Andrew Weil, his woo, and anti-GMO hysteria...

[Archae]

Good (and a little long) article here about Andrew Weil and his woo, and anti-GMO hysteria.

http://www.skepdic.com/news/newsletter1209.html

[roseBudd]

1. This scientific illiteracy of the left...

damages credibility, on real issues, like climate change.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/on-green-dread-and-agricultural-technology/

...A must-read, cited in a Guardian essay mentioned by Kloor, is the European Commission’s 2010 summary of a decade of government-financed research assessing any environmental and health risks from genetically modified crops. It builds on a similar 2001 review.

Together they summarize 25 years and more than $400 million of research by the countries most worried about impacts of this technology and find no basis for the Frankenfood fears of millions of people in Europe or elsewhere.

A line from the newer report summarizing both says much:

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… conventional plant breeding technologies."

The cost of spurning GM crops is too high
The benefits of the technology far outweigh any risks and we must embrace the opportunities created by it

...Meanwhile, the benefits of GM technology are becoming clearer to all. Insect resistant GM cotton and maize has reduced insecticide applications and lowered mycotoxin levels in the maize we eat. Genetic engineering in microbial research has produced new antibiotics and other natural products. JIC's purple tomatoes contain elevated levels of health-promoting anthocyanins.

Food insecurity and climate change highlight the challenges of sustainably feeding a growing world population. Further research using GM methods opens new possibilities for raising and stabilising yields, improving resistance to pests and diseases and withstanding abiotic stresses such as drought and cold.

But in Europe, while taxpayers' money is still paying to develop useful GM crop traits, taxpayers are not benefitting from their deployment. In contrast, Canada, China, the US and South America are blazing ahead with GM and India is not far behind. The latest figures from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications report 15 million farmers planting GM crops on around 150m hectares in 2010. Many promising GM traits exist, often discovered by academics, but the commercial risks are too great, the costs too high and the rewards too low for the European private sector to invest in taking them forward."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jul/21/gm-debate

[WCLinolVir]

3. What is this? Propaganda?

"The cost of spurning GM crops is too high
The benefits of the technology far outweigh any risks and we must embrace the opportunities created by it ."
Are you kidding me??

[roseBudd]

21. No, I don't jump on bandwagons because it is popular on the left

Last edited Sat Sep 7, 2013, 12:45 PM - Edit history (1)

Seralini is a fraud. His Sprague-Dawley rats develop tumors spontaneously at a rate of 70% by age 2 if allowed to feed freely as they were in Seralini's so called study.

Bad science isn't relevant.

[WCLinolVir]

58. It may not be a bandwagon, but it sure feels like

the dialog is being railroaded. In order to consider the impact of GMO's one has to look at the entire ecosystem and the prevailing commerce and socio-economic factors that play into it. I don't think citing a rat/mouse tumor study is sufficient to address the subject. The fact that you are characterizing the resistance to GMO's without addressing the range of issues says that you have already arrived at the conclusion and just want to handpick support. That looks and smells like propaganda.

[Berlum]

84. + 1,000

Excellent point, WCLinolVir

[roseBudd]

99. What do you call what Seralini did, which was unethical animal abuse?

Looks really bad for your side, when those kind of smarmy tactics are used.

It shouldn't take 700 scientists demanding, for a scientist to release his or her data

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/700_researchers_call_gilleseric_seralini_release_gmo_test_data-95574

We provide links to peer reviewed research that answers these questions. But you don't read them.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/feastandfamine/2013/03/gm-crops-and-carbon-emissions?zid=314&ah=607477d0cfcfc0adb6dd0ff57bb8e5c9


GM crops and carbon emissions
Frankenfoods reduce global warming

This year’s ISAAA report tries to calculate the effects of GM crops on the environment. It says they saved the equivalent of 473m kilograms of pesticides in 2011 (because GM makes crops resistant to pests); saved 109m hectares of new land being ploughed up (GM crops are usually higher-yielding so less land is required for the same output) and reduced greenhouse-gas emissions by 23 billion kg of carbon dioxide equivalent.

GM crops in general need fewer field operations, such as tillage. Reducing tillage allows more residue to remain in the ground, sequestering more CO2 in the soil and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Fewer field operations also means lower fuel consumption and less CO2.

Biotechnology for Biodiversity

DNA Banks

More plant conservationists are turning to DNA technologies to have effective conservation strategies. The DNA bank is an efficient, simple and long-term method used in conserving genetic resource for biodiversity. Compared to traditional seed or field gene banks, DNA banks lessen the risk of exposing genetic information in natural surroundings. It only requires small sample size for storage and keeps the stable nature of DNA in cold storage. Since whole plants cannot be obtained from DNA, the stored genetic material must be introduced through genetic techniques.6

A number of DNA banks are present worldwide which include those managed by the International Rice Research Institute, South African National Biodiversity Institute, and National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences in Japan. Gene bank documentation has been enhanced with the advances in information technology, geographical information systems (GIS), and DNA marker technology. Information on DNA assessment of variation derived through these technologies help search for important genes.7 Information from DNA collections are available online through biodiversity initiatives such as Global Biodiversity Information (www.gbif.net), Species 2000 (www.species2000.org), and Inter-American Biodiversity Network (www.ukbiodiversity.net).8

In vitro techniques are also valuable for conserving plant biodiversity.9 Such techniques involve three basic steps: culture initiation, culture maintenance and multiplication, and storage. For medium-term storage (few months to few years), slow growth strategies are applied. For undefined time of storage, cryopreservation is applied.10 In cryopreservation, plant tissues are processed to become artificial seeds and stored at very low temperatures to impede growth. Cryopreservation allows 20 percent increase in regeneration process compared to other conservation methods.11


Biotech for Evaluating Genetic Diversity

Germplasm refers to living tissues from which new plants can form. It can be a whole plant, or part of a plant such as leaf, stem, pollen, or even just a number of cells. A germplasm holds information on the genetic makeup of the species. Scientists evaluate the diversity of plant germplasms to find ways on how to develop new better yielding and high quality varieties that can resist diseases, constantly evolving pests, and environmental stresses.12 Germplasm evaluation involves screening of germplasm in terms of physical, genetic, economic, biochemical, physiological, pathological, and entomological attributes.13

http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/pocketk/44/default.asp

[WCLinolVir]

181. I don't have a side.

So go argue with your straw man. DNA banking is not the same as GMO's. Or do you not understand the science in the article? What questions did you ask? You didn't.
There are many ways to characterize germplasm. Hello cloning. Which has been done for a long time now. Hybrids, long history. You should really just stop throwing shit up and hoping it sticks. Germplasm has nothing to do with GMO's. Please, get an education.

[Berlum]

23. Yes. It's "Poo"

Poo = So-called 'scientific' propaganda, Inc. efforts to demean criticism by pejoratively labeling it as "woo.'

It's a standard right-wing, Inc. disinformation technique.

Lots and lots of poo getting flung about these days.

[roseBudd]

55. Poo flingers post pictures...

and no evidence.

[Berlum]

59. You are confusing poo with woo

Please complete your Indoctrination, Inc. " studies."

[roseBudd]

63. Another picture

and more fixation on excrement rather than an actual argument to support your position.

[Berlum]

85. Pictures are worth a Thousand Points of Poo, Inc.

[roseBudd]

100. I don't want to consume food that is produced using cow poo...

If we are concerned with risks, there are real risks, e.coli, salmonella, listeria...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/10/e-coli-bean-sprouts-blamed

Bean sprouts from an organic farm in northern Germany caused the E coli outbreak that has killed 31 people and infected thousands more, German officials said on Friday.

Health inspectors have identified the source of the infections after linking patients who fell ill with the bug to 26 restaurants and cafes known to have received produce from the farm in Lower Saxony.

Reinhard Burger, the head of the Robert Koch Institute, which is responsible for disease control and prevention in Germany, told a press conference in Berlin there was sufficient evidence to implicate the farm, even though bean sprouts there had passed tests for the lethal microbe.

"It was possible to narrow down epidemiologically the highly probable cause of the outbreak of the illness to the consumption of sprouts," Burger said....

Organic farms fell under suspicion in the investigation because they do not use chemical fertilisers and put crops at greater risk of contamination from bacteria in manure. The cost to European farming could reach €500m.

The new strain of E coli causes disease by colonising the gut and producing a toxin called Shiga. Many patients experienced bloody diarrhoea and in the most serious cases the infection caused a life-threatening condition called haemolytic uraemic syndrome (HUS).

[Generic Other]

9. It doesn't matter how sweet you say it is

if it tastes like dreck in my mouth, I am not going to swallow it.

[NuclearDem]

10. All good, except:

The benefits in no way outweigh the risks.

Being anti-GMO isn't woo.

[roseBudd]

56. Says who? Argumentum from popularity

or authority, is still a logical fallacy.

[Precisely]

96. Only the corporate view is allowed

[roseBudd]

102. Science is true, whether you believe in it, or not...

http://www.researchgate.net/post/GMO_crops_Is_there_any_peer_reviewed_scientific_evidence_that_questions_their_safety

Alexander Stein · International Food Policy Research Institute
Disregarding links to obscure website and the general media, it seems only two papers that did studies with GMOs have been cited so far in response to this question.

On the Pusztai paper there is e.g. a discussion at Academics Review, where also many other GMO-related questions are covered and backed up with sources from the literature: http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/section-1/1-1-pusztais-flawed-claims/

On the Seralini paper there is e.g. a discussion by David Tribe at GMO Pundit, where many Letters to the Editor and other references are linked that respond to the study: http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-grande-scientific-discussion-of.html

The website of David Tribe has a lot more info and also a comprehensive discussion and supportive references regarding the safety assessments of GM food: http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/06/150-published-safety-assessments-on-gm.html

A much longer list of published studies (currently 600) covering risk assessment and GMOs, as well as a lot more info, can be found at Biofortified.org: http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/

Then there is also an overview of studies on GMOs funded by the EU over 25 years that concludes that "there is, as of today, no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms:" http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1688_en.htm

And there is a literature review from last year on the "Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials" that concludes that "GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed." http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2011.11.048

This means there is a handful of papers that suggest negative findings (but that have been heavily criticized by many other scientists in the field) and then there are hundreds of studies from all around the world that do not support concerns about the safety of GM food.

If the popular media and activist groups cite safety concerns as an argument to stop GMOs, they do so based on a very small selection of carefully cherry-picked (and otherwise disputed) papers out of a trove of other papers that contradict their position. (If they bother with evidence at all.)

[Precisely]

112. if science is true there's no need to "believe in it"

[roseBudd]

141. There are plenty of scientificallly illiterate people who don't believe in reality

Climate change. Evolution.

Doesn't make science false.

Organic can not feed the planet. Organic requires more tilled land. Tilled land releases CO2. Tilling uses fossil fuels.

Sticking your head in the sand doesn't change facts

[Precisely]

166. Overgeneralizing doesnt equal truth

[KurtNYC]

279. There is "no till" organic and the idea that GMO farming reduces carbon emissions is bogus since

we are now growing GMO crops for fuel.

We have more than enough capacity to grow food. Organic CAN feed the planet. There are some good arguments for GMO but baselessly bashing organic farming and claiming that GMO is greener than organic isn't one of them.

[Scootaloo]

132. It is if it's not an informed opposition

I'm ambivalent about GMO food. But then I'm wary of corporate agriculture and its monocropping tendencies in the first place... it's the very procedures of that industry that create a "need" for genetic modification in the first place.

The biggest problem of GMO however, is the rush to get genes and organisms patented. In that rush, mistakes could indeed be made. However, this leads me to opposing the patenting of genes and organisms, rather than the actual process at work.

Opposing GMO because it's GMO is rather brainless, and not a lit different from opposing vaccination or flouridation. Arguments ould be made, but only from an informed perspective rahter than a knee-jerk fear for our precious bodily fluids

[roseBudd]

142. Monocropping precedes GMO. Climate change means we need biotechnology

People will starve to death because of anti-GM zealotry
The father of the Green Revolution would have supported the GM wheat scientists at Rothamsted, argues Prof Malcolm Elliot.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/geneticmodification/9284762/People-will-starve-to-death-because-of-anti-GM-zealotry.html#disqus_thread

"The task of feeding the world is only going to get harder in years to come. By 2050 the world’s population will approach 10 billion, and combined environmental crises mean we must produce much more food on less land with less water, fewer agrochemicals and less fossil fuel, while still maintaining biodiversity. At the same time, farming must adapt to changing climate zones and weather patterns. To do all this we must heed Borlaug’s plea to deploy the full range of cutting-edge techniques to produce higher yielding, higher quality, lower input, lower environmental impact crops. As founding director of the Norman Borlaug Institute for Global Food Security, I can testify to the urgency of this challenge.

Among the techniques that Borlaug highlighted were gene manipulation approaches that promise to deliver results faster and more precisely than the classical crop breeding techniques. Dr Clive James, Borlaug’s deputy director at his wheat and maize research centre in Mexico during the 1970s and 1980s, today reports that the 94-fold increase from 4.2 million acres in 1996 to 395 million acres in 2011 makes GM crops the fastest-adopted crop technology in recent history. During the period from 1996 to 2011, millions of farmers in 29 countries worldwide chose to plant and replant an accumulated acreage of 5.9 billion acres – a testimony to the fact that such crops deliver sustainable and substantial socioeconomic and environmental benefits"

[Scootaloo]

180. People will starve to death regardless

Sorry, but "throw more technology at it!" won't actually fix the problem. It'll just stave off the crash a little longer.

[me b zola]

11. "...scientific illiteracy of the left..."

Yeah, this should be attached to everything you post so that everyone can know who and what you are.

[roseBudd]

22. So nothing but logical fallacies ^

Last edited Sat Sep 7, 2013, 12:47 PM - Edit history (1)

Whereas I actually post scientific research that withstands scrutiny. Unlike Seralini and Carman

But you guys will not read it, any more than a climate change denier will read realclimate

A Decade of EU-funded GMO Research

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7hhP5QasNtsX1AwV2YzNnlrZTA/edit?pli=1

BioFortified's Independent Studies

http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/independent-funding/

[Archae]

45. Just as on the right...

There is scientific illiteracy on the left.

Great example: Robert Kennedy Jr, his anti-vaccine woo is simply dangerous.

[roseBudd]

57. I have noticed a correlation between one type of woo...

and other conspiracy theories being believed. Like flouride.

[HuckleB]

182. Exactly!

[longship]

2. R&K for no woo. nt

[roseBudd]

24. Woo causes harm...

When people fall for bunk, they make decisions that harm their health

Even smart people like Steve Jobs subscribe to the Naturalistic Fallacy, sometimes with fatal consequences. Appropriate medical treatment delayed can be fatal.

CAM Logical Fallacies

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/cam-logical-fallacies/

There are times when an article packs in logical fallacies so densely that I just can’t help deconstructing it. Another feature that often lures me in is a blatant self-contradiction that the author seems to be oblivious to. HuffPo Canada has recently published an article by “investigative journalist” Isla Traquair that does both. The articles emerges from her health consumer series that she is filming. The result is a confused, conflicting, and profoundly naive article that makes me wonder how much investigation she could have done.

Let’s go through and count the logical fallacies and contradictions. She wonders:

What exactly makes a medical treatment accepted and trusted by mainstream society? Does it make a difference if a practitioner wears a white coat and gets employed through the health service? Do they need a certificate and letters after their name? Or do we trust someone who has learnt ancient teachings using the laws and patterns of nature?

She begins by begging the question about what creates medical authority, and in so doing creates a straw man (a nice double). She cites some of the superficial trappings of legitimacy (formal recognition, degrees, and the standard uniform of the trade), as if this is what people trust about mainstream medicine. She could have asked – is it the years of training and education, the culture of science and self-criticism, the mountain of hard-won evidence, or perhaps the layers of regulation?

She then follows with another double: a false assumption that again begs the question, leading to the naturalistic fallacy – do ancient teachings reflect legitimate laws and patterns of nature? Pre scientific cultures generally did not understand much about how nature works (the laws and patterns). Even ancient cultures had certainly accumulated a great deal of practical knowledge about their environment, but they had no clue about underlying laws. So they invented fanciful philosophies to explain the mysteries of nature. They invented mysterious energies, spirits, astrological connections and cycles, and bizarre notions about how our bodies work. To venerate these hopelessly superstitious ideas from the perspective of 21st century science is curious.

By the way – she managed to squeeze in an argument from antiquity as well. I hope you’re keeping count.

The logical fallacies keep coming:

[WCLinolVir]

65. Can I say you are full of poo?

False assumptions, straw men, your responses are just chock full of them.
"The logical fallacies keep coming".
Sure do.

[Union Scribe]

70. Very true.

Thank you for your posts, roseBudd.

[roseBudd]

77. I Fucking Love Science. Always have.

We have real problems. There isn't time for imaginary monsters and conspiracy theorists. There is climate change. There is income inequality. There will be 9 billion people.

Nothing is 100% safe.

