more than they do.

[mike_c]

130. every major scientific organization in the world has found GMOs crops safe...

...and not materially different from traditionally bred crops. On the other side are a rabble of fearful folks who get their information from similarly fearful internet sites that flog ignorance and paranoia 24/7. The anit-GMO movement is EXACTLY like the anti-vaccination movement. Same tactics, same sources, same ignorance of basic biology, for the most part.

[TBF]

150. I am fully in support of vaccinations -

and no one has answered my question as to why Europe has made GMO labeling mandatory? They are just a continent of "fearful folks" as opposed to paid posters working for Monsanto I suppose ...

[mike_c]

154. I'm happy to answer that question....

All major European scientific organizations and public health agencies have likewise agreed that GMOs are as safe and nutritious as non-GMO crops. Unfortunately, scientists and medical professionals don't make the laws-- politicians do, and politicians do whatever they think they have to do in order to recruit votes. Ignorance of basic biology is just as rampant in Europe as it is in the U.S. European politicians have simply been more receptive to their constituents' unfounded fears than most U.S. politicians have, to date.

But seriously, do me a favor. Stop and think about the question that you asked. Do you really want politicians making public policy based on mob paranoia, or would you prefer laws that reflect the professional judgement and scientific consensus of the overwhelming majority of the world's biologists, public health officials, and medical professionals? Really?

[cpwm17]

161. Europeans are more inclined to fall for bad health and medical science than Americans.

Homeopaths and anti-vaxxers are more common over there.

We have more crazy religion, but they have their bad ideas also.

[Major Nikon]

153. In many cases it's the exact same people

Mercola and Mike Adams are two notable examples.

[Lorien]

167. AGAIN, how are "roundup ready" crops with added pig protein and antibiotics

"not materially different from traditionally bred crops.". Answer the damn question already! If it can only be created in a lab setting, introducing genes from non-plant species, then how the hell is that anything like crossing an apricot with a plum??? They douse this crap with Roundup on top if it all. Have you READ the warning labels on Roundup lately????

Many scientists have warned us against consuming GMOs, so please, stop with the pro-Monsanto bullshit and invest in a different stock already.

[Major Nikon]

182. There are no commercially available GMO food crops that have been spliced with animal DNA

So really all you are doing is perpetuating a very bad myth.

Even if it weren't a myth, it still wouldn't add up to a hill of beans. You already share half of your DNA with a banana.

Have you READ the warning labels on Roundup lately????

I have. I suspect you either haven't, or don't understand what those warning labels mean. Roundup has the warning label Caution which is the least hazardous of the three governmentally required warnings. Copper Sulfate, which is arguably the most commonly used pesticide by the organic industry requires the Danger label, which is the most hazardous. So if your argument about warning labels had any merit regarding how hazardous produce is (and it doesn't), you might want to read some more labels.

Many scientists have warned us against consuming GMOs

It's also true to say that many scientists have warned that global warming is a myth, and neither does it change the consensus opinion among scientists regarding global warming and the safety of GMO.

You should stop with the pro-Whole Foods bullshit and invest in a different stock already.

Just sayin'

[mike_c]

197. "Answer the damn question already!"

I'm sorry-- I didn't know you'd asked that question. How then would I know to answer it?

Okay, where to start? First, genes represent stored biological information. Nucleic acids are the primary intergenerational information storage medium of cells. Exchanging genes between organisms therefore means exchanging information between organisms. That's all it means, from a biological perspective. Just like information can be copied from one sheet of paper to another, genes and their regulatory mechanisms can be copied from one cell to another. There are lots of ways this happens in nature, including horizontal gene transfer, which does not involve reproduction.

Information is universal. Genes that convey desirable phenotypes can arise spontaneously by mutation, they can be introduced by sexual recombination, they can be acquired from other organisms by horizontal transfer, or they can be introduced by genetic engineering. All of these produce the exact same outcome: an organism that has acquired information that it previously lacked, and that it can use to solve problems or produce traits that it could not previously.

