A few questions for the anti GMO crowd

[Quixote1818]

Are most of you against all GMO's or do you just want more testing and oversight as well as labels? If so we are probably on the same page.

Being against all GMO's no matter what seems pretty close minded and anti-science to me but I can fully understand suspicion of companies like Monsanto. Still, Monsanto's work and the work of dedicated scientists not affiliated with Monsanto who are trying to create drought resistant, vitamin rich crops to save lives are two totally separate issues.

Secondly, what exactly is your logical argument against GMO's that test as safe for consumption and for their impacts on the environment? I understand suspicions about the testing but if there was testing you could trust that showed a GMO plant to be safe, would you be okay with that?


Third, what if a plant sprayed with roundup for hundreds of years naturally became resistant to it? What if those that developed the resistance over time had exactly the same gene make up as those done in the lab quickly? For example, if a chemist was to look at the plant that took on a new gene through natural selection and gained the resistance naturally and a plant that was given the gene by scientists in the lab and saw no difference in their chemical make up; then would you still be against the plant done in the lab?

I fear there are two polarized groups here on DU but there shouldn't be. There should be a way to find common ground. I know there will be suspicions and that is probably a good thing, but is there a way that you might ever believe that something has been tested enough to be safe or are you just wanting to see GMO's completely banned no matter what?

I get the sense there are two types of "anti GMO" folks on DU getting lumped into one group and that is un-fortunate. There are the open minded, critical thinking ones who want more testing and are suspicious of Monsanto (not really anti-GMO but suspicious of how well they have been tested) and the close minded ones who won't ever except any form of GMO because the natural selection was done in a dish and they just have strong opposition to anything not done naturally.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. No and no.

Yes, I'd love labels, yes, I want more testing and oversight, but that's not all I'd like. I'd like to see an end to the type of GMO that is designed to allow specific herbicides to be used to sterilize large areas of any plant other than those designed to be resistant. I think that's a horrible way to alter our environment.

Second, as I've pointed out in other comments, a more useful type of GM alteration would be to create plants that better store water in their root system to allow them to better withstand drought or lesser dry spells.

What is my logical argument? See prior comment. It's easy to prove something is dangerous (or safe) in one specific way, if you test for that specific thing. But we don't even know all of the ways in which things can be dangerous in our own complex biologic system, so we don't even know all of the tests to perform. Certainly, there are plenty of studies that say that GM is 'safe' in all of the obvious ways for which we have tested so far.

Again, I don't think I've ever seen anyone on DU call for an actual 'ban' on GM, although I'm willing to admit the possibility exists that some few individuals are that extreme. But I think that's such a rare position that I think even bringing it up makes one wonder about 'straw men'.

[killbotfactory]

42. My store sells sustainably grown beef that have been trying to be certified non-GMO

Although the feed they are finished on is GMO free, there is round-up ready alfalfa growing wild all over the pasture they are raised on and so they cannot get labelled gmo-free by the non gmo project.

The overuse of herbicides/pesticides is an issue by itself. That there are GMO crops specifically designed to allow indiscriminate use of them is pretty reckless.

There are many places in the country where non-native plants run wild and threaten native species. There is essentially nothing stopping a poorly implemented GMO with destructive qualities from doing the same, or from artificially encouraging superweeds from evolving along side their use. Much like we overuse antibiotics for similar reasons, we shouldn't overuse pesticides/herbicides.

I don't believe there is much danger in terms of health and of GMO's themselves, but since they are overwhelmingly designed to allow ecologically destructive farming practices (or practices that make the farmer highly dependent on giant companies), people shouldn't try to shame others into accepting them.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

47. Don't even get me started on non-natives :P

The #$%^^&*&* honeysuckle is everywhere now, crowding out native species right and left, and I hear kudzu is creeping ever northward as well.

[whistler162]

63. It won't be because all domesticated

cattle has been genetically modified, mostly by cross breeding with other sub-species.

Not to mention all our fruits and vegetables.

There is no gmo-free food.

[jberryhill]

2. LMK when you addreas the "labeling crowd"

I don't have a problem with GMO's.

I don't have a problem with labeling them as such.

However, mine appears to be a tiny island on DU.

The answer to "What is wrong with labeling GMO food?" is not "there is nothing wrong with GMO food" and the amount of effort these two "crowds" spend talking past each other is amazing.

This is endemic to our political conversation.

"I don't think kids should be subject to organized prayer endorsed by public school."

"Why do you hate God and religious people?"

"I don't think shelling Gaza is an appropriate response to terror attacks which I also deplore"

"Why do you hate Jews?"

It's tiring.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

4. Actually, the answer to 'What is wrong with labeling GMO food?' is

it might interfere with specific companies' profits.

At which point various anti-labelers throw accusations of trying to 'pick and choose' winners in the market, ignoring the fact that preventing such labeling from existing is also 'picking and choosing' winners in the market, specifically those who are the biggest producers of GM foods.

[DocwillCuNow]

3. Lowering the amount of mycotoxins in the food we consume is a good thing since

mycotoxins are associated with cancer. How to accomplish that is debatable. Warming the planet will no doubt increase the percentage of rot and mycotoxins in corn, and so it goes.

[TexasProgresive]

5. What if

GMO's are perfectly safe to humans and animals but since GMO seeds are patented, the belong to the patent holder. Then no farmer can save seed from GMO crops because the owner can have them arrested for theft or sue for damages. Is this a good thing?

