Defying Science And Common Sense, New York Bill Would Ban GMOs In Vaccines

[HuckleB]

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

"In a bizarre juxtaposition of irrational fears, a New York State legislator has introduced a bill to ban GMOs in vaccines. The bill, NY AB 1706, is apparently not a hoax but was introduced by assembly member Thomas J. Abinanti, who has passed other bills designed to place restrictions on so-called genetically modified organisms.

Viruses are one thing you’d think people would not prefer in their natural form.

In the unlikely event this bill passed, it would set back vaccine technology a half century and would do away completely with some important vaccines. Abinanti has proposed several other bills that would require disclosure of information about GMOs in vaccines.

Paul Offit, who is chief of the division of infectious diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said that genetic modification is at the heart of vaccine technology. Vaccines against viral diseases use a version of the virus that’s been killed or altered – “attenuated” in the medical language. The modification is what prevents the vaccines from making people sick.

..."


-------------------------------------------------------------------

[Chemisse]

1. Woops!

He must be pretty red-faced right about now!

[NuclearDem]

2. Dumbasses.

Behold the fruits of your labor, science denial crowd.

[zappaman]

3. Omigod.

[Liberal Veteran]

4. How fucking stupid can some people be? What's next? Banning GMO created insulin?

Everyone must all go back to porcine and bovine insulin?

[HuckleB]

5. Alas, I would not be shocked to see that.

[Liberal Veteran]

7. Ask your naturopath if Jimmy Dean Brand All-Natural Insulin is right for you.

No fillers or preservatives, just 100% pork pancreas....fresh from our farms to your syringe.

[dilby]

6. 100% of ani-vaxxers i know are anti gmo.

Bunch of dumb ass anti science losers, but getting ready how to hear how their legislation does not affect anyone else.

[Buzz Clik]

33. I'm genuinely curious: Do you know what party these people belong to? n/t

[pnwmom]

8. However, a killed vaccine, or attenuated vaccine, is not the same as a genetically engineered vaccine.

According to the National Institutes of Health, but what do they know?



I am not commenting on any aspect of this bill, with which I am not familiar and have no opinion. But it is not accurate to say that a killed virus, or an attenuated virus, has been genetically modified or engineered.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9514708


Despite the early success demonstrated with the hepatitis B vaccine, no other recombinant engineered vaccine has been approved for use in humans. It is unlikely that a recombinant vaccine will be developed to replace an existing licensed human vaccine with a proven record of safety and efficacy. This is due to the economic reality of making vaccines for human use. Genetically engineered subunit vaccines are more costly to manufacture than conventional vaccines, since the antigen must be purified to a higher standard than was demanded of older, conventional vaccines. Each vaccine must also be subjected to extensive testing and review by the FDA, as it would be considered a new product. This is costly to a company in terms of both time and money and is unnecessary if a licensed product is already on the market. Although recombinant subunit vaccines hold great promise, they do present some potential limitations. In addition to being less reactogenic, recombinant subunit vaccines have a tendency to be less immunogenic than their conventional counterparts. This can be attributed to these vaccines being held to a higher degree of purity than was traditionally done for an earlier generation of licensed subunit vaccines. Ironically, the contaminants often found in conventional subunit vaccines may have aided in the inflammatory process, which is essential for initiating a vigorous immune response. This potential problem may be overcome by employing one of the many new types of adjuvants that are becoming available for use in humans. Recombinant subunit vaccines may also suffer from being too well-defined, because they are composed of a single antigen. In contrast, conventional vaccines contain trace amounts of other antigens that may aid in conferring an immunity to infectious agents that is more solid than could be provided by a monovalent vaccine. This problem can be minimized, where necessary, by creating recombinant vaccines that are composed of multiple antigens from the same pathogen. These issues are less of a concern with a live attenuated vaccine, since these vaccines are less costly, require fewer steps to manufacture, and elicit long-lived immunity after only a single dose. Unfortunately, live vaccines carry a higher risk of vaccine-induced complications in recipients that make their use in highly developed, litiginous countries unlikely. In lesser developed countries, where the prevalence of disease and the need for effective vaccines outweighs the risk associated with their administration, live vaccines may play an important role in human health. This review has attempted to make the reader aware of some of the current approaches and issues that are associated with the development of these vaccines. Genetically engineered vaccines hold great promise for the future, but the potential of these vaccines to improve human and animal health has yet to be fully realized.

