Top Five Myths Of Genetically Modified Seeds, Busted

[ZombieHorde]

by Dan Charles October 18, 2012

I'll list the myths, and you can read about them in the link if that seems like a fun thing to do.

Myth 1: Seeds from GMOs are sterile.
Myth 2: Monsanto will sue you for growing their patented GMOs if traces of those GMOs entered your fields through wind-blown pollen.
Myth 3: Any contamination with GMOs makes organic food non-organic.
Myth 4: Before Monsanto got in the way, farmers typically saved their seeds and re-used them.
Myth 5: Most seeds these days are genetically modified.

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

I hope you enjoy either having your pro-gmo biases confirmed or saying why this article is so stupid.

[yellowcanine]

1. # 5 is actually true in that most crop seeds are the result of plant breeding.

I admit it is a fine point, but "genetically modified" is not the same as what has come to be known as GMO.

It is too bad that GEO - "Genetically engineered organisms" did not catch on instead. It is a lot more accurate.

[Atman]

16. So start using the term.

It's taking a while, but it's helping in the "Global Warming" vs. "Climate Change" debate.

We can't let Frank Luntz define everything for us.

[hootinholler]

32. That's why I've tried to purge my vocabulary of the word "Believe" and its variants.

The religious who reject Evolution and other proven theories often use a form of believe in their assertions. The thing is that for the religious, the word carries connotations that are unhelpful in the transfer of knowledge. Facts don't help, if anything they seem to reinforce their belie, er, views. Science isn't a belief system, it matters not who believes in it, unless you mean you believe the scientific method is sound.

It seems to me that we should work to counter the association of a religiously loaded word when talking about settled science. Rather than say I believe a study I suggest something similar to I accept those results. Or perhaps it's been repeated or confirmed.

Oh, and Fuck Frank Lutz.

[bhikkhu]

66. A good practice, and harder than one would think

The idea of a knowledge base built on reality is a surprisingly new thing in the human world, and much of our language (and the mental structures it relies on) evolved in a culture dependent more on interpersonal relations than relations with reality. The mechanics of trust, respect for authority, knowledge based on hearsay, conformity to accepted norms, etc, are ingrained into speech and thought.

Yet, we have evolved in the past, and the need to evolve how we think and communicate is probably more apparent and imperative now than it ever has been. We can choose to put the past behind, and relate to the world (including the human world) in a more effective way. It may go against the grain, but it is certainly a good practice.

[Raksha]

39. I suppose the result of the standard hybridization process

could be called a "genetically modified organism" and it wouldn't be inaccurate, but it normally isn't. It's simply called a hybrid, and GMO means a genetically engineered organism. I agree that's a more accurate term.

[pnwmom]

2. And an important truth:

when organic farmers growing non-GMO plants have Monsanto GMO's blown into their fields, and their produce is contaminated with them, their value as non-GMO is worthless.

[MindMover]

3. Myth #1 ....

That GMOs are safe for human consumption ....

"" ""

[Demo_Chris]

4. Why wouldn't they be safe? nt

[Orrex]

9. Because evil. Duh.

And the fact that GMO crops have been shown to have no harmful effect merely proves that the researchers are in on the cover-up.

Duh.

[Demo_Chris]

14. Good point. I need to start hecking ingredients for 'Pure Evil' nt

[HuckleB]

18. +1,000,000 ... 000

[HuckleB]

19. So, you're saying that all those countries with anti-gay legislation are right?

No, you couldn't be saying that, but... Hmm.

Hmm.

[MindMover]

20. Is this Mike ... LOL ....

what a flame thrower you are .....

[HuckleB]

21. Well, I do enjoy dousing a good logical fallacy.

I've been here for years, so I'm not "Mike."

[MindMover]

23. Are you one of the farmers who gets maybe sometimes 8-10% ...

higher crop yield using Monsanto seeds .... LOL... putting the consumer at risk for higher yields .... yeah right ....

[HuckleB]

36. Hmm. You're making up stats now?

And pretending the consumer is at risk, when GMOs are far more researched than any other form of plant that is genetically modified?

[MindMover]

37. Making up ... no, I do not make up .... I research and corroborate and verify ...

My studies include interviews with farmers and scientists who know a lot more than you or I ....

and all of your gmo studies have been conducted by whom ...?