THAT is why GMOs are not materially different than non-GMO crops. Introducing new genetic information from other organisms via genetic engineering produces the same outcome as introducing that information by any other means. Believing them to be different is the same as saying that writing a sentence produces a different meaning if it's written in a barnyard or in a lab. The information is universal, so there is no material difference. That's not at all the same as saying that the phenotypes are identical-- of course they're not. That's the whole point.

It is easy to demonstrate that genetic information is universal-- the simple fact that genetic engineering works so well is sufficient proof. When we insert a bacterial gene that kills pest insects into a crop plant, the gene does the same thing-- produces a protein that kills pest insects without toxicity to any other animals. That gene product is not materially different whether it's expressed in Bacillus thuringiensis or in corn. The transformed corn plants are not materially different than they would be if it were possible to obtain the transformation another way.

[jeff47]

203. No, what you need is a marketing campaign to get people to buy

much more expensive "certified organic" or "GMO-Free" food, because you make much more money selling it.

The problem is there isn't a science-based reason why that "GMO-Free" food is "better". At least, not enough to make the kind of money you want to make. So you start a campaign of claiming GMOs are dangerous. People fall for it, and then you make more money selling "botique" crops.

See, if the claims were logically consistent, you'd also want a label on crops produced by radiation or chemical mutagens. Those are completely untargeted, so they're the least safe. But you can sell crops produced by those methods as organic. So the campaign against GMOs just happens to skip over those crops.

Organic is big business too.

[HuckleB]

121. Indeed. it's stunning and scary to see so many people for the anti-GMO deceptions.

[Nye Bevan]

140. Perhaps those DUers who have lost loved ones to GMO foods could weigh in? (nt)

[Archae]

143. Exactly WHO has "lost loved ones," and precisely HOW?

Because this "lost loved ones" sure sounds like a full load of crap.

[Nye Bevan]

145. Well I keep reading here how horribly dangerous these "GMO foods" are.

So presumably they must be responsible for quite a few deaths?

[Archae]

147. I hope you're being sarcastic.

Because the "GMO's are dangerous" is from hysterics like Jeffrey Smith and his groupie, Dr Jane Goodall.

Oh, I could Google "dangerous GMO's," and gets lots of articles, especially from the wack job web site, "Natural News."

But most of these are people who have no idea what they are talking about, hate science, and love the big profits they make growing "organic" food and selling it at inflated prices.

[Major Nikon]

146. I'm still trying to figure out where all the bodies are buried

[Lorien]

168. How about GMO grass seed? My dad lived down the road from Scottslawn

in a development where almost every home had at least one family member battling cancer. He died of cancer himself just a few years after moving there. Coincidence? Maybe; but the cancer rates were so high that Erin Brochovitch was contacted, and she suspected Scottslawn's experiments in the area with Roundup Ready bluegrass seed.

Additionally, millions of us suffer from autoimmune diseases that were uncommon before non-plant hybrid (adding genes from non-plant species to plants) GMOs became commonplace. Many of us get sick after eating GMO soy and wheat products, but can eat organic soy and wheat and not experience any ill effects. Why not allow labeling so we can make an informed choice? Since there are apparently many of you who prefer eating GMOs, it shouldn't cut into your corporate profits.

[Major Nikon]

181. The reduction in the pirate population is causing global warming

[Humanist_Activist]

194. You are quite literally spouting bullshit, what GMO grass seed? Seriously, what the fuck are you...

talking about?

In addition, you appear to be describing the nocebo effect, and are also assigning blame, without evidence, on GMOs for the increase in food allergies, discarding other possible causes. Hell, scientists are working on a hypoallergenic peanut, apparently the enzyme that reacts with the human immune system isn't necessary for the peanut's survival. So thanks to GM technology, people allergic to peanuts may be able to soon enjoy peanut butter.