"The dose makes the poison." Paracelsus

The antis have to ignore ^ to make their nonevidence based claims. They use ridiculous imagery to appeal to the reptile brain. They have to pretend that a mammalian gut is no different than an insects. Or that the lungs are no different than the stomach

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

The dose makes the poison, a principle of toxicology, was first expressed by Paracelsus. It means that a substance can produce the harmful effect associated with its toxic properties only if it reaches a susceptible biological system within the body in a high enough concentration (dose).[1]

The principle relies on the finding that all chemicals—even water and oxygen—can be toxic if too much is eaten, drunk, or absorbed. "The toxicity of any particular chemical depends on many factors, including the extent to which it enters an individual’s body."[2] This finding provides also the basis for public health standards, which specify maximum acceptable concentrations of various contaminants in food, public drinking water, and the environment.[2]

However, there is no linear relationship and also more to chemical toxicity than the acute effects caused by short-term exposure. Relatively low doses of contaminants in water, food, and environment can already have significant chronic effects if there is a long-term exposure.[2] Many pollutants, drugs and natural substances adhere to this principle by causing different effects at different levels, which can as a result lead to health standards that are either too strong or too weak.[3]

[WCLinolVir]

4. Propaganda. Pure and simple.

I see you just reference an article that makes broad claims about Weil and his "pseudo-science", without addressing the benefits of integrated medicine. And label concern for what GMO's as "hysteria" without an honest discussion.

[Archae]

8. Weil is a quack.

His approach to actual medical science is laughable at best, dangerous at worst.

http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/weil.html

And actual GMO crops do have benefits, like the rice mentioned in the OP article.

The article is well-researched, and well-documented.

Woo is bullshit, that takes people's money and all too often kills and maims followers.

[Berlum]

25. Massive load of corporate horsepuckey about "the rice mentioned in OP"

The GMO mutant rice is all about PR and moneybucks, as anyone paying attention should know. Here's just one of many articles refuting the corporate propaganda ONSLAUGHT trying to shove mutant rice down the throats of hungry people:



"In a statement, Jaime Tadeo, spokesperson of the National Rice Farmers Council, accused producers and developers of Golden Rice of “sugarcoating” the Vitamin A-enriched product to give “a humanitarian face” to GMOs, or genetically modified organisms.

“Golden Rice has long been rejected by Filipinos and in other parts of the world. Its creators are using this to improve their image and we know they are waging a major public relations campaign to win the hearts of Filipinos and get this GMO rice in our food on the table,” he said.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/480423/environmentalists-farmers-groups-raise-alarm-on-genetically-modified-golden-rice

[Archae]

46. Fine. Reporters know more about real science than scientists do.

[roseBudd]

62. You seek out, that which confirms your bias...

Scientists don't, so you avoid science.

Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2319992

Why does public conflict over societal risks persist in the face of compelling and widely accessible scientific evidence? We conducted an experiment to probe two alternative answers: the “Science Comprehension Thesis” (SCT), which identifies defects in the public’s knowledge and reasoning capacities as the source of such controversies; and the “Identity-protective Cognition Thesis” (ICT) which treats cultural conflict as disabling the faculties that members of the public use to make sense of decision-relevant science. In our experiment, we presented subjects with a difficult problem that turned on their ability to draw valid causal inferences from empirical data. As expected, subjects highest in Numeracy—a measure of the ability and disposition to make use of quantitative information—did substantially better than less numerate ones when the data were presented as results from a study of a new skin-rash treatment. Also as expected, subjects’ responses became politically polarized—and even less accurate—when the same data were presented as results from the study of a gun-control ban. But contrary to the prediction of SCT, such polarization did not abate among subjects highest in Numeracy; instead, it increased. This outcome supported ICT, which predicted that more Numerate subjects would use their quantitative-reasoning capacity selectively to conform their interpretation of the data to the result most consistent with their political outlooks. We discuss the theoretical and practical significance of these findings.

[maddezmom]

69. You just got here

Hmmmm!

[maddezmom]

74. LOL

You are funny.

[Precisely]

83. "all too often kills and maims followers"

links please

[Archae]

104. Just think about it.

2 people with diabetes.

One checks the blood sugar daily and gets insulin when needed.

The other has crystals on a string waved over the body with chants.

Which one is going to go blind, lose limbs?
And die?

[roseBudd]

105. My brother the colon irrigator ran into Coretta Scott King...

just weeks before she died of cancer at a raw food retreat. From there her family dragged her to Mexico where she died.

Mexico Closes Alternative Care Clinic Where Mrs. King Died

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/international/americas/04mexico.html?_r=0

Mexican health officials on Thursday night shut down an alternative medicine clinic where Coretta Scott King died this week, saying the doctors there were using unproven treatments and were never licensed to run a full-service hospital.

The clinic's founder, Kurt W. Donsbach, is a chiropractor who has a long history of run-ins with the law in the United States over claims he has made about nutritional supplements he developed and sold.

He operated the clinic, known as the Hospital Santa Mónica, since 1987 without any interference from the Baja California state authorities. It offered people with cancer and other chronic diseases a buffet of unorthodox treatments, from intravenous infusions of hydrogen peroxide and vitamins, to ozone saunas to something he calls microchemotherapy, small doses of cancer-fighting drugs administered with glucose.

Mrs. King was suffering from advanced ovarian cancer when she arrived at the clinic in Rosarito on Jan. 26, having learned of it from members of her church. She died Monday.

Doctors at the clinic maintain they did not give her any of Mr. Donsbach's treatments. The cause of death was listed as respiratory and heart failure, though no autopsy was done and the doctor who signed the certificate is on the clinic's staff.

Clinics offering unconventional treatments not available in the United States have flourished for decades in Baja California, where regulation is weak and official corruption rampant.

For starters, the team found that the clinic was registered with the state under a different name, Clínica Santo Tomás, and was not licensed to provide much more than basic walk-in medical services. The clinic's staff did not have the authorization to perform surgery, take X-rays, perform laboratory work or run an internal pharmacy, all of which it was doing....

Dr. Vera said investigators had found that the clinic lacked proper sanitary permits, practiced unconventional treatments and did not follow federally mandated protocols for patients with terminal illnesses. They also said they had found several unknown drugs or nutritional substances being used that carried Mr. Donsbach's name. And he said some of the staff members were not accredited to perform the work they were doing.

[Precisely]

113. Really. That's what you think?

[Archae]

117. That's what I KNOW.

My blood pressure is under control due to medications developed using science.

I had 5 heart bypasses, if I wouldn't have had them I'd be dead now.

The surgery was developed by actual DOCTORS.

Not a guy stoned out of his mind seeing "visions." (Weil)

Diabetics live far longer in better health when they watch their blood sugar and use insulin as needed.
Not getting duck's liver diluted until it's no longer there. (Homeopathy)
Not getting their spines "cracked" to "restore energy flow." (Chiropracty.)
Not taking 50 times the vitamins they need to stay healthy.

[Precisely]

120. you think

"The other has crystals on a string waved over the body with chants."

[Archae]

121. Because I've seen it advertised.

But feel free to pretend this web site doesn't exist.

http://www.healingcrystals.com/Crystals_for_Diabetes_Articles_539.html

[Precisely]

122. Good thing you don't overgeneralize

[KurtNYC]

287. so much for strict science eh.

[roseBudd]

123. My mother is alive thanks to multiple meds for atrial fibrillation & high BP...

She would have stroked out without them.

My great grandfather died when my grandmother was only 13, from heart disease. My doctor has informed me, due to my family history, that I have a genetic predisposition for heart disease. Luckily I do not have high BP.

Dr. Weil and Mercola have nothing that treats atrial fibrillation.

I am going with the real doctors, not the shysters who advocate for woo. The real doctors have placed two stents, a pacemaker, and performed multiple cardioversions. Between the amiodorone and the cardioversions she isn't in A-FIB. When in A-FIB she can barely walk.

[MH1]

136. Um ... why did you have high blood pressure and need 5 bypasses in the first place?

Maybe he's changed - I'm not really a follower, but I had a roommate a couple decades ago who was. What I know of Dr. Weil is (vaguely) his "8 weeks to optimum health" plan which includes such "woo" as

* walk for 45 minutes every day
* eat broccoli often, preferably every day

and similar stuff that's generally recognized as good for you.

Maybe if you'd followed that plan you wouldn't have needed the meds and surgery. Or maybe you would have anyway, if it was genetic or result of toxins or trauma or something. But I don't remember anything controversial on the Weil plan that wouldn't have made most people healthier regardless of their starting point.

I did skim the article linked in the o.p. and didn't see any reference to specific practices that I would consider woo. The idea of coming up with a certification of some sort for his particular brand may be money-grubbing but that doesn't mean his ideas are wrong.

[Archae]

138. You may be right, BUT...

Heredity plays a big part too.

While my Dad died of cancer, he did have heart disease and 4 bypasses.
And neither of us smoked.
Several of my Dad's brothers and sisters died of heart disease.

As to Weil, this article shows how Weil's quackery goes back a long ways.

As I said, would you want a doctor to diagnose and treat you, based on what he came up with while really drunk?
Of course not.

Yet you'll accept Weil's theories he came up with while stoned out of his mind on mushrooms and LSD.

http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/weil.html

[roseBudd]

144. My father was not overweight, ate right, played tennis, triple heart bypass

Woo causes people to believe that nothing bad happens unless people eat the wrong stuff. Woosters blame the patient.

I am at risk for cardiovascular disease. I want Omega 3 soybeans. People who believe in woo, shouldn't be able to hijack that technology with lies.

Omega 3 soybeans will protect salmon stock

I want progress that helps humans, helps the planet. You want to stop it, based on woo.

http://www.soyconnection.com/newsletters/soy-connection/health-nutrition/articles/A-New-Sustainable-Source-of-Omega-3-Fatty-Acids

Health authorities have recognized that diets should contain a sufficient amount of omega-3 fatty acids for protection from heart disease.1-2 The American Heart Association has recommended increased fish consumption to boost the currently low intake of the healthful long chain omega-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA;2 however, daily consumption of fish and fish oil is not viewed as a sustainable long term source of omega-3 fatty acids3 and current availability and cost of these foods make them prohibitive to many segments of the population. There is a need for a land-based, sustainable source of omega-3 fatty acids that can be used in a wider range of foods to fit specific dietary habits and budgetary limitations....

leading health authorities have concluded that omega-3 fatty acids are important for human health. Limitations of a sustainable supply of fish coupled with a high cost make fish oil an insufficient source of omega-3 fatty acids to the majority of the world’s population. SDA soybean oil produced through biotechnology offers one potential sustainable solution to providing the health benefits of omega-3 fatty acids in foods acceptable to consumers with reasonable shelf life.

[TM99]

154. You lost all credibility

with a reference to Quackwatch.

A psychiatrist who has not practiced in his own field of medicine for over 25 years and who has no credible knowledge of the subjects he is discussing, is himself the very definition of a quack.

http://www.raysahelian.com/quackwatch.html

Is there alternative medicine that is dangerous? Yes, absolutely. And there is conventional medicine that is just as dangerous. You and Dr. Barrett never focus any discussion on that.

Why does Dr. Barrett not discuss those aspects of conventional medicine that are dangerous to patients? Why does he pick and choose only the most negative studies of alternative medicine practices while ignoring positive ones?

What is your profession, training, and background?

You attempt to speak with authority. So what is the basis for that authority?

You are too confrontational to be doing this out of 'love for your common man', so what's your agenda in all of this?

[Big Blue Marble]

5. Please explain what you mean by "anti-GMO hysteria."

And you might want to at least spell Andrew Weil's name correctly when you attack
him. It might give you a little more credibility.

Isn't so cool that woo is the great new throw away pejorative?

[Raksha]

17. I usually don't even open threads with the word "woo" in the subject line.

The only reason I opened this one was to say so.

[Precisely]

6. Yes, woo is bad for business

[roseBudd]

26. Woo is about parting gullibles from their money

The substances marketed by woosters have no obligation to demonstrate efficacy

We have Orrin Hatch to thank for that "law"

[Precisely]

61. Which is different from

pharmaceuticals parting gullibles from their money

[roseBudd]

68. Pharmaceuticals have to establish efficacy...

woo does not, thanks to Orrin Hatch looking out for the state of Utah's woo industry

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/utahs-senator-orrin-hatch-defender-of-the-supplement-industry/

One might wonder how such a bad law could survive for so long (seventeen years now), but it has its defenders. One man, in particular, defends the DSHEA against all regulatory threats, foreign and domestic. His name is Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and he was just the subject of a writeup in the New York Times last week referring to him as a “natural ally” of the supplement industry:

A drive along mountain-lined Interstate 15 here shows why Senator Orrin G. Hatch is considered a hero in this region nicknamed the Silicon Valley of the nutritional supplement industry.

In the town of Lehi is the sprawling headquarters of Xango, where company officials praised Mr. Hatch, a Utah Republican, late last year for helping their exotic fruit juice business “operate without excessive intrusion” from Washington.

Up in Sandy, Utah, is 4 Life Research, whose top executives donated to Mr. Hatch’s last re-election campaign after federal regulators charged the company with making exaggerated claims about pills that it says helps the immune system.

And nearby in West Salem, assembly-line workers at Neways fill thousands of bottles a day for a product line that includes Youthinol, a steroid-based hormone that professional sports leagues pushed to ban until Mr. Hatch blocked them....

His [Hatch's] family and friends have benefited, too, from links to the supplement industry. His son Scott Hatch, is a longtime industry lobbyist in Washington, as are at least five of the senator’s former aides. Mr. Hatch’s grandson and son-in-law increase revenue at their chiropractic clinic near here by selling herbal and nutritional treatments, including $35 “thyroid dysfunction” injections and a weight-loss product, “Slim and Sassy Metabolic Blend.” And Mr. Hatch’s former law partner owns Pharmics, a small nutritional supplement company in Salt Lake City.

But many public health experts argue that in his advocacy, Mr. Hatch has hindered regulators from preventing dangerous products from being put on the market, including supplements that are illegally spiked with steroids or other unapproved drugs. They also say he is the person in Washington most responsible for the proliferation of products that make exaggerated claims about health benefits.

[Precisely]

72. the efficacy of preventative health

is health.

[roseBudd]

79. And no doctor I know denies or disparages that principle...

http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/weilpr.html

In August 2005, drugstore.com, the largest online pharmacy, filed suit against Andrew Weil, M.D. and Weil Wellness LLC for breach of a contract under which Drugstore.com would be the exclusive distributor of Weil's branded products and online "Vitamin Advisor" program. The announcement (shown below) suggests that Weil does not profit from his "educational" activities. However, the drugstore.com contract called for direct payments totaling $1.6 million to Weil and minimum royalty payments totaling $12.4 million to Weil Wellness LLC from September 2003 through June 2008.

Drugstore.com began featuring Weil's advice and products in October 2003, but the suit charges that Weil failed to "make commercially reasonable efforts" to promote what was covered by the agreement. Weil's"Vitamin Advisor" uses an online questionnaire to promote "personalized products" said to be "based on your specific health concerns." However, virtually everyone who takes the test is encouraged to spend $40 or more per month for supplements that are unnecessary, inappropriate, overpriced, and/or irrationally formulated. The suit document is posted on Casewatch.

[Berlum]

92. ...henceforth identified as POO (corporate "science" & allied mega-funded corporate propaganda)

or Poo, Inc. if you prefer.

[Precisely]

94. POO kills and maims!!

[niyad]

7. "anti- gmo hysteria" tells me all I need to know.

[laundry_queen]

12. 20 years ago

this poster would've been ranting about 'global warming hysteria' and calling it woo. I'm sure of it.

[avaistheone1]

14. +10

[Cha]

20. "Anti-GMO hysteria".. unreal.. Kaua'i is having a Huge

March and Rally, Sunday, Sept 8th for Mass "anti-GMO Hysteria"! freaking trying to get Monsanto types to reveal what all poisons they're releasing on to our Island.

And, would they please get the fuck off the Island.



Mana March Scheduled

snip//

"The fight over GMOs here on Kaua’i is far from over and both sides of the issue are digging in their heals. As Bill 2491 (Relating to Pesticides and Genetically Modified Organisms) continues to be discussed by the Kauai County Council, leaders both for and against the bill are planning their next steps.

On the PASS THE BILL side, another event has been scheduled for next weekend"

there's more..
http://northshorekauai.com/2013/08/30/mana-march-scheduled/

[roseBudd]

28. That is a logical fallacy

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/logicalfallacy.html

Non Sequitur is the Latin phrase for &quot it) does not follow."It means that the conclusion reached does not follow from the premise(s). Examples of ''non sequitur'' arguments are hilariously disconnected, but often they can be subtle and may not be easily uncovered. The arguments are fallacious since they do not provide any evidence for an argument and are just meant to confuse the listener

[laundry_queen]

133. LOL, so because you can't see the relationship it doesn't exist. Mkay. nt

[roseBudd]

145. Accusing someone you know nothing about of being a climate change denier...

is a non sequitur. it does not follow. The OP believes in science. Science says the antis are being emotional, not rational.