[HuckleB]

9. You're looking at one part of the definition.

Dr. Offit's explanation in the article gets to the heart of the matter.

[pnwmom]

10. I'm looking at the definition the NIH uses. But I see what you're saying.

The bill goes far beyond banning genetically modified viruses in vaccines, to include techniques used in almost all vaccines, including ones used to make safer vaccines. And that, of course, is stupid.

But it is a mistake for us, if the aim is to encourage all parents to vaccinate their children, to pretend that all vaccines use GMO's. They don't. So why unnecessarily alienate a whole group of people who have concerns about GMO's? Unless the aim is somehow to promote GMO's by making people equate them with vaccines.

[HuckleB]

11. That's not really the point.

The point is that this is where some of the anti-science junk is leading, and that includes the repetitive deceptions pushed about GMOs by people working to foment fear of them via anti-science arguments.

[pnwmom]

12. I think the biggest danger of GMO foods is that they allow farmers to heavily rely on herbicides

that have not been proven to be safe for human consumption in the amounts they are being used.

There is nothing anti-science about my concern, and it is shared by the PhD scientists and engineers in the family.

And the issue of using GMO seeds so that the plants can withstand heavy doses of herbicides is a very different issue than killing or manipulating viruses so that they can be safely used in vaccines.

[HuckleB]

13. You keep repeating that unproven claim.

Farmers use very little herbicide, and GMOs have led to the use of much safer herbicides. Thus, your stance is not based on the real world.

The issue of pushing baseless fears is very real, and it is outlandish the way the anti-GMO fear mongers have acted. Quite frankly it is very unethical.

PS: http://www.biofortified.org/2014/02/herbicides/

[pnwmom]

15. It is proven by the USDA's own figures. Apparently you don't trust the USDA,

Last edited Sat Feb 28, 2015, 04:47 PM - Edit history (2)

or the EPA, or Washington State University, or the growing number of scientists worldwide who are concerned that the supposedly "inert" ingredients in Roundup and other herbicides may have a toxic effect on humans.

There is no question that herbicides, a type of pesticide, are now being far more heavily used -- with farmers relying on GMO's that are supposed to be resistant to them. And this heavy use of herbicides has not been proven to make people safer, despite a decrease in insecticides.

But it has increased profits for Monsanto, which is certainly a good thing for Monsanto.

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

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

Both reports focus on “superweeds.” It turns out that spraying a pesticide repeatedly selects for weeds which also resist the chemical. Ever more resistant weeds are then bred, able to withstand increasing amounts – and often different forms – of herbicide.

At the center of debate is the pesticide glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto MON +0.38%‘s Round Up. Food & Water Watch found that the “total volume of glyphosate applied to the three biggest GE crops — corn, cotton and soybeans — increased 10-fold from 15 million pounds in 1996 to 159 million pounds in 2012.” Overall pesticide use decreased only in the first few years GE crops were used (42 percent between 1998 and 2001) and has since then risen by 26 percent from 2001 to 2010.

By 2011 there were also three times as many herbicide-resistant weeds found in farmer’s fields as there were in 2001.

This has meant huge profits for agribusinesses developing and selling genetically engineered seeds, herbicides and pesticides. Seed revenues have septupled (increased seven fold) since 1998.