[Dont call me Shirley]

142. Just like Climate Change is pseudoscience.

[Major Nikon]

148. Sure, except the scientific consensus goes the other way

The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report 1 states: “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.

http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf

[Humanist_Activist]

195. No, more like Climate Change "Skepticism" is pseudoscience. The reverse of your claim. n/t

[Dont call me Shirley]

198. But poisoning the planet with toxic pesticides and herbicides required for gmos is A-okay?!

that couldn't be connected to the changing climate, with all those petrochemicals?! Right?!

[jeff47]

204. That doesn't require GMOs.

In fact, sometimes the non-GMO does more damage. The plants that are modified to produce Bt toxin means a lot less Bt toxin in the environment. Because you aren't massively overspraying your certified organic field with Bt to have the same effect.

[HuckleB]

217. Yup. Look at the reality of Chipotle's non-GMO move. More you know what.

http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2015/05/what-does-chipotles-switch-to-non-gmo-ingredients-mean-for-pesticide-use/

[Humanist_Activist]

209. Uhm, that has nothing to do with GMOs, but rather industrial farming in general.

Actually learn what the fuck you are arguing against.

[Dont call me Shirley]

213. It has everything to do with gmos.

Learn your science.

[HuckleB]

258. No, it doesn't. You were shown reality, but you ignored it. Why?

[HuckleB]

216. GMOs have reduced pesticide use, and allowed for the use of less toxic herbicides.

How is that bad?

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

And organic uses plenty of pesticides, too.
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html

http://ascienceenthusiast.com/organic-crops-use-carcinogenic-pesticides/

[Dont call me Shirley]

218. These pesticide and herbicide dependent gmos are creating superweeds and superbugs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/pesticides-gmo-monsanto-roundup-resistance_n_1936598.html

http://gmoinside.org/another-strike-gmos-creation-superbugs-superweeds/

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/jul/25/gm.food

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/06/27/herbicide-resistant-crops-can-exacerbate-superweeds-but-new-gm-versions-and-judicious-use-can-control-problem/

http://grist.org/article/first-came-superweeds-and-now-come-the-superbugs/

http://www.wired.com/2015/02/new-gmo-crop-controversy/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/20/1028108/-Updated-GMO-Crops-Yield-Suicides-Hunger-Pesticides-Superbugs-Superweeds-Profits-for-Monsanto

[HuckleB]

220. Superweeds are fewer since GMOs were introduced.

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

Linking to multiple sources without understanding any of them is not cool. Please don't do that. Thank you.

PS: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11153.html

[HuckleB]

222. So the data shows your claims to be false, and that's all you have to offer?

Hmm.

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

http://www.popsci.com/article/science/core-truths-10-common-gmo-claims-debunked

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/04/14/anti-gmo-groups-obsess-about-superweeds-the-non-existent-glyphosate-created-pest/

Meanwhile, Chipotle's Non-GMO nonsense is causing actual harm.
http://fafdl.org/blog/2015/05/05/5-big-drivers-behind-the-chipotle-backlash/

http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2015/05/what-does-chipotles-switch-to-non-gmo-ingredients-mean-for-pesticide-use/

[Dont call me Shirley]

223. just in....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027127866

Read it.

[HuckleB]

224. Ah, Seralini in another pay for play journal and a post that is nothing but a distraction.

Don't play games. Admit that you were wrong. It's the adult thing to do.

This is just a bad attempt to rehash data that has been long debunked. How can you be ok with that?

https://www.facebook.com/groups/GMOSF/permalink/604129903059597/?hc_location=ufi

[Major Nikon]

240. At least channeling Seralini validates the OP

So there's that.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gilles-Eric_S%C3%A9ralini

[HuckleB]

274. Indeed.

It's funny to note how people who actually care about, and understand, how science works discuss such "studies."

https://www.facebook.com/groups/GMOSF/permalink/604129903059597/?hc_location=ufi

Especially compared to the ludicrous hyperbole of the anti-GMO crowd.

[sakabatou]

169. So... you're all fine and dandy with cross-pollination between organic and GMOs?

[eridani]

171. Bacteria that are modified to produce human insulin are also modified--

--so that they can't escape their complex nutrient baths into the wild. Whythefuck are we letting pesticide resistant organisms out into the wild?