[Mariana]

7. It's worse than that.

Farmers who never planted GMO's have had GMO pollen blow into their fields. Their seed becomes contaminated with the GMO dna. If they then plant the seed, they can be sued. They may also lose sales if they're growing for customers who don't want to buy GMO's.

The fact that this goes on is enough reason all by itself to refuse to purchase GMO's.

[mike_c]

9. except that hasn't happened....

In a June 2013 ruling, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC said it was inevitable, as the farmers’ argued, that contamination from Monsanto’s products would occur. Yet the appeals panel also said the plaintiffs do not have standing to prohibit Monsanto from suing them should the company’s genetic traits end up on their holdings "because Monsanto has made binding assurances that it will not 'take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto biotech genes (because, for example, some transgenic seed or pollen blew onto the grower's land).'"

(snip)

"Monsanto never has and has committed it never will sue if our patented seed or traits are found in a farmer's field as a result of inadvertent means," said Kyle McClain, the Monsanto's chief litigation counsel, according to Reuters.

Proximal source for the above is RT, but it was originally Reuters.

The case most often cited in support of this claim is the 2004 Monsanto Canada vs Schmeiser. From Wikipedia:

The case drew worldwide attention and is widely misunderstood to concern what happens when farmers' fields are accidentally contaminated with patented seed. However by the time the case went to trial, all claims had been dropped that related to patented seed in the field that was contaminated in 1997; the court only considered the GM canola in Schmeiser's 1998 fields, which Schmeiser had intentionally concentrated and planted from his 1997 harvest. Regarding his 1998 crop, Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination.

In other words, Schmeiser deliberately infringed, not accidentally due to "contamination."

The case is widely cited or referenced by the anti-GM community in the context of a fear of a company claiming ownership of a farmer’s crop based on the inadvertent presence of GM pollen grain or seed.[13][14] "The court record shows, however, that it was not just a few seeds from a passing truck, but that Mr Schmeiser was growing a crop of 95–98% pure Roundup Ready plants, a commercial level of purity far higher than one would expect from inadvertent or accidental presence. The judge could not account for how a few wayward seeds or pollen grains could come to dominate hundreds of acres without Mr Schmeiser’s active participation, saying ‘. . .none of the suggested sources could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality evident from the results of tests on Schmeiser’s crop’" - in other words, even if the original presence of Monsanto seed on his land in 1997 was inadvertent, the crop in 1998 was entirely purposeful.

[Mariana]

16. Your post comfirms what I said.

Farmers can be sued for accidental contamination. Monsanto hasn't done it yet, and they say they never will, but the fact remains that "the appeals panel also said the plaintiffs do not have standing to prohibit Monsanto from suing them should the company’s genetic traits end up on their holdings."

That doesn't address the potential for lost sales, or of having to buy expensive new seed each year instead of saving it, because of contamination. The court agreed that it is "inevitable, as the farmers argued, that contamination from Monsanto’s products would occur."

[mike_c]

18. and an asteroid could fall on us all tomorrow....

You do realize that arguing "it COULD happen" as a counter to "it never has" is rather weak sauce, I hope. It's anxiety verses demonstrable reality. This is one reason why I don't think the anti-GMO movement can ever be convinced to approach the topic rationally. It's fear based, and irrational fears are the most intractable of all.

Monsanto has never sued anyone for accidental infringement. They've said that they never will. It's highly unlikely that they could win if the infringement was indeed accidental and of little consequence. Those are the realities, yet the anti-GMO movement responds to them with fearful fantasies.

[wisechoice]

60. what about these?

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

[TexasProgresive]

20. Yes, there is that, too.

I think that GMO is fundamentally evil.

[Cha]

51. AbsofreakingLutely.. and amazing that some non corporate types can't see that.. and not just

because Monsanto and types are corporatists of the worst kind.

A Victory..

Sweet victory for Mexico beekeepers as Monsanto loses GM permit

A small group of beekeepers in Mexico has inflicted a blow on biotech giant Monsanto, which has halted the company’s ambitions to plant thousands of hectares of soybeans genetically modified to resist the company’s pesticide Roundup.

A district judge in the state of Yucatán last month overturned a permit issued to Monsanto by Mexico’s agriculture ministry, Sagarpa, and environmental protection agency, Semarnat, in June 2012 that allowed commercial planting of Roundup-ready soybeans.

The permit authorised Monsanto to plant its seeds in seven states, over more than 253,000 hectares (625,000 acres), despite protests from thousands of Mayan farmers and beekeepers, Greenpeace, the Mexican National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity, the National Commission of Natural Protected Areas and the National Institute of Ecology.

In withdrawing the permit, the judge was convinced by the scientific evidence presented about the threats posed by GM soy crops to honey production in the Yucatán peninsula, which includes Campeche, Quintana Roo and Yucatán states. Co-existence between honey production and GM soybeans is not possible, the judge ruled.

Mexico is the world’s six biggest producer and third largest exporter of honey. About 25,000 families on the Yucatán peninsula depend on honey production. This tropical region produces about 40% of the country’s honey, almost all of which is exported to the EU. This is not small change: in 2011, the EU imported $54m (£32m) worth of Mexican honey.

More:
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2014/aug/08/sweet-victory-beekeepers-monsanto-gm-soybeans

Judi Lynn http://www.democraticunderground.com/110832710

[StopTheNeoCons]

6. Here's why they are bad

There are 2 MAJOR ways that corn and soybeans are genetically modified:
1. They are immune to Roundup, so they can literally be grown in a puddle of poison, they absorb it, it becomes part of the food.
2. They produces a poison that kills insects by eating a hole in their gut. Then we eat the same food that killed the bugs.