SNIP

_____________________________

From a 2012 Washington State University study:

http://cahnrs.wsu.edu/news-release/2012/10/01/summary-of-major-findings-and-definitions-of-important-terms/

HT crops have increased herbicide use by 527 million pounds over the 16-year period (1996-2011). The incremental increase per year has grown steadily from 1.5 million pounds in 1999, to 18 million five years later in 2003, and 79 million pounds in 2009. In 2011, about 90 million more pounds of herbicides were applied than likely in the absence of HT, or about 24% of total herbicide use on the three crops in 2011.

Today’s major GE crops have increased overall pesticide use by 404 million pounds from 1996 through 2011 (527 million pound increase in herbicides, minus the 123 million pound decrease in insecticides). Overall pesticide use in 2011 was about 20% higher on each acre planted to a GE crop, compared to pesticide use on acres not planted to GE crops.

There are now two-dozen weeds resistant to glyphosate, the major herbicide used on HT crops, and many of these are spreading rapidly. Millions of acres are infested with more than one glyphosate-resistant weed. The presence of resistant weeds drives up herbicide use by 25% to 50%, and increases farmer-weed control costs by at least as much.

The biotechnology-seed-pesticide industry’s primary response to the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds is development of new HT varieties resistant to multiple herbicides, including 2,4-D and dicamba. These older phenoxy herbicides pose markedly greater human health and environmental risks per acre treated than glyphosate. Approval of corn tolerant of 2,4-D is pending, and could lead to an additional 50% increase in herbicide use per acre on 2,4-D HT corn.

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/

A pesticide is any substance or mixture of substances intended for:

preventing,
destroying,
repelling, or
mitigating any pest.

Though often misunderstood to refer only to insecticides, the term pesticide also applies to herbicides, fungicides, and various other substances used to control pests.

Under United States law, a pesticide is also any substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/

The French team, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini, a University of Caen molecular biologist, said its results highlight the need for health agencies to reconsider the safety of Roundup.

“The authorizations for using these Roundup herbicides must now clearly be revised since their toxic effects depend on, and are multiplied by, other compounds used in the mixtures,” Seralini’s team wrote.

Controversy about the safety of the weed killer recently erupted in Argentina, one of the world’s largest exporters of soy.

Last month, an environmental group petitioned Argentina’s Supreme Court, seeking a temporary ban on glyphosate use after an Argentine scientist and local activists reported a high incidence of birth defects and cancers in people living near crop-spraying areas. Scientists there also linked genetic malformations in amphibians to glysophate. In addition, last year in Sweden, a scientific team found that exposure is a risk factor for people developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Inert ingredients are often less scrutinized than active pest-killing ingredients. Since specific herbicide formulations are protected as trade secrets, manufacturers aren’t required to publicly disclose them. Although Monsanto is the largest manufacturer of glyphosate-based herbicides, several other manufacturers sell similar herbicides with different inert ingredients.

[HuckleB]

16. You really think it's ok to push Benbrook?

That's the crap that all anti-GMOers hang their hats on, and it's been debunked and you know it. The data I showed make that clear.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2012/10/03/when-bad-news-stories-help-bad-science-go-viral/

http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2012/10/do-genetically-engineered-crops-really-increase-herbicide-use/

https://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2012/10/cautionary-note-anti-gmo-journalism/

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2012/10/benbrook-2012-pesticide-usage-report.html

https://www.facebook.com/groups/GMOSF/permalink/315516661920924/

http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2012/10/12/scientists-journalists-challenge-organic-scientist-benbrook-claims-that-gm-crops-increase-pesticide-spraying-harm-the-environment/

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/can-green-gm-crops-convince-enviro-minded-consumers

And your last bold bit is classic anti-science conspiracy theory goofiness. Also, court BS is not science. You're really making the other thread comparing anti-GMO and anti-vaccine groups as very, very valid. Every anti-science routine they use, you're utilizing here. It's not ok.

PS:



More on the bad propaganda regarding Roundup...

