I Used to Work as a Scientist with GMOs—Now I'm Having Serious Second Thoughts About The Risks

[nationalize the fed]

I believe that GMO crops still run far ahead of our understanding of their risks.

By Jonathan Latham, PhD September 2, 2015

By training, I am a plant biologist. In the early 1990s I was busy making genetically modified plants (often called GMOs for Genetically Modified Organisms) as part of the research that led to my PhD. Into these plants we were putting DNA from various foreign organisms, such as viruses and bacteria.


If that salad dressing in your fridge
contains soybean oil it's probably GMO

I was not, at the outset, concerned about the possible effects of GM plants on human health or the environment. One reason for this lack of concern was that I was still a very young scientist, feeling my way in the complex world of biology and of scientific research. Another reason was that we hardly imagined that GMOs like ours would be grown or eaten. So far as I was concerned, all GMOs were for research purposes only.

Gradually, however, it became clear that certain companies thought differently. Some of my older colleagues shared their skepticism with me that commercial interests were running far ahead of scientific knowledge. I listened carefully...snip

The Flawed Processes of GMO Risk Assessment...snip

The Dangers of GMOs

Aside from grave doubts about the quality and integrity of risk assessments, I also have specific science-based concerns over GMOs. I emphasise the ones below because they are important but are not on the lists that GMO critics often make.

Many GMO plants are engineered to contain their own insecticides. These GMOs, which include maize, cotton and soybeans, are called Bt plants. Bt plants get their name because they incorporate a transgene that makes a protein-based toxin (usually called the Cry toxin) from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. Many Bt crops are “stacked,” meaning they contain a multiplicity of these Cry toxins...snip


Most candy in the US contains GMO products

The True Purpose of GMOs

...The commercial purpose of GMOs is not to feed the world or improve farming. Rather, they exist to gain intellectual property (i.e. patent rights)...snip
Read More: http://www.alternet.org/food/i-used-work-scientist-gmos-now-im-having-serious-second-thoughts-about-risks

Bioscience Resource Project

The Bioscience Resource Project is a public interest organization that describes itself as providing independent research and analysis in the agriculture-related biosciences since 2006. In 2011, they started Independent Science News, a website providing news and critical comment on topics where food, agriculture, and biotechnology impact human health and the environment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioscience_Resource_Project

Jonathan R Latham, PhD Co-founder and Executive Director of the Bioscience Resource Project; Editor of the Independent Science News website. Dr. Latham holds a Masters degree in Crop Genetics and a PhD in Virology. He was subsequently a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Genetics, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Prior to heading the Bioscience Resource Project he published scientific papers in disciplines as diverse as plant ecology, plant virology and genetics. He regularly presents at scientific conferences on papers published by the Bioscience Resource Project. He is also a fellow of the 21st Century Trust.
http://www.bioscienceresource.org/about-us/our-staff/

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

64 Countries require labeling of GMO foods


Green: Mandatory labeling Red:Ban on import and cultivation of GMOs 64 countries as of 10 May 2015. Source: Center for Food Safety
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/international-labeling-laws

[Rex]

1. So we are going to become immune to weed killer?

Shit...I like weed.

[HuckleB]

2. +1,000,000 ... 000

GMO weed! That shit is going to be strong.

[Rex]

5. If I smoke enough of it will my body just start producing the THC?

Seriously, they need a college course in GMO weed! In states were it is legal.

Anyone for a road trip to Colo U?

[HuckleB]

10. Maybe you can make those alt med colleges in Oregon legit!

[Rex]

11. We will start with a new college wide curriculum and syllabus!

ALL the students will graduate with a diploma and a medical MJ license! Future millionaires!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

76. No, we're breeding superweed! nt

[HuckleB]

3. Interesting background regarding the author.

http://genomesunzipped.org/2011/04/the-genome-hasnt-failed.php

[Skwmom]

6. The DVD "The Word According to Monsanto" discusses how Monsanto attacks any critics. n/t

[HuckleB]

8. A non-peer reviewed attack movie claims that others act unethically?

And that's your response?

The evidence in science shows GMOs to be safe. Why do you think hyperbole changes that?

PS: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/bad-science-checklist-gmo-opponents/

[immoderate]

12. There is no such evidence.

And if someone disagrees with you it is proof they are stupid and anti-science.

You even took a shot at the messenger.

--imm

[LanternWaste]

16. I too like to call things "attacks" simply because they don't hold the same position as I do

I too like to call things "attacks" simply because they don't hold the same position as I do, regardless of your ironic use of "hyperbole."

[HuckleB]

17. Your response seems to have missed the context of the actual discussion.

Somehow you think you can attack my post, while ignoring the post to which it was connected. And that really makes your response look less than applicable.

Let's try again, shall we?

[Orrex]

48. Watch out, or she'll call you a half-wit

While denying that she's doing so, of course.

[HuckleB]

50. Oh, I am a quarter-wit, so no problem there.

[Orrex]

55. Nice!

That makes you a two-bit-wit!

[HuckleB]

56. Multiplication is hard. Don't scare people!!!

[noiretextatique]

18. you mean the evidence provided by Monsanto's scientists?

what could possibly be wrong with science that supports Monsanto?

[HuckleB]

19. You mean a claim that the movie made that is not valid in reality?

Or that you just made up?

If you have a point, bring supporting evidence from good sources. This is not hard stuff. If you can't, you should know that your preconceptions are simply not valid.

[GitRDun]

27. There's a lot on that link.

For those of us who want to learn, is there anything in your link that specifically discredits this scientists cry toxin theory?

This topic can be tough to decipher.

Thanks

PS - About the blog you linked to, this is what it says about the author:

I have over 25 years experience in marketing, business development, and product development in the medical products industry, working in a variety of marketing, sales, clinical research, and product development roles with large and small medical products companies. I have also had key executive roles on both the manufacturing and distribution sides of the medical products industry.

Marketing, business development and product development is not the background I would have expected. Does this author have some unique qualifications that make him more credible than others?

Again, I know nothing about this topic, trying to get my feet wet.

[HuckleB]

32. This "scientists" theory is not supported by science.

He has no peer reviewed support, whatsoever. It's just bad propaganda, and the guy is a supporter of Seralini, to boot. Thus, this OP really should apologize to everyone at DU for posting this nonsense.

[GitRDun]

34. Who's Seralini? n/t

[HuckleB]

37. Google: Seralini Science Based Medicine.

If you don't know who Seralini is, and why the scandals around him affect science on many levels, uh, I'm just going to stop there. Please learn about him. Thank you.

[GitRDun]

42. OK I see he's a guy that did an ant-GMO study that had to be retracted.

I'm struggling with the comment you made that the article had no basis in science. There are numerous studies listed to support his points. Are those bad too?

He also mentioned another reason for concern that is not science based that I think merits discussion. That GMO food is at least as much related to patenting food as feeding people. That's a valid point.