We have the supporting evidence. It is met with stupid pictures of poo, and insults. And a lot o subject lines with zero message. Like yours.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2013/08/28/ok-so-you-hate-gmos-because-they-are-untested-what-about-feelbetteramine-from-the-health-store/

Mercola and or Weil selling some supplement? We don't need any testing. Herbs from China? Who cares about the mislabeling or lead contamination.

Toxicities by herbal medicines with emphasis to traditional Chinese medicine.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21892916

Botanical misidentification or mislabeling of plant material can play a role for toxic reactions in humans. Some plant descriptions in traditional herbal medicine (e.g. traditional Chinese medicine) have changed over time, which may lead to unintended intoxication by using wrong plants. A problem is also the contamination of herbals with microorganisms, fungal toxins such as aflatoxin, with pesticides and heavy metals. Unprofessional processing, which differs from safe traditional preparation represents another potential source for herbal poisoning. Unwanted effects of herbal products may also develop by the interaction of herbs with conventional drugs upon concomitant intake.

[laundry_queen]

153. LOL, speaking of non sequitur

Stop projecting. Chinese medicine? LOL, how does THAT follow? Please, proceed.

I'm not the one who is emotional on this. I'm waiting for reputable studies. There currently aren't any. Thus I err on the side of caution, which to me = no GMOs.

[roseBudd]

156. "I'm waiting for reputable studies. There currently aren't any." False

My point is people who believe in woo, consume untested substances peddled by practitioners of woo, including raw ingredients imported from China, which has a history of contamination and mislabeling. That is a fact, that I supported with a citation from Pub Med. Melamine in pet food and infant formula, and lead in paint on toys aren't the only instances of danger from China. Real, not made up. Listeria in cheese sold at Whole Foods.

You are a layperson who due to confirmation bias is parroting misleading information. Which is why you don't back up your statements. It is also why you won't read my links.

Peer reviewed, not Elle magazine, Mother Jones, or Huffington Post

Ricroch A., J. B. Bergé & M. Kuntz (2011). Evaluation of genetically engineered crops using transcriptomic, proteomic and metabolomic profiling techniques. Plant Physiology, April 2011, 155, 4: 1752–1761

Kuntz M. & Ricroch A. (2012). Has time come to lower the current regulatory risk assessment for GM food and feed? ISB NEWS REPORT, February 2012, 1-4 http://www.isb.vt.edu/news/2012/Feb12.pdf

Snell C., A. Berheim, J. B. Bergé, M. Kuntz, G. Pascal, A. Paris & A. Ricroch (2012). Assessment of the Health Impact of GE Plant Diets in Long Term and Multigenerational Animal Feeding Trials: a Literature Review. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50, 3-4, March 2012, 1134-1148

Ricroch A. (2013). Assessment of GE food safety using omics techniques and long-term animal feeding studies. New biotechnology 30 (4) 349-354 (online in 2012) http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.nbt.2012.12.001.

Kuntz M. & Ricroch A. (2013). Evaluation of genetically engineered crops using proteomics. In: Proteomics in Foods: Principles and Applications. Ed. L.M.L. Nollet & F. Toldrá

Kuntz M., Davison J., Ricroch A. (2013). What the French ban of Bt MON810 maize means for science-based risk assessment. Nature Biotechnology, 8 June. 31, 498-500 doi:10.1038/nbt.2613

[laundry_queen]

173. So your argument is

"people who are anti-GMO generally believe in other woo like Chinese medicine and Chinese medicine is dangerous and fake and therefore everyone who is anti-GMO is crazy woo-people because CHINESE MEDICINE"

Again, failure of debating tactics.

And I've never claimed anything about Elle magazine, mother Jones or Huffington post having studies. YOU did that. YOU put those words there. I mean it when I say there are no reputable studies about safety. (not to mention every study you've posted is the same persons study. Got any other scientists? The same scientist linked to every study you've posted is a red flag to biased research.) I'm not claiming those that show harm are legitimate either - maybe you need to go back and reread my messages. Or are you enjoying posting your propaganda instead of responding to the body of my message?

[Raksha]

18. Yeah, that too.

"Woo" plus "anti-gmo hysteria" pretty much guarantees the OP is propaganda and a waste of time.

[SidDithers]

13. DU rec...

Too much woo at DU, and too many credulous DUers lapping it up.



Sid

[roseBudd]

29. Woo makes people feel like they are special

Appeal to Nature

Appeal to Nature, similar to the naturalistic fallacy, when used as a fallacy, is the belief or suggestion that “natural” is always better than “unnatural”. It assumes that "nature" is good, and "unnatural" is not. Unfortunately, in many discussions about science and medicine, individuals take this as their default belief.

Naturalistic Fallacy

The Naturalistic Fallacy is similar to the appeal to nature, where the conclusion expresses what ought to be, based only on actually what is more natural. This is very common and most people never see the problem with these kind of assertions due to accepted social and moral norms. This bypasses reason and we fail to ask why something that is, ought to be that way.

[TheBlackAdder]

40. When you life someones work, you should cite the source. n/t

[shenmue]

51. Life someone's work?

What does that mean?

[Tree-Hugger]

93. Lift

As in plagiarism.

[avaistheone1]

15. "anti-GMO hysteria"

What a bunch of rot.

[roseBudd]

31. Actually not.

EU funded research shows that the Naturalistic Fallacy folks are wrong in their claims. As in European.

I will be awaiting your informed response, after reading the research

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1688_en.htm

Commission publishes compendium of results of EU-funded research on genetically modified crops

In order to help inform debate on genetically modified organisms, the European Commission is publishing today a compendium entitled "A decade of EU-funded GMO research". The book summarizes the results of 50 research projects addressing primarily the safety of GMOs for the environment and for animal and human health. Launched between 2001 and 2010, these projects received funding of €200 million from the EU and form part of a 25-year long research effort on GMOs.

European Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science Máire Geoghegan-Quinn said "The aim of this book is to contribute to a fully transparent debate on GMOs, based on balanced, science–based information. According to the findings of these projects GMOs potentially provide opportunities to reduce malnutrition, especially in lesser developed countries, as well as to increase yields and assist towards the adaptation of agriculture to climate change. But we clearly need strong safeguards to control any potential risks. "

A publication for scientists, policy-makers and other stakeholders

This new publication aims to contribute to the debate on GMOs by disseminating the outcomes of research projects to scientists, regulatory bodies and to the public. It follows up previous publications on EU-funded research on GMO safety. Over the last 25 years, more than 500 independent research groups have been involved in such research.

According to the projects' results, there is, as of today, no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms.

A wide range of projects to know more about the safety of GMOs

Many of the research projects described in the book were launched to address scientific questions in areas of known public concern about the potential environmental impact of GMOs, about food safety, and about the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops.

The book includes results from research projects working on:

- developing analytical tools and methods for detecting GMOs in food and feed (GMOCHIPS, QPCRGMO) - supporting EU policies on labelling and traceability of GM food and feed;

- developing new safety assessment approaches on the potential health effect of GM food (ENTRANSFOOD, GMOCARE, SAFOTEST, NOFORISK, GMOBILITY, GMSAFOOD);

- crop improvement by genetic modification, such as resistance to pathogens – from fungi (EURICE) and viruses (TRANSVIR) to nematodes (NONEMA);

- improving the sustainability of agriculture by enhancing the nitrogen use efficiency of crops (SUSTAIN);

- managing gene flow, gene transfer and coexistence of GMO and non-GMO (ANGEL, TRANSBAC, SIGMEA, CO-EXTRA, TRANSCONTAINER);

- assessing effects of GMO on biodiversity (BT-BIONOTA, ECOGEN, POTATOCONTROL).

http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/library/brochures_reports_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/research/quality-of-life/gmo/

[Gravitycollapse]

16. Is there any credible evidence that GMO food poses a legitimate health risk?

[Berlum]

27. Youbetchaa. Google is your friend.

Do your own research, and ignore the Corporate Mutant Propaganda, Inc. regularly posted on DU.

[msanthrope]

47. Yeah...I was told the same thing about my kid's autism by the anti-vaxxers. I'll pass. nt

[roseBudd]

32. No. Seralini's research doesn't show what woosters claim

Nor does Carman's.

Again Europeans criticizing Seralini. Not Monsanto which is logical fallacy Argumentum Monsantum. Alllowing Sprague-Dawley rats to feed freely leads to spontaneous tumors by age 2. But that is something researchers have known since the 60s.

http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/555.s%E9ralini_study_provide_evidence_gm_maize_health_risk.html

Séralini’s team conducted feeding experiments with rats over the entire lifespan of the animals, which was around two years. Séralini reports that 50 per cent of the male rats and 70 per cent of the female rats died prematurely, compared with only 30 and 20 per cent respectively in the control group. The main cause of the higher mortality rate in the female rats was reported to be breast cancer, while the male rats died of liver and kidney damage and skin cancer. Séralini interprets the findings as a clear indication that the herbicide and the substances in the GM maize disrupt the animals’ hormonal system, triggering organ damage and cancer.

The preliminary reviews of this study, conducted by EFSA and the relevant German authorities, BfR and BVL, are now available. According to these reports, there is insufficient experimental evidence to support the hypothesis that rats die earlier when fed on GM maize. “There are flaws in the study design and in the statistical evaluation, so the authors’ conclusions are not supported by the data,” says Professor Reiner Wittkowski, Vice President of the BfR.

A number of scientists had also been very critical of the study the moment it was published. In particular they criticise the following aspects:

The type of rat used is naturally extremely prone to tumours. Various studies have shown the disease rate without test material (i.e. when the rats are fed a healthy diet) to be between 60 per cent and over 90 per cent.

The control group of ten rats was extremely small. This means that the study results are not statistically significant and represent purely random values. The OECD standard is 50 individuals per control group.

The effects measured were not dose-related. In other words, the disease rate did not rise when more GM maize was added to the food, as you would expect if the GM maize were the cause of the diseases.

Séralini drew attention to himself in 2007 with study results that he claimed pointed to health risks associated with MON863 GM maize. This research was partly financed by Greenpeace. After evaluating his results, EFSA and the German Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL) both concluded that they do not provide any evidence of health risks.

[pnwmom]

157. Is there any ethical reason that labeling shouldn't be required

so people can make up their own minds?

I have food allergies, for example. How do I know that GMO foods don't contain substances that I might be allergic to? And if I did have an allergy, how would I know what I was reacting to? Am I reacting to the corn itself -- or whatever it was altered with? How could I begin to figure this out if it isn't even labeled?

The most suspicious thing about GMO producers is that they are unwilling to label their foods. Let them compete openly on the marketplace, like everyone else.

[truebrit71]

187. Yes. Stacks of it.

I can't believe I'm reading this shit here on DU...

[HuckleB]

188. Umm. Nope.

I can't believe the anti-science denialism I see at DU. It's just bizarre.

[truebrit71]

189. To be clear, you are suggesting that there is NO research proving that GMO is BAD for people...

...do I have that right?

[HuckleB]

191. To be clear, the consensus of the science is quite clear.

http://www.biofortified.org/genera/guide/

Trot out Seralini if you want, but that would just be sad.

[truebrit71]

194. Please answer my question. You are saying that there are no ill-effects to GMO at all...

...and anyone that says otherwise is "anti-science" is that right?

Very simple question.

[HuckleB]

197. In other words, you didn't read my answer.

If you don't understand what I wrote, then you don't have any business discussing science in any way, shape or form.

[truebrit71]

199. So you won't answer my very simple, straightforward question.

Tells me ALL I need to know about you, and your motives...

[HuckleB]

201. So you're going to pretend that I didn't answer your question.

Goodness.

[truebrit71]

205. Please direct me to the answer to my direct question.

I'll wait...

Or you could quit dancing and actually ANSWER it...

[HuckleB]

208. And you keep pretending.

If you don't understand what scientific consensus means, please stop.

[truebrit71]

212. That is NOT an answer to the question i asked though, is it?

I'll try again.."You are saying that there are no ill-effects to GMO at all......and anyone that says otherwise is "anti-science" is that right?"

Yes or no.

[HuckleB]

215. It does answer your question.

However, you seem to not understand the answer. Thus, you don't want to acknowledge it.

You want to play games. I don't play games.

Goodbye and good riddance.

[truebrit71]

218. The only game here is you not wanting to answer a very simple question.

No games. I just wanted you to clarify your position with a simple yes or no answer, which you, apparently, do not want to do for some reason.

You lose.

[HuckleB]

228. Again, it has been answered.

Apparently you don't understand the meaning of scientific consensus. I'm sorry about that, but that's not my fault.

[jeff47]

251. It's rather amazing that with stacks of evidence

you couldn't manage to provide a single link to a peer-reviewed study.

[truebrit71]

291. Google doesn't work for you either...?

...

Here's just ONE....

http://www.nongmoproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/GM-Crops-just-the-science.pdf

[jeff47]

296. Apparently you need google to find out what "peer reviewed" means.

But that's a lovely flyer.

So...how about a peer-reviewed study? And perhaps you could indulge us with one that hasn't been discredited?

[truebrit71]

299. Again, try Google, I neither have the time, nor the inclination to school yet another...

...GMO apologist...

[jeff47]

305. So....mountain of evidence, and you can't manage to deliver a single pebble?

Kinda hurts your claim about a mountain of evidence.

[liberal_at_heart]

19. I may not agree with many coporations business practices such as Monsanto but I do not

believe there is enough evidence to support claims that GMOs harm people.

[roseBudd]

34. Big organic needs for peole to believe in woo

Or they won't pay more, and feel superior

[Beaverhausen]

89. Big organic?

[roseBudd]

101. So you didn't know...

http://www.bostonreview.net/state-nation/big-organic

For the last fifteen years, the largest multinational food corporations have been intensively buying up organic producers in an effort to enter the profitable niche market.

These companies benefit from the premium charged on organic products, a premium that committed consumers will pay because they support the values of the organic movement: local, ecologically sound, chemical-free, healthy, and ethically produced. They believe that the higher price tag is a result of environmentally friendly practices and that the additional labor required for chemical-free weed control costs more than herbicides.

Yet the purchase of organic companies by corporate giants such as General Mills, Kraft, and Kellogg pushes prices upward for different reasons: the pressure to continually increase quarterly profits and to develop new products.

If consumers realize who is behind these products, they may be less willing to pay a higher price. After all, their interest in organics probably doesn’t involve lining the coffers of multinational companies that have no commitment to consumers’ ideals.

But that consumer resistance won’t materialize until food advocates move beyond the hackneyed explanations for the cost and availability of organic food.

[Precisely]

98. OMG

[truebrit71]

190. I love the idea of "Big Organic"....

What a pile of steaming (organic) horseshit..."Big Organic"....

[HuckleB]

193. So you think Organic companies have your best interests in mind?

Now THAT is funny.

[truebrit71]

198. So you think that there's a cartel of organic producers..furtively plotting the demise of the poor..

..defenseless multi-national conglomerates who are as pure as the driven snow and simply trying to earn a simple living by genetically modifying crops and sell them to the general public without telling them what they've done to "improve" the ear of corn they're about to eat...


Yeah...I think that is fucking HYSTERICAL!!

[HuckleB]

200. Try paying attention.

If you think there isn't a massive push by organic companies, supplement suppliers and others to convince people to fear certain types of food so they will dish out more money to buy their products, even though those products are no different and no safer, well, like I said, you're not paying attention.

[truebrit71]

202. Try answering a simple question

...that would be a good start...

[HuckleB]

204. Try reading the answer.

And stop playing games. You have nothing to offer. You know nothing about this but fear-based generalities. That is clear.

[truebrit71]

207. I'd love to. Where is the answer?

All you have to offer, it would appear, is how to duck and weave...

[HuckleB]

209. Nice denialism, dude.

[truebrit71]

214. Nice avoidance, dude.

[HuckleB]

217. Awww. He just can't stop pretending.

[truebrit71]

220. Aww. He just can't answer a simple question.

Sad really.

[jeff47]

254. Do you think there's some magic that prevents Monsanto from buying organic companies? (nt)

[niyad]

42. do you approve of monsanto going after farmers whose fields MONSANTO has contaminated, suing

the FARMERS for monsanto's oh-so-special gmo genetic material getting into the farmers' crops?

[roseBudd]

80. link please

otherwise it is just your say so

[Marrah_G]

111. A quick google will give you plenty of examples

Also more then one documentary on it.

[niyad]

115. that is the funniest thing I have read today. PLEASE tell me you forgot the sarcasm icon, because

otherwise I would have to realize that your posts on this subject demonstrate bias and cluelessness.

[Precisely]

97. GMOs harm the intestines of the animals who eat it. Ask the farmers who've taken sick animals off it

[roseBudd]

106. link please

[Precisely]

114. Google

[roseBudd]

129. I don't need to. I know all about Carman.

Another case of bad science.

But we know you won't read the following

http://www.biofortified.org/2013/06/pig-feeding-study-gmo/

The authors had some good ideas for their study, including using a relatively large number of pigs and keeping the experiment going for the normal lifespan of the pigs. However, as a crop scientist, I see too many problems with the sources of the GM and non-GM crops in the feed for me to say that the results are reliable. This is a shame, because a lot of pigs lost their lives here. I don’t even think the meat from the animals could be eaten since so many of them were sick with pneumonia and who knows what else. Mortalities were incredibly high (13% for non-GM and 14% for GM), which is not within expected rates for US commercial piggeries (which are more like 5% or less EDIT: See comments for discussion of mortality rates), regardless of what the authors claim (without providing a reference).