[LeftOfWest]

172. THIS POST. YES I AM YELLING.

[jeff47]

205. You realize that this doesn't actually work, right?

Yes, they knocked out some key metabolic pathways to try and "contain" the bacteria. It doesn't work. The bacteria evolve repairs to those pathways.

[eridani]

234. And they keep making changes to keep up with bacterial evolution

I suppose you have data about bacteria synthesizing insulin reproducing in the wild? Let's see it.

[jeff47]

246. It's the exact same mechanism as antibiotic resistance.

That was supposed to be impossible to spread too.

[eridani]

256. So where are the insulin secreting bacteria in the wild? Evidence, please

Insulin is a powerful growth hormone and can be expected to have noticeable effects on any ecological system.

[TBF]

174. If there's profit to be had they are fine with it -

this site should be called "not democrats, not underground" on many days.

[Major Nikon]

191. Sure, because there's nothing more anti-democrat than agreeing with your government

http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/Biotechnology/ucm346030.htm

The days that are especially fun are those when people have to pretend their narrowly focused and ill-informed ideas are somehow a litmus test for what is "not democrats". It's even more fun when you realize their narrowly focused and ill-informed ideas align perfectly with Republican nutbags like Mercola and Mike Adams.

Just sayin'

[TBF]

199. Not everyone wants your chemicals in their food -

deal with it.

[Major Nikon]

201. I generally deal with it by not giving a day old dog shit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemophobia

[jeff47]

206. There's also a big profit to be made by scaring you into buying more expensive crops.

Organic is big business too. Making you scared of GMOs makes them more money. And organic is more profitable per unit.

There are no saints here.

[TBF]

211. Absolutely -

I'm from a farm family in the midwest. Many of these issues have been around a long time and I know the pains farmers go through when they decide to try to get the organic seal. But I also don't see a problem with letting folks know what is in food, and you're not going to see me choosing organic unless it's milk or produce. Even then I'm more likely to buy local all other things being equal.

[HuckleB]

215. Yup.

[HuckleB]

175. Cross-pollination can happen with any type of crops.

Since organic is just a marketing tool, this argument is really not justified. Oh, and farmers have dealt with cross-pollination for all of the agricultural era. It's just a silly non-issue.

http://fafdl.org/blog/2015/05/05/5-big-drivers-behind-the-chipotle-backlash/

[Major Nikon]

180. Here's the really fun part

"organic" can be plants produced by mutation breeding.

So if a food scientist creates an organism in a lab by splicing one gene, that organism is automatically disqualified from the National Organic Program because, well that's just not natural. However, if a food scientist subjects seeds to ionizing radiation, creating all sorts of random genetic mutations, that organism is fully qualified to be sold as organic, because well, what's more natural and wholesome than bombarding seeds with gamma waves?

http://unclematts.com/products/59-oz-organic-grapefruit-juice/

[HuckleB]

183. Yup! Label the MBOs! NOW!

It boggles my mind to see the disconnect in the anti-GMO crowd.

[Major Nikon]

185. Yeah, except you never hear that rallying cry

Despite the fact that mutation breeding has been around for almost 100 years and many more thousands of varietals have been produced compared to GMO.

[Major Nikon]

192. The anti-GMO movement is far more evil than anything they hope to prevent

[Humanist_Activist]

196. I would say most of them are just ignorant of biology, though its frustrating trying to debate...

with them.

They use the same type of arguments used by creationists, flat-earthers, climate skeptics and anti-vaxxers.

[mike_c]

227. ^^^THIS^^^

Ding ding ding.

[Major Nikon]

233. When someone throws around words like "poison", "toxic", and "cancer causing"....

The probability that they have no clue about basic chemistry and biology is pretty high.

[alarimer]

219. They are EXACTLY like climate change deniers.

They ignore any and all facts that don't show what they want it to show. They have abandoned all their critical thinking skills for this one pet issue, though they may be otherwise smart people. But many of the professional advocates of GMO hysteria are themselves guilty of fraud and lies. Not only that, but by denying the utility of GMO organisms, such as golden rice, they may be condemning children to blindness caused by lack of vitamin d.