Thanks for your posts. I'll try to learn more, but I don't think it's as simple as you make things out to be.

[HuckleB]

51. No, everything he has done about GMOs has been shown to be baseless.

And he has been supported financially by the organic industry.

How do you fail to realize the reality, knowing that?

[GitRDun]

60. I don't fail to realize it because you provide no information, just hyperbole

I told you I was new to the topic.

Asked relevant questions, most of which you did not answer.

Then you ask me why I don't see the obvious.

If your goal is to educate anyone, it hasn't happened.

If your goal is to come across as hyperbolic and ill-tempered, congratulations, a job well done.

Unless you can provide real information instead of shouting, you'll be seen as just another industry guy waving the "It's OK" flag to the beach goers as the sharks circle...

[HuckleB]

63. You're not new to this topic at all.

Your responses make that clear. Why can't you support any of your accusations?

Oh, that's right. We both know that you can't. Your personal attacks are weak and ridiculous. Either prove I'm wrong, or admit thta you can't. This is not hard stuff.

[GitRDun]

70. hahahahahaha my responses?

For those of us who want to learn, is there anything in your link that specifically discredits this scientists cry toxin theory?

Not answered.

Marketing, business development and product development is not the background I would have expected. Does this author have some unique qualifications that make him more credible than others?

Not answered.

I'm struggling with the comment you made that the article had no basis in science. There are numerous studies listed to support his points. Are those bad too?

Not answered.

He also mentioned another reason for concern that is not science based that I think merits discussion. That GMO food is at least as much related to patenting food as feeding people. That's a valid point.

Yes, these questions could not be the work of someone trying to learn from you, they are OBVIOUSLY the work of a closet GMO expert.

And my "personal attack?

Thanks for your posts. I'll try to learn more, but I don't think it's as simple as you make things out to be.

After watching your display up and down this thread you've convinced me...that you know absolutely nothing about this topic and that I should seek an education elsewhere..enjoy your rage.

[HuckleB]

71. And Cherry Picking hits the board.

Can you prove any actual problem with GMOs that is not a problem with other seed development technologies? If not, then why do you think weak Gish Gallop personal attacks are ok?

Hmm.

Or are you decent human, who will apologize for bad behavior?

I guess we will find out.

[GitRDun]

72. I don't know anything about the topic, how can I prove anything?

and lol, what attack? I'm merely pointing out the obvious, you seem very angry and don't impart any knowledge about GMO's despite your statements that they are fine.

What do I have to apologize for? Asking you questions based on your claimed knowledge of the obvious safety of GMO's?

Or perhaps it's for stating that you seem angry and don't answer any questions.

Lol I don't get the cherry picking comment.

[bvar22]

104. ...so the Pro crowd is using Ad Executives and Monsanto Lobbyists to certify their "science"?

Surprise!

[GitRDun]

105. One thing I have learned

HuckleB does not know anything substantive on this topic.

[Hun Joro]

38. Let's suppose GMOs are safe, of which I am in no way convinced...

How much Roundup would you like in your food? Plus the effects of widespread glysophase use on the environment are detrimental; plants that beneficial insects like monarch butterflies depend upon are not allowed to grow, and the runoff is toxic to aquatic life. Just an all around bad idea.

[HuckleB]

97. Roundup is not a GMO.

It is used in non-GMO farming all the time.

Would you prefer that we go back to using more toxic chemicals, like Chipotle is doing in order to scam its customer base?http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2015/05/what-does-chipotles-switch-to-non-gmo-ingredients-mean-for-pesticide-use/

Do you know that pesticide use is down?
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

Also:

Anti-GMO harms the people and the planet:
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/conservation-and-development/the-human-toll-of-anti-gmo-hysteria

and

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/528331/how-scare-tactics-on-gmo-foods-hurt-everybody/

[Hun Joro]

106. Roundup is widely used on GMO Roundup-Ready crops.

How much is Monsanto paying you?

[HuckleB]

116. It is used on many non-GMO crops.

I am not paid for pointing out the reality of the science of the matter.

How much are you paid to propagate dishonest anti-GMO propaganda?

[truedelphi]

39. Show me several decades of evidence as to the safety of GMO's, Mr HuckleB.

Oops, there is not any. No decades of evidence to show this crap is safe.

Rather than evidence proving safety, we have become a nation of people who need pharmaceutical products like Prilosec and Zantac to help us digest the food we eat, and help us avoid acid reflux. And each day, another few hundred folks realize they cannot eat any wheat, even though it is not usually even GM - it is just so heavily sprayed with that RoundUp filth.

Considerr this: one of the top people employed by Monsanto, one Don Huber, he is now stating that the continual spraying of RoundUp for the GM crop proliferation is causing the plants we eat in this nation to become contaminated with fusarium and vomitoxin.

And many people, like myself can no longer eat anything that has been tainted with RoundUp.

[HuckleB]

95. That's a whole stew of conspiracy via bad correlation.

There is far more research on GMOs, which are far more predictable than other seed development technologies, than any other food on the market. If you're truly worried about GMOs, you should be much more worried about the rest of the food landscape. Certainly, you should be far more worried about Mutation Bred Organisms, but you're not.

That's very odd.

[truedelphi]

107. Of course there is a lot of "research" on GMO's --

The industry garners tens of billions of dollars in profits.

But none of the research that shows how safe GMO's happen to be is done by independent researchers.

So we are in the same pickle that the citizens of Calif. were in back in the mid to late 1990's when over one thousand studies showed us that "MTBE is so safe, your children can brush your teeth with it!"

(Actual quote from an industry spokesperson before the Assembly in Sacramento.)

And these days the political process is so corrupt that no one in office will stand up to these people -- notice how both Bush Presidents were allied with Monsanto as was BIll Clinton as is Obama.

We need someone in office with the chutzpah of former Gov Davis who will put aside his or her political career to stand up for the health and safety of the citizens of the USA.

[HuckleB]

109. And your anti-science nonsense continues.

Do you have anything to offer but bad conspiracy nonsense, and, if not, why are you bothering to show us how badly your silliness really is?

[modestybl]

45. No evidence from science shows GMOs to be safe...

One of many problems for geneticists NOT on the payroll or otherwise beholden to big agribusiness is that there is no one-to-one connection between genes and enzymes or proteins... one gene can control many enzymes, and not always in ways easy to discern. So no one knows what harm is being caused longterm by GMOs... we see environmental contamination in arising new herbicide-resistant superweeds, but as long as a highly selective study shows no increase in the incidence of KNOWN allergens, the companies render GMOs safe. It is much harder to ascertain NEW allergens - one small study did show evidence of new allergens from GM soy in the UK and on that basis, the UK had banned GM soy for human consumption. Much more study is needed, but these studies are not funded. There is ZERO serious independent research the the US on the matter.

I do not wish to be part of agribusiness' science project. We have the FDA and the USDA run by former agribusiness execs, whose determination NOT to require labelling on food in and of itself highly suspect. Their R & D is directed by their legal departments, to avoid any possible liability for future health problems.