We have to wonder what kind of animal husbandry issues were happening on the farm for so many animals to be so sick – this is not normal.

I really wish that researchers like this would take the time to double-check their methods before doing the experiment. If they’d talked with a crop scientist like me, they would have learned that the potential for compositional differences was too high, and I could have recommended some ways to minimize those differences. It might take a little more time and money, but isn’t it worth it to have good results, especially when so many lives are used in the testing?

Ideally, a feeding study like this would have controlled growing environments, genetic isolines, and testing of the grain. Some researchers use controlled environments and isolines, then only do a few composition tests to check for equivalence of nutrients, etc in the grain. If isolines are not available, one could do the study with a suite of comparator varieties instead of just one, then see if results of the GM are within the range of the non-GM varieties. The researchers did none of these.

The feed just was not similar enough to tell if any differences found in the animals was due to GM or something else entirely. This one flaw invalidates the entire study.

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/gmfood/Pages/Detailed-commentary-.aspx

Detailed comment on Carman et al (2013): study design and conduct

Given the authors claim that effects of the GM diet include gastroenteric effects and effects on the female reproductive system, it is surprising that the mycotoxin assays did not include trichothecenes, which could cause gastroenteric inflammation, and zearalenone, which has oestrogenic effects. Trichothecenes and zearalenone are common contaminants in grain-based animal feeds in the Midwest of the United States.

There is a lack of information on the composition of the control (non-GM) and GM diets. This does not allow the impact of other dietary factors, unrelated to the GM trait, to be excluded.

Only a single GM diet was used which precludes the possibility of determining if a dose-response relationship exists.

No analyses were done to confirm that the particle size of the diets was equivalent. This is surprising given the authors’ themselves noted that the gastric mucosa of pigs is very sensitive to the particle size of the diet.

The group sizes are very large (14 followed by 42) which makes any calculation of feed intake subject to large uncertainty.

Mortalities in both groups are extremely high by industry standards. This suggests there may have been confounding stressors affecting the pigs.

There is no apparent reason as to why the intestines were not weighed. Failure to examine the mucosa of the intestines, and the intestinal contents, is also a major deficiency. If the pigs had been suffering blood loss from gastric ulcers for some time, as the authors seem to believe, then this might be evident in rectal contents, so these should have been examined.

The authors claim that the stomachs showed ‘inflammation’ based on the presence of hyperaemia (reddening) but have failed to establish that inflammation was present because there is no histopathology. Inflammation can only be confirmed by demonstrating the infiltration of inflammatory cells (leukocytes such as polymorph neutrophils, lymphocytes and macrophages). The rugae (internal folds) of the stomach of the GM-fed pigs do not appear to be swollen relative to those in the stomach of the non-GM pig. If there was genuine inflammation, oedema, leukocyte infiltration and fibrosis would cause obviously thickened rugae.

The mean stomach-to-body weight ratio of the GM-fed pigs is reported to be comparable to that of the non-GM fed pigs, yet if the GM-fed pigs had been suffering gastric inflammation for weeks, oedema, infiltration of inflammatory cells (leukocytes) and fibrosis would be expected, and these changes are likely to lead to a significant increase in stomach weight, relative to body weight.

Given that the pigs identified as B15, D22 and C34 (stomachs photographed in Figure 1) were given the same diet of GM food, the difference in gross appearance between their stomachs is considerable. Acute stress can cause hyperaemia of the gastric mucosa therefore this study may have been confounded by the stress of fasting and slaughter. Pigs become very agitated and stressed if they see or hear other pigs in the same pen being stunned for slaughter. Thus it would be important to know the order of slaughter relative to the severity of gastric hyperaemia, and whether the pigs had seen other pigs stunned before they were themselves stunned, but this information is not provided.

It is unfortunate that regional lymph nodes were not collected since if the stomachs are really inflamed, the draining lymph nodes should also be enlarged and reactive, relative to those of control pigs.

It is surprising that the observed ‘inflammation’ did not affect feed intake, feed conversion ratio or final body weight. Trichothecenes, for example, cause a dramatic decline in feed intake in association with gastrointestinal erosions.

Given that the authors attribute ulceration to the GM feed, it is surprising that haematological parameters (haematocrit, red cell count, reticulocyte count, MCV, MCH, MCHC, RDW, WBC and differential count) were not determined. The authors acknowledge in the discussion that haematology could be informative, but do not explain why it was not done on this study.

FSANZ disagrees with the authors’ statement that standard haematology and serology provide ‘poor measure[s] of inflammation’. On the contrary, white cell count and differential are very sensitive measures of inflammation while fibrinogen, total proteins and albumin:globulin ratio are very frequently informative and sufficiently sensitive.

[pnwmom]

158. What about unlabeled GMO foods and people with allergies?

Don't you think it harms them not to know what's in the food they eat? To not know, if they have a reaction to a corn product, for example, whether they're reacting to corn in general or to something about this particular GMO corn?

Why are GMO producers resisting labeling? With food allergies becoming more and more prevalent, isn't it possible there's a connection?

[jeff47]

259. Just slapping a "GMO" label on it won't help.

You need producers to include all the known allergens in their products, regardless of their "GMO" status.

If you have a peanut allergy, and the organic pecans you bought were packaged in a plant that also handles peanuts, you're still going to have a problem.

[pnwmom]

263. Someone with allergies would know to avoid it, just as I have to do when

an ingredient list simply says "natural ingredient."

[jeff47]

275. My point is why get hung up on a literal GMO label

and instead fight for labels on all products that cover known allergens?

[pnwmom]

284. We should do both. But Ted Kennedy fought for decades to have better labeling and in the end,

he got labels that left out the biggest problem for many of us (because the food manufacturers wouldn't budge): gluten.

It isn't enough to list "known" allergens either. Many problems with additives don't turn up in early stages of testing, but only after an item is released onto the market. If a new additive isn't listed on the label, then no one will know it's in there and no one will link the new additive to allergies or other reactions.

[jeff47]

293. There's no reason to make that allergen list permanent

Add things to the list when peer-reviewed studies show it's an allergen.

And yes, you should wait for "known" allergens. On the gluten example, there's an enormous number of people in the US who are absolutely sure they are allergic to gluten, even when tests show they are not allergic. And when they can happily eat something up until they find out it contains gluten.

I'm not saying you're in that group - I know nothing of your history.

But the sheer quantity of woo surrounding food means we should stick to what we can actually prove.

[pnwmom]

297. But how are new allergens ever going to get recognized unless the ingredient

is listed on the label?

You are aware that many drugs and additives have effects that have only been recognized after initial testing when the product is released on the open market?

And you are aware, aren't you, that the FDA requires NO safety testing pre-market for any GMO product (their policy since 1992)?

[jeff47]

304. Same way gluten allergies were.

People will start reporting they feel ill when they eat a particular food. Testing of the components of that food will reveal which one is an allergen.

You are aware that many drugs and additives have effects that have only been recognized after initial testing when the product is released on the open market?

Yes. Which is why I keep saying that the list should not be written in stone. We should add to it when we can prove it's an allergen.

And you are aware, aren't you, that the FDA requires NO safety testing pre-market for any GMO product (their policy since 1992)?

Yes. And you are aware that no one has managed to link consumption of a GMO crop to a disease in a peer-reviewed article?

Look, we just came out of 3 decades of "A low-fat diet will magically make you thin". We're entering a new probably-3-decade-long time of "A low-carb diet will magically make you thin". Why? Because there's massive amounts of woo surrounding diet and food.

We have to stick with what we can actually prove.

[pnwmom]

306. At the time I was diagnosed, it took the average Celiac 11 years to get diagnosed.

When I was growing up, Celiac was thought to be a very rare disease. Finally scientists realized that if it was common in Europe it was probably more common here than anyone realized, and researchers finally developed the tests to prove that the descendants of white Europeans are just as likely to get it as Europeans.

Realizing you have symptoms is just a start. Figuring out what is causing the symptoms is the challenge. People eat lots of different foods every day and food reactions don't always happen instantly. Not having ingredients labeled makes everything that much harder.

[jeff47]

343. And that still doesn't change the need to stick with what we can prove. (nt)

[pnwmom]

356. But if we don't know an ingredient is in our food, there's NO chance of linking

that ingredient with any new symptoms.

That's why we need labeling. Every person is different and food allergies and sensitivities are very personal. At least people with Celiac have tests available now (though they're are still false negatives). But with most food problems, discovering the source is just trial and error -- fasting, and food "challenges." Without labeling, you wouldn't know whether you had symptoms after eating all types of a food item, or only those with a GE ingredient. And neither would your doctor.

Here in Washington, we can't export food to China, Japan, or most of our other major trading partners without labeling, because they all require it. It's not something our food producers can't do.

[HuckleB]

298. Well...

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2013/05/30/allergic-to-science-proteins-and-allergens-in-our-genetically-engineered-food/

and...

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/08/can_gmo_corn_cause_allergies_don_t_believe_elle_s_scary_story.html

[ananda]

30. Ermm...

I would do my own thinking on GMO. It's pure evil.

[Archae]

37. How "scientific."

[Coyotl]

33. As a personal friend of Dr. Weil, I call LIAR on that article. Why post this BS?

[roseBudd]

35. The shoe fits

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/05/23/dr-andrew-weil-versus-evidence-based-med/

Weil uses the logical fallacy appeal to antiquity, in addition to the Naturalistic fallacy.

Appeal to antiquity is a common logical fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or “always has been done.”

...“Holistic,” “natural,” and aboriginal medicine relied upon a prescientific, not a “holistic,” understanding of biology and patient care. Appealing to “systems” thinking based on prescientific or outright religious systems, such as homeopathic provings, traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurveda, and “energy healing,” is meaningless when the systems being invoked are without a grounding in science–or even reality. The rise of systems theory in biology and elsewhere has nothing to do with the sort of false “holistic” thinking invoked by Weil and his ilk. Rather, it has to do with the increasing ability to analyze more than one aspect of a complex system at once. For example, in my field (cancer), thirty years ago it was only possible to analyze one gene or perhaps handful of genes at a time. Then, beginning in the late 1990s, the development of cDNA microarray chips made it possible to analyze hundreds, then thousands of genes simultaneously–then every gene in the genome. As technology and computing power increased and scientists and mathematicians developed techniques to analyze ever larger datasets, it became possible to take the data from these sorts of experiments and begin to understand the complex networks inherent in the expression of the thousands of genes that are produced in human cells. Today, it is becoming increasingly possible to integrate massive quantities of data from various sources, including genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics and begin to understand the vastly complex networks that they form, how they resist perturbation, and how they can be restored when they are perturbed.

That is real holism. Not homeopathy. Not traditional Chinese medicine. Not Ayurveda. What Weil represents as “holism” is in reality a series of pretenders to “holistic” understanding that substitute non-evidence-based prescientific belief systems for science, gussying them up in “science-y”-sounding language that co-opts new science the way CAM/IM co-opts science-based modalities like diet and exercise as being somehow “alternative.”

[Archae]

36. Agreed.

I doubt any of us would follow medical advice from a guy who has had his ideas while drunk.

Yet many of Weil's ideas came to him while he was stoned on LSD or mushrooms.

[WCLinolVir]

67. Yeah we get that you and rosebud are in cahoots.

Tandem team propaganda. How unoriginal.

[Archae]

78. Yeah, we're part of the "BIG CONSPIRACY"

To persecute (Translation: Demand actual science) the poor picked-on multi-millionaire con man Andrew Weil.

[roseBudd]

81. The SCIENCE CONSPIRACY....

oh, the horror

of science, rather than cartoons of monkeys and poo

http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/independent-funding/

[roseBudd]

82. Weil like Mercola is laughing...

all the way to the bank

http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola.html

FDA Warnings

In 2005, the FDA ordered Mercola and his Optimal Wellness Center to stop making illegal claims for products sold through his Web site [12]. The claims to which the FDA objected involved three products:

Living Fuel Rx, claimed to offer an "exceptional countermeasure" against cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, etc.
Tropical Traditions Virgin Coconut Oil, claimed to reduce the risk of heart disease and has beneficial effects against Crohn's disease, irritable bowel syndrome, and many infectious agents
Chlorella, claimed to fight cancer and normalize blood pressure.

In 2006, the FDA sent Mercola and his center a second warning that was based on product labels collected during an inspection at his facility and on claims made on the Optimum Wellness Center Web site [13]. This time the claims to which the FDA objected involve four products:

Vibrant Health Research Chlorella XP, claimed to "help to virtually eliminate your risk of developing cancer in the future."
Fresh Shores Extra Virgin Coconut Oil, claimed to reduce the risk of heart disease, cancer, and degenerative diseases.
Momentum Health Products Vitamin K2, possibly useful in treating certain kinds of cancer and Alzheimer's disease.
Momentum Health Products Cardio Essentials Nattokinase NSK-SD, claimed to be "a much safer and effective option than aspirin and other pharmaceutical agents to treating heart disease."

The warning letters explained that the use of such claims in the marketing of these products violates the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, which bans unapproved claims for products that are intended for curing, mitigating, treating, or preventing of diseases. (Intended use can be established through product labels, catalogs, brochures, tapes, Web sites, or other circumstances surrounding the distribution of the product.)

In 2011, the FDA ordered Mercola to stop making claims for thermography that go beyond what the equipment he uses (Medtherm2000 infrared camera) was cleared for. The warning letter said that statements on Mercola's site improperly imply that the Meditherm camera can be used alone to diagnose or screen for various diseases or conditions associated with the breast, they also represent that the sensitivity of the Meditherm Med2000 Telethermographic camera is greater than that of machines used in mammography. The statements to which the FDA objected included:

"Revolutionary and Safe Diagnostic Tool Detects Hidden Inflammation: Thermography"
"The Newest Safe Cancer Screening Tool"
"ecause measuring inflammation through thermal imaging is a proactive, preventative method you can use for detecting disease, which significantly improves your chances for longevity and good health."
Additionally, thermograms provide: "Reliable and accurate information for diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis…"
"Yes, it's true. Thermograms provide you with early diagnosis and treatment assistance in such problems as cancer, inflammatory processes, neurological and vascular dysfunction, and musculoskeletal injury."
Thermography can benefit patients by detecting conditions including: Arthritis: "[d]ifferentiate between osteoarthritis and more severe forms like rheumatoid." Immune Dysfunction, Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue, "Digestive Disorders: Irritable bowel syndrome, diverticulitis, and Crohn's disease…" and "Other Conditions: including bursitis, herniated discs, ligament or muscle tear, lupus, nerve problems, whiplash, stroke screening, cancer and many, many others." [14]

[Coyotl]

38. That article is also laden with BS. I know for fact from first-hand experience.

[Berlum]

48. Right-wing Corporate Poo Flinging, Inc. (R) is a fact of life.

It's something Dr. Weil and others must suffer. The Poo Flingers, Inc. coined the term 'woo' as part of their Poo Campaign to try and distract from the truth. They want us to swallow their poo. Alas and alack.

[Coyotl]

50. Excellent point. Corporate monopoly on medicine is important.

Follows rather well on male monopoly -- witch burning.

[roseBudd]

53. What truth?

Provide examples of the truth of Dr. Weil.

[HuckleB]

183. What's not true in the article?

[tenderfoot]

192. Because being full of woo while accusing others of woo is big fun.

As proven by the OP.

[HuckleB]

206. BS.

[tenderfoot]

221. I know, Monsanto and GMO are awesome and safe. Roundup - I love spraying it right from the bottle..

into my mouth. Why waste it on plants?

[HuckleB]

225. And a pointless response is so cool.

Myth of the week for you...
http://www.headlice.org/news/2005/pesticidemyth.htm

[tenderfoot]

271. How about some photographic evidence?

Bet those rats just ate too much. Right?

[HuckleB]

276. And another one pushes Seralini! WOW!

Now I know that you know nothing about this stuff.

WOW!

Stop pushing crap, fear-mongering nonsense. It's wrong.

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2012/11/19/anti-gm-corn-study-reconsidered-seralini-finally-responds-to-torrent-of-criticism/

[tenderfoot]

286. Stop lobbying for Monsanto and prove that GMO's are safe then I'll stfu.

Is Europe full of woo for banning GMO's?

[HuckleB]

288. Oh, brother.

You just got caught pushing BS. There are hundreds of studies on this issue. The scientific consensus is overwhelming. Pretending otherwise is just dishonest.

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/09/12/union-of-concerned-scientists-asserts-broad-safety-and-environmental-benefits-of-gmos/

[tenderfoot]

295. Union of concerned scientists... sounds like the concerned women of America.

Genetic Literacy Project is funded by Big Ag.

Also, you can go on all you want - I'm not putting any of that GMO crap into my mouth.

[HuckleB]

300. You don't know about UCS? And you lie about GLP?

Wow!