[HuckleB]

38. No, you don't.

PS: http://www.gmosf.org/the-organic-industry/

[MindMover]

41. Well, he has 310 friends .... I have more than that on FB ....

I think you should step back and look at who you are supporting ....

You are basically a flame thrower looking for other flamers .... maybe you could help fund your friend at his site ....

so he can spread more bullshit ....

http://www.gofundme.com/6xlhr0

[HuckleB]

43. I'm sorry that honesty is not your thing.

It is my thing. It should be a progressive thing. Challenge yourself for once. That's how a progressive really shows who he or she is. Can you do it?

[MindMover]

44. LOL ... your comebacks are getting weaker ....

Go now and fund your friend and maybe you can add your name to his friend list, he needs you ... and your money of course ....

[HuckleB]

45. Awwwwwwwwwww.

I'm spending less energy on those who are easily cowed by the fear mongers, and who refuse to look at the full picture! Now why would that be? LOL!

BTW, can you actually, scientifically debunk anything Robert has ever posted? If not, why?

[MohRokTah]

5. I have two problems with GMOs

1) GMOs are typically designed to be resistant to herbicides (Roundup Ready) or to produce pesticides naturally (Bacillus thuringiensis as the primary genetic donor). I don't wish to consume food treated with herbicides or containing bT based pesticides produced genetically.

2) I have huge concerns with GMO salmon. They claim it will not get into the wild. It WILL get into the wild regardless of any promises they care to make.

[mike_c]

42. Bt is certified for organic crops....

It's one of the best pest control methods available for organic farmers, and has zero non-target toxicity. In human diets, it's just like any other nontoxic protein. Why on earth would you be concerned about eating it? It's been thoroughly studied and is completely benign to vertebrates. If you eat organic crops, you almost certainly eat Bt residue. It's harmless.

[MohRokTah]

47. When used as a natural addition to the soil.

Nobody knows what, if any, long term consequences of consuming food altered with Bt genetic material might be. I would prefer not to consume such food until the long term consequences are known.

[mike_c]

51. Bt is not typically used "as a natural addition to the soil" in organic farming....

It is applied to above ground plant tissues, usually in suspension as a water miscible spray.

http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/insect/05556.html

Bacillus thuringiensis
by W.S. Cranshaw1 (12/08)

Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a naturally occurring bacterial disease of insects. These bacteria are the active ingredient in some insecticides.

Bt insecticides are most commonly used against some leaf- and needle-feeding caterpillars. Recently, strains have been produced that affect certain fly larvae, such as mosquitoes, and larvae of leaf beetles.

Bt is considered safe to people and nontarget species, such as wildlife. Some formulations can be used on essentially all food Crops.

(snip)

The greatest use of Bt involves the kurstaki strain used as a spray to control caterpillars on vegetable Crops. In addition, Bt is used in agriculture as a liquid applied through overhead irrigation systems or in a granular form for control of European corn borer. The treatments funnel down the corn whorl to where the feeding larvae occur.

The only soil applications generally used are to control fungus gnat larvae.

I point these things out to highlight the degree of misinformation and poor understanding, along with scientific illiteracy, that plagues discussion of GMO crops. Less politely, you didn't know what you were talking about, but you were happy to spread misinformation as though it were fact. I'm sorry to put it that way, but there's no gentle way to say it.

[MohRokTah]

53. I use it on my lawn to control grubs.

It's important to get it deep into the roots.

I'd still prefer not to consume food altered with Bt genetic material until long term consequences of doing so are known.

And as of today, there is not a single GMO food on the market where long term consequences are understood.

I'll let the science sort it out before I consume it.

[mike_c]

59. ah-- that's actually a somewhat different matter than crop applications....

Bt strains are target pest specific, so the Bt used to control grubs in lawn care is not the same strain of Bt used to control most crop pests, which are (mostly) lepidopteran caterpillars. Grubs are coleopteran (beetle) larvae, and the Bt applied to control them has little impact on most leaf and stem pests. That's one of the good things about Bt-- it is not at all broad spectrum.

It's interesting that you've chosen Bt. Milky spore-- a different Bacillus species than Bt-- is the more usual choice for lawn grub bio-control. Milky spore usually has longer residual effects, although Bt in soil does last considerably longer than Bt exposed to sunlight on above-ground plant tissues.

[MohRokTah]

62. Again, this has little to do with potential long term risk of consuming GMO food.

Until that risk is known, I mitigate potential risk by refusing to consume such food.