I NEVER buy or eat food that doesnt have the non-GMO label.

[mike_c]

21. are you aware that same "poison" is certified for use on organic crops...?

If you eat organic, you're likely eating Bt. See, it's not a poison except to certain pest insects that are competing with you for access to your food. Would you prefer sharing? Bt is a naturally occurring pesticide isolated from bacteria with no non-target toxicity at all. It is a godsend for organic farmers.

Or is it just a matter of "organic Bt good, GMO Bt bad?"

[PasadenaTrudy]

41. I'm so glad

you are here, mike_c Thanks for being the voice of reason.

[Luminous Animal]

43. The Bt that organic farmers use degrades quickly. And even if you ate anything the very day it was

sprayed, it is easily washed off. So no, chances are very slim that if you are eating organic, you are eating Bt.

Organic farmers will use "dead" Bt. (the pest activates the toxins while ingesting it) only during infestation and given that it prevents maturation and reproduction, the chances that the targeted pests becoming resistant are low because the targeted pest is unable to reproduce.

The Bt. in GMO crops is "live". Pests are munching on low doses 24/7 (and we are eating it, too), increasing the chances of developing resistance. Also, increasing the chances that Bt. will no longer be a valuable tool for organic farmers.

[mike_c]

44. there is zero vertebrate toxicity, for pete's sake...

...and there are no such distinctions as "live" and "dead" Bt. Did you just make that up, or is that live/dead Bt nonsense being propagated by anti_GMO websites? The "active" form you mention is just Bt that can bind insect midgut receptors. Vertebrates don't have ion-channel linked gut receptors that bind Bt Cry proteins. In that sense, Bt is always "inactive" in non-target animals.

The real distinction is that Bt applied externally has a relatively short effective period, even microencapsulated, so farmers tend to use much more of it, applied more often unless they are very adept at timing application to pest life cycle phenology. But in any event, I will happily eat Bt all day long-- it's utterly non-toxic to non-target vertebrates.

I agree about the resistance problem, but what's the alternative? Far more toxic insecticides, applied at much higher doses.

[LeftyMom]

71. I had to call poison control about it years ago because my then-toddler took a swig.

The only report of any harm to vertebrates they could even find was some cows that ate something that had been treated and later had mouth sores, and apparently the reporter wasn't convinced at the time there was a connection.

The kid, needless to say, is just fine. But he never has had a case of tomato hornworm.

[HuckleB]

48. Sorry, but there's nothing magically different about it.

Are you really going to pretend otherwise?

[wisechoice]

61. Thanks for being the voice of reason

[HuckleB]

68. By making things up?

How is that reasonable? That's deceitful.

[whistler162]

64. Must go hungry or believe the

false labelling.

All food is gmo'd whether it was a recent occurance or done over a 1000 years.

[MohRokTah]

8. My concerns about GMO food are rooted in science

I'm not concerned about consumption so much as the unintentional consequences.

I'm uncomfortable contributing to massive selective breeding programs for an array of glyphosate resistant weeds, and that is precisely what "Roundup Ready" (TM) corn and soy bean agriculture has resulted in.

I'm uncomfortable contributing to massive selective breeding programs for an array of BT resistant insects as it removes one option I have for some pest control in my garden as I use the actual bacillus and do not plant the GMO plants.

I'm not comfortable trusting a bioengineering corporation nor can I accept their promise that GMO salmon "will NEVER be released into the wild". I guarantee you, it WILL happen, the only question is when.

I'm uncomfortable with big agribusiness hegemony over the global food supply.

I could go on.

[mike_c]

14. you want to live in the past....

The anti-GMO movement will NEVER achieve those objectives because in the end, it's not genetic engineering that's responsible for them-- it's the profit motive of giant agribusiness corporations in an unfettered capitalist world.

I agree with every single one of your points. However, GMOs are not the problem at the root of any of them. Monsanto was selling Roundup before it developed glyphosate resistant plants and it will be selling Roundup until better and more cost effective weed control measures become available or until we find a way to balance long term environmental planning with short term profit and loss, both in the chemical plant and in the fields. But as I said-- I completely agree with you regarding widespread glyphosate use. I agree with you that Roundup Ready crops are environmentally and socially irresponsible. They're unfortunate, but genetic engineering is not responsible for Monsanto's greed and bad citizenship. We need to regulate Monsanto, not GMOs.

I agree with you that wide exposure of pest insects to Bt expression in crops will likely hasten development of Bt resistant pests, but again, people have misused and over-applied insecticides since their invention, and will continue to do so for as long as they are allowed to act as free agents. Companies will label and sell them for overuse as long as there is a profit motive for doing so. That's the SOLE reason we can't use DDT responsibly today. But while I agree that endogenous Bt expression has undesirable effects, it is far far better than some of the alternatives. It will likely be a rather short term solution, however. But again, genetic engineering is not the problem, and most of the objections to Bt expression we hear from the anti-GMO movement are utterly specious ("they put TOXIN in our food!&quot .

I'm less concerned about GMOs "escaping" than you are. Remember that most population genetics is an ongoing cost-benefit analysis from a selection viewpoint, and there are always costs associated with any new genes or alleles. If expressing them gains an organism a net reproductive benefit, then selection might favor them, but most traits that are commercially viable are naturally costly, and only viable in artificial environments. It's easy to think that engineered pest resistance, for example, might contribute to increased invasiveness, but don't forget that expressing that increased resistance will inevitably direct reallocation of metabolic resources away from reproduction and growth. Again, we can imagine all sorts of bogeymen, but the reality is that none have emerged because traits that enhance crops' usefulness to humans are not usually those associated with the best reproductive success in nature.