[HuckleB]

49. Your post is completely based in fiction.

Don't attempt to discuss things you don't understand.

Every legitimate science organization in the world says GMOs are safe, because the evidence is astoundingly clear.

[erronis]

58. And of course all the European countries totally agree with you... NOT.

[HuckleB]

61. "The European Countries."

I'm sure you can prove, with a consensus of science, why any country would be avers to GMOs.

I look forward to reading the evidence you present.

[erronis]

65. The drones have become a bit more human-seeming.

Since you are so well read in so many subjects, how do you have time to participate in a forum that is not promoting Monsanto?

[HuckleB]

67. And the shill gambit hits!!!! Shocking.

Have you ever noticed that anti-GMOers can't support their claims with actual science?

Why is that?

[LostOne4Ever]

74. Maybe....it is because the science doesn't support them? (nt)

[NuclearDem]

96. It's all a conspiracy.

Just like the Big Pharma conspiracy that keeps anti-vaccination studies from being taken seriously, or the atheist conspiracy that keeps intelligent design out of science books.

[bvar22]

103. Can YOU support your claims with actual Science?

I challenge you to cite ONE Peer Reviewed, long term study in a legitimate Scientific Journal that testifies to the safety of GMOs.

We'll wait.

Ever notice how when you ask the Pro-GMO crowd to produce independent long term studies from a Peer Reviewed Journal,
they disappear.

[HuckleB]

111. I have done so.

The fact that you pretend to ask for something that has already been proven shows just how far you will go to push the anti-GMO con. Why would you do that?

Can you prove GMOs are harmful? Can you prove anything that is a bigger risk for GMOs than for other seed development technologies?

Yeah, game over.

[truedelphi]

108. Tens of millions of people in Europe stand with the science done by Serralini.

To discredit his research here in the USA, the Powers that Be had to re-organize the editorial staff at the journal where the research was originally published.

It is easy for the Corrupt and Corporate Scientists to get their way, since after all, they possess the power to eliminate any researchers saying anything negative about GMO's, after the researchers discover the dangers inherent in these products..

[HuckleB]

110. No, they don't.

If they do, prove it, with definitive evidence. Not just BS.

[modestybl]

100. You are simply wrong... and of course offer nothing to back up your claim...

The Union of Concerned Scientists had a recent review of the state of GMO R & D... they are not a priori opposed, but they point out that very little research has been done to establish long term safety and even viability. The vast majority of "research" is geared toward commercialization and marketing that mostly solves the problem of how Monsanto gets to own all the food.

Apart from the new concerns of GE, there are the old concerns of bad agricultural practices that are input intensive and monocultural in nature... The same problems that arose out of the "Green Revolution" in the 1960s...

[HuckleB]

114. UCS has long been criticized for its anti-science posts about GMOs.

Last edited Thu Sep 10, 2015, 10:18 AM - Edit history (1)

The science is astoundingly clear. The world's scientists have shown GMOs to be safe. It's time to be honest.


American Association for the Advancement of Science: ”The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.” (http://bit.ly/11cR4sB)

American Medical Association: ”There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.” (http://bit.ly/166OUdM)

World Health Organization: ”No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.” (http://bit.ly/18yzzVI)

National Academy of Sciences: ”To date more than 98 million acres of genetically modified crops have been grown worldwide. No evidence of human health problems associated with the ingestion of these crops or resulting food products have been identified.” (http://bit.ly/13Cib0Y)

The Royal Society of Medicine: ”Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA.” (http://1.usa.gov/12huL7Z)

The European Commission: ”The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” (http://bit.ly/133BoZW)

American Council on Science and Health: ”[W]ith the continuing accumulation of evidence of safety and efficiency, and the complete absence of any evidence of harm to the public or the environment, more and more consumers are becoming as comfortable with agricultural biotechnology as they are with medical biotechnology.” (http://bit.ly/12hvoyg)

American Dietetic Association: ”It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that agricultural and food biotechnology techniques can enhance the quality, safety, nutritional value, and variety of food available for human consumption and increase the efficiency of food production, food processing, food distribution, and environmental and waste management.” (http://1.usa.gov/12hvWnE)

American Phytopathological Society: ”The American Phytopathological Society (APS), which represents approximately 5,000 scientists who work with plant pathogens, the diseases they cause, and ways of controlling them, supports biotechnology as a means for improving plant health, food safety, and sustainable growth in plant productivity.” (http://bit.ly/14Ft4RL)

American Society for Cell Biology: ”Far from presenting a threat to the public health, GM crops in many cases improve it. The ASCB vigorously supports research and development in the area of genetically engineered organisms, including the development of genetically modified (GM) crop plants.” (http://bit.ly/163sWdL)

American Society for Microbiology: ”The ASM is not aware of any acceptable evidence that food produced with biotechnology and subject to FDA oversight constitutes high risk or is unsafe. We are sufficiently convinced to assure the public that plant varieties and products created with biotechnology have the potential of improved nutrition, better taste and longer shelf-life.” (http://bit.ly/13Cl2ak)

American Society of Plant Biologists: ”The risks of unintended consequences of this type of gene transfer are comparable to the random mixing of genes that occurs during classical breeding… The ASPB believes strongly that, with continued responsible regulation and oversight, GE will bring many significant health and environmental benefits to the world and its people.” (http://bit.ly/13bLJiR)

International Seed Federation: ”The development of GM crops has benefited farmers, consumers and the environment… Today, data shows that GM crops and foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts: millions of hectares worldwide have been cultivated with GM crops and billions of people have eaten GM foods without any documented harmful effect on human health or the environment.” (http://bit.ly/138rZLW)

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology: ”Over the last decade, 8.5 million farmers have grown transgenic varieties of crops on more than 1 billion acres of farmland in 17 countries. These crops have been consumed by humans and animals in most countries. Transgenic crops on the market today are as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts, and likely more so given the greater regulatory scrutiny to which they are exposed.” (http://bit.ly/11cTKq9)

Crop Science Society of America: ”The Crop Science Society of America supports education and research in all aspects of crop production, including the judicious application of biotechnology.” (http://bit.ly/138sQMB)

International Society of African Scientists: ”Africa and the Caribbean cannot afford to be left further behind in acquiring the uses and benefits of this new agricultural revolution.” (http://bit.ly/14Fp1oK)

Federation of Animal Science Societies: ”Meat, milk and eggs from livestock and poultry consuming biotech feeds are safe for human consumption.” (http://bit.ly/133F79K)

Society for In Vitro Biology: ”The SIVB supports the current science-based approach for the evaluation and regulation of genetically engineered crops. The SIVB supports the need for easy public access to available information on the safety of genetically modified crop products. In addition, the SIVB feels that foods from genetically modified crops, which are determined to be substantially equivalent to those made from crops, do not require mandatory labeling.” (http://bit.ly/18yFDxo)