[KurtNYC]

6. Nice flame bait.

I know you don't want to debate on the facts but here goes...

1. GMO seeds have a shorter period during which they can germinate, if less than the gap between one season and the next, they are un-usable.

2.

In a recent report, the Center for Food Safety found that as of December (2012), Monsanto had filed 142 patent infringement suits against 410 farmers and 56 small businesses, winning more than $23 million in judgments.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/monsanto-sued-farmer-gmo-wheat-article-1.1363332#ixzz2yzAjT1ee

3. Traces of GMO can make your crops un-exportable since many countries have bans in place. That is financial damage. And btw, yes, the process for USDA certification of organic crops demands that you protect them from neighboring farms' non-organic practices. The penalty is 3 years without certification which means about a 30% reduction in income.

4. See item #1

5. Most of the soy, corn and canola grown in the USA is GMO.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/monsanto-sued-farmer-gmo-wheat-article-1.1363332

[hedgehog]

7. The use of GMO seeds has several problems -

1. There is concern that GMO corn, for example, produces a pollen harmful to Monarch butterflies.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1999/04/toxic-pollen-bt-corn-can-kill-monarch-butterflies

2. The use of GMO crops encourages the use of herbicides and mono-cropping. The one leaves us all exposed to herbicides, the other exposes us to crop failures.

All in all, it's not the concept of genetically modified food that bothers me, it's the question of what happens to the environment when these crops with special characteristics not found in non-GMO are grown

[laundry_queen]

12. re: your last sentence

It seems to me that not too long ago Monsanto was claiming their crops wouldn't contaminate other people's crops. Clearly that was a lie. I think as it stands now, GMOs should be banned simply because of the ethics of the companies involved. Until they can get their shit in gear, they shouldn't be able to unleash an unknown like that on the environment.

[ZombieHorde]

25. The link you provided

is interesting to me. I definitely think that should be investigated further.

[hedgehog]

29. Check out the date - this has been documented since 1999!

Now the chickens have come home to roost, so to speak:

Monarch butterflies decline; migration may disappear

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/01/29/monarch-butterflies-decline/5028977/


I have a power line right of way on my property that is a field of milkweed half a mile long. Every fall for 30 years I've seen the monarchs stopping there on their way South - this year, not one monarch!

[mike_c]

48. beyond debunked....

1. There is concern that GMO corn, for example, produces a pollen harmful to Monarch butterflies.

The Agricultural Research Service of the USDA says no, unambiguously: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/btcorn/index.html#bt1 Like many "studies" suggesting negative ecological effects of Bt crops, the Cornell study you referenced was fatally flawed from the design stage onward.

Here is another report that debunks this myth: http://www.pnas.org/content/98/21/11937.full. An excerpt from the abstract:

"...laboratory and field studies show no acute toxic effects at any pollen density that would be encountered in the field.... This 2-year study suggests that the impact of Bt corn pollen from current commercial hybrids on monarch butterfly populations is negligible.

2. The use of GMO crops encourages the use of herbicides and mono-cropping. The one leaves us all exposed to herbicides, the other exposes us to crop failures.

There is no evidence to support such an assertion. In fact, the relationship is just the opposite, if anything-- GMOs are only economically viable within the context of pre-existing "modern" agricultural methods, including extensive mono-cropping. Want to know what REALLY encourages the use of herbicides and mono-cropping, at least in non-wind pollinated crops? Reliance upon managed pollination by honey bees, with their transportable hives. Wrap your head around that one.


What worries me about GMO Bt is that it increases exposure of pest populations to Bt and hastens the development of resistance to the best organic pest control currently available.

[proverbialwisdom]

8. Open letter to EU chief science advisor from Dr. Brian John: GMO safety claims are a "lie"

http://gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15308-eu-chief-science-adviser-s-gmo-safety-claims-are-a-lie

EU chief science adviser's GMO safety claims are a "lie"
on 14 February 2014

[img][/img]

There is abundant and unequivocal evidence of real harm from the growing of GMO crops and the consumption of GMO foods, writes Brian John in an open letter to Anne Glover.

To: Professor Anne Glover, Chief Scientific Adviser to the EC President, Office of José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission

From: Dr Brian John, 14 February 2014

Dear Professor Glover,

Your claim that there is no evidence of adverse GMO impacts is a lie

I look on myself as a member of the global scientific community, with a background in environmental research and a long list of contacts in academia and within environmental, health, and consumer NGOs. Many of my colleagues are directly involved in research in the GM field, and between them they have contributed hundreds of articles to the peer-reviewed literature.