This article goes a long way to explaining why they are wrong:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html

I’ve spent much of the past year digging into the evidence. Here’s what I’ve learned. First, it’s true that the issue is complicated. But the deeper you dig, the more fraud you find in the case against GMOs. It’s full of errors, fallacies, misconceptions, misrepresentations, and lies. The people who tell you that Monsanto is hiding the truth are themselves hiding evidence that their own allegations about GMOs are false. They’re counting on you to feel overwhelmed by the science and to accept, as a gut presumption, their message of distrust.

Second, the central argument of the anti-GMO movement—that prudence and caution are reasons to avoid genetically engineered, or GE, food—is a sham. Activists who tell you to play it safe around GMOs take no such care in evaluating the alternatives. They denounce proteins in GE crops as toxic, even as they defend drugs, pesticides, and non-GMO crops that are loaded with the same proteins. They portray genetic engineering as chaotic and unpredictable, even when studies indicate that other crop improvement methods, including those favored by the same activists, are more disruptive to plant genomes.

Third, there are valid concerns about some aspects of GE agriculture, such as herbicides, monocultures, and patents. But none of these concerns is fundamentally about genetic engineering. Genetic engineering isn’t a thing. It’s a process that can be used in different ways to create different things. To think clearly about GMOs, you have to distinguish among the applications and focus on the substance of each case. If you’re concerned about pesticides and transparency, you need to know about the toxins to which your food has been exposed. A GMO label won’t tell you that. And it can lull you into buying a non-GMO product even when the GE alternative is safer.

[Major Nikon]

232. That which can be debunked should be

Lies and misrepresentations will never ultimately support their cause.

[HuckleB]

225. Gluten-free GM wheat could help celiac patients

http://www.biofortified.org/2015/08/gluten-free-gm-wheat-can-help-celiac-patients/

[eridani]

235. Good luck baking bread without gluten n/t

[Major Nikon]

242. Per the article...

In 2014, the same research team published an article in PLoS One where it reported that breads made with flour from low-gliadin wheat varieties showed breadmaking quality characteristics similar to those of normal wheat flour. In the sensory analysis, the tasters showed preference for low-gliadin bread versus rice bread; and showed statistically comparable levels with the traditional wheat flour in texture, flavor and appearance. The bottom line is that even without the normal levels of gliaden, you can still make good quality bread that people will enjoy.

[HuckleB]

248. +1,000,000 ... 000

[eridani]

255. Still looks like a fucking brick

Come to think about it, deleting a key synthesis gene is light years away from adding genes for pesticide resistance, and nowhere near as objectionable.

[HuckleB]

257. Oh, for Pete's sake.

You have to know you're FOS. You really can't believe the BS you're spilling.

Please confess.

[eridani]

259. Why don't you confess to postulating a silly solution in search of a problem?

We already HAVE low gluten flour, otherwise known as cake flour.

[HuckleB]

260. In other words, honesty is not your thing.

Your blind adamance against technology is noted.

[eridani]

261. I have already stated support of bacterial human insulin and golden rice

This does not mean we need stupid technological answers in search of questions. The answer is 42! What's the question? We don't need more glyphosphate in the environment.

So why do we need GMO low gluten wheat if we already have perfectly good low gluten cake flour?

[HuckleB]

263. So what?

If you're dishonest, you're dishonest. It doesn't matter that you're sometimes honest.

Remember reality: the anti-GMO crowd is almost always dishonest.

[eridani]

264. "Honest" = pro-corporate. I'll try to remember that

And where are your references showing how harmless glyphosphate is?

[HuckleB]

265. Nice confession!

You just showed that science doesn't matter to you. You're just pushing blind politics. Lame. And not progressive at all.

[eridani]

266. Science is a systematic approach to knowledge that can be applied for just about anything

Whoring for corporations is not a legitimate use. I suppose imposing more rules on Wall Street is also "too political" for you?