Consensus document on GMOs Safety (14 Italian scientific societies): ”GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary to authorization, are to be considered, on the basis of current knowledge, safe to use for human and animal consumption.” (http://bit.ly/166WHYZ)

Society of Toxicology: ”Scientific analysis indicates that the process of GM food production is unlikely to lead to hazards of a different nature than those already familiar to toxicologists. The level of safety of current GM foods to consumers appears to be equivalent to that of traditional foods.” (http://bit.ly/13bOaSt)

“Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture” - Prepared by the Royal Society of London, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences, and the Third World Academy of Sciences:“Foods can be produced through the use of GM technology that are more nutritious, stable in storage, and in principle health promoting – bringing benefits to consumers in both industrialized and developing nations.” (http://bit.ly/17Cliq5)

French Academy of Science: ”All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria.” (http://bit.ly/15Hm3wO)

Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities: ”Food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from the corresponding conventional food. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior with respect to health.” (http://bit.ly/17ClMMF)

International Council for Science: ”Currently available genetically modified crops – and foods derived from them – have been judged safe to eat, and the methods used to test them have been deemed appropriate.” (http://bit.ly/15Hn487)

[modestybl]

148. Criticized by scientists whose grants are funded by the industry?

Your links are to mostly industry-backed front groups. The only legitimate link is to the AAAS statement that was very controversial and heavily criticized. Professional groups have weighed in:

http://www.enveurope.com/content/pdf/s12302-014-0034-1.pdf

http://www.enveurope.com/content/27/1/4/abstract

And there is considerable bias found in industry-backed R&D as opposed to independent R&D:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919210001302

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

Not to mention that the FDA and USDA are currently lousy with agri-business execs:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-controls-both-the-white-house-and-the-us-congress/5336422

I don't wish to be part of someone else's biology experiment. If GMOs are so great, they'd want to be advertising that fact. The reasons are never good for hiding information.

And again, what problem was the widespread use of GM plants supposed to solve? Appears that pesticide/herbacide use is going up, not down...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/us-usa-study-pesticides-idUSBRE89100X20121002

[HuckleB]

151. You actually linked to Seralini's group?

Wow! And then you posted Benbrook's debunked study about pesticides?

WOW!

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

And your SciAm article is long out of date. Those practices have been shown to be very different, in the first place, and they have changed. Why is it that you don't know that?

https://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf

And "Global Research" is just an anti-science conspiracy outfit.

Your propaganda does not match reality.

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

[modestybl]

156. Ad hominem attacks or industry propaganda does not make an argument...

The article you linked to is just as "out of date" ... and of course you are evading the point.

In principle, GE may have tremendous benefits for disease abatement and food nutrition. But that research is NOT being done. Over 99% of the GM food grown is for heavy herbicide (glyphosate) use or production of insecticide (Bt) in every cell of the GE plants. The utterly predictable result is a biological arms race resulting in superweeds or resistant bugs...

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/07/09/198051447/as-biotech-seed-falters-insecticide-use-surges-in-corn-belt.

Why not simply practice long-established good sustainable agricultural practices, like rotating crops? Oh yeah, money....

There are cautionary problems that corporations completely ignore: 1) one gene controls many protiens and enzymes, not just the one of interest - how is the risk of the unintended consequences assessed? How are possible new allergens detected? That R&D is simply not done in the US (possibly under advice from the industry's legal counsel). 2) horizontal transfer of possibly unstable recombinant gene sequences... genes evolved over millions of years are stable by selection - and the mutations from the environment have been selected over generations. We simply don't know what happens, years after ingestion of GM foods to our gut flora. I, for one, would rather not be some agri company's science project and would avoid such food as much as possible.

As long as the FDA and the USDA are lousy with agribusiness execs, I expect nothing from them in the public interest. Their only interest is short term profits, they have no interest in the long term consequences of their products, to independent farmers or the public at large, nor in the heavy lifting that real R & D would entail ... to first order, only university studies amenable to corporate interests are funded.

Right now, geneticists critical of the agribusiness party line have a very slim career path... in many ways they are worse off than the scientists decades ago warning us of the effects of increased greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

[modestybl]

157. BTW, industry-backed attacks does not equal "debunking"

... the criticism of Benbrook came from those who claim that we shouldn't see glysophate increase as problematic because it is much more benign than the more conventional herbicides..

1. this doesn't consider the problem of the superweed evolution... and that farmers are then more dependent on the input of Roundup

2. Apparently, the WHO doesn't agree that glysophates are so benign.
http://www.nature.com/news/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-cancer-1.17181

It is almost impossible to be an independent researcher in this country in agriculture and not beholden directly or indirectly to industry funding. There are more independent European scientists, and there is no universal acceptance of the safety of GE foods...

[Major Nikon]

14. Seralini fan

That alone tells you all you need to know.

[HuckleB]

15. Yikes. I hadn't quite gotten that far.

Too busy with the alt med believers.

[brentspeak]

91. What's your background?

And what is your real name?

Lantham provided his; why don't you do the same? Or maybe you have no credibility, and we here on the forums have no reason to pay attention to your Monsanto shilling.

[HuckleB]

94. In other words, you can't discuss the topic.

Evidence is what matters. How is it that you fail to see that. You have not disclosed anything about yourself, nor has anyone else at DU, for the most part.

Your demands show that you can't support your stance on this issue. Why can't you do that? That ought to tell you something very important.

[Skwmom]

4. DVDs (Genetic Roulette,The World According to Monsanto) Book (Altered Genes, Twisted Truth..

How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public


Definitely worth watching and reading.

[HuckleB]

9. Bad propaganda by people who don't understand how science works is not worth watching.

Why would make such a recommendation?

PS: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/bad-science-checklist-gmo-opponents/

[Skwmom]

29. (A very RESPECTED) Scientist that discovered GMO health hazards immediately fired,

http://www.naturalnews.com/037665_gmo_scientists_organ_damage.html#

The propaganda is from Monsanto and other GMO propagandists who employ people willing to do anything for a buck.

[HuckleB]

31. Respected by Natural News?

Yeah, that's not a respected anything. Yikes.

[Skwmom]

86. I just googled to find a reference, but it is a well known fact that it occurred. n/t

[HuckleB]

89. LOL! Conspiracy web pages are so much fun. Oh, goodness.

[SidDithers]

7. Green for victory!!...nt

Sid

[libodem]

13. Bookmarked

K&R

[HuckleB]

20. So you recommended this without reading it, and questioning it?

Really?

[libodem]

21. I recently served on a jury for your impertinent comments

I'm beginning to believe some of the comments had a basis in reality.

I find your demeanor off putting.

[HuckleB]

23. So you don't have anything to say about the topic, just about me.

And I'm the problem?

Hmmmmmm.

Interesting. Very interesting.

(Have you ever noticed that ideologues at DU sometimes try to get people's posts deleted simply because they disagree with them?)