You've pushed nothing but false claims here, yet you stick with your belief despite the fact that there is no justification for it.

That's really sad, for you.

[tenderfoot]

307. Oh well. No GMO popcorn for me.

I'd also like to add that there are several here who disagree with you. Time to try to convince them that they're wrong. Best of luck with that.

Birkenstock Capitalist.

[HuckleB]

309. Science doesn't care.

You can believe whatever you want, but, when the evidence is so dramatically against that belief being true, it really doesn't matter.

[tenderfoot]

312. I heard marijuana causes insanity - science said so - it must be true.

Abortion causes breast cancer - heard that from a scientist.

Science - you can always count on it.

[HuckleB]

314. No, science didn't say those things.

Someone who may have called himself a scientist might have, but that's not how science works. I am talking about the scientific process, how it leads to the a consensus. You also need to know how it can be abused by pseudoscience pushers. That's the folks you've been turning to, in case you hadn't clued in to that yet.

Seriously, stop pushing silliness. Challenge your preconceived notions.

And try to stop jumping from one thing to the next, as each claim gets shot down. Admit that you were wrong once in a while.

[Raine]

210. I don't know him personally but agree this a lie and it's crap. nt

[TheBlackAdder]

39. As a former farm owner and Food & Water Watch Volunteer...

The quality and safety of our food and water transcends political party lines.

1) Round-up Ready GMO plants mean what? They WILL HAVE ROUNDUP sprayed on them.

Do you really think that when you bathe a plant in something, traces of that something don't leech into the plant?
Don't you remember the old food color & water thing as an elementary kid, making your celery blue or red?
Do you want to eat a derivative of Agent Orange, from the same company that made Agent Orange?

2) These GMO plants are infecting non-GMO fields and the farmers are having lawsuits thrown at them, many with gag orders, that they have to pay a settlement if their fields show signs of the GMO DNA in their crops. THey could have cross-pollinated from neighboring fields.

3) GMO plants are reducing the biodiversity of the plants. We are going from having around 100 types of corn to around a dozen. If there becomes some type of blight that affects GMO crops in the future... and we all know how Mother Nature like to play tricks on things... there will be massive crop failures.

4) GMO crops require the farmers to purchase new every crop cycle and not to take 10% of their seed harvest to replant, only requiring supplemental grain orders. This incurs massive costs onto the farmer especially damaging the smaller independent farmer.

These GMO crop seed patent restrictions and lawsuits are just some of the ways BigAg are using to force out smaller farmers and to seize farms that have been in families for generations.

I'm sure there a bunch of other things I could write, but hopefully, you get the gist of what I'm saying.

[niyad]

41. no, because you are threatening THEIR scientifically-based beliefs. no evidence to the contrary

will convince them. would be amusing, really, if it were not so sad.

[roseBudd]

108. So we disparage science? How is that different than climate change deniers?

Feelings are evidence of nothing

[NickB79]

75. As a son of 6 generations of farmers

1) Yes, Roundup Ready crops get sprayed with Round-Up. Before the invention of Round-Up, what did you spray your crops with? My family used shit like atrazine, a herbicide FAR worse for both human health and the environment than Round-Up. You make it sound like farms were all no-spray, organic, chemical-free zones before Round-Up made an appearance, when it actuality farmers were dumping massive amounts of poison on the land for 50+ years.

2) I agree with you on this point and have no rebuttal; the business practices of seed companies like Monsanto are truly repulsive in this respect.

3) We've been reducing biodiversity for over a century, ever since we came up with the first hybrid crops. GM crops aren't helping the situation, but I don't see them making it worse either, because we'd still be going down this path with conventional hybrid seed anyway. The seed market is being cornered by a few big players (Monsanto, Cargill, Syngenta) and they have their favorite seeds to push.

4) Same as #3, we've been going down this path for the better part of a century since hybrid crops were first trotted out on a large scale. You can't save seed and replant from hybrids any more than you can GM; the resulting offspring will be all over the map with regard to traits (tall, short, lots of cobs/beans, very few cobs/beans, etc). I can remember my grandfather bitching about buying new hybrid seed every year 30 years ago! However, he kept doing it because the yields blew the old heirloom varieties out of the water.

[liberal_at_heart]

86. now that sounds like a more accurate assessment of what is happening.

[roseBudd]

110. And lets not forget GM papaya...

http://hawaiitribune-herald.com/sections/news/local-news/papaya-gmo-success-story.html

“If you drove here in the 1990s, you would see nothing but dead (papaya) trees,” he said recently as he drove his pick-up truck toward the farm of Alberto Belmes in Keaau.

Tucked away behind Highway 130, the farm stretches over 100 acres with a seemingly endless forest of the tall but slender papaya trees planted in neat rows and topped with their green oblong-shaped fruit. Some of the fruits are displaying a yellow tinge as they ripen, and are being harvested by workers using long pickers needed to reach the top of trees that are as tall as 15 feet.

Each tree is transgenic and can trace their origins back to Gonsalves’ lab.

For Belmes, a Filipino immigrant who said his farm was “wiped out” by the ringspot virus, genetically-modified papaya has been nothing short of a life-saver....

Rainbow papaya makes up about 77 percent of the crop now, with some farmers still growing the non-transgenic Kapoho Solo to export to markets, like Japan, that are slow to embrace modified food.

By the time transgenic papaya was commercialized in 1998, production had been cut in half and most trees were infected, Gonsalves said.

While production remains significantly below pre-virus levels, Gonsalves and other scientists believe there wouldn’t be much left without it.

“There’s no papaya industry. Simple as that,” he said.

Before being located almost entirely in Puna, papaya had been mostly grown on Oahu. Those crops were hit by the virus, carried by aphids, in the 1950s, causing the re-location to the Big Isle. It was first detected on the island in the 1970s in Hilo before spreading to Puna.

[niyad]

43. to all who defend gmo food, answer this: if this genetic tinkering is NOT dangerous,

or unhealthy, then WHY do the gmo makers resist every effort to have the stuff clearly labelled in our food, as every other thing has to be listed? if it is so darned safe and wonderful, why hide it? don't you think people should be able to make fully-informed choices about what goes into their bodies?

[Gormy Cuss]

44. They don't want the labeling because they know that consumers don't want these products.

Just like consumers don't want to eat irradiated food when it's labeled as such.

[niyad]

54. exactly. notice how they have no response?

[roseBudd]

124. What's in a GMO Label?

The well fed causing the food insecure, to be even more insecure.

What's in a GMO Label?

While some may think that labeling GMO foods will result in more transparency, the opposite is actually the case. Labeling GMO foods is more likely to confuse consumers than to inform them.

It’s not as straightforward as slapping a label on a can and calling it a day. Many labeling advocates assume that there are only two (sets of) actors involved, ‘Big Ag’ and ‘Big Retail.’ But that’s just not the case. The agricultural and food production value chain is long and complex and includes many private and public sector actors: research labs, seed companies, farmers, elevator/managers, grain handlers, transport companies, importers and exporters, processors, wholesalers, retailers and restaurants. If mandatory labeling of GMOs were enacted, costs (identity preservation, administrative and other) would be incurred all along the value chain. Make no mistake - those costs will be passed along to the consumer. Food prices will rise.

In addition to increased food costs, labeling of GMOs would have other effects. According to the results of a recent study conducted by Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Juanjuan Zhang, consumers assume that the government knows more than they do about the safety of the food supply. “[Thus] if the government requires labels on food, consumers will suspect something is wrong with it,” says Zhang. A GMO label runs the real risk of looking like a warning label.

And that would be misleading to consumers. Thousands of scientific studies on the safety of genetically engineered foods have been conducted worldwide. More than 600 peer-reviewed studies have been gathered here attesting to the safety of GMOs and many of those studies have been carried out by independent academics and publicly funded research institutes. Food production is a hotly debated issue and a great deal of propaganda about GMO food has spread like wildfire over the Internet via social media platforms. This has led to unfounded fear on the part of a small, yet vocal minority. That this fear of GMOs persists, in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is a problem for those that understand the science and how it can help to feed a growing world population, mitigate crop disease and fight pests, and improve the environment.

Mandatory labels should be reserved for products that carry a documented health risk, such as allergens, or in cases where products represent a substantive change in nutritional composition. This is, in fact, what existing FDA labeling policy requires. Scientific evidence affirms that GMO foods are indistinguishable from foods produced through traditional methods. Labeling them would be misleading for consumers and labels, by law, cannot be misleading. If people really want to avoid eating GMOs, they can. They have the option of eating foods labeled ‘Certified USDA Organic’ This alone pretty much makes GMO labels redundant.

- See more at: http://iwf.org/blog/2792030/#sthash.xcAlDZgh.dpuf

[laundry_queen]

134. Ooo, a blog post by a 'myth buster' type.

I'll take that as gospel. Not.

[roseBudd]

146. ^ A subject line with no rebuttal

Pub Med, not Weil or Mercola woo

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=seralini+affair

Genetically modified (GM) food is discussed as an example of the controversial relation between the intrinsic uncertainty of the scientific approach and the demand of citizen-consumers to use products of science innovation that are known to be safe. On the whole, peer-reviewed studies on GM food safety do not note significant health risks, with a few exceptions, like the most renowned "Pusztai affair" and the recent "Seralini case." These latter studies have been disregarded by the scientific community, based on incorrect experimental designs and statistic analysis. Such contradictory results show the complexity of risk evaluation, and raise concerns in the citizen-consumers against the GM food. A thoughtful consideration by scientific community and decision makers of the moral values that are present in risk evaluation and risk management should be the most trustable answer to citizen-consumers to their claim for clear and definitive answers concerning safety/un-safety of GM food.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9164252

Overfeeding by ad libitum (AL) food consumption is the most significant, uncontrolled variable affecting the outcome of the current rodent bioassay. The correlation of food consumption, the resultant adult body weight and the 2-y survival in Sprague-Dawley rats is highly significant. Feeding natural ingredient diets that varied in protein, fiber and metabolizable energy content did not improve low 2-y survival if Sprague-Dawley rats were allowed AL food consumption

Seralini's "study" was set up to result in tumors. That is fraud, and animal abuse.

A scientific analysis of the rat study conducted by
Gilles Eric Séralini et al

http://www.vib.be/en/news/Documents/20121008_EN_Analyse%20rattenstudie%20S%C3%A9ralini%20et%20al.pdf

On 19 September 2012, Gilles - Eric Séralini and his colleagues published a sensational study that, in their opinion, brought to the fore clear indications that genetically modified crops and Roundup are dangerous to health. Media across the world picked up on this report and published disturbing photos of rats with enormous tumors. Scientists reacted with shock and were quick to criticize the study. The scientific analysis in this document shows the research design that Séralini et al. used contained fundamental shortcomings that preclude any sensible conclusions from being drawn. In other words, the statements that Séralini made about the health effects of GMOs and Roundup were baseless. Moreover, the research shows signs of selective interpretation of the findings or a misleading representation of these, which is contrary to prevailing scientific ethical standards.

[laundry_queen]

152. I don't need to post studies

because there are no reputable studies. And THAT is my issue with GMOs.

Also, my issue isn't that I'm hysterical (as the OP would have it) about GMOs killing people or causing cancer.

My issue is mostly with subtle problems that are probably not a big deal and wouldn't necessarily show up in a study for cancer or deaths. And the impact on our food supply should GMO crops 'take over' by cross pollinating with other crops. No studies on that either as far as I can tell.

I'd rather err on the side of caution regarding GMOs. Until there are reputable studies, I'm against them. That a large corporation is pushing for them does not help. I feel exactly as a I would if Dow Chemical were pushing a new chemical with a large profit margin with no safety studies.

[roseBudd]

165. Still false. All myths that show you have zero understanding

And zero interest in learning anything.

600 plus reputable studies. You have 3. All disreputable.

600+ published safety assessments on GM foods and feeds

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/06/150-published-safety-assessments-on-gm.html

It is frequently claimed that GM foods are not properly tested, or asserted that few independent studies have been published to establish their safety. Another similar claim made is that the food regulatory agencies rely exclusively of corporate information to decide whether GM food and feed are safe. The further claim is made that very few independent tests relating to GM food safety are done.

This conventional 'wisdom' is wrong.

The modern scientific literature shows that these commonly held opinions are merely myths. Academics Review website comprehensively shows that many of these myths are merely baseless rumours and misinformation.

http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/

Currently there are near 470 peer-reviewed reports in the scientific literature which document the general safety and nutritional wholesomeness of GM foods and feeds.

Citations to these 470 published studies are collected below (scroll to Exhibit 3). Close to 30% of these publications are produced and funded by organisations that are completely independent of large commercial seed companies.

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2008/08/rosemary-stanton-wrong-about.html

A larger consolidated paper list has also been curated at the GENERA (Biofortified) database here.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AoiID3EuxBOYdExZSF9VQk1iR0pBXzlzaTFQYWp3SVE#gid=0

Note also that by December 2010, 15 years, 81 projects, 400 teams and at least €70 million had been spent by European Union taxpayers on issues relating to GMO safety or GMO acceptance. (This is documented in December 2010 at another GMO Pundit posting, and is described at a comprehensive European commission website.).

http://ec.europa.eu/research/quality-of-life/gmo/index.html

A summary report on this major project is available as a pdf file:EUROPEAN COMMISSION 2010 A Decade of EU-funded GMO research

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B7hhP5QasNtsX1AwV2YzNnlrZTA

[laundry_queen]

171. I understand plenty.

I understand that those peer-reviewed studies are dubiously funded. I understand you have an agenda. *I* don't have 3 studies, I have nothing. You clearly didn't read my message and you are putting words in my mouth. I never said I believed in those 3 studies (whatever they are) **YOU** are the one who is putting up an argument I never made and then trying to shoot it down. I can also see that no one else is responding to you, which leads me to believe you have been filed into ignore-land by many. You are disingenuous in your debate tactics, and you post blog posts from pro-GMO bloggers as 'research'. It's not hard to see where you are going with this. It's not that I don't have an understanding of science (because I actually do) it's that you pretend you are all scientific while posting biased research and claiming this somehow makes you more scientific than everyone else. You can post all your blue linkies to biased studies and pro-gmo blogs and it doesn't make your opinion any more legitimate than mine.

[pnwmom]

177. I don't care how many Monsanto-approved studies are out there.

As long as Monsanto and the other giant agri firms are preventing INDEPENDENT researchers from carrying out their own studies, then the industry studies are worthless.

Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?
Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must end

By The Editors (of Scientific American)

"Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.


"To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research

[Union Scribe]

66. That's because consumers are fearful

not because consumers are right. People hear words like "irradiated" and if they aren't scientifically educated they are afraid.

[liberal_at_heart]

73. there's propaganda on both sides. It's impossible to know the truth. Real scientific research

takes a long time. I will wait until more conclusive evidence is presented. Until then I will go on eating what I eat.

[Gormy Cuss]

87. No, it's because people inherently think of food as natural

even while they're eating a pile of Doritos. When confronted with the evidence that it's been manipulated to "enhance" the natural qualities most consumers shy away from it. Why? I dunno but I suspect that in part it's tied to a survival instinct. Without having food handed to us we would be relying on a complex set of community knowledge and personal experience to judge what items in our environment are food.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

95. this. nt

[roseBudd]

109. And who would want ascorbic acid if it were labeled as such?

Ascorbic acid is a naturally occurring organic compound with antioxidant properties. It is a white solid, but impure samples can appear yellowish. It dissolves well in water to give mildly acidic solutions. Ascorbic acid is one form ("vitamer&quot of vitamin C. It was originally called L-hexuronic acid, but when it was found to have vitamin C activity in animals ("vitamin C" being defined as a vitamin activity, not then a specific substance), the suggestion was made to rename L-hexuronic acid. The new name for L-hexuronic acid is derived from a- (meaning "no&quot and scorbutus (scurvy), the disease caused by a deficiency of vitamin C.

Or sodium chloride?

A colorless or white crystalline compound, NaCl, used in the manufacture of chemicals and as a food preservative and seasoning.

[niyad]

116. amazingly enough, some of us actually KNOW what ascorbic acid is, and sodium chloride, but nice

try at the insults and unintentional laughs.

[roseBudd]

126. Oh, but poo pictures are fine

[niyad]

140. since I have neither used that word, nor posted pictures, that remark cannot possibly be addressed

to me. kindly redirect it to the appropriate person. on second thought, don't bother. as I have said, i really need the laughs, and I want to thank you for them.

[roseBudd]

107. Logical falllacy not based in science

Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea

Mandatory labels for genetically modified foods are a bad idea

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea

Instead of providing people with useful information, mandatory GMO labels would only intensify the misconception that so-called Frankenfoods endanger people's health [see “The Truth about Genetically Modified Food”]. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization and the exceptionally vigilant European Union agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques—which swap giant chunks of DNA between one plant and another—genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, is less likely to produce an unexpected result. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has tested all the GMOs on the market to determine whether they are toxic or allergenic. They are not. (The GMO-fearing can seek out “100 Percent Organic” products, indicating that a food contains no genetically modified ingredients, among other requirements.)