[MohRokTah]

15. No, I want a sustainable future.

I agree, the GMOs themselves are not the issue, but the only voice I have is my wallet, so I let it speak for me.

The current monoculture techniques are not sustainable for the long term.

[HuckleB]

73. You say one thing, but you do another.

GMOs and monoculture are not the same thing.

[Cha]

52. Here's some "science" for ya.. A Victory!

Sweet victory for Mexico beekeepers as Monsanto loses GM permit

A small group of beekeepers in Mexico has inflicted a blow on biotech giant Monsanto, which has halted the company’s ambitions to plant thousands of hectares of soybeans genetically modified to resist the company’s pesticide Roundup.

A district judge in the state of Yucatán last month overturned a permit issued to Monsanto by Mexico’s agriculture ministry, Sagarpa, and environmental protection agency, Semarnat, in June 2012 that allowed commercial planting of Roundup-ready soybeans.

The permit authorised Monsanto to plant its seeds in seven states, over more than 253,000 hectares (625,000 acres), despite protests from thousands of Mayan farmers and beekeepers, Greenpeace, the Mexican National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity, the National Commission of Natural Protected Areas and the National Institute of Ecology.

In withdrawing the permit, the judge was convinced by the scientific evidence presented about the threats posed by GM soy crops to honey production in the Yucatán peninsula, which includes Campeche, Quintana Roo and Yucatán states. Co-existence between honey production and GM soybeans is not possible, the judge ruled.

Mexico is the world’s six biggest producer and third largest exporter of honey. About 25,000 families on the Yucatán peninsula depend on honey production. This tropical region produces about 40% of the country’s honey, almost all of which is exported to the EU. This is not small change: in 2011, the EU imported $54m (£32m) worth of Mexican honey.

More:
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2014/aug/08/sweet-victory-beekeepers-monsanto-gm-soybeans

Judi Lynn http://www.democraticunderground.com/110832710

[HuckleB]

53. You claim one thing and then go with old slippery slope routine.

Science does not support your stance. Please don't pretend otherwise. Thank you.

[magical thyme]

10. ^^^what the people above me wrote. Plus loss of biodiversity

and total control of our food supply by a couple corporations.

[MohRokTah]

11. I think the answer lies in better planting and harvesting technologies

Today, all planting and harvesting technology is centered around monoculture agriculture.

If a lesson can be taken from very small scale food production, companion planting can achieve the results sought with pesticides and herbicides, but current planting and harvesting technology is incapable of achieving this on a large scale. Bio diverse fields would be healthier and would produce more food per acre than current monoculture techniques.

[magical thyme]

13. agreed. which is why I'm happy to live in the organic gardening capital of the US

and grow as much of my own heirloom veggies as I can, along with tolerating "weeds" and specifically growing some herbs that support my native wild bee and other pollinators population.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

59. What do you suggest dry land wheat farmers grow

instead of wheat?

There's a good reason why we farmers grow what we do, where we do and when we do.

[Arthur_Frain]

12. It's partly Monsantos business model eh?

That and the fact that you can't control the cross pollination, so once the GMO genie is out of the bottle you will never get it back.

But why should I waste my time trying to explain this to you? Your derogatory use of broad brush terms to describe the "anti GMO crowd" leaves no doubt which side of the fence you sit on. The arguments against GMO have been thoughtfully presented here many times before, and if you don't agree with those facts either, well, go drive your hummer, because I would bet dollars to doughnuts that you're in the "climate change denier crowd" too. Sorry if you feel broadly brushed by this.

Remember, if 98% of the scientists (I suppose we should go down one level or more here and start arguing about the definition of world like "scientist" and such, that would delay any action for years wouldn't it?) say one thing, and you decide to throw in your lot with the 2%, you're beginning your argument from a fairly unsupported opinion. When you originate from that weakness, you'd better have some jaw dropping, mad legitimate facts to support your claims, and we have seen nothing of the kind from "your crowd", not the go-go-GMO crowd, nor the climate deniers crowd. In fact what we do see, is a lot of"bought" science from corporate hacks claiming to be scientists.

[mike_c]

22. I'm very interested in your perception...

that "what we do see, is a lot of"bought" science from corporate hacks claiming to be scientists."

I'm one of those scientists, and I work with a lot of others, every day. Where is this distrust of scientists coming from? Americans used to hold scientists (and academics in general) in high regard, but you've just expressed a blanket distrust that I hear over and over on DU and elsewhere-- the sneaking suspicion that scientists are really "corporate hacks" who deceive the public for their masters' profit.

Most major scientific and medical organizations, certainly most in the developed nations, have expressed the opinion that GMOs are not materially different from non-GMOs, and that is my considered professional opinion as well. Yet many on the left reject that scientific consensus out of hand. Why? What makes you think we're not telling you the truth? Do you doubt the competence of the experts themselves? Their motives? What?

As an ecologist, I also hear calls for the scientific community to be more proactive in arguing for intelligent public policy. However, on the GMO issue the scientific community HAS argued proactively in favor of genetic engineering, and has essentially reached consensus (just as it has regarding climate change). Granted, I work with biologists mostly, but honestly I don't think I know anyone in my field who would challenge that consensus on scientific grounds (economic and social concerns are a different matter, I think).