[Dont call me Shirley]

22. Thanks for posting, nationalize the fed. There must become a mass movement against gmos.

The more gmos the more severe auto-immune diseases will proliferate. I'm on the auto-immune paleo diet, it's very strict. So far my joint pain and swelling have decreased immensely. Lost 30 lbs now. No gmos, no sugar, no processed foods, mostly organic everything.

To the naysayers, try living with several chronic auto-immune diseases and see how much fun that is.

[me b zola]

24. Can we please just have food that is naturally occurring

We are fouling our water and food supply. I just don't get it. How can that be okay with anybody?

[HuckleB]

25. Most of us want to continue eating.

So that wouldn't be a good response.

How are we "fouling our water and food supply?

[Glassunion]

28. Pesticides

Found in our rain, water and air.

[HuckleB]

30. You might want to look at things a bit more globally.

http://fafdl.org/blog/2015/03/06/focus-on-pesticides-is-a-distraction-from-major-eco-impacts/

BTW, you do realize that organic food uses lots of pesticides, right?

[Glassunion]

40. I'm not against GMOs.

I eat them all the time. The plant itself is not hurting me, nor do I feel (based on the studies I've read), that these plants will have long term health concerns.

I do however have issues with unfettered use of pesticides. I get it that they are necessary, however when you modify an organism to be resistant to that pesticide, the organism you are trying to kill becomes more resilient (evolution). Then you need more/stronger pesticides to continue killing it. It's the volume of pesticides required that can contaminate the local water supply, or simply be part of the air we breathe. The same science studies that inform me that GMO is fine to consume, points me to some of these chemicals/pesticides causing organ damage in the long term.

[HuckleB]

53. So then read what I posted, and respond to the content of that post.

Non-GMOs and organic food use pesticides, often far more toxic, than GMOs.

Next.

[truedelphi]

35. It is only okay with the Corporate-controlled government agencies and

Last edited Sat Sep 5, 2015, 03:28 AM - Edit history (1)

Government agents in this country.

Europeans demand that their scientists pay attention to the Preventative Principle, so that it must be proven that something is not harmful before it can be utilized.

This is how we Americans once ran our country, several decades back.

But these days the Corporate Control is pervasive, and both parties suffer from it.

Back during Bill's first term, the GM seeds and crops were allowed wide spread use inside this country due to how one of Bill Clinton's buddies, Michael Taylor, simply issued a statement stating that they were safe. This man later went on to become the head of one of the top departments at the FDA, under Pres. Obama, no less.

Hillary, The Donald and Jeb all support GMO's. The only way to end the madness is to get people to support Bernie Sanders and to get those people out there to vote for him on election day, 2016.

[Nailzberg]

120. Naturally occuring, as if other forms of breeding crops is natural.

Bombarding DNA with radiation, or chemicals. Scrambling thousands of genes and hoping to get the right result. Cause those are considered organic.

[NuclearDem]

26. Yawn.

Anyone who believes a thing Seralini has to say on the topic has zero credibility.

[erronis]

62. What a stupid comment. Yawn a bit more and have a cucumber.

[NuclearDem]

75. Speaking of stupid comments.

[Fairgo]

33. Caution is the watchword in tinkering with complex systems

The introduction of new processes that do not exist in nature creates a cascade of change that this puny science cannot predict, much less control. Burn one stick, look! Civilisation had no effect on starfish populations...burn a forest, pollute a river, change the climate...does civilisation have an impact on starfish populations? And what does that have to do with the human experience on earth? We don't have the right values, we don't ask the right questions, we don' t have models sufficient to predict...and yet we splice genetic material from non food life forms into food life forms so that our food cand create and retain poison...and say look, nobody is dying right now. Its safe! Science says so! Like monkeys using land mines to crack coconuts.

[HuckleB]

36. And yet GE technology changes the fewest number of genes and is studied the most, by far.

Your concerns are far more valid for other seed development technologies, and yet you don't seem to be worried about them. Hmm.

[truedelphi]

131. Actually every single cell

In a GM plant is modified, so while it might be true that every gene is not affected, a whole lot of cells are.

By things like the Mosaic Cauliflower virus, for instance.

And although the claim you make about only one gene being affected may be said to be true, the fact that GM technology can put the genetics of a flounder into a strawberry is a rather mind boggling fact.

Especially since many people are allergic to things like fish. So if a group of food items like grains suddenly have fish proteins or peanut proteins inside them, what happens to the subset of people who are allergic?

[HuckleB]

137. Every single cell of any plant from all seed development technologies is changed.

Your response does not actually show anything other than the fact that you don't seem to understand the topic.

There are no GMO plants with fish genes. Nevermind how many genes fish share with most plants already. You are just repeating bad anti-GMO propaganda. You can do better.

[PADemD]

44. Chaos theory

Chaos theory contends that complex and unpredictable results occur in systems that are sensitive to small changes in their initial conditions.

[Duppers]

47. ...

[blackspade]

41. I see the usual suspects are here to shit on anything that threatens their...

corporate masters' profits.

[NuclearDem]

43. Yawn.

New schtick is needed.

[blackspade]

52. I agree, your schtick is getting old.

[HuckleB]

54. Reality is a really bad Schtick.

Oh, wait.

[blackspade]

59. Your so right. The reality of GMO propagandists is a really bad schtick.

[HuckleB]

64. Anti-GMO lies are always lies. No argument about that.

[blackspade]

66. Ah, Facts are lies now...

How very Orwellian of you.

Excuse me I'm almost out of popcorn...need a refill.

But, do continue.

[HuckleB]

68. Name one fact that is a lie in your bizarre, Orwellian universe.

Then prove your assertion with actual evidence.

[blackspade]

79. Oh noes! Not again!

Your attempts to contort this exchange in your favor are failing....
But entertaining nonetheless!



I may need some beer for this..

[HuckleB]

81. As usual, you can't support any of your claims.

Thanks for the confession.

[blackspade]

92. And what claim would that be?

That the usual Monsanto shills would be all over this?
Well you proved that point handily.

On a serious note..not that you are likely to give a shit...do you know why a lot of people don't take you all seriously?
It's because there is no way to communicate with you about concerns over roundup, GMO, the environment, etc. You have made discussions so toxic most people just give up and move on. But, that is likely the goal, given your lack of attempts at rational communication.

But....back to your comedy routine!

[HuckleB]

93. Your concern is that critics of this nonsense OP will be here.

That means you must support this nonsense OP. If you don't great. If you do, well there you go.

Your Monsanto Shill confession is really all anyone who cares about honesty needs to know about you, anyway. The fact you're not embarrassed by your use of that is fairly astounding.

http://groundedparents.com/2014/07/21/monsanto-shill-mom/

[blackspade]

102. My 'concern' is that legitimate issues with GMO and GMO related...

Products cannot be discussed in any serious way at DU because of the constant food fight between the pro-GMO crowd and the anti-GMO crowd.