Many people argue for GMO labels in the name of increased consumer choice. On the contrary, such labels have limited people's options. In 1997, a time of growing opposition to GMOs in Europe, the E.U. began to require them. By 1999, to avoid labels that might drive customers away, most major European retailers had removed genetically modified ingredients from products bearing their brand. Major food producers such as Nestlé followed suit. Today it is virtually impossible to find GMOs in European supermarkets.

Americans who oppose genetically modified foods would celebrate a similar exclusion. Everyone else would pay a price. Because conventional crops often require more water and pesticides than GMOs do, the former are usually more expensive. Consequently, we would all have to pay a premium on non-GMO foods—and for a questionable return. Private research firm Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants estimated that Prop 37 would have raised an average California family's yearly food bill by as much as $400. The measure would also have required farmers, manufacturers and retailers to keep a whole new set of detailed records and to prepare for lawsuits challenging the “naturalness” of their products.

[niyad]

118. keep trying. I need the laughs.

[bettyellen]

150. so GMO foods would fail in the marketplace- or be niche- like organics are. Sounds fair to me.

It is immoral to try and pass it off as non GMO, which is exactly their intent in avoiding labeling.

[roseBudd]

163. wrong. Labeling is for risks.

Fear mongering based on myths is immoral.

Labeling is not free. Enforcement costs and regulation will be born by the tax payer.

There are people who need $1 loafs of bread and $2 boxes of cereal. Want to avoid GM food based on myths. Buy organic.

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/06/150-published-safety-assessments-on-gm.html

[bettyellen]

175. oh bullshit. labeling is there for consumer to use to make decisions and there is no good reason to

keep this info from anyone, except lost profits.

[HuckleB]

184. Why are so many working so hard to create unjustified fear about GMOs?

Until you can answer that question, there's no point in answering yours.

[niyad]

319. in other words, you don't HAVE an answer that doesn't involve huge wads of money, yes?

but, nice try at deflection, like so many others. keep it up, I need the laughs.

[HuckleB]

323. So you can't explain why working to foment baseless fear is a good thing.

Got it.

[Archae]

49. From Cracked.com...

Anti-biotech folks believe genetically modifying food is dangerous and may lead to a race of Brundle Flies. The fact is, right now, there is literally no evidence to suggest they are. In fact, some former leaders of the anti-GMO movement have done complete about faces on the issue after learning what the hell they're talking about for a change, instead of just spouting the uninformed rhetoric that most protesters (of anything, not just GMOs) seem to spout. Who knew being informed could be helpful?

Anti-biotech is big on natural farming, and they feel like organic farming is a much safer and better plan for feeding the hungry, but the fact is that organic farming can't match crop yields. It's not even a maybe situation, or something you could fix by trying to cram seeds closer together or saying sexy things to them while they germinate. You just can't stack up to GM crops because they're designed to grow more; that's the point. Even if every organic hippie who hates GMO tried growing acai berries in their pants, it still wouldn't be enough to match what a GMO crop can do. They're needed because they can feed the hungry in ways an organic crop couldn't hope to. It is because of genetic modifications that people like Norman Borlaug were able to alter wheat crops to produce higher yields and save literally billions from starvation. Literally billions.

So why are so many people against GMO crops anyway? Probably due to ignorance and pop culture. The moment you hear "genetically modified," if your mind doesn't run immediately to sci-fi, you probably have led a very dull and sheltered life in your abbey. To the rest of us, it sounds like mutants and babies with bug eyes. And that's kind of what these people believe. There's a strong belief that GM cassava will cause sterility, or make unborn children gay. Because maybe science decided that injecting cassava with liquid gay was going to help crop yields or provide a richer flavor.

Organizations like the Institute for Responsible Technology present themselves as scientific organizations to explain the evils of GMOs, but they're not run by or affiliated with scientists, they don't have the expertise, and their claims aren't backed by valid research. Imagine if you ate a really shitty peach and decided people needed to know that peaches were probably cultivated in Satan's anus so you made an organization called the Center for Peach Cultivation Veracity and you put together an ugly website warning people about the high percentage of Satan anus in their peach crops. That's what these people did. They're basically the food version of climate change deniers. They will argue until they pop a blood vessel about how they're right, but please don't look into it or else, you know, science will happen.

Then you read about activists who destroy rice crops in the Philippines because some people think eating a GM crop will make us all into lizard men or cause our balls to shrivel or whatever. As if the lizard men would allow that. Instead what happens is people in poor countries with inadequate soil and irrigation and finances to grow all these wonderfully nutritious organic crops just miss out on a GMO that could feed and provide proper nutrients for the millions of starving and undernourished people who would smack your mouth for daring to suggest they try growing their own organic kale instead, assuming they had the strength to lift their arms.

These people aren't saving lives, they're costing them, because it's a lot easier to be loud and misinformed than it is to be knowledgeable and civil, hence the popularity of people like Donald Trump, who make a living by yelling utter bullshit all the time.

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-people-with-good-intentions-its-impossible-not-to-hate_p2/#ixzz2eDqMWFVP

[Berlum]

52. The Fact is: there's no evidence to suggest GMO mutant crops are safe

Since the corporations that have patented these dubious mutant life forms severely restrict scientific research, so that the "research" is essentially done only by their lackeys.

You completely blow off the Precautionary Principle in favor of some "cracked" crud "argument." Ugh. Fine for you -- but the vast majority of human beings do not want this mutant crap OCCULTLY shoved down their gullets. That is Corporate Facism. Defend Corporate Facism all you want. But also deal with reality: Most human beings want to preserve their right to exercise their free will, and not to have profit-driven corporations, and their "scientific" research lackeys impact their health and future generations.

[roseBudd]

125. That is false. That you don't know that is false

is confirmation bias.

http://www.researchgate.net/post/GMO_crops_Is_there_any_peer_reviewed_scientific_evidence_that_questions_their_safety

Ricroch A., J. B. Bergé & M. Kuntz (2011). Evaluation of genetically engineered crops using transcriptomic, proteomic and metabolomic profiling techniques. Plant Physiology, April 2011, 155, 4: 1752–1761

Kuntz M. & Ricroch A. (2012). Has time come to lower the current regulatory risk assessment for GM food and feed? ISB NEWS REPORT, February 2012, 1-4 http://www.isb.vt.edu/news/2012/Feb12.pdf

Snell C., A. Berheim, J. B. Bergé, M. Kuntz, G. Pascal, A. Paris & A. Ricroch (2012). Assessment of the Health Impact of GE Plant Diets in Long Term and Multigenerational Animal Feeding Trials: a Literature Review. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50, 3-4, March 2012, 1134-1148

Ricroch A. (2013). Assessment of GE food safety using omics techniques and long-term animal feeding studies. New biotechnology 30 (4) 349-354 (online in 2012) http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.nbt.2012.12.001.

Kuntz M. & Ricroch A. (2013). Evaluation of genetically engineered crops using proteomics. In: Proteomics in Foods: Principles and Applications. Ed. L.M.L. Nollet & F. Toldrá

Kuntz M., Davison J., Ricroch A. (2013). What the French ban of Bt MON810 maize means for science-based risk assessment. Nature Biotechnology, 8 June. 31, 498-500 doi:10.1038/nbt.2613

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22plant+molecular+farming%22

[Berlum]

164. Your claim of 'falseness' is patently false

You can take your false 'claims' up with the editors of Scientific American


Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?
Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must end

By The Editors (of Scientific American)

"Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research

[KG]

60. Cracked.com! fuck yeah! my go-to source for scientific information!

[laundry_queen]

88. no kidding. nt

[Archae]

119. At the articles from Cracked, most times they are linked to credible sources.

Cracked.com is satire, but most of the time when they report something, it's backed up.

Unlike Andrew Weil, who pulls theories out of his ass and whines about being "persecuted" since actual doctors and scientists demand evidence.

[roseBudd]

130. As opposed to Mother Jones & Huffington Post

Mary is a genomics scientist, with credentials in microbiology, immunology, plant cell biology, and mammalian cell, developmental, and molecular biology (PhD). All comments here are my own, and do not represent my company or any other company.

http://www.biofortified.org/2013/05/gmo-wheat-and-shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/

I know my way around bioinformatics – in fact I teach it to others. So let’s take a brief trip through the DNA sequences in question to see what was really wrong about the Safe Food Foundation report. The concern they express, resurrected here, is that double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) produced by RNAi silencing in GE crops could silence our own genes if we eat them. The mechanism is complicated, but in short, before there can be any silencing there needs to be a sequence match between the dsRNA produced by these plants and the DNA of our own genes. Heinemann claimed that he found these sequence matches – but as I will demonstrate he didn’t find anything of the sort.

The claims Heinemann made were based on a sequence that was 25,187 bases long. In no way that was the appropriate sequence to use for the analysis. It was like throwing 25,000 strands of spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. There were going to be false positives. And one of the pasta pieces that stuck was to the GBE human gene. This was the basis for the claims made by Judy Carman in her SFF report that provided the dire warning about how this wheat would kill your babies.

Within the large record, only a small portion represents the SBE1 gene. See the long image on the right. And even within the actual gene part of that record, only a fraction of that sequence would be in the constructs used. The key point to be made about this was that their analysis was pointless and wrong.

I learned from Orac’s piece that there had been an update to the analysis, though. Heinemann had apparently realized that the sequence he used was probably incorrect. (Yes, we here at Biofortified had spotted that immediately.) There’s a re-analysis with a different sequence that you can now examine.

The new sequence? Oh, it’s different, yeah. It’s found within this GenBank record. But it’s not even the whole record. It’s only bases 96-635. That’s right–540 bases, not 25 thousand. Mm hmm. In case you are curious, 25,187 / 540 = more than 45x too much sequence. That’s a lot of pasta.

So there’s less spaghetti now. But again, Jack is able to deliver some sticking to the wall. However, all of the matches he highlights are either to introns – which would not matter for the mechanism of action that is the issue here. Or they are in the genome desert areas, thousands of bases away from anything that appears to be a gene.

Result: Take a deep breath. The GMO wheat that forms the basis of this claim will not kill your children or permanently alter your genome.

[Dr. Strange]

135. Ha! I just saw that article and it reminded me of this thread.

I thought about posting it here, but I see you beat me to it.

[mike_c]

76. kicked and recommended....

Anti-GMO hysteria indeed.

[Precisely]

90. It starts with nutrition

which is now promoted in TV commercials for people to eat healthier, fresh foods, etc. This has been challenging for low income people without access to healthy choices or even conventional supermarkets. Often, money is a factor. No one but rich people would be racking up huge bills on faux products. Cheap healthy alternatives have many benefits. Weil's legacy is showing that traditional medicine can be enhanced with healthy lifestyle changes, many of which are free. As is the info.

[sagat]

91. Nice post.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

103. I worked in the health food industry for quite some time...

The first thing I came to realize was that Andrew Weil was a crackpot.
I have a few friends I grew up with who became scientists. One, a cancer research scientist doesn't understand the anti-vaxxers or anti-gmo people. The other, a geneticist, verbally assaults anyone who is anti-GMO (and is also very anti-vegan). Neither are employed by large corporations (the cancer research scientist works off of grants at a non-profit in AZ, the geneticist is currently unemployed while pursuing post-doc work).

However, every last one of my natural/organic/vegan friends are anti-vax and anti-gmo.

The difference? The scientists have credibility and PEER-REVIEWED studies behind them. The others have flawed studies and unsubstantiated claims.
I have a VERY strong interest in science. I was never disciplined enough to take enough schooling to become a scientist, but I understand the scientific method, and can easily spot bullshit claims.

[laundry_queen]

137. I have a scientist friend that

that's very anti-gmo, and so is his scientist wife. They are employed by the local, very large and reputable, university. They are natural/organic/anti-gmo types (they do vax though). He claims the studies support his views.

So your point is because you have a scientist friend, you're right? And that you can 'understand the scientific method'. LOL so can I, I spent 5 years reading studies and debunking them with my doctor when preparing for the birth of my 2nd child. I changed his mind on many 'typical' childbirth procedures because I knew how to read a study and 'spot bullshit' as you say. So who's right? Well, since I have a year of a science degree (that year was taken with my aforementioned friend), maybe I do? lol. ooo, and I have a cousin with a PhD in genetics who eats organic and only dresses her kids in cotton, so I win right? lol. Or are they all taken by the 'woo'?

[roseBudd]

149. The studies don't support his views. Your anecdotal evidence is the worst kind

Last edited Sun Sep 8, 2013, 11:57 AM - Edit history (1)

My friend is a plant geneticist, at the University of Florida. He says your friend is wrong.

Which is why you post no studies

Science is peer reviewed for a reason. One scientist is an anomaly. Seralini and Carman studies show nothing significant. They do show that just like climate change deniers, biased scientists go on fishing expeditions, and conduct poor science that doesn't show what they claim.

[laundry_queen]

151. LOL

You are dense. I'm posting my 'proof' as much as you friend is posting his 'proof'

IOW I'm posting that my anecdotal evidence is no more proof than his.

I was being facetious.

And the lack of studies is part of my huge issue with GMOs.

[roseBudd]

159. Your claim of lack of studies is false

Which is why you can't back up that claim.

Who is your friend?

Here is mine.

http://hos.ufl.edu/sites/default/files/5yearCV110417.pdf

Kevin M. Folta
Horticultural Sciences Department and the Graduate
Program in Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology,
1301 Fifield Hall, University of Flor
ida, Gainesville, FL 326
11 352-392-1928 x269
[e-mail]
www.arabidopsisthaliana.com
www.strawberrygenomics.com

Degrees Earned
University of Illinois at Chicago Chicago, IL Mol. Biology Ph.D. 1998
Northern Illinois University DeKalb, IL Biology M.S. 1992
Northern Illinois University DeKalb, IL Biology B.S. 1989

Professional Experience
2011- Present Graduate Coordiator- Graduate Program in Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology
2008-Present Associate Professor, Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida
2002- 2008 Assistant Professor, Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida

Professional Activities and Service (selected activities from last five years)
Convenor- Genomics of Horticultural Crops, International Society of Horticultural Sciences Conference,
Lisbon Portugal, August 24-28, 2010.
Chair, US Rosaceae Genetics, Genomics and Breeding Executive Committee, 2007
Vice Chair, US Rosaceae Genetics, Genomics and Breeding Executive Committee, 2006
Member, US Rosaceae Genetics, Genomics and Breeding Executive Committee 2005-2008; 2010.
Contributing Editor, J. American Society for Horticultural Science.
Applied Genomics, 2010-present
Associate Editor, Plant Signaling and Behavior , 2005-present
Associate Editor, BMC-Research Notes , 2007-present
Associate Editor, The Berry Research Journal , 2009 organization and publication in 2010
National Science Foundation proposal review panelist, 2008; USDA proposal review panelist, 2007, 2008
Ad hoc reviewer of 120 manuscripts for 34 journals over last eight years
Ad hoc reviewer for 30 research grants from NSF, USDA, DOE, Academy of Finland, Binational
Agricultural Research and Development Fund Organizing Committee – USDA Rosaceae Specialty
Crops Planning Workshop, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. June 21-22, 2007.
Member, Rosaceae Microarray Development Committee, 2006
Panelist, Global Strategy for Conservation of Strawberry Genetic Resources, 2006
Host of eleven research appointments for international scholars
Professional Memberhip: American Society of Plant Biology, American Society of Horticultural Sciences, North American Strawberry Association,
Gamma Sigma Delta- Honors Society of Agriculture, National Center for Science Education, Florida Citizens for Science

Current Research Grants
CAREER: Analysis of a Novel Aspect of Photomorphogenic Development and its Application to Graduate Student Training. National Science Foundation (2008 – 2013). PI, $985,985
Characterization of Novel Expressed Transcripts in the Rosaceae. National Science Foundation (2007-2010) PI, $1,005,585.
Improving Strawberry Germplasm via Targeted Introgression of Genetic Diversity and Characterization of Flavor Genes. Plant Molecular Breeding Initiative (2010-2014). Co-PI, $180,000.
Developing Superior Flavor in Florida Strawberries: A Consumer-Assisted Breeding Approach. USDA
Specialty Crops Block Grant (2011-2012) PI, $253,353

[laundry_queen]

172. LOL, nice try getting me to out my friend.

Why do you even care about my friend? Are you having issues with your debating tactics? I said I was being facetious. Do you know what that means? It means I was responding to a poster who claimed GMOs were great because he had a scientist friend with a silly counter argument that I had a friend too. You are pulling out the same debating tactics as some right wingers I've seen who take the most irrelevant comment in a post and make that the focus. Giant fail. Nice try though. Admirable effort.

[Zorra]

127. Genetically Modified Organisms ~ Gosh, what could possibly go wrong?

[Precisely]

139. It's good Science

to prove that Nature is their bitch

[Zorra]

143. Yeh, they proved that beyond the shadow of a doubt in Fukushima, didn't they?

Now eating fish from the Pacific can make us glow in the dark. Another miracle of modern science where "aww, that stuff could never hurt ya".

But what exactly does "make nature their b***h mean?