The Truth About Glyphosate and Wheat
http://www.nurselovesfarmer.com/2014/11/the-truth-about-glyphosate-and-wheat/

Salt, Vinegar, and Glyphosate
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2014/06/salt-vinegar-and-glyphosate/

GMO Myth: Farmers “drown” crops in “dangerous” glyphosate. Fact: They use eye droppers
http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/01/22/gmo-myth-farmers-drown-crops-in-dangerous-glyphosate-fact-they-use-eye-droppers/

It should also be noted that glyphosate has replaced much more dangerous herbicides.
http://debunkingdenialism.com/2013/08/25/decimating-the-flawed-beliefs-of-anti-gmo-activists/

Further, GMOs have reduced pesticide use and increased output per acre, both also wins for the planet.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

[pnwmom]

17. If you don't like Dr. Benbrook, then rely on the USDA's numbers,

which clearly show that overall pesticide use has INCREASED, not decreased, since GMO plants came into use.

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

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

Both reports focus on “superweeds.” It turns out that spraying a pesticide repeatedly selects for weeds which also resist the chemical. Ever more resistant weeds are then bred, able to withstand increasing amounts – and often different forms – of herbicide.

At the center of debate is the pesticide glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto MON +0.38%‘s Round Up. Food & Water Watch found that the “total volume of glyphosate applied to the three biggest GE crops — corn, cotton and soybeans — increased 10-fold from 15 million pounds in 1996 to 159 million pounds in 2012.” Overall pesticide use decreased only in the first few years GE crops were used (42 percent between 1998 and 2001) and has since then risen by 26 percent from 2001 to 2010.

By 2011 there were also three times as many herbicide-resistant weeds found in farmer’s fields as there were in 2001.

This has meant huge profits for agribusinesses developing and selling genetically engineered seeds, herbicides and pesticides. Seed revenues have septupled (increased seven fold) since 1998.

SNIP

[HuckleB]

18. You just reposted the same article you posted above re: Benbrook's interpretation of the numbers.

You haven't bothered to explore why every scientist worth a lick has said his assessment failed in many, many ways.

[pnwmom]

19. Every scientist who's in Monsanto's pocket agrees. But many others don't. And it's just common sense

The whole point of GMO seeds being herbicide resistant is to allow more herbicides to be used against the weeds. OF COURSE more herbicides are being used. What was not expected by some was how quickly resistant strains of weeds would spring up, requiring the use of even more herbicides.

[HuckleB]

20. Oh, brother. No, many others do not.

Shouting "Monsanto" really does show that you haven't looked into the topic in science-based way at all.

More on the matter, and there is a lot on the matter...

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7hhP5QasNtsUHZwcW9vdVZUMUU/edit

https://plus.google.com/+AnastasiaBodnar/posts/ds625jsRV8w

https://petersonfarmblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/why-do-farmers-use-technologies-such-as-gmos-and-herbicidespesticides-what-are-the-acknowledged-issues/

[pnwmom]

21. Why do they make herbicide resistant crops? So they can use MORE HERBICIDES and the crops

will survive them.

This isn't rocket science.

[HuckleB]

22. You refuse to acknowledge the science, choosing to repeat unsupported anti-GMO cliches.

The first link I offered showed data from the EPA, but you want to pretend otherwise. All the other links show any honest person that Benbrook was wrong, and that the anti-GMO cliches are wrong. You seem to want to live in a fantasy world.

Fine. That's your choice. Please stop pushing it on others. That makes it unethical.

PS:

http://gmoanswers.com/ask/it-true-gmos-require-massive-amounts-pesticides-herbicides-and-fungicides

[pnwmom]

23. You refuse to acknowledge that herbicide-resistant GMO crops were developed precisely in order to allow

the use of MORE herbicides. That is the whole point.

Dr. Benbrook, a professor at Washington State University doing independent research, has a lot more credibility than Monsanto's army of paid apologists.