Those of us in the middle that just want a calm adult conversation about the pros and cons get drowned out by the hyperbole and aggressive posturing.

Sensible discussions about labeling and pesticide toxicity and environmental damage can't even be discussed because of this.

[HuckleB]

115. When it comes to actual science, there is not much of a middle.

It's like saying there is a debate on climate change or the safety of vaccines, there just really isn't outside of the edges.

Remember, not one anti-GMOist can answer this question legitimately: Can you name a safety risk associated with genetic engineering that could not also be applied to other plant breeding methods?

That ought to tell you everything you need to know.

[blackspade]

122. Actually there seems to be quite a bit of middle ground on a variety of fronts.

This series from Grist does a very good job detailing them:
http://grist.org/food/the-genetically-modified-food-debate-where-do-we-begin/

Some other info that seems to undermine the benefits of GM crops for yield, drought tolerance, and nitrogen usage.
http://civileats.com/2014/10/10/plant-breeding-vs-gmos-conventional-methods-lead-the-way-in-responding-to-climate-change/

And discussions about GM crops are in no way comparable to climate change and vaccines. That is just a cynical way of shutting down discussion over legitimate concerns about the use of GM crops to solve food needs around the globe.
The pro and con-GM argument is not a zero sum game. GM crops can be a benefit or a hazard depending on their application in the real world.

I'll ask this question of you: If crop yields, drought tolerance, and other positive farming traits are not better with GM crops than conventional local varieties, then why are they so fiercely promoted?

And to answer your question: No, there is no evidence at this time that acute risks from the GM plants themselves are any greater than those from conventional breeding. There are however a couple of caveats to that statement. Primary among these is that GM crops have been on the market for a relatively short time, so it is possible that there are long term risks that may be present that will only be recognized sometime in the future. The second is the use of pesticides and fertilizers that have acute environmental and personal risks that are directly related to GM crops.

There are numerous other concerns, but they don't relate to safety per se, so I'll end this here.

[HuckleB]

125. The Grist series is great, and it makes reality very clear.

Also, do you have any idea how many new plants derived from other seed development technologies are on the market, and have not been studied? Hmm. In other words, you are concerned about the technology that is the most predictable, changes the fewest number of genes, and the only one where we know exactly what genes are changed.

That really makes no sense at all.

Can you name a safety risk associated with genetic engineering that could not also be applied to other plant breeding methods?

I will wait for the answer to that one. It should be interesting. Or not.

Meanwhile, the supposed controversy remains rather unreal.


PS: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/science-deniers-false-equivalency-pretend-debate/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork

[blackspade]

133. I think you may need to re read my post.

I answered your question already.
Also the Grist series does not agree with your rosy assessment of gene splicing. You might want to revisit it again.

Finally, you never did answer my question.

[HuckleB]

134. No, you didn't answer the question.

Last edited Thu Sep 10, 2015, 12:03 PM - Edit history (1)

If you truly believe that, then you haven't actually pondered the question. Or you fail to understand it. If your answer is the "it's new and hasn't been studied enough" routine, then your answer is wrong, as was made clear in my response, and is made clear by the consensus of science, the amount of science, etc... As well as the fact that there are many new plants developed using other technologies, and those plants have not been studied at length, are new, etc... and no one is making the same claim about them. In other words, you have not answered the question in a manner that makes sense. There is no risk associated with genetic engineering that is not associated with all seed development technologies.

Your question simply brings up the problems with some of the pieces you posted. You seem to want to ignore the reality that crop yields are higher, pesticide use is down, and safer herbicides have replaced less safe herbicides. Just because others claim they are not by comparing crop yields in different environments doesn't change that. You do realize that farmers aren't going to plant the stuff, just because, right? Also, you don't recognize that the technology has largely saved the papaya. It may helps save oranges. If it weren't for anti-GMO advocacy, it would have likely saved the lives and sight of many people by now, as well.

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

Also, before you make any more claims, you might want to see if said claim makes sense first. This is a good place to start.

http://debunkingdenialism.com/2013/08/25/decimating-the-flawed-beliefs-of-anti-gmo-activists/

Also, remember that seed companies utilize all forms of development technologies. It is the demonization of GMOs that has kept them in the spotlight, usually, of course, via the spread of less than honest claims about them.

[blackspade]

138. So much for a constructive conversation.

You asked a question and I answered it. Full stop.
I don't have to 'ponder' it more for your benefit. My answer was clear, but you seem to be so used to 'reading between the lines' that clear answers are confusing to you
If you have a specific rebuttal, lets hear it, from you, not a blue link.

You are typical of Pro-GM activists in that you can't seem to get your head around the fact that people have questions that could be answered without hyperbolic bullshit. The second link is a great example of the sneering condescension of some Pro-GM activists who seem to feel that their interpretation of scientific results is the only 'true science.'

A perfect example of this:

When you come across a claim that you disagree with, the rational approach is to providing arguments and evidence against it. People who do not have any tend to resort to a number of logical fallacies, cognitive simplifications or thought-terminating clichés. One such key example is the dismissal of any evidence or arguments in favor of genetically modified foods by deploying the shill gambit. In the context of Scientific American and genetically modified foods, this amounts to the bare assertion that some large corporation that deals with GM crops, seeds or foods (often Monsanto) must have paid them off to publish that article. This conveniently allows the reduction of cognitive dissonance without having to address any of the actual arguments.

Another related technique to group critics of anti-GMO activists together with large corporations uses the false dilemma fallacy: either you are with us, or you are against us; either you accept the anti-GMO rhetoric, or you are part of the problem.

I almost laughed at the profound projection going on here. I really don't have the time to go through this mish mash, but suffice to say that unlike the Grist article the hyperbole in this opinion piece nearly drowns out any of the actual factual details about GM foods. I think the only decimation going on here is this guy objectivity.

At this point I'm done. I have a scientific report to write that I have far more vested interest in than sparing with blue links and a person who answers no questions put to them. This is classic avoidance strategy that I see from people who are so sure they are right but can't articulate the information that supports their position.

[HuckleB]

139. Since you have chosen to ignore most information that goes against your preconceptions...

Last edited Thu Sep 10, 2015, 01:10 PM - Edit history (1)

... that's bound to happen. You can't simply pretend to discuss something without acknowledging the full story.

You can laugh all you want, but the truth is that we both know you are pushing a viewpoint that is not supportable, and you now realize that on some level, and so you are now running from that reality by running from the information. You won't acknowledge it, but that's not my problem. It's yours. BTW, saying that I can't articulate the information that supports my opinion doesn't make it so. You simply don't want to acknowledge that information. And you have failed to support any of your claims or answers: Period. You seem to need to be right, and so you have convinced yourself of that. What you fail to understand is that I used to believe in the anti-GMO nonsense. Then I questioned myself, and dug deep into the science. I continue to question myself every day. The usual, cherry-picked anti-GMO cliches, do not stand up to scrutiny. You'll have to do better if you want to discuss the matter with people who understand how science works.