[HuckleB]

268. And you double down on the confession! Nicely done.

PS: I love the fact that you're kicking a science-based OP!!!

[eridani]

269. Oddly, when scientists are paid by corporations, their "impartial" findings--

--tend to go along with their financial interests. Odd how that happens. You might even call that political.

[HuckleB]

270. And now you go to the shilling scientists routine.

Is there any anti-science nonsense you don't push?

PS: http://fafdl.org/gmobb/about-those-industry-funded-gmo-studies/

And, yeah, it is funny that the anti-GMO goofballs are funded by organic companies. LOL!

[eridani]

278. Like the EPA?

EPA Raises Alarm Over GMO Crops that Are Breeding Swarms of These Mutant Bugs

According to some, the scientists at EPA and anti-science promoters of woo.

http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/09/02/epa-raises-alarm-over-gmo-crops-that-are-breeding-swarms-of-these-mutant-bugs/

One of the promises of GMO crops was that they would be more resistant to bugs and pests, however, it seems that the chemicals used on these crops, and the modifications that have been made to their basic structure, have actually created an explosion in pesticide resistant bugs. It was reported this week that genetically modified crops, corn specifically, has created a pesticide resistant rootworm, that is now stronger and more numerous than ever before. To make matters even worse, due to the growing over-infestation, farmers have been forced to use even more of the harmful pesticides that have been known to contribute to cancer, and are suspected of devastating the global honeybee population.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has taken a recent interest in the rootworm problem, and they are expected to set limits on the amount of genetically modified corn that can be grown in the US.

Bill Jordan, the EPA’s deputy head of pesticide programs said that the problem is getting worse, and suggested that limits are needed to keep the rootworm in check.

“It is getting worse, what’s happened so far hasn’t prevented these problems from arising, so we see need for something more,” Jordan said.

[HuckleB]

279. You actually posted that piece? It was debunked at DU, earlier today.

Here's what the EPA actually said, uh, back in the Winter. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/corn-rootworm.htm

Yes, posting nonsense from anti-GMO pages is not going to help your case. It's time for you to stop pushing anything that sort of supports your preconceived notions. Be an adult, and acknowledge that your viewpoints might not be valid.

[eridani]

280. All science is political, period. There is no good reason for ramping up glyphosate at all

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/

Over the past 15 years, farmers around the world have planted ever larger tracts of genetically engineered crops.

According to the USDA, in 2012 more than 93 percent of soy planted was “herbicide tolerant,” engineered to withstand herbicides (sold by the same companies who patent and sell the seeds). Likewise, 73 percent of all corn now is also genetically modified to withstand chemicals produced to kill competing weeds.

One of the main arguments behind creating these engineered crops is that farmers then need to use less herbicide and pesticide. This makes farms more eco-friendly, say proponents of genetically modified (GM) crops, and GM seeds also allow farmers to spend less on “inputs” (chemicals), thereby making a greater profit.

But a new study released by Food & Water Watch yesterday finds the goal of reduced chemical use has not panned out as planned. In fact, according to the USDA and EPA data used in the report, the quick adoption of genetically engineered crops by farmers has increased herbicide use over the past 9 years in the U.S. The report follows on the heels of another such study by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook just last year.

[HuckleB]

281. Uh, yeah, Benbrook. Been there, debunked that.

Thousands of studies show GMOs are safe. A few, crappy, unscientific studies to the contrary do not change that.

Why would you post Benbrook? Are you that uninformed? He actually SHILLS for organic companies. WOOOOOWWWWWW!


http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/new-organic-farming-meta-analysis-what-does-it-really-show/

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/charles-benbrook-severed-former-wash-state-organic-consultant-misrepresents-conflicts-bungled-nejm-piece/

[eridani]

282. I didn't see any debunking of the increased use of glyphosate n/t

[HuckleB]

283. Ah, you respond with classic intellectual dishonesty.

Why are you shilling for Big Organic? Why do you promote food insecurity as a positive? Oh, you didn't realize that you were doing that. Ouch.