In 2012 you wrote: "If we look at evidence from (more than) 15 years of growing and consuming GMO foods globally, then there is no substantiated case of any adverse impact on human health, animal health, or environmental health.&quot 1) This statement has been repeated (as you knew it would be) by many individuals and organizations interested in the promotion of GM crops and foods, but it is nonetheless a lie.

In 2013 you wrote: "There is no evidence that GM technologies are any riskier than conventional breeding technologies and this has been confirmed by thousands of research projects. Food produced with GM technology is very common in other parts of the world, without any evidence that this has been harmful to the people that consumed it or to the environment at large.&quot 2) With all due respect, that is a repetition of the same lie.

What literature do you read? And from whom do you obtain your scientific advice?

I wish to place on record that there is abundant and unequivocal published evidence, within and outside the peer-reviewed literature, of real harm to living organisms in the plant and animal kingdoms arising from the growing of GMO crops and the consumption of GMO foodstuffs. This material is freely available to any scientist who chooses to examine it, and many of the key publications are found within a list recently compiled and published by GMO Free USA.(3) I am not impressed when somebody in your position purports to be unaware of this very large body of evidence.

Of course, there are others lists of publications, some purporting to demonstrate harm associated with GMOs, and others purporting to show that they are safe. You refer to "thousands of research projects" and pretend that they all reach the same conclusion. That is of course nonsense. It is a sterile exercise to weigh up numbers and quality of papers for or against a proposition, and to claim that one set of papers is published in higher-ranking journals than another set. The point is that there is no consensus in the scientific community(4), and that it is absurd to retreat into a debate on what is "substantiated" and what is not. The fact of the matter is that there is a powerful case showing that GMOs are harmful, with the findings of many early papers substantiated and confirmed by subsequent research. To deny that case is to perpetrate a falsehood.

Will you please now retract your 2012 statement and accept that there is abundant evidence showing adverse impacts (both direct and indirect) on human and animal health and on the environment arising from the growing and consumption of GMO products?

And will you also issue an apology to those members of the research community whose publications (in peer-reviewed journals showing harm arising from the use of GMOs) you have so studiously ignored?

I look forward to your positive response on this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Brian John

Notes:

(1) http://www.euractiv.com/innovation-enterprise/chief-scientifc-adviser-policy-p-interview-514074
(2) http://www.euractiv.com/science-policymaking/eu-chief-scientist-unethical-use-interview-530692
(3) http://gmofreeusa.org/gmos-are-top/gmo-science/
(4) http://www.ensser.org/media/0713/

http://gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15210-nearly-300-experts-agree-gmos-not-proven-safe
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Scientists_Declare_No_Consensus_on_GMO_Safety.php

[WhiteTara]

10. Thanks for the link...National Petroleum Radio

is not compromised as a real source, so stop saying that.

[laundry_queen]

11. Not sure about that guy

He reminds me of CNN - tries to sound unbiased but actually is.

#1. I know this. My yard is full of GMO canola that won't be killed. Every spring I get to go around pulling it. This is also how GMOs contaminate other fields.
#2. Maybe not but if you replant those seeds, then they will sue your ass. Even in this article the author has to twist himself into pretzels to make this one a 'myth'.
#3. It makes an organic crop worthless. No one who buys organic wants GMO. Therefore if a GMO crop doesn't have pesticides on it, it's technically 'organic' but still totally fucking worthless to the organic farmer.
#4. Sure, in the *very* recent past most farmers have been buying seed from big ag.... It is part of the problem overall, not necessarily part of a GMO problem (except for if they replant GMO seeds, of course). It just so happens a lot of the seeds being bought every year are from the same unethical corporations that push GMO seeds. Also a lot of farmers that did typically save their seeds, are now worried if they do they will have their asses sued if their fields is contaminated.
#5. Pretzels again. While most seeds for different foods aren't, the grains that make up the vast majority of our diet are. So, percentage-wise, we eat a lot of GMO if we eat anything with grains or grain products in it. Corn is the worst.

[dilby]

13. Isn't the oposition to GMO woo anyways? n/t

[HuckleB]

17. For the most part, yes.

It's a technology, so it's always possible that a company may put forth a particular GMO product that is not valuable and safe.