In any event, the scientific community can only contribute to the debate if people respect our voices and listen to our consensus. If you really think we're all a bunch of corporate hacks-- on a personal note, I have never received funding from a profit seeking corporation in my entire career-- but if you really think we're shilling for corporations rather than offering our best professional advice, then the scientific community cannot be more proactive.

[MohRokTah]

24. Most distrust of scientists is the fault of scientists

Last edited Sat Aug 2, 2014, 04:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Scientists who were hired by big tobacco testifying before Congress about how tobacco doesn't cause cancer. Scientists who were hired by big oil testifying that global warming isn't happening.

Now you expect the public to trust scientists hired by big agribusiness to tell the world about how wonderful GMOs are?

[Puzzledtraveller]

29. What Moh said, +1

[mike_c]

30. surely you're aware that those shills were a TINY minority...

...and have NEVER been representative of the profession? At the same time that some were prostituting themselves as "expert witnesses," the same professional organizations that I mentioned earlier took the opposite positions and demonstrated that theirs was NOT a consensus view. That is not at all what we're talking about here.

None of the folks I work with were ever "hired by big agribusiness to tell the world about how wonderful GMOs are," nor were the AAAS, the AMA, and so on. To suggest that they were is to sow poison into this debate, deliberately. Do you really believe that?

[MohRokTah]

35. Absolutely I'm aware.

That doesn't alter the fact that those scientists put all scientists in a bad light.

It's like the cops that choked a man to death in New York. They put ALL cops in a bad light.

[mike_c]

45. well, if "all scientists are cast in a bad light..."

...tell me again how the anti-GMO movement is not blatantly anti-science? Sheesh.

[MohRokTah]

46. You are talking about the laymen.

The laymen see scientists being hypocritical and, as is the case with cops, they consider all scientists sellouts like the few that are shills for tobacco and big oil, so big ag comes along with their shills and those scientists without financial interests in the bioengineering corporations get lumped into the same bucket.

It's human nature, for myth's sake.

Scientists need to get better at PR, much like the Democratic Party. Scientists are too hung up with their peer reviewed world and pay too little attention to the world outside of science. Of course the laymen are going to be suspicious of them! Scientists gave us the bomb and argued tobacco wasn't harmful and argue in favor of big oil.

Meanwhile, you lump me in with the laymen when my problems with GMO food are politically oriented due to the corporations that produce the GMO food.

You call me anti science because I refuse to eat GMO food for similar reasons as to why I refuse to eat Chik-fil-a food or eat Eden's Corporation food.

[Quixote1818]

33. The difference is peer-review

Something going through an established peer review-journal that is NOT funded by big business as opposed to just some scientists who is paid to spouting lies.

About 1/3rd of the studies on GMO's were independent and not funded by companies like Monsanto. This video covers this and goes into some of the major Scientific Organizations that feel GMO's are safe from countries all over the world.

[MohRokTah]

36. Plase see post 35. eom

[A Little Weird]

25. I work with ecologists and other types of biologists

They all seem to think that GMOs are contributing to the decline of pollinators and other various native insect species. So I don't think the consensus among scientists is hardly as strong as it is for global warming.

I have seen scientists influenced by corporate interests. The corporations buy the politicians, the politicians put pressure on the directors of environmental agencies, the directors put pressure on the scientists to make sure their policy recommendations won't hurt the corporations. In the situations I'm thinking of, it has been the coal industry's influence rather than the ag industry, but it just shows me that corporations do in fact have undue influence over scientific results.

In general, I do have respect for scientists but they are just human and can be manipulated and bullied like everyone else. To really work, science should be independent of politics but that's often not how it is.

[mike_c]

31. wow-- I don't know anyone who would make an unqualified statement like that...

...and I've been a working ecologist for more than twenty years. Sure, GMOs contribute to pollinator and other native species declines, but not because they're GMOs per se. Rather, they contribute as part of agricultural systems that are unsustainable and environmentally damaging. With few exceptions, non-GMO crops have the same impacts, often worse.

For example, in a recent review of pollinator decline (in Europe, btw) Kluser et al write:

http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/download/unige:32258/ATTACHMENT01

Some GMO crops, specifically Bt Corn have been suggested as a potential cause of CCD . While this possibility has not been ruled out, the weight of evidence reported here argues strongly that the current use of Bt crops is not associated with CCD.” 28 CCD symptoms do not fit what would be expected in Bt affected organisms and there is no strong evidence that GM crops cause acute toxicity to honey bees , , . For this reason GMO crops are not a “top” priority at the moment. According to Galen P. Dively (2007).

[MohRokTah]

37. The likelihood of Bt corn being even a small contributing factor to CCD is so small...

it should probably be discounted in favor of studying other potential contributing factors.

[A Little Weird]

40. Right

Because stuff like roundup-ready corn gives farmers carte blanche to douse their fields in glycophosphate.

To me - the rise in GMOs has directly led to a rise in pesticide use. It would not have happened if roundup-ready crops weren't out there. It sounds to me like you are agreeing that the pesticides are the problem but that it has nothing to do with GMOs but is an independent factor. Perhaps we are just arguing semantics?

[TheKentuckian]

17. I'm moving from mildly skeptical toward full on anti due to the anti labeling push based on the

arrogant notion that we, the people are just too stupid to decide what we eat.