If you think you know more than I do, then head over the GMO Skepti-forum, and see how your POV etc... stand up to scrutiny.

https://www.facebook.com/GMOSkeptiForum

I expect better from people. Unfortunately, one does not get that at DU very often, any more. And, no, the DU back slapping and ugly attacks by anti-GMOers might give you comfort, but it's a false comfort not based in facts, science, or reality.

BTW, remember that you started this with this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027140666#post41

That tends to show everyone that discussion is not really what you desire. Heck, that response is in support of an OP that has completely been debunked, including by the Grist series. Hmm.

And it's still puzzling to see people who think they know more than the actual scientists:

American Association for the Advancement of Science: ”The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.” (http://bit.ly/11cR4sB)

American Medical Association: ”There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.” (http://bit.ly/166OUdM)

World Health Organization: ”No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.” (http://bit.ly/18yzzVI)

National Academy of Sciences: ”To date more than 98 million acres of genetically modified crops have been grown worldwide. No evidence of human health problems associated with the ingestion of these crops or resulting food products have been identified.” (http://bit.ly/13Cib0Y)

The Royal Society of Medicine: ”Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA.” (http://1.usa.gov/12huL7Z)

The European Commission: ”The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” (http://bit.ly/133BoZW)

American Council on Science and Health: ”[W]ith the continuing accumulation of evidence of safety and efficiency, and the complete absence of any evidence of harm to the public or the environment, more and more consumers are becoming as comfortable with agricultural biotechnology as they are with medical biotechnology.” (http://bit.ly/12hvoyg)

American Dietetic Association: ”It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that agricultural and food biotechnology techniques can enhance the quality, safety, nutritional value, and variety of food available for human consumption and increase the efficiency of food production, food processing, food distribution, and environmental and waste management.” (http://1.usa.gov/12hvWnE)

American Phytopathological Society: ”The American Phytopathological Society (APS), which represents approximately 5,000 scientists who work with plant pathogens, the diseases they cause, and ways of controlling them, supports biotechnology as a means for improving plant health, food safety, and sustainable growth in plant productivity.” (http://bit.ly/14Ft4RL)

American Society for Cell Biology: ”Far from presenting a threat to the public health, GM crops in many cases improve it. The ASCB vigorously supports research and development in the area of genetically engineered organisms, including the development of genetically modified (GM) crop plants.” (http://bit.ly/163sWdL)

American Society for Microbiology: ”The ASM is not aware of any acceptable evidence that food produced with biotechnology and subject to FDA oversight constitutes high risk or is unsafe. We are sufficiently convinced to assure the public that plant varieties and products created with biotechnology have the potential of improved nutrition, better taste and longer shelf-life.” (http://bit.ly/13Cl2ak)

American Society of Plant Biologists: ”The risks of unintended consequences of this type of gene transfer are comparable to the random mixing of genes that occurs during classical breeding… The ASPB believes strongly that, with continued responsible regulation and oversight, GE will bring many significant health and environmental benefits to the world and its people.” (http://bit.ly/13bLJiR)

International Seed Federation: ”The development of GM crops has benefited farmers, consumers and the environment… Today, data shows that GM crops and foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts: millions of hectares worldwide have been cultivated with GM crops and billions of people have eaten GM foods without any documented harmful effect on human health or the environment.” (http://bit.ly/138rZLW)

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology: ”Over the last decade, 8.5 million farmers have grown transgenic varieties of crops on more than 1 billion acres of farmland in 17 countries. These crops have been consumed by humans and animals in most countries. Transgenic crops on the market today are as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts, and likely more so given the greater regulatory scrutiny to which they are exposed.” (http://bit.ly/11cTKq9)

Crop Science Society of America: ”The Crop Science Society of America supports education and research in all aspects of crop production, including the judicious application of biotechnology.” (http://bit.ly/138sQMB)

International Society of African Scientists: ”Africa and the Caribbean cannot afford to be left further behind in acquiring the uses and benefits of this new agricultural revolution.” (http://bit.ly/14Fp1oK)

Federation of Animal Science Societies: ”Meat, milk and eggs from livestock and poultry consuming biotech feeds are safe for human consumption.” (http://bit.ly/133F79K)

Society for In Vitro Biology: ”The SIVB supports the current science-based approach for the evaluation and regulation of genetically engineered crops. The SIVB supports the need for easy public access to available information on the safety of genetically modified crop products. In addition, the SIVB feels that foods from genetically modified crops, which are determined to be substantially equivalent to those made from crops, do not require mandatory labeling.” (http://bit.ly/18yFDxo)

Consensus document on GMOs Safety (14 Italian scientific societies): ”GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary to authorization, are to be considered, on the basis of current knowledge, safe to use for human and animal consumption.” (http://bit.ly/166WHYZ)

Society of Toxicology: ”Scientific analysis indicates that the process of GM food production is unlikely to lead to hazards of a different nature than those already familiar to toxicologists. The level of safety of current GM foods to consumers appears to be equivalent to that of traditional foods.” (http://bit.ly/13bOaSt)

“Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture” - Prepared by the Royal Society of London, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences, and the Third World Academy of Sciences:“Foods can be produced through the use of GM technology that are more nutritious, stable in storage, and in principle health promoting – bringing benefits to consumers in both industrialized and developing nations.” (http://bit.ly/17Cliq5)

French Academy of Science: ”All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria.” (http://bit.ly/15Hm3wO)

Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities: ”Food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from the corresponding conventional food. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior with respect to health.” (http://bit.ly/17ClMMF)

International Council for Science: ”Currently available genetically modified crops – and foods derived from them – have been judged safe to eat, and the methods used to test them have been deemed appropriate.” (http://bit.ly/15Hn487)

And one more for fun: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/thanks-gwyneth-but-well-stick-with-the-scientists-on-this-issue_55c23d5ee4b0f7f0bebb34a4

[blackspade]

140. So you have reduced yourself to post stalking now....

in an effort to get my attention. Lovely.

[HuckleB]

141. I'm just making sure that we're clear here.

Discussion is not what you're interested in pursuing.

You only want to push your non-science-based viewpoints. (To be very, very kind to you.)

It's time for you to be honest. You don't get to play the shill gambit, and support pseudoscience over and over again, and then pretend that it was the other person who wasn't interested in actual discussion.

Period.

[blackspade]

142. You still haven't answered my question.....

Not that I expected you too.

That's the thing with converts to a new ideology; they're beliefs can't be questioned.

So you want honesty? here goes:
For me it comes down to choice, do I want to consume GM products or don't I?
Right now? I don't.
As far as GM products go, the jury's still out for me, and apparently a large number of other people.
I also know that I consume GM products routinely and I don't like it at all.
But, that is the current state of things.
However, I would like that to change. So, label products. Simple.
That is not a science issue. That is a money issue which is what this whole debate is really about from my perspective.