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

Benbrook spent 18 years (1979-1997) working in Washington, DC on agricultural policy and regulation. During this time, he served for two years (1981-1983) as the director of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Research, and Foreign Agriculture of the U.S. House of Representatives.[3] He also directed the National Academy of Sciences' Board on Agriculture from 1984 to 1990.[2][4] On a 1993 Frontline program entitled "In Our Children's Food," which focused on a NAS report on pesticides of which Benbrook was the lead author, he warned that the regulatory limits on pesticides were based on adults, even though they are more dangerous to children. He also suggested that he had been fired from the NAS panel for criticizing the pesticide industry.[5]

[HuckleB]

24. In other words, you are repeating your failure to acknowledge the science of the matter.

Last edited Sat Feb 28, 2015, 09:35 PM - Edit history (1)

You also fail to acknowledge that some of Benbrook's funding sources.

You fail to acknowledge that today's herbicides are safer, and that GMOs are the reason for that. You fail to acknowledge that herbicide use has not actually gone up, despite being shown overwhelming evidence in regard to that. You repeat the classic, unethical, and pointless "Monsanto" rant, which tells me that you don't actually explore the matter at all, and that you have an irrational opinion of the scientists who study the topics at hand.

You owe them all a very big apology, and that's just for starters.

PS:

Is glyphosate, used with some GM crops, dangerously toxic to humans?
http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/04/30/is-glyphosate-used-with-some-gm-crops-dangerously-toxic-to-humans/

And more on the topic:
http://www.biofortified.org/2013/10/glyphosate-toxic/

[pnwmom]

26. We don't know that today's herbicides are safer, because all the ingredients are not public

information and many scientists believe the "inert" ingredients may have health risks. Just because an ingredient doesn't kill a plant doesn't mean it is non-toxic in any dose.

I don't owe them any apology. They owe the public more transparency, starting with a complete list of the ingredients in the products they use on our food, including the so-called "inert" ingredients.

[HuckleB]

29. We both know that is simply conspiracy theory hyperbole.

These items have been in public use for a long time. Nothing is hidden, and your claims are unsupported, yet again. Pretending that there is some massive conspiracy is just bizarro world stuff.

PS: http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2014/06/salt-vinegar-and-glyphosate/

[HuckleB]

25. You seem to be rather taken by Benbrook.

Thus, your new defense is to post his CV instead of defend his bad science with better science, since there is no better science defense of his bad science.

Clearly your emotions have the best of you, and you don't want to recognize reality here. There's nothing anyone can do about that, well, except you.

Did you really not know that I expected you to post Benbrook, because that's the only thing you had to offer, and I knew that it was bunk, to boot? Come on. You should have known better.

PS:

AAAS Scientists: Consensus on GMO Safety Firmer Than For Human-Induced Climate Change
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_8915_b_6572130.html

Massive Review Reveals Consensus on GMO Safety
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/10/massive-review-reveals-consensus-on-gmo-safety.html

[pnwmom]

27. Unlike many of his detractors, Dr. Benbrook is not a shill for the pesticide producers.

So he has that in his favor.

[HuckleB]

28. Your emotion-based response and baseless, ugly attack against scientists and farmers is noted.

PS:
http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/04/30/is-glyphosate-used-with-some-gm-crops-dangerously-toxic-to-humans/

[pnwmom]

30. I'm not attacking scientists or farmers as a group. Just Monsanto and other shills. n/t

[HuckleB]

32. I beg to differ.

Also, your use of the shill gambit gives you away. You are attacking scientists and farmers, and hiding behind unethical stances about Monsanto and "shills." This is really basic stuff. You just don't play that kind of grade school game and get away with it.

It's really time for you to stand down.

PS:

Infographic: Climate change vs. GMOs: Comparing the independent global scientific consensus
http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/07/08/climate-change-vs-gmos-comparing-the-independent-global-scientific-consensus/

[pnwmom]

35. What is really basic stuff is what you won't admit:

the whole point of herbicide resistant plants is to allow for the use of MORE HERBICIDES.