[HuckleB]

15. This bit busts a few more GMO myths.

http://magazine.ucr.edu/155

It's interesting to see how people let their fears run wild, instead of taking a deep breath, stepping back and assessing the situation fully before wasting time and energy.

[Atman]

22. I view this much like the "Climate change" debate.

What is wrong with erring on the side of caution? Clearly, we've created organisms that never existed in nature. So we also don't know what they will eventually do. Will you turn into a mutant tomorrow? Probably not. Will all the bees die tomorrow (oops, still discussing cell towers and such in relationship to bees). The point is, we're introducing weird stuff into the environment that we really don't know much about. Forgive me if I'm not comforted by the press release drafted by the marketing department of a multi-billion dollar corporation. I'm funny that way.

[ZombieHorde]

24. GMOs have helped feed starving people.

I am unaware of any peer-reviewed studies saying GMO food on the market is linked to anything bad.

[Atman]

26. Cheetos have helped feed starving forum posters.

Not being flip, seriously. Actual real natural food helped food starving people for years. We're not talking about "feeding starving people." The discussion is actually about shareholder profits. I'm pretty sure the benefits to "the starving people" aren't #1 on the priority list at the annual shareholder's meeting.

[ZombieHorde]

27. There is no replacement being offered.

It's GMOs or nothing right now. Starvation would increase if GMOs ended today. You and I would be fine, but many would perish.

[Atman]

30. And that is the business model. Right?

Lock them in to Monsanto's GMO seeds. Poor farmers have no choice but to keep buying from the same dealer. Like a crack addict, the first orders are free. Until you need more. This is EXACTLY Monsanto's business model. Maybe there are other giant multi-national seed companies competing with Monsanto, but i can't find too many.

[Xithras]

33. The difference between the GMO debate and the Climate Change debate: "Science!"

Peer-reviewed scientific research overwhelmingly supports the theory that climate change is real, and that human activities are exacerbating it.

There is no peer-reviewed research suggesting that GMO crops are having any harmful impact on our environment, and no plausible scientific theories indicating that our current GMO activities will lead to anything harmful.

The anti-gmo movement is the left's equivalent to creationism. Some noisy groups came up with a handful of "what-if" scenarios that morphed into a series of theories backed purely by speculation and "belief", but not science. It's woo.

I'm probably one of the more radical environmentalists on DU, but I'm also a scientist and I believe that environmentalism should be founded in science and fact. The anti-GMO movement doesn't score on either of those two points, so I try not to associate with them. There are plenty of REAL environmental problems in our world that need our attention.

[HuckleB]

49. +1,000,000 ... 000

[Glassunion]

52. Science!

I'm not saying that GMO is bad. In fact there are many cases where GMO is great. The genetic modification of bacteria in the production of insulin has been a god send to diabetics.

"There is no peer-reviewed research suggesting that GMO crops are having any harmful impact on our environment, and no plausible scientific theories indicating that our current GMO activities will lead to anything harmful." an absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.

There have been studies, they have been peer reviewed, however the issue is that there are no long term studies. Despite the widespread use of GMOs by many countries, the need for biosafety research should be a concern. Unfortunately, lack of stringent standards, international harmonization, and transparency, as well as remaining claims of confidentiality on biosafety-relevant data places additional burdens on regulatory agencies. If I modify a tomato today, and the FDA rules it safe, does that mean that every modified tomato I grow will be safe to grow in all environments and conditions?

We all know that plants grow differently in different environments. Soil, sun, and rain make a huge difference in how a plant will react in its environment. Just look at the mighty grape in France. A pinot noir grape can make for a good wine. I prefer Bourgogne. The geology and climate make a big difference in the make up of that grape.

So would my tomato, that was modified here in the US and grown in New Jersey soil (best for tomatoes... sorry Sacramento), and given the seal of approval by the government, be absolutely safe to grow in other regions, with different soil compositions, and climates? Would that tomato be guaranteed to no have any adverse complications on the ecosystems in which it is planted?

[Xithras]

64. The scientific method does not "prove" negatives. Example: "Prove creationism wrong."

You cannot do it. Nobody can. Science cannot be used to prove a negative unless the outcome and all input factors are already known. You have just demonstrated one of the core similarities between the creationists and the anti-GMO protesters. Your standard is impossible to achieve.