[eridani]

284. Big ag happens to be highly inefficient

--in the only terms that actually matter., namely caloric input required for a given caloric output. High input methods are going to get increasingly expensive, since we've already used the easy to recover fossil fuels, and therefore not at all suited to dealing with food insecurity.

[HuckleB]

285. Oh, brother.

You seem to think that you can just make it up.

"Big Ag." "Inefficient."

You can't support any of the stuff you push, and when that's shown, you just run to another bit of nonsense.

It's time for you to realize that your preconceived notions are not supportable. Period.

[eridani]

286. Requiring 100 calories or more of input for every calorie of output is just not efficient

Your preconceived notions are pro corporate domination. Mine are anti. Who pays for what science is basically a political question.

[HuckleB]

287. You do realize that your claim is astoundingly false, right?

Oh, that's right. You were talking about an unrelated topic, and pretending that it had something to do with this one.

[eridani]

288. Let's see your link showing that we get more calories out ofhigh input farming

--than we put into it. Your notion of industrial agriculture as a producer of net caloric gain is what is nonsense.

[HuckleB]

289. So you want me to disprove a claim you made that you can't prove?

LOL! You really are a crack up!

[eridani]

290. Probably Scientific American isn't scientific enough for you, but anyway--

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/10-calories-in-1-calorie-out-the-energy-we-spend-on-food/

ccording to Pollan, for every calorie of food that is produced in the United States, 10 calories of fossil fuel energy are put into the system to grow that food. By no means a break-even system.

I was chewing on this factoid as we left the lecture, musing through how our agriculture industry works today. We grow food - corn, wheat, sugar - and, while some of it grows wild and free with no inputs beyond sun, water and the nutrients that the soil provides, the majority of the food that we produce requires significant energy inputs from us.

And, even after this food is produced (at an energy cost of 10:1), most of it does not come to our tables in its whole, natural form. Instead, the majority of this food is sent to a plant for processing into what Pollan likes to call "food-like substances" (at an additional energy cost). For the purpose of this post, I won't get into what is and is not food – feel free to check out his books to explore this concept - but I would like to discuss the idea of putting more energy into our food than we are getting out of it.

[HuckleB]

291. Pollan is an anti-GMO quack.

And, again, you and I both know that you playing a bad game of generalizing from a tiny bite.

It's time for you to be honest. That's how discussion works.

[Major Nikon]

292. The human body isn't a machine that runs on fossil fuel

As such Pollan makes little sense comparing the fuel that powers humans and the fuel that powers machines and pretending those two things are directly proportional.

[eridani]

294. The food our bodies use is grown with huge fossil fuel input.

Not sustainable.

[Major Nikon]

295. More like misleadingly huge when expressed in calories

Which is not really the same thing.

[eridani]

296. It is the exact same thing n.t

[Major Nikon]

297. Sure. That's why when I full up my car at the gas pump the meter reads in calories.

[eridani]

298. Chemists and physicists don't run gas stations. n/t

[Major Nikon]

299. So that's why the meters don't read in calories, eh?

I had always wondered about that.

[HuckleB]

245. This thread keeps getting bumped by posts I can't see.

[LostOne4Ever]

267. REC! nt

[HuckleB]

276. The war against genetically modified organisms is full of fearmongering, errors, and fraud.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html

[PatSeg]

293. Seriously????

Do I have to add you to my list?

Talk about "pathetic" - "GMOphobia"? "Pseudoscience"? Comparing concerned consumers to Rush Limbaugh and creationism? Could you be anymore transparent?

What a waste of space!

[L. Coyote]

300. Praise GMO's, especially if you love carcinogens in your food, air, and rainfall.

Meanwhile, I'm never going to eat a GMO product if I can help it because I know my science and I know what GMOs have done to the world in terms of carcinogenic herbicide use. I live in a neighborhood with a history, where women miscarry because of herbicide spraying. And you want to enable more of the same. Thanks, but no thanks.

And don't tell me we can trust the science for profit at Monsanto. That's what they said about 245-T and DDT, etc. etc, etc.

What, do you drink herbicides for lunch or something?