[roseBudd]

162. ^ non sequitur

600+ published safety assessments on GM foods and feeds

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/06/150-published-safety-assessments-on-gm.html

It is frequently claimed that GM foods are not properly tested, or asserted that few independent studies have been published to establish their safety. Another similar claim made is that the food regulatory agencies rely exclusively of corporate information to decide whether GM food and feed are safe. The further claim is made that very few independent tests relating to GM food safety are done.

This conventional 'wisdom' is wrong.

The modern scientific literature shows that these commonly held opinions are merely myths. Academics Review website comprehensively shows that many of these myths are merely baseless rumours and misinformation.

http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/

Currently there are near 470 peer-reviewed reports in the scientific literature which document the general safety and nutritional wholesomeness of GM foods and feeds.

Citations to these 470 published studies are collected below (scroll to Exhibit 3). Close to 30% of these publications are produced and funded by organisations that are completely independent of large commercial seed companies.

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2008/08/rosemary-stanton-wrong-about.html

A larger consolidated paper list has also been curated at the GENERA (Biofortified) database here.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AoiID3EuxBOYdExZSF9VQk1iR0pBXzlzaTFQYWp3SVE#gid=0

Note also that by December 2010, 15 years, 81 projects, 400 teams and at least €70 million had been spent by European Union taxpayers on issues relating to GMO safety or GMO acceptance. (This is documented in December 2010 at another GMO Pundit posting, and is described at a comprehensive European commission website.).

http://ec.europa.eu/research/quality-of-life/gmo/index.html

A summary report on this major project is available as a pdf file:EUROPEAN COMMISSION 2010 A Decade of EU-funded GMO research

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B7hhP5QasNtsX1AwV2YzNnlrZTA

[Zorra]

174. GM crops created superweed, say scientists

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

Genetically Modified Crops Have Led To Pesticide Increase, Study Finds

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/genetically-modified-crops-pesticides_n_1931020.html

etc.

It wasn't a non sequitir.

What we don't know may hurt us. Corporations all too often lie and hurt people in order to profit.

[Precisely]

168. Read this morning about genetically modified insects

What will they think of next?

"But what exactly does "make nature their b***h mean?"

It means this arrogant putdown in the name of science on this thread doesn't respect people or nature, yet claims the right to control both.

[jeff47]

273. Ever eat corn?

Nice, organic, non-GMO corn?

Yeah, it can't survive without humans. We mutated the fuck out of it through selective breeding over thousands of years. It is an utterly artificial construct that will die out in a generation if humans disappeared.

But clearly we need to be terrified of GMO crops!

[Archae]

338. A few months ago I asked something similar.

If people would eat this:



Many people didn't even recognize it as a banana.
A wild, unmodified one.

We've bred the shit out of bananas to get the ones we find at the market.

In animals, look at a cow.
They can barely survive in the wild, and domesticated cows can't survive since we've bred the shit out of them too.

[SidDithers]

128. Antivaccine versus anti-GMO: Different goals, same methods

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/antivaccine-versus-anti-gmo-different-goals-same-methods/

Good article from Dennis Gorski, a real cancer doc. I had posted it last year, when it came out, but it seems to fit in with this thread too.



Sid

[roseBudd]

131. So you hate GMO’s because they are untested. What about feelbetteramine from the health store?

Don't forget chemtrails and flouride

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2013/08/28/ok-so-you-hate-gmos-because-they-are-untested-what-about-feelbetteramine-from-the-health-store/

“I actually find the anti-GMO folks’ argument about not trusting GMOs simply because they have “not been tested enough” to be disingenuous, selective and cherry-picked at the very minimum. Let’s say that tomorrow Whole Foods introduces a new brand of spirulinadetoxwhatever health supplement containing feelbetteramine from a wholly natural plant found in the foothills of Bolivia. Do we think for a second that the anti-GMO folks won’t be lining up at their nearest Whole Foods, no matter that this novel substance is as much or even more untested than a GMO?”

It’s food for thought. Most opponents of GMOs don’t seem to have a problem eagerly loading up their shopping carts with all kinds of exotic stuff from the health supplement aisle in the local supermarket. How many Whole Foods (and Whole Foods is just an example here, and probably one of the more benign ones) store assistants – many of whom are far from being trained in nutrition or pharmacology – have convinced these people that feelbetteramine is right for their gout, or for their insomnia, or for the “cognitive deficit” that they feel everyday at work? What kind of evidence of long-term safety exists for feelbetteramine that allows these GMO opponents to embrace the wondrous effects of this non FDA-approved concoction with alacrity? And proponents of health supplements are often big on anecdotal evidence; why don’t they, at the very least, admit anecdotal evidence about the benefits of GMOs (especially when the evidence is concrete, as in case of VAD) into their belief system?

To me there clearly seems to be a discrepancy between the reflexive rejection of untested GMOs by the anti-GMO crowd and their rapid embrace of the equally or more untested latest health supplement. All things being equal, as a scientist I at least know what the express purpose of Golden Rice is, compared to the hazy reports on salutary effects of feelbetteramine. So it seems to me that if I am really against GMOs because they are insufficiently tested, I need to mostly steer clear of the health supplement aisle. And did I mention that feelbetteramine can also set your love life on the path to glorious bliss?

[SidDithers]

186. Re-read the article...

there are few DUers as anti-woo as I am. I regularly post articles from SBM, as you did upthread, and from Orac at scienceblogs.

Orac writes in the article above that, though their causes are different, anti-vax nutters and anti-GMO "activists" often use the same dishonest techniques.

I agree with him.

Sid

[Orrex]

161. kick for that fantastic article

Bookmarked.

[pnwmom]

178. There is no connection between the two.

Until the GMO producers allow INDEPENDENT researchers to conduct research using their seeds, their own research will always be suspect. The first rule in scientific research is replicate. The fact that they prohibit independent researchers from conducting research with their seeds tells us all we need to know.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research

Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?
Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must end

By The Editors (of Scientific American)

"Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.


"To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research

[Romulox]

147. DU has become the go-to place for assinine Rightwing propaganda. "anti-GMO hysteria" my ass. nt

[Berlum]

148. You nailed it. We are a magnet for Rightwing Corporate propaganda -- aka POO

and this Peer Reviewed thread proves it. Corporate funded "research" & Public Relations Spin:

POO up the wazoo.

[roseBudd]

155. Science isn't rightwing propaganda, it is the opposite

Republicans deny science that doesn't support their confirmation bias.

So do liberals as evidenced by the bad science, non sequiturs and outright lies that come from Greenpeace, and the Naturalistic Fallacy crowd.

Staged photos are not science. You don't need hazmat suits to commit vandalism.



The 'Frankenfood’ myth must not block progress
For too long, the GM food debate has been dominated by an unscientific distrust of biotechnology

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/10132305/The-Frankenfood-myth-must-not-block-progress.html

Opposition to GM focuses principally on the alleged risk to health and the environment from these crops and their produce. Yet as Mr Paterson observed, the EU has funded more than 50 projects on GM safety over the past quarter of a century, and found no scientific evidence associating it with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety. As Prof Anne Glover, the European Commission’s chief scientist, has said: “There is no substantiated case of any adverse impact on human health, animal health or environmental health.” Yet despite this, opponents continue to promote the idea that GM causes cancers or catastrophic plant mutations.
For too long, this debate has been dominated by an unscientific distrust of biotechnology – perhaps understandably, in the wake of the BSE scandal and other food scares down the years. Mr Paterson was at pains to debunk some of this “Frankenfood” mythology
.
With the world’s population due to rise by another two billion over the next 50 years, the EU’s risk-averse attitude cannot be sustained. Other parts of the world, notably the Americas, recognised this long ago, and GM crops are now routinely planted there. Europe – and, by extension, Africa, where countries fear being shut out of the EU market – are being left behind. If properly monitored GM crops can improve yields, protect against pests and give children nutritional benefits they would not otherwise receive, then it can only be a superstitious fear of the new – and internal EU politics – that is preventing their use. No one is suggesting that GM is the only answer to the problem of feeding the world. But it must be one of them.

[truebrit71]

226. Um, you know the Torygraph is a right-wing paper right?

Tell me you knew that....or will you refuse to answer THAT question as well...

[JackRiddler]

328. Yes, and rightwing propaganda is not science.

Shame on you.

[villager]

176. Certainly a phrase the Monsanto PR department would approve of -- or perhaps authored

n/t

[pnwmom]

160. Oh yes. Anti-GMO hysterics. Pro-environment purists. Organic idiots.

They're all such ridiculous people.

We should all just happily eat whatever corporate farmers want to put on our tables.

[roseBudd]

167. Denying science goes to credibility

We can't stand behind climate scientists and throw all sense of objectivity out the window due to faulty logic.

Climate change dictates that we need biotechnology. We will need plants that produce more on less land, need less water, less tilling, and less land cleared.

Organic can't feed 9 billion people. Period.

Clearing more forests isn't environmentally friendly. It is the opposite. Tilling isn't environmentally friendly. It is the opposite. Running machinery to till, isn't environmentally friendly. It is the opposite.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/feastandfamine/2013/03/gm-crops-and-carbon-emissions

There are real risks, like e.coli.

Disease microbes, nutrient shortages and lack of access are greatest threats, not biotechnology. Contamination of fish and meat with parasites, or grains with mold toxins, are also significant food health hazards

http://academicsreview.org/2010/03/food-safety-focus-on-real-risks-not-fake-ones/

[Precisely]

169. "Climate change dictates that we need biotechnology."

Ah, there it is. Very interesting.

[pnwmom]

170. I'm not denying science. And neither is Don Huber, retired Agri prof. at Purdue University

who has been a vocal opponent of GMO's. And neither are these people:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023623383

[HuckleB]

185. Really? I'm not buying it.

http://www.biofortified.org/genera/guide/

[pnwmom]

196. No, you're buying the industry crap.

In 1992, the Reagan FDA declared that all GMO foods, then and into the future -- whether the DNA came from other plants, animals, insects, etc. -- were to be classified as safe, without any requirement for further testing to prove safety. Anyone who disputed the safety of any GMO product would have the burden of proof.

But the FDA also allows the GMO manufacturers to completely control the use of their seeds. They can approve and disapprove the right of "independent" researchers to use their seeds, and they can require these "independent" researchers to sign confidentiality agreements prohibiting them from publishing results without the approval of the manufacturers.

This is genius: diabolical genius. Step 1: declare that all GMO products are henceforth safe, unless proven otherwise. Step 2: allow GMO manufacturers to prevent researchers from conducting and publishing research without their approval. Result: no research ever proves that any GMO product is unsafe.

Under these circumstances, anyone who believes that the safety of ALL of these products has been proved is deluding himself.

[HuckleB]

203. No, I'm not.

You are buying into fear-mongering anti-science nonsense.

It's not ok. It really isn't.

[pnwmom]

211. Explain to me how it is "anti-science"

to strongly believe that independent researchers should NOT have to get approval from Monsanto to do research with their seeds or to publish the results of the studies they conduct.

Explain to me how it is anti-science to believe that inserting the DNA of insects into plants should have been approved only after careful scientific research rather than judged safe -- in advance -- by an administrator at the FDA, based on the mere fact that it was a GMO product.

You're the one who is promoting an anti-science policy, not me.

[HuckleB]

219. You are pushing all the usual, long-debunked nonsense.

Seriously. It's the same thing you did with vaccines.

Try challenging your preconceived notions for once. I've given you a link above that puts this response of yours to bed, and that was before you responded. Come on.

[truebrit71]

223. So GMO's are actually great, and all of the countries that have banned them have been snookered...

...by "Big Organic"... is that it?

[HuckleB]

231. Again, pay attention.

Most of these "bannings" are not really bannings, for starters. Secondly, there is no science to back up these political actions.

[truebrit71]

238. Um. Perhaps YOU should pay attention...

No science to back up the actions???


Hmmmm......http://www.nongmoproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/GM-Crops-just-the-science.pdf

[HuckleB]

242. Pushing BS pseudoscience sites is not helpful.

It's immoral, quite frankly.

[truebrit71]

246. Neither is responding without having read what was posted.

Quite frankly it screams that the someone has a very specific agenda they are pushing, which is, at the very least, intellectually dishonest..

[HuckleB]

252. You haven't read any of what I've posted.

Your site is a classic, well-known flood of pseudoscience. Pretending otherwise is what's intellectually dishonest.

[pnwmom]

229. Your link debunks nothing.

The fact that numerous studies were peer reviewed proves nothing. The only studies that are published are the ones that the industry allows to be published WITH THEIR APPROVAL.

Where have you debunked the fact that the 1992 FDA policy statement declared all GMO products henceforth to be safe without requiring further testing (all such testing is voluntary)?

Where have you debunked the fact that the manufacturers control all the research that is published, even by independent researchers?

[HuckleB]

232. In other words, as usual, your preconceived notions are all that matter.

WOW!

Good bye.

[pnwmom]

233. You're talking to the guy in the mirror because you have no answer to this:

Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?
Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must end

By The Editors (of Scientific American)

"Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.


"To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research

[HuckleB]

236. And you think that makes everything else go away.

Heck, it's not anywhere near the whole story about this one small issue, which many other scientists have called out as being ridiculous.

Good bye. Stop hurting people by pushing undue fear. It's wrong.

[pnwmom]

245. "Many other scientists have called out" The Scientific American on the issue

of independent researchers performing objective research? This "one small issue"? Link please.

[HuckleB]

248. No link coming from me.

I paid attention to the whole of the story when it was playing out. I now know you didn't. I also know that you don't care about evidence, so I won't waste my time finding it for you.

[pnwmom]

258. I've been paying attention since 1989 and the L-Trytophan debacle.

Here's a link, since you obviously never heard of it.

http://www.biointegrity.org/ext-summary.html

In 1989, the Japanese manufacturer Showa Denko K.K. began marketing a genetically engineered supplement of the amino acid L-tryptophan in the U.S. In producing it, a gene to increase tryptophan yield was spliced into the DNA of bacteria, from which the substance was then extracted. Within a few months of entering the market, the bioengineered supplement caused an epidemic of an unusual malady (called EMS) that resulted in the death of 37 people and the permanent disability of at least 1,500 others. (FDA's Regulation of the Dietary Supplement L-Tryptophan. Human Resources and Intergovernmental Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., 1991)

For many preceding years, other manufacturers had marketed L-tryptophan supplements produced from bacteria without use of gene-splicing. Epidemiological evidence from the Center for Disease Control does not link any tryptophan from these other manufacturers with outbreaks of EMS. (Kilbourne, E. Journal of Rheumatology Supplement, vol. 46, Oct. 1996) Further, Showa Denko's genetically engineered tryptophan was found to contain at least one unusual toxic contaminant never before seen in any of those conventionally produced batches.

Although there is no conclusive proof that EMS resulted from genetic engineering, the link has not been ruled out; and many experts think it likely that whatever toxins caused the disease were unexpected side effects of the gene-splicing procedure. It is well-recognized this procedure can alter cellular activity and generate novel toxins, as the statements in the next section show. (See also T.J. Simat, et. al. "Synthesis, Formation and Occurrence of Contaminants in Biotechnologically Manufactured L-Tryptophan," Proceedings of the 9th International Meeting on Tryptophan Research, Hamburg, Germany, 10-14th Oct., 1998). The main reason a definitive answer has not been reached is that the relevant evidence in Showa Denko's laboratory was destroyed before it could be examined.

FDA scientists confirm that the bioengineering process might have caused the EMS. On September 27, 1991, Dr. James Maryanski, Coordinator of FDA's Biotechnology Working Group, discussed the matter with other government officials. According to his record of the meeting: "I said that we have no new information, that we do not yet know the cause of EMS nor can we rule out the engineering of the organism." (emphasis added). (FDA Administrative Record at 22,923) When directly questioned, Dr. Maryanski continues to acknowledge that bioengineering cannot be ruled out. (FDA Public Meeting on Bioengineered Foods, Washington, D.C. November 30, 1999)

FDA Response: On July 18, 1991, Dr. Douglas L. Archer, Deputy Director of FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), testified before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations about the L-Tryptophan tragedy. He said the incident confirmed the FDA's warnings about the hazards of many health food supplements and that the deaths and injuries "demonstrate the dangers inherent in the various health fraud schemes that are being perpetrated on segments of the American Public." Dr. Archer's prepared remarks never indicated that the toxic batches of L-Tryptophan had been produced through genetic engineering, nor did he once raise the possibility it was this process rather than any presumed problems with L-Tryptophan supplements in general that was the cause of the illnesses.

On May, 29 1992 the FDA formally recognized genetically engineered foods to be safe and declared they do not require safety testing.

SNIP

[HuckleB]

262. And you offer up one of your usual attempts at distraction.

Boring.

[pnwmom]

266. Right. Personal comments are so much more useful than actual logic or data. n/t

[HuckleB]

272. Logic and data are only useful to you...

if you can ignore all of it that goes against your preconceived notions.

Until you give up that philosophy....

[pnwmom]

277. Your only contribution to a reasoned discussion was a link to an industry site.

[HuckleB]

285. Nope.

Not true.