Science establishes standards of certainty that vary from topic to topic. In the case of the biological sciences, the standard is generally agreed to be a "preponderance of evidence". In the case of GMO crops, there have been thousands of peer reviewed studies attesting to their safety, and zero peer reviewed studies attributing human or animal harm from GMO's themselves, or offering credible evidence of environmental damage. Heck, late last year a team of Italian scientists summarized nearly 1800 of them in a meta-study just to refute the oft-repeated belief that there are "no studies showing its safety". The file can be downloaded by anyone on the Internet: http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Ge-crops-safety-pub-list-1.xls

As one scientist pointed out last year, there are roughly twice as many peer reviewed studies saying that "GMO is safe" as there are saying "Global warming is real". It's odd how the "science" is good enough for the latter, but not enough for the former.

And as for your tomato example: The preponderance of evidence says that the introduction of a GMO tomato into a new region will not be any more harmful than the introduction of a non-GMO tomato into that same environment. In both cases, the plant is an introduced species and will impact the environment. Either one has the potential to do damage. That's one of the inherent dangers of modern agricultural systems, and has no real bearing on GMO vs. non-GMO.

[MohRokTah]

67. The scientific method is utilized to demonstrate there are no observable long term risks, however.

And that is what is missing here.

Where there are unknown risks and participation is mandatory, there can be no mitigation of such potential risks.

Where there are unknown risks and participation is voluntary, mitigation of potential risk is as simple as non-participation.

Applying these simple principles to GMOs, since there are unknown long term risks, mitigation is as simple as non-participation (just don't eat it).

[Glassunion]

69. You're missing my point.

My point is that not all GMO crops are the same. Not all GMO crops are tested to the extent that they should. I also never stated anywhere that there are no studies showing its safety.

However you are not correct that there are zero peer reviewed studies attributing human or animal harm from GMO's themselves. But they are limited, not because the science is not there, but that a lack of open access to testing materials; limited resources for independent research; lack of transparency concerning the transgenic constructs in use; lack of consistency in the application of evidentiary and interpretive standards; and no clear processes ensuring accountability and consistency in assessment processes. Why does a regulatory body have to take legal action to get the producer to release their research?

My main point is that because of the research papers showing that MON863 is safe for human consumption does not mean that MON810 is. I feel that genetic modification is a great benefit to our society. I feel that in the future diseases will be cured or effectively treated by modifying our own genes. But I personally don't want to be the science experiment to determine the long term effects of consuming a modified organism.

[HuckleB]

46. You have this backwards.

The science shows that humans are causing climate change. The science also shows that GMOs are safe. Of course, it must be done on a case by case basis. Still, if you buy the evidence that climate change is real, why would you also buy the fear mongering about GMOs?

[Faryn Balyncd]

28. The biggest myth is that NPR is "liberal".

Since Bush, NPR's role has been to dress up corporate and RW propaganda memes in pseudo-centrist packaging.

By taking on this role, NPR is more dangerous than Fox, which no-one views as anything other than what they are.

[Atman]

31. ^^ +1000

It drives me nuts when people talk about NPR as being "Liberal." One of Bush's first coups. He installed his buddies onto the board of NPR, while all the Fox Watchers still screamed that it was "Liberal."

[dipsydoodle]

34. #4 was and remains true in poorer countries

and even India come to that.

[Whisp]

35. David vs. Monsanto

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/12/25/percy-schmeiser-farmer-who-beat-monsanto.aspx

[HuckleB]

40. Mercola!!!!!

You do realize that Mercola makes Monsanto look like a saint in comparison, right?

Just checking.

[FiveGoodMen]

50. From the article...

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

...

The idea, however, is inspired by a real-world event. Back in 1999, Monsanto sued a Canadian canola farmer, Percy Schmeiser, for growing the company's Roundup-tolerant canola without paying any royalty or "technology fee." Schmeiser had never bought seeds from Monsanto, so those canola plants clearly came from somewhere else. But where?

...

As an experiment, he'd actually sprayed Roundup on about three acres of the field that was closest to a neighbor's Roundup Ready canola. Many plants survived the spraying, showing that they contained Monsanto's resistance gene — and when Schmeiser's hired hand harvested the field, months later, he kept seed from that part of the field and used it for planting the next year.

This convinced the judge that Schmeiser intentionally planted Roundup Ready canola. Schmeiser appealed. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that Schmeiser had violated Monsanto's patent, but had obtained no benefit by doing so, so he didn't owe Monsanto any money. (For more details on all this, you can read the judge's decision. Schmeiser's site contains other documents.)