And the ingredients in these formulations are protected as trade secrets, so we are supposed to trust the producers that all the ingredients are safe, despite what the researchers in France and other countries have claimed about some of the "inert" ingredients.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/

Inert ingredients are often less scrutinized than active pest-killing ingredients. Since specific herbicide formulations are protected as trade secrets, manufacturers aren’t required to publicly disclose them. Although Monsanto is the largest manufacturer of glyphosate-based herbicides, several other manufacturers sell similar herbicides with different inert ingredients.

The term “inert ingredient” is often misleading, according to Caroline Cox, research director of the Center for Environmental Health, an Oakland-based environmental organization. Federal law classifies all pesticide ingredients that don’t harm pests as “inert,” she said. Inert compounds, therefore, aren’t necessarily biologically or toxicologically harmless – they simply don’t kill insects or weeds.

[HuckleB]

38. You do realize that really poor article from 6 years ago was debunked in the links I've posted.

... already.

So, again, if you can't bring new evidence to the table, what are you hoping to accomplish? Your claims have been debunked, and your only defense has been ad hominem goofiness. It's fairly astounding to watch. Also, providing anecdotal statements that have no support in peer review, and are pushed by organizations that work to get donations by conning people into fearing GMO really doesn't help your case at all. In fact, you keep using the term shill, but I don't think you understand what it means.

Also, almost everything kills things in the petri dish. You should know that. Wow!

PS: http://www.biofortified.org/2013/10/glyphosate-toxic/

PSS: http://thefarmerslife.com/biotechnology/long-term-glyphosate-use-effect-on-wheat/

PSSS: http://wssa.net/weed/weed-myths/

[pnwmom]

39. There is a continuing argument among groups of scientists -- Dr. Benbrook's work

has not been "debunked" by anyone.

[HuckleB]

40. You keep telling yourself that.

Only a tiny percentage of a percentage in the scientific community agrees or cares.

http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2012/10/do-genetically-engineered-crops-really-increase-herbicide-use/

[immoderate]

36. Mr. HuckleB is apparently the judge of who is "anti-science."

Last edited Sat Feb 28, 2015, 10:44 PM - Edit history (1)

And by questioning the safety of GMOs you have stepped in it. Questioning is "anti-science."

--imm

[pnwmom]

41. Because scientists are a monolithic block, of course.

There is only one scientifically valid opinion on any topic.

Obviously, that poster has never been to a single scientific conference.

[Major Nikon]

49. ...

One of Benbrook's best-known studies is one published in 2012, which concluded that genetically modified foods have resulted in increased pesticide use, purportedly because weeds are developing resistance to glyphosate.[6][7] However, some critics stated this study was flawed, because Benbrook did not take into account the fact that glyphosate is less toxic than other herbicides, thus the net toxicity may decrease even as the total herbicide use increases.[8][9] In addition, Graham Brookes of PG Economics accused Benbrook of making subjective estimates of herbicide use because the data provided by the National Agricultural Statistics Service doesn't distinguish between genetically modified and non-genetically modified crops. Brookes had published a study whose conclusions contradicted those of Benbrook's earlier in 2012.[10][11] Brookes also stated that Benbrook had made "biased and inaccurate" assumptions.[12] More recently, in December 2013, Benbrook was the lead author of a study which reported that organic milk contained significantly higher levels of heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids.[13] However, the study was funded in part by the organic milk producer Organic Valley, although Allison Aubrey of NPR reported that they had no role in the study's design or analysis.[14]

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

[pnwmom]

50. As I said, scientists disagree. You are pointing to someone from "PG Economics" who disagrees.

But there are many scientists around the world who support his work.

You also fail to mention that the large majority of GMO studies have been supported by funds from GMO producers.

[Major Nikon]

52. Actually I'm pointing to the very link you provided

A large majority of GMO studies have been supported by funds from GMO producers because they have legal requirements to do so in order to get their products approved by the government, which is a requirement conventional genetic modification doesn't have. I guess you failed to mention that part, or never knew about it in the first place.