PS: http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/09/12/union-of-concerned-scientists-asserts-broad-safety-and-environmental-benefits-of-gmos/

[get the red out]

179. If we have to shill for big Ag

And worship at the alter of whatever science forces on us to be a "liberal", I guess I'm just done being a liberal.

I am so sick and tired of liberalism becoming more and more exclusive and less accepting of anyone who is spiritual in any way, or suspicious of poorly tested scientific manipulation of our food, and other ideas that have not been given sanction from some kind of place "on high".

I guess this is how the fundamentalist Christians rule the right with their unquestionable iron hand. Iron hands tend to repel more than they attract.

Call me an uneducated fool all you wish, I simply do not give a flying fuck. I am sick and tired of the iron hand of CONFORMITY OR ELSE. It has become utterly disgusting.

[grahamhgreen]

195. IF GMO'S WERE GOOD FOR YOU - THEY WOULD WANT THEM TO BE LABELED! Not going in my body.

[HuckleB]

213. They are as good for you as any other type of food.

Just because some have created unjustified fear about them does not justify labeling them in order to further foment that unjustified fear.

[truebrit71]

216. Absolute BULLSHIT.

Complete, total and UTTER bullshit.

[HuckleB]

222. Here's the thing.

You clearly believe that. But the science of the matter doesn't give a crap. It's true whether you want to believe it or not.

[truebrit71]

224. And the science says GMO's are BAD....

...seriously...Google is your friend...

Not the Monsanto "science", but actual, REAL science...

[HuckleB]

227. No, it doesn't.

Google is quite good at leading people to fear-mongering, naturalistic fallacy following nonsense.

It appears to have led you there. Don't request others to do the same. That's just wrong.

Or you could actually look into the matter...

http://ensia.com/articles/an-organic-farmer-and-a-geneticist-walk-into-a-field/

http://www.biofortified.org/genera/guide/

[truebrit71]

237. Yes it does.

Wait...now Google is bad as well?

i looked into the matter...

http://www.nongmoproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/GM-Crops-just-the-science.pdf

Lots of sciencey-type of stuff in there...

[HuckleB]

240. You found a fear-mongering site pushing BS pseudoscience.

You just shot yourself in the foot. Come on. Are you really that out of it?

[truebrit71]

244. You posted a response not having read the material.

Very revealing.

[HuckleB]

247. You clearly did not read the links I posted to sites that actually dig into the science.

The name of your site is all anyone needs to see to know what kind of nonsense it's pushing. This crap is a dime a dozen. I'm not new here. You've got to spend some time with the real science. You can't push BS.

[truebrit71]

257. "You've got to spend some time with the real science"...

...which is what was presented in the link which you blatantly disregarded....

The name of the site could be "I like to bathe in puppy dander" it doesn't alter the science that is presented in the report you didn't bother to read.

YOU are the one pushing the BS...because I DID read the report, and it clearly states that YOUR position that GMO's are fucking fantastic is complete and utter nonsense...

[HuckleB]

261. NO!

The site you pushed is pushing pseudoscience nonsense. It is not discussing things honestly, looking at it from peer review, context, etc...

You have completely shown that you are offering nothing but complete and total intellectual dishonesty.

[truebrit71]

265. Without reading the report...damn that is scientific...

If you read the actual report you would see that the conclusions are based on actual scientific tests and everything!!!

[HuckleB]

268. So you think you can push crap upon others and then make excuses when they point that it's crap.

You haven't read one thing I've posted. You didn't understand my answer, and you want me to read something that is very common on the Internet. Something that has been pushed on many people before. Why would you do that, unless you just don't give a crap about other people?

[truebrit71]

289. You haven't read it, but offer your opinion...tell me again how I'M the one that's full of crap...

[HuckleB]

290. Once again you prove that haven't read any of my posts.

You haven't read the fact that this site is clearly a propaganda site. You haven't acknowledged that, which shows a great deal of dishonesty. You haven't read any of the links I've posted. You've lied about answers I've given. You've basically done nothing but spam the board with pointless fear.

You seem to think that's cool. I find it damaging to humans.

Good bye.

[truebrit71]

294. As previously stated the site can be whatever it wants, the report, with it's SCIENCE...

..is neither propaganda or spam...

But seeing as you haven't even bothered to read it why should I bother...

Also, if we are talking about source materials, why did you link to an opinion piece of a right-wing rag in the UK to bolster your Pro-GMO stance? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black....

I find shilling for companies whose sole purpose is inflating their bottom-line at the expense of the environment and public health to be highly distasteful.

FYI, it is GMO products that are "damaging to humans"...I am amazed that you that's cool.

[HuckleB]

301. No matter how many times you make the claim, it's not science.

That's just good old conspiracy theory BS.

You seem to think that you can push your lies over and over and they will magically become true.

It doesn't work that way. Get out from under your propaganda, learn how the scientific process work, and how scientific consensus is developed.

Stop scaring your fellow humans for no good reason. You are doing harm.

[truebrit71]

303. READ.THE.REPORT.

It has all sorts of science in it. You know, from real scientists and everything....

Stop LYING to your fellow humans...

[HuckleB]

311. Yes, it's fun to misquote actual science with the aim of misinforming others.

That's what pseudoscientists do. It's how they fool people.

Have you read any of the links I've given you?

Have you got anything that's actually peer-reviewed to support your pseudoscientific claims?

[grahamhgreen]

230. Then why don't you want them labeled?

[HuckleB]

234. Let's label every single method for changing the properties of plants!

Let's do that! It's the only thing that would make sense.

Now, the question is: What purpose would such labeling serve? What would it cost? If the answer to question one is worth the answer to question two, then let's go for it!

[grahamhgreen]

241. Can't answer my question? If it was good for you - they would want it to be labeled, heck, they'd

"NEW IMPROVED GMO CORN!!" all over the damn thing. Think about it.

[HuckleB]

243. Your question was answered.

I'm sorry you don't like the answer.

[grahamhgreen]

250. HAHAHA. You're not to be taken seriously then. That was a reply, not an answer.

[HuckleB]

255. So, I answer, but you pretend I didn't.

You push a debunked study, and tell me I'm not be taken seriously.

Something is not right here.

[grahamhgreen]

269. A reply is not an answer. If they were good for you,

why not label them as "New and Improved GMO Corn!"

Look at this marketing: "Whole Grain Guaranteed!' Hey, if GMO's were good for you, they would not hesitate to label it as such.

[HuckleB]

274. My reply is a complete and thorough answer.

Pushing fictional fear doesn't change that.

[grahamhgreen]

278. HAHAHAHAHAHA. BuhBye;) I hope they pay well!

[HuckleB]

281. How much do you make pushing unjustified fear upon the public?

Seriously.

[grahamhgreen]

282. Not enough! LOL

[HuckleB]

292. You mean "too much."

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/09/12/union-of-concerned-scientists-asserts-broad-safety-and-environmental-benefits-of-gmos/

[truebrit71]

302. Did Kenji help write that I wonder?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/07/friday-funny-the-newest-member-of-the-union-of-concerned-scientists/

[LanternWaste]

326. Interesting reply.

Interesting reply.

All answers are replies, however not all replies are answers... regardless of how we may rationalize otherwise.

[HuckleB]

329. Well, my reply was a very clear answer.

Are you pretending otherwise?

If so, on what basis?

[truebrit71]

249. Not you as well....

He refuses to answer mine as well...and I made it really simple too...

[grahamhgreen]

253. I've writtin him/her/it off as a paid corporate Shill at this point, LOL

[HuckleB]

256. Where's my check!?

It's clear that you can't discuss the issue. Why are you not honest enough to admit that?

The shill gambit is classic, btw.

[truebrit71]

260. That's the conclusion I have to draw as well....

...a blanket refusal to answer even the most straight forward question, and a knee-jerk response to anything that refutes their pro-GMP stance...

[HuckleB]

264. DERP!

"It's so cool to pretend that he didn't answer the questions!" DERP! DERP! DERP!

"It's so cool to keep pushing unjustified fear! Scaring people is so cool!" DERP! DERP! DERP!

[truebrit71]

267. Seriously, that's the best you've got?

Wow.....

[HuckleB]

270. Now that is a cute hat.

[grahamhgreen]

280. ROFL!!! OMG, I'm dying!!!!

[grahamhgreen]

235. Tumor pics and info:

French scientists have revealed that rats fed on GMO corn sold by American firm Monsanto, suffered tumors and other complications including kidney and liver damage. When testing the firm’s top brand weed killer the rats showed similar symptoms.

The French government has asked its health and safety agency to assess the study and had also sent it to the European Union's food safety agency, Reuters reports.

"Based on the conclusion…, the government will ask the European authorities to take all necessary measures to protect human and animal health, measures that could go as far as an emergency suspension of imports of NK603 maize in the European Union," the French health, environment and farm ministries said in a joint statement.

Researchers from the University of Caen found that rats fed on a diet containing NK603 – a seed variety made tolerant to amounts of Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller – or given water mixed with the product, at levels permitted in the United States – died earlier than those on a standard diet. http://rt.com/news/monsanto-rats-tumor-france-531/

[HuckleB]

239. Really? You trotted out Seralini?

WOW! That's funny.

http://ensia.com/articles/an-organic-farmer-and-a-geneticist-walk-into-a-field/

[HuckleB]

283. AN ORGANIC FARMER AND A GENETICIST WALK INTO A FIELD

http://ensia.com/articles/an-organic-farmer-and-a-geneticist-walk-into-a-field/

[idwiyo]

308. K&R

[Democracyinkind]

310. No independent research, no science.

I'll wait until Monsanto et. al will fully allow the scientific method to decide the question. Until then, thanks but no thanks. Also, the fact that they so vehemently oppose labeling somehow says it all... When Monsanto goes around telling you that they exist for solving the world hunger problem, think twice.

Some actual science, soon, please.

[HuckleB]

313. None of your claims are true.

The scientific consensus is overwhelming. Even UCS acknowledges this.

[Democracyinkind]

315. Does Monsanto and co allow independent research on their products?

That was the only claim (!!) I made.

[Precisely]

316. Genetically engineered science

[Democracyinkind]

318. You failed to write science in all caps and therefore didn't convince me!!!11!!

[Precisely]

320. LINK PLEASE

YOU DIDN'T read that and you certainly won't read this EITHER!!!!!!1111

[HuckleB]

321. Really?

How about you try again.

[Democracyinkind]

340. Derp di derp?

[Precisely]

317. What's wrong with people

having information about how their food is grown, and by whom, to make their own decisions?

[HuckleB]

322. Nothing.

However, the people who claim they want information about it also seem to be repeatedly information given to them. Thus, this call for "information" seems to be a bit strange, to be kind.

[Precisely]

327. That sentence may be a bit off

but conveys that you don't know the people you're talking about. Or the concept of public information about food sourcing not being strange at all. Nor the demand for it. It's a big thing now and it ain't "Big Organic."

[HuckleB]

330. Nope.

It's quite clear that these folks don't want to know the fully story. They want to be up in arms about something they have decided to fear, despite the fact that the evidence does not justify the fear.

You can ignore everything, if you want, but that only means you're living in a world that doesn't actually exist.

[Precisely]

339. Who the $%&& are you TALKING about?

Total crapshoot of making wild claims about who thinks what.

[HuckleB]

345. So all these people pushing fear without evidence to justify fear aren't pushing fear?

See, there's this thing called actions and words. Pay attention to them.

[Precisely]

352. "all these people"

pay attention to how you make false claims about people you know nothing about. pay attention to your own fear-pushing.

[HuckleB]

361. So, you have nothing but lies to offer.

Got it.

[Precisely]

362. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

have fun

[Glassunion]

324. Where is the independent study showing that GMO food causes long term harm?

I have a simplistic view of GMO.

Comparing it to hybridization is a bad comparison.

1. Hybridization can happen naturally.
2. Genetic modification cannot.

My father from Ireland and my mother from Africa successfully created a hybrid... Me. All of this without science. Just a bit of red wine and a freaky night at a B&B in Cape May, and boom! You have me. Now neither of them, no matter how hard they tried, could have accomplished this with a jellyfish.

I'd rather just stick to my co-op of organic local farmers. I'd rather not have a multi-national, billions of dollar a year corporation make my diet choices for me.

[HuckleB]

331. The problem with that equation is that hybridization only happens via genetic modification.

You can't pretend otherwise.

[Glassunion]

333. No it does not.

Cross pollination of a species does occur naturally and requires no genetic modification to produce a hybrid of the two originals. Genetic modification includes the introduction of genes from two(or more) completely different species.

Yes, many hybrids are "created" by humans. But the process is through breeding (either seed/pollen or selective breeding in life forms). Think of wolves to pugs. They are are the same species.

Genetic modification involves the introduction of genes across species. This would never happen in nature. Think of tomatoes and fish.

[HuckleB]

334. Thus, you admit that don't understand how biology, chemistry and genetics work.

WOW!

Seriously, if you're this ignorant, why pretend otherwise? There's no good end to this kind of charade.

[Glassunion]

335. So please oh wise one enlighten me on the difference.

From my education, a hybrid was always used in reference to the offspring of sexual reproduction.

Genetic modification has nothing to do with sexual reproduction, but through the alteration of genetic material.

[HuckleB]

336. Uh, are you serious?

Reproduction changes happen via genetic changes. Much more generally, of course.

This is not hard stuff. There's no magic.

[Glassunion]

337. I feel it is you that does not understand the science.

Hybrid - any offspring resulting from the mating of two genetically distinct individuals.
Within hybrids you can have different species, however they are alway in the same Genus. This is how we get Mules by breeding a horse with a donkey. Or subspecies like Siberian and Bengal tigers will give you an intra-specific hybrid.

However in nature you cannot have an interordinal hybrid. This is where genetic modification comes in. This is where you end up with cabbage that produces scorpion venom, or can get your cat to glow in the dark, or an eel-salmon that grows up twice as fast. This is done through the introduction of interordinal genetic matiral, viruses, bacteria, or chemicals. These are all things that cannot occur in nature.

[Democracyinkind]

341. Just a kid playing tough with Dad's dictionary. nt

[HuckleB]

344. You're offering up a very simplistic definition that ignores how those things happen.

Pretending that you understand this is not cool.

[Glassunion]

348. If you can't explain it simply, you probably don't understand it well enough. - Albert Einstein

I am explaining it simply, because it is in fact quite simple.

Hybridization can and does occur in nature.
Genetic modification can not and does not occur in nature.

[HuckleB]

349. No, you're ignoring the cellular level, and that's just for starters.

You don't understand it, because understanding would bend your preconceived notions.

Cut the crap.

[Glassunion]

350. I am ignoring nothing.

And I have no preconceived notions. For starters, from that comment you must have the feeling that I am against all genetic modification. I am not. Medical science has grown by leaps and bounds since the introduction of genetic modification in the 70's. Genetic engineering has furthered our knowledge and understanding of biology, and the structures of life itself. I applaud and support our research scientists in exploring this field of study.

But you really show your ignorance when you claim that hybridization only happens via genetic modification. (post #324)

Fact: Humans have been selective breeding (producing a hybrids) for thousands of years.
Fact: Genetic modification has only existed since the 1970's.

[HuckleB]

359. Yes, you are.

You don't understand how this works at a cellular level and below.

Please show enough decency to admit that.

Your bad.

[Glassunion]

363. I'm afraid I am not.

I stand by my statements:
Fact: Humans have been selective breeding (producing a hybrids) for thousands of years.
Fact: Genetic modification has only existed since the 1970's.

Both statements are accurate and the basis of my opinions on GMO food.

[LanternWaste]

325. Big Ag certainly has good branding.

Big Ag certainly has good branding. However, I'm quite certain their justifications for fighting against labeling GMO food as such are righteous and valid...

[HuckleB]

332. Really?

If so, then why has fear won so many people over?

[Democracyinkind]

342. Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?

Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must end

....


Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research

[Romulox]

346. That the shills for the chem-companies don't want labels tells you everything you need to know.

Disgraceful OP and replies. "Democratic Underground"? More like "Corporate Mainstream".

[HuckleB]

347. Buddhist Economics and A GMO rethink by Pamela Ronald

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/food-matters/2013/09/06/buddhist-economics-and-a-gmo-rethink/

[villager]

351. Corporate woo -- "nothing to see here! Trust us! Dismiss all critics! This stuff is good for you!"

--is much more dangerous.

[Archae]

353. Bullshit.

[villager]

354. Yes. You're quite comfortable spouting corporate-sanctioned versions of it.

n/t

[Archae]

355. You really hate ACTUAL science, don't you...

[villager]

357. Says the poster with the one-word "bullshit" replies?

And the "Woo" headlines?

Reasoned, thoughtful, and sober-minded indeed!

[Archae]

358. Read above.

Actual science-based peer-reviewed studies say anti-GMO hysteria is just that.

Ths same anti-science woo is causing anti-polio vaccinations to be ended in several countries, with fervently-held beliefs that the polio vaccines cause sterility.
We, (that is, we who actually believe in science,) know that this belief is absolute bullshit.

Just like the anti-GMO bullshit.

Fine, stay in your cave away from the "naughty plant scientists."

[HuckleB]

360. +1,000,000,000 .... 000