So why is this a myth? It's certainly true that Monsanto has been going after farmers whom the company suspects of using GMO seeds without paying royalties. And there are plenty of cases — including Schmeiser's — in which the company has overreached, engaged in raw intimidation, and made accusations that turned out not to be backed up by evidence.

[HuckleB]

54. Links? Proof? (And not from the usual anti-GMO goofballs.)

[FiveGoodMen]

55. As I said, from the article linked in the OP...

[HuckleB]

57. So, you have nothing. Got it. Thanks.

[Whisp]

56. Percy Schmeiser is not a goofball.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/12/25/percy-schmeiser-farmer-who-beat-monsanto.aspx

wtf. I can't figure out who is joking here and who is not.

[HuckleB]

58. Yes, he is, as is anything posted on Mercola.

Do you not know what sites to avoid if you don't want to be fooled by fictions?

[Whisp]

60. Well I saw that 'fiction' Percy Schmeister telling his story a few years back.

How do you account for that?

And Monsanto to me is about as lovable as George W Bush, so maybe it's best I not look at you.

[laundry_queen]

65. No kidding.

Well known story here in Canada that was on CBC and CTV when the ruling came out. I suppose CBC and CTV are woo now.

[hunter]

61. Monoculture, high intensity pesticide, herbicide, and synthetic fertilizer use all blow chunks.

GMO's are more of the same shit.

Modern industrial scale farms are environmental wastelands. The Mojave desert has more diverse life than the cornfields of the Midwest.

Sure, we humans can grow more and more food, destroy more and more of the environment, but what's our goal? To turn the entire surface of the planet into a great throbbing mass of human protoplasm?

That's not going to happen. This civilization is approaching it's peak population.

We can choose to control our population in pleasant ways, or we can watch in horror as climate change, wars, famine, and disease cull our numbers in very ugly ways.

We humans always avoid looking at the true problem. The problem is not to grow more, cheaper food, the problem is too many people, and too many inequities in the distribution of food. The problem is not fuels for our automobiles, the problem is too many automobiles. And so on...

[jazzimov]

63. Then there should be no issue with labeling.

I also think the "Organic" labeling should be more definitive.
But, the article purposely avoids the whole labeling issue. I don't care if others eat GMO foods, I would just like to know what I am putting into my body.
Plus, it only deals with GMO seeds that are Round-Up resistant - it doesn't deal with the GMO seeds that are genetically altered otherwise - including those with inherent pest-resistant modifications.
Plus, it doesn't explain why so many countries have banned GMO's.
Plus, it doesn't deal with the whole "natural selection" process, wherein most of the pests have naturally modified to eat the GMO's, rendering their efforts moot.

I keep remembering a former nutrionist, who related the story of a client who grew regular lettuce and GMO lettuce almost next to each other. He noticed that the cute, fluffy bunnies would raid and eat up the natural lettuce; but wouldn't eat the GMO lettuce even though it wasn't targeting them. He wanted to switch to the GMO lettuce exclusively so that he wouldn't have to trap and kill any of those cute, fluffy bunnies. My nutrionist recommened he trap and kill the fluffy bunnies. Not because she hated cute, fluffy bunnies - as she said, think about it:

There's a REASON the cute fluffy bunnies are NOT eating the GMO lettuce.

Personally, I'd just like the choice. But, without labeling, how do I know?

[ZombieHorde]

71. I think you touch on part of the problem with labeling.

GMOs have many different forms, so a legal definition can be tricky. A group of scientists could probably come up with a workable definition for their purposes, but a legal definition would probably be written by lawyers for other interests.

[wiggs]

68. Each one of the five are deceptive. I find the article awful, clearly not journalism. For

instance....Myth 1 is probably a strawman. I don't know that claims of sterility is a big argument against GMOs at all. Sterility isn't an issue as far as I know. However, many seeds of hybrids (GMO or not) aren't like their parents at all. If you try to save seeds of hybrids, you might get some seeds that are useful, some not.

That's not the case with heirloom/open pollination seeds that are mostly similar to their parents and therefore farmers and homeowners can save their seeds for next season.

[ZombieHorde]

70. I've seen arguments based around sterility,

and I found those arguments a bit compelling until I learned that wasn't a very big issue.