Organizations like Green Peace have also spent millions worldwide campaigning against, creating pseudo-scientific misinformation campaigns, and delaying Golden Rice which has resulted in the death and disability of millions of children. So while GMO isn't attributable to one single death ever, anti-GMO efforts certainly have. The anti-GMO crowd which is almost exclusively funded by the commercial organic industry, also spends millions funding junk science which has been pulled from reputable peer reviewed journals, re-published by disreputable ones, or simply issued as non-peer reviewed psuedo-science for the purpose of misinformation campaigns.

The bright side is that just like the anti-vaxxers, the climate change deniers, the anti-fluoridation dipshits, the evolution deniers, and other assorted anti-science half-wits, bright lights tend to cause the cockroaches to scatter...

[pnwmom]

56. I realize that. But all it proves is that there isn't a consensus of opinion, which was what

I was arguing.

[Major Nikon]

57. Actually it suggests the only outlier you seem to be able to provide is pretty much full of shit

But even if this weren't true, you're still left with the overwhelming scientific opinion which goes completely the other way, which is to say your argument is pretty much the same as the climate change deniers.

[pnwmom]

59. No, there are respected researchers in France and other countries who support Benbrook's work. n/t

[Major Nikon]

60. Which still means you have provided exactly one outlier

[pnwmom]

62. No, those scientists are doing their own research. There are multiple "outliers." n/t

[Major Nikon]

63. But you failed to mention any of it

...and instead have made a habit of pointing out what others failed to mention.

Ironic, no?

[HuckleB]

64. Not true.

Why do you keep making claims without basis? A couple of "researchers" whose stuff has been debunked by thousands of others does not warrant pushing the BS you are pushing.

[HuckleB]

65. There is a BIG TIME consensus on the matter.

Your desire for reality to be different than it is does not change that.

[HuckleB]

54. No, there are not.

The fact that you pretend otherwise is nothing short of bizarre.

[HuckleB]

53. Yes, if you had read the links I provided, all of that would have been explained much better.

[Major Nikon]

58. I'm aware of that

I'm just pointing out that even if pnwmom had used her own link she could have gotten to the same information. So relinking to the exact same bogus source of information over and over doesn't cause the misinformation to become any truer, nor does it challenge the overwhelming scientific consensus on the subject any more than the agenda driven "scientists" that form the extreme minority opinion on climate change.

[HuckleB]

66. Got it.

My apologies.

[bananas]

42. The bill seems to allow those techniques

OTHER THAN A MEANS
12 CONSISTING EXCLUSIVELY OF BREEDING, CONJUGATION, FERMENTATION, HYBRIDI-
13 ZATION, IN VITRO FERTILIZATION, OR TISSUE CULTURE

[uppityperson]

14. k&r

[Buzz Clik]

31. Because it didn't say in the excerpt in the OP, I checked: he's a Dem

No surprise there. The Democrats don't totally own the irrational fear of GMOs, but they have the majority share.

[HuckleB]

34. Anti-GMO silliness isn't far from anti-vaccine silliness in its bipartisan nature.

But, yeah, it does appear that many of our fellows have been taken in by the fear mongering on this one.

[Buzz Clik]

37. Hm... if that's a Guinness, all I have to say is

Sláinte!

[HuckleB]

44. A little Kilbeggan to boot!

[longship]

43. There can be no modern vaccines without genetic modification.

These people are unfuckling believably ignorant of biology, both the anti-vaccine idiots, and the anti-GMO idiots.

Sheesh!

All I can say is what has been said before.

[proverbialwisdom]

45. Just came across this link on twitter on past problems w RotaTeq (genetically engineered vaccine).

On May 7, 2010, the FDA announced that RotaTeq vaccine was contaminated with DNA from two porcine circoviruses: PCV1 and PCV2. To date the vaccine manufacturer, Merck, has not given any information regarding if, or when, PCV1 and PCV2 will be removed from this vaccine.