This smacks of nefarious intent to me, completely unjustifiable and is an out and out admission of something to hide. Science has never been a shut up and listen to us proposition. Particularly when the "us" is wrapped around and all but wholly dependent on a profit bearing industry who's entire niche depends on the product being debated and is allowed to control the terms of experimentation based on patent rights that also is a hotbed of highly dubious business practices.

All the money for research is essentially dictated by the folks with the most to lose if questions are raised, there is scientific support but not much of it is independent. In countries where there is greater independence there seems to be significantly less consensus but proponents then argue they are taken in by the fact less fears they wish to avoid here by a state sanctioned policy of ignorance (again, not sounding like reputable representatives of science, the willful promotion of ignorance is science?)

I also don't have much stock in the arguments that any and all modifications are equal, equally safe, and must and do have the same results. I guess it could be true but I'm not quick to buy it since I'm not even sure how such a thing is testable in a blanket fashion or what the controls are.

I begin to suspect "the books are being cooked" in the name of profits and market supremacy, the primary obligation of corporations not the well being of consumers, the environment, and the broader food supply.

I begin to get the sense we are heading toward yet another "who could have ever guessed" moments when the almighty dollar has been the real driving force behind policy.

[HuckleB]

49. So, the organic industry's baseless fear mongering has worked.

How Scare Tactics on GMO Foods Hurt Everybody
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/528331/how-scare-tactics-on-gmo-foods-hurt-everybody/?utm_campaign=socialsync&utm_medium=social-post&utm_source=twitter

[TheKentuckian]

54. No, for me it is the relentless wagon circling and single mindedness of proponents

You guys went anti labeling which I consider anti consumer, you justified this by arrogantly declaring to public too stupid to be informed (disdain, bullying), you insist that every possible permutation of a modification is equal and safe (impossible to be definitive on a nearly infinite data set), the majority of your data is from the folks that stand to profit or loose market share depending on the results, any and all concerns are dismissed and the actions of governments around the world written off as caving to fear mongering, and related to an earlier point ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY and the Lion's share of the money is going to unscrupulous fucks that have proven time and time again to do damn near anything to gain market share and dominance.

No, it was for sure folks like you and the profiles of the companies with the most to gain in my case. You overplayed the hand and I'm sure I'm not alone. The anti labeling position does not inspire trust.

[laundry_queen]

56. You are not alone. nt

[HuckleB]

57. Labeling a technology has never made sense.

The consumer gets no information of value.

The labeling routine is all about working to create higher profits for the organic food industry.

Don't be fooled.

[Orrex]

65. ^^That.

By the way--I missed you at the Monsanto Shill meeting on Tuesday. If you keep skipping the get-togethers, they'll cut off your weekly stipend.

[BillZBubb]

80. Your credibility just went to ZERO.

[wisechoice]

62. "labeling will hurt everybody"

Last edited Thu Aug 14, 2014, 12:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Is the scare tactics

[HuckleB]

67. No, it's not.

Please read: http://fafdl.org/blog/2014/08/16/a-principled-case-against-mandatory-gmo-labels/

[L0oniX]

19. What matters more is that Monsanto is a predator who is stamping out independent farmers.

[A Little Weird]

23. Is anyone that's not evil creating GMOs?

Monsanto is not a corporation that I trust (I can't think of any corporation in the GMO business that I trust). They ("Big Ag&quot have way too much power over our elected officials. They have way too much influence over academic research. In summary - they have way too much control over our food supply.

It's a pretty safe bet that my "representative" in congress will vote with Big Ag regardless of what his constituents want. The only way I have to express my displeasure is to vote with my wallet. But the Monsanto crowd is even preventing me from being able to do that effectively by blocking labeling laws. I buy organic as much as I can afford in order to avoid GMO but I don't have a lot of organic options where I live.

We don't have truly independent research because corporate interests have their hands in that as well. If our watchdog agencies like FDA and EPA were actually functioning like they were meant to and if research were being conducted independently, I would feel a lot better about GMO crops. As someone above pointed out, in countries where corporations don't have a strangle-hold on government, a much more cautious approach is being taken.

So GMO, in theory, does not necessarily have to be a bad thing. GMO as it is being implemented, is not something I support.

[NuclearDem]

26. I don't have problems with GMOs. At all.

I do have a problem with Monsanto's business practices and their patenting of lifeforms, and I have just as much a problem with the lunatic anti-science fringe whose misanthropic primitivism has successfully turned GMO into a loaded term on par with "eats babies" and thus kneecapped legitimate ethical concerns with Monsanto and efforts to label.

[arcane1]

27. My concerns are 100% about patenting and monoploizing the food supply

Banning seed-saving as the terms of an IMF loan, for example, is much more dangerous than the foods themselves.

[Quixote1818]

34. I agree. nt

[MohRokTah]

38. The only way we as idividuals can speak to this is with our pocketbooks.

This is why I do not consume GMO food.

It's for similar reasons that I do not consume Chik-fil-a food.

[HuckleB]

50. That's not a GMO issue.

That has been happening with not GE foods for far longer.

[Puzzledtraveller]

28. Anti-science!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

32. I popped off to go shopping

for organic foods, but I also came up with one additional point while I was out.

I don't believe it is our duty, as citizens, to be alpha and beta testers for corporations unless we agree to do so. I not only want GMO/non GMO labeling, I want country of origin, and I actually want complete trackback ability. I want to know where my food was grown, by whom (farm name/location), and how it was processed or treated along the way. With non-food items, I likewise want to know the manufacturer, and preferably any component suppliers/manufacturers. We're not there yet, but you can bet your boots that all of that information is being collected, it's simply not being passed along the chain from point of origin to end-users. Ideally, I also want to know also if the company is unionized, collectively owned, donates money to Republican or Democratic campaigns, etc, etc.