Although PCV1 has not been associated with clinical disease in pigs, PCV2 is a lethal pig virus that causes immune suppression and a serious wasting disease in baby pigs that damages lungs, kidneys, the reproductive system, brain and ultimately causes death. The FDA recommended temorpary suspension of the use of Rotarix vaccine on March 22nd after DNA from PCV1 was identified in Rotarix, but did not call for suspension of the use of RotaTeq vaccine after PCV2 was found in RotaTeq. On June 1st, NVIC called on Merck to volunartarily withdraw RotaTeq from the market until PCV2, especially, is removed from the vaccine.

RotaTeq vaccine is manufactured by Merck and was licensed by the FDA in 2006. Description: RotaTeq is a genetically engineered vaccine made of live, attenuated human-bovine hybridized reassortant rotaviruses. Other ingredients include sucrose, sodium citrate, sodium phosphate monobasic monohydrate, sodium hydroxide, polysorbate 80, cell culture media, and trace amounts of fetal bovine serum. It does not contain preservatives.

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm212140.htm
http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/May-2010/Vaccine-Safety-Critics-Call-For-RotaTeq-Vaccine-Re.aspx
http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/r/rotateq/rotateq_pi.pdf

Contaminants? Oh, joy.

[HuckleB]

46. And you're posting more anti-vaccine BS.

Last edited Sun Mar 1, 2015, 04:34 PM - Edit history (1)

Your conspiracy theories are noted. Your deceitful attempt at confusing others by posting something from the anti-vaccine NVIC, and putting that link under one from the FDA that has nothing to do with the NVIC goofiness is also noted. This is typical behavior from you, and it is not ok.

[HuckleB]

48. And more links to NVIC.

Last edited Mon Mar 2, 2015, 04:52 PM - Edit history (1)

It's time to realize that you're con isn't working on anyone. Promoting disease through lies and deceit is not something people find to be an act they appreciate, after all. Who woulduvthunkit?

BTW, why did you lie and pretend you're not familiar with NVIC? You do realize how ridiculous that statement is, right?

[Major Nikon]

61. Par for the course. When his bullshit is challenged, he simply throws more bullshit against the wall

As an aside, I'm largely unfamiliar with NVIC and don't read the site.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024020249#post36
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014512596#post47
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002312035#post106
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014148376#post14
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025464912#post13
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026156971#post20



So he doesn't read it, yet has been describing it as a "best source" and "essential reading" for years.




Also seems to be a pimp for anti-vax quackery sales:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002692506#post4

[progressoid]

67. fyi

On Mon Mar 2, 2015, 12:41 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Par for the course. When his bullshit is challenged, he simply throws more bullshit against the wall
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6298153

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"...seems to be a pimp" is a personal attack. Worse it implies financial gain via exploitation. Does DU permit nastiness like this even against unpopular posters? I hope not.


You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Mar 2, 2015, 12:51 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I read nothing offensive here. Grow up people.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This can be re-posted without the pimp/quackery remarks.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Major Nikon]

69. This makes me a bit sad

I thought I did better than just imply financial gain via exploitation.

[HuckleB]

68. Pure gold. Nice work.

That statement was just too rich.

[Warpy]

51. I've read up on him and he doesn't seem to be that clueless

so quite possibly this bill is a reductio ad absurdum reply to anti GMO food bills also churning their way through the NY lege.

It's got no chance of passing.

[HuckleB]

55. Of course, it has no chance of passing.

That doesn't mean the guy has a clue about GMOs, as there is nothing showing that he does, despite your claims.

[HuckleB]

70. We Need More Honesty in GMO Debates

http://blog.acton.org/archives/76304-we-need-more-honesty-in-gmo-debates.html

[closeupready]

71. Trashing yet ANOTHER thread! Thanks!!

[HuckleB]

72. Thanks for letting everyone know!