I don't buy pre-built computers for myself, because I want parts from specific manufacturers that I trust and whose products I believe in.

In all things for which I am a consumer, I want as much information as possible in order to make my purchasing decisions. I don't want to be left in the dark simply because a given company knows that if I get to know that they're the supplier/manufacturer, I won't buy the product.

[MohRokTah]

39. I'm fine with GMO-Free labeling only.

It serves the same purpose as labeling foods as containing GMO food.

The problem is, big Agribusiness has thwarted efforts to get a standard for "GMO-Free" from the USDA.

[HuckleB]

55. WHAT THE HATERS GOT WRONG ABOUT NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON’S COMMENTS ON GMOS

http://fafdl.org/blog/2014/08/14/what-the-haters-got-wrong-about-neil-degrasse-tysons-comments-on-gmos/

A really good, informative read. Please give it its due.

[pnwmom]

58. I want labels and the ability of independent researchers to be able to test GMO products

and to publish the results without the approval of the producers.

Also, steps to prevent the contamination of non-GMO fields with GMO seeds, in order to protect the farmers of non-GMO crops.

Otherwise, I'm not against them, and I recognize I probably eat them almost every day.

[HuckleB]

69. Independent research has been happening for a long time.

The contamination argument is just bad anti-GMO propaganda.

The problem with the entire anti-GMO movement is its complete disconnect from actual evidence.

Oh, and there is no basis for labeling at all: http://fafdl.org/blog/2014/08/16/a-principled-case-against-mandatory-gmo-labels/

[pnwmom]

70. There is no regulation requiring these companies to make their seeds

available for research to any researcher who wants them, or preventing the producers from making these researchers sign confidentiality agreements.

Organic farmers can't sell their products in international markets unless they are tested to be free of GMO products, so preventing contamination is critical for them.

And unless GMO's are labeled, there is no way to monitor their safety once they are released into the market. If a product isn't labeled, you can't have recalls on a product that proves to be defective or dangerous. And just because the Bush/Cheney FDA in 1992 decreed that henceforth all GMO's -- no matter what their components or design -- would by default be considered safe for all humans, doesn't make it so.

That article you linked to suggests that the producers have a right to "commercial free speech" that the Supreme Court would say entitles them not to label. That might be true, if a very conservative Supreme Court made the ruling. That same ruling, in the hands of a conservative SCOTUS, could apply to ingredient labels in general, not just GMO ingredients.

It's despicable for any progressive to support a SCOTUS ruling that would put the profits of commercial food producers over the rights of individuals to know what's in their food.

I don't believe for a second that the writer of that essay ever supported labeling. That's a standard rhetorical device designed to appeal to people who may be on the fence. It's just the standard industry tripe. They want to promote the idea that using tons of Roundup is better than using insecticide. But organic farmers are trying to use neither.

[HuckleB]

72. Unless you want to label every form of hybrid, there is NO justification.

GMOs are more predictable. They are studied ad nauseum more than any other form of plant.

And yet political fear-mongering continues.

This is not about politics, except that bad fear mongering politics have been used in order to scare people over BS. There's no conservative/liberal issue here. It's about reality vs. fiction-based fear mongering.

Challenge yourself. I did.

[pnwmom]

75. When I eat brocollini, I know I'm eating a hybrid. So does anyone who buys it,

simply by the name and appearance.

It doesn't matter how many studies the GMO producers decide to publish. What matters are the ones they prevent from happening in the first place, or decide not to publish.

If they're so confident in their products, they would make their seeds freely available to truly independent researchers. But they're not.

[HuckleB]

76. Ah, so now it's all a conspiracy.

Come on, really?

Tell me what you think about this piece:

http://farmprogress.com/blogs-pssst-organic-extremists-think-dont-exist-8637

[pnwmom]

77. It's just the Cheney crowd helping Monsanto. No special conspiracy,

just the Rethugs helping out their supporters, as usual.

[HuckleB]

78. I had always given you credit for reading what I wrote, and the links I provided.

This ridiculous response shows that you have been more than dishonest with me over time.


I'm glad I know, but I'm pretty pissed. WOW! Lame.

[pnwmom]

79. Your link added nothing useful to the discussion

but I was about to address it anyway.

Farmers are the experts in what they can get to grow in their fields and in what they can sell for what price in the market.

HOWEVER, they are not PHD epidemiologists or biologists or medical researchers who know the long term effects on the consumers who end up eating the products. It isn't in the purview of farmers to address the safety of their products to consumers. That belongs to independent researchers, not motivated by profits but by science, and should be supervised by the FDA -- except that the FDA gave up much of their role in that in their 1992 decision.

[HuckleB]

82. So all you have are bad anti-GMO cliches.

Got it.

What's funny about your responses, outside of the fact that you are not responding to the content of my posts and links, is that you actually think that more predictable and more studied plant is a bigger risk than less predictable, less studied plants.

This is the basic, core problem of the anti-GMO movement. The disconnect with reality is beyond amazing.

[pnwmom]

84. It doesn't matter how many studies they put forth if they are allowed to suppress

truly independent research on their products.

[HuckleB]

85. Except that they're not.

Thus, umm, well, you know, say what?

[pnwmom]

87. Yes, they are. They control who gets their seeds and they have them sign contracts

that include clauses about publication.

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

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.

Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering. “It is important to understand that it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough,” wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University, in a letter to an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops), “but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how ‘friendly’ or ‘hostile’ a particular scientist may be toward [seed-enhancement] technology.”

Shields is the spokesperson for a group of 24 corn insect scientists that opposes these practices. Because the scientists rely on the cooperation of the companies for their research—they must, after all, gain access to the seeds for studies—most have chosen to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. The group has submitted a statement to the EPA protesting that “as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the tech­nol­ogy.”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-genetically-modified-food/

Williams concedes that he is among a tiny minority of biologists raising sharp questions about the safety of GM crops. But he says this is only because the field of plant molecular biology is protecting its interests. Funding, much of it from the companies that sell GM seeds, heavily favors researchers who are exploring ways to further the use of genetic modification in agriculture. He says that biologists who point out health or other risks associated with GM crops—who merely report or defend experimental findings that imply there may be risks—find themselves the focus of vicious attacks on their credibility, which leads scientists who see problems with GM foods to keep quiet.

[HuckleB]

86. BTW, can you respond to this without going to the usual cliches?

A PRINCIPLED CASE AGAINST MANDATORY GMO LABELS
http://fafdl.org/blog/2014/08/16/a-principled-case-against-mandatory-gmo-labels/

[pnwmom]

88. How can I respond to cliches without cliches?

I responded to it. The primary argument was that farmers are the experts because they grow the seeds. My response is that farmers aren't epidemiologists, biologists, or medical researchers.

[HuckleB]

90. That piece is filled with the science of the matter, and you just pretend otherwise.

It's very telling that the anti-GMO crowd cannot support its claims with anything resembling reality.

[eridani]

66. I don't have a problem with golden rice

It is being developed by a non-profit institution which gives away the seeds. So far, you'd have to eat a hell of a lot of it to get your Vitamin A MDR, but it certainly can't hurt.

Monsanto exists to establish a corporate dictatorship over our food supply, period.

[HuckleB]

74. Actually, you wouldn't have to eat that much.

Monsanto is a big player, but it's not a monopoly by any means. And Monsanto is not GMO technology. It's time that people understood the difference.

[eridani]

89. Monsanto fully intends to establish a dictatorship over GMO technology

And yes, you would have to eat a hell of a lot of golden rice. Beta carotene is NOT Vitamin A. It must be absorbed by the intestine and then converted into Vitamin A. This absorption does not easily take place if you don't have a lot of fat in your diet, true of most of the intended users of golden rice. Still, as long as a non-profit is giving away seeds, it's fine by me.

[BillZBubb]

81. Why are the GMO companies so terrified to label their wonderful products? nt.

[HuckleB]

83. For the same reason that Fox News is successful.

Fear mongering works.

No one has ever asked to have any other hybrid technology labeled. EVER. Only now, in an era where some corporations are trying to increase their profits by scaring consumers about other products, has this become an "issue."

Reality:
http://fafdl.org/blog/2014/08/16/a-principled-case-against-mandatory-gmo-labels/

[LWolf]

91. I'll try.

1. Are most of you against all GMO's or do you just want more testing and oversight as well as labels?

I can't speak for "most;" just for myself. I want more testing and oversight. Not "just" that, though. I want to acknowledge the ethical problems with allowing patents owned by very few on the planet's food supply.

Secondly, what exactly is your logical argument against GMO's that test as safe for consumption and for their impacts on the environment?

Safe for consumption? I'd like this question answered definitively, and not by anonymous online posters:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-grayson/eco-etiquette-is-genetica_b_882238.html

Impacts on the environment? When bt, which has been used small scale in home gardens for a long time, is spliced into plant genes to make them insect resistant, plants that are grown on a much, much wider scale, what is the widespread effect on nearby plants, and the insects that depend on them? I don't think there has been nearly enough research into this question.

Third, what if a plant sprayed with roundup for hundreds of years naturally became resistant to it? What if those that developed the resistance over time had exactly the same gene make up as those done in the lab quickly? For example, if a chemist was to look at the plant that took on a new gene through natural selection and gained the resistance naturally and a plant that was given the gene by scientists in the lab and saw no difference in their chemical make up; then would you still be against the plant done in the lab?

First of all, I'd rather that no plants be sprayed with Roundup, period, let alone "for hundreds of years."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-problems-with-glyphosate-us-rice-growers-sound-the-alarm/24775

The rest of your question? Are you really asking me to predict that natural selection will mirror lab meddling at the dna level? And I'm supposed to wait for "hundreds of years" for the evidence of that?

I'm not anti-science. I AM aware, though, that science in itself is neither good nor bad; it's the use its put to by humans that fall into positive and negative categories. Science produces wonderful things. It also produces knowledge and technology that can be used for great harm. The human element is the problem. As long as there are humans driven by greed, anger, aggression, and fear, the potential for misuse is there.

That's why no conversation about gmo anything is complete without including, not only long-term environmental and health effects, but ethical concerns as well.

My conversation about gmos BEGINS with ethical concerns. Technology affecting the world's food supply and the biosphere in the hands of a very few global, capitalist mega-power structures is something that should NEVER be allowed to happen.

On a healthy planet, food would be grown on a small scale, locally, by individuals who could save their seeds for the next growing season, and manage their gardens and crops without dependence on corporate lab products. Food crops would be widely diverse, not narrowed and limited to corporate/lab mass-produced seeds.

In the "polarized groups" you mention, there is a contingency of pro-gmo "folks" that don't want ethical concerns included in the conversation.