So there you have it, it boils down to choice. I believe that I have a right to choose what I consume.
Period.

[truedelphi]

121. I have a lot of nice organic, non-GM popcorn around.

Be glad to pass some your way for the purpose of a refill-.

BTW, I tired to alert on HuckleB about his using the word "Shill" but it seems like my alert did not take.

[HuckleB]

126. There is no GMO popcorn.

So the fact that you need to put a special label on your popcorn is astoundingly like the silly marketing nonsense that is causing the supposed controversy. I doubt you understand just how funny that is, but, oh well.

PS: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/science-deniers-false-equivalency-pretend-debate/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork

[truedelphi]

130. So technically I was incorrect.

Technically the problem with just about all conventionally grown corn, including popcorn, in the USA is the fact that it is sprayed to death with RoundUp, even though popcorn which is not yet GM.

[HuckleB]

135. There's nothing technical about it. And you're wrong about your new claim, as well.

Repeating bad anti-GMO propaganda doesn't lead to being correct the vast majority of the time.

http://www.nurselovesfarmer.com/2014/08/how-much-glyphosate-is-sprayed-on-our-crops/

[HuckleB]

57. Why do you hate reality?

No, seriously.

[LeftOfWest]

132. Seriously, you need sleep.

now.

[HuckleB]

136. I was asleep long before your meaningless post.

Do you have anything that justifies the OP?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

77. What tipped you off?

For me it was the fact that I see 13 out of 77 replies, meaning 64 are hidden.

[blackspade]

80. Snort!

Good one.

[HuckleB]

84. DERP.

[HuckleB]

85. Oh, that's right, you're the guy who can't handle actual science.

Please stop making our profession look bad with your anti-science stance. It sucks.

[Duppers]

46. Bookmarked. Thank you for posting this.

[peacebird]

69. Label GMOs and let the free market decide. My family will continue eating organic, & free range

grassfed beef, pork, and eggs

[Juicy_Bellows]

78. Yep.

Label it and we will decide. What's the problem? I am against patented seeds, that's some bullshit right there.

[HuckleB]

83. In other words, you don't need fake labels.

You've been conned by the deceitful, unethical anti-GMO movement already.

So, who cares?

[NutmegYankee]

73. What a word salad.

It isn't creating a new species. It's a cultivar at best.

[HuckleB]

82. Prove your ridiculous claim with word by word evidence.

This should be good.

[NutmegYankee]

87. Simple.

Last edited Sat Sep 5, 2015, 05:47 AM - Edit history (1)

A species is defined as the largest group of organisms where two hybrids are capable of reproducing fertile offspring, typically using sexual reproduction.

You can crossbreed GMO corn/soybeans with regular corn and produce fertile offspring. That mean's they are the same species.

[NutmegYankee]

99. I'm curious.

You appear to arguing against the OP. I trashed the OP premise as well. Why the hostile reply?

[HuckleB]

88. This Guy Made The American Loons List For His Bad Science

http://americanloons.blogspot.ca/2014/01/864-jonathan-latham-allison-wilson.html

[cprise]

123. Some guy with a blog protecting Industry is not "science". eom

[HuckleB]

128. Some folks who actually care about science showing reality is science.

The fact that you choose to ignore that reality by spouting off about "industry" doesn't change that.

It's time to wake up.

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/science-deniers-false-equivalency-pretend-debate/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork

[GoneFishin]

90. That was back in Senator Obama's unscientific phase. Wall Street has taught him all about

science since then. So now he understands that it is scientifically proven that people should just fucking eat whatever shit they find in the stores and shut the fuck up about it.

[HuckleB]

98. The anti-GMO Million Dollar Question.

Can you name a safety risk associated with genetic engineering that could not also be applied to other plant breeding methods?

PS: https://www.uq.edu.au/news/node/117763

[pnwmom]

113. The heavy doses of Round-up many GMO's have been engineered to withstand.

And Round-up, unlike some pesticides, is taken absorbed by the foliage so it cannot simply be washed off.

[Major Nikon]

153. Unlike what pesticides?

Which pesticide which could conceivably replace Round-up is not absorbed?

What exactly is the hazard of a residue that is 1000 times less (if that) to what it would take to harm you?

You do understand you didn't answer the previous poster's question, right?

[Major Nikon]

152. Evidently any attempts to answer that question have sputtered and fizzled out

Which sums up the anti-GMO movement pretty well. They seem to do a good job of throwing out misleading information that applies just as readily to non-GMO, or they just toss out bullshit in hopes that some of it will stick to the wall.

[villager]

101. Predictably, the Monsanto shareholders among us chimed in first

Thanks for posting though -- it's important that more scientists like this, off the corporate dole, are able to speak out.

[HuckleB]

112. The big question for you and all people who make such ugly attacks.

Can you name a safety risk associated with genetic engineering that could not also be applied to other plant breeding methods?

PS: https://www.uq.edu.au/news/node/117763

[Major Nikon]

144. Here's the really fun part

Inevitably someone in the anti-science crowd cites Mike Adams, Mercola, Serilini, or their fan base (like the OP), all of which actually do have a vested financial interest in promoting shitty opinions which are thinly masked as science.

So assuming they don't have a vested interest in Whole Foods, they are really nothing more than a witting or more likely unwitting mouthpiece for people who are actually no-shit snake oil selling shills. Seems kinda worse than actually being a shill, damn worse actually.

That which can be debunked, should be. It's really just that simple.

[HuckleB]

117. And you can't!!!!

Now, that's really interesting.

[Nailzberg]

118. A scientist, and he cites wiki?

I see why he "used" to be a scientist.

[ecstatic]

119. I eat reeses almost daily

I didn't know it was made from GMO. I support labeling.

[nationalize the fed]

124. This GMO crap has infiltrated the entire US food supply

I didn't have any idea that almost all candy made in the US is made from GMO ingredients until I saw a UK special on foods. An M&M's bag was shown and there was the warning that doesn't exist in the US.

It doesn't stop there- everything that has corn syrup (which is almost everything) has corn syrup that is made from GMO corn. Everything with Soy that isn't labeled "Organic" or "GMO Free" is made with GMO Soy- people would be surprised how many things that includes. Most salad dressings contain GMO soybean oil.



Probably almost all processed foods that come in a box now contain some kind of GMO.

Sneaking this stuff into almost everything should be a crime. Accusing people of being "Anti-Science" for objecting is insanity and an outrage. People in favor of more info and labeling wouldn't sneak non-gmo food into a GMO lover's brownies.

Please tell everyone you know- it's up to us proles to get the word out since Monsanto and Congress are about to make it illegal (...) to label any GMO food in the US. Us pro-info and pro-label people haven't begun to fight.

[HuckleB]

127. Why do you think it's ok to call safe food "crap?"

Why do you think it's ok to promote this OP? It has been thoroughly debunked, and yet you still support it and its rather obviously less than honest author?

PS: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/science-deniers-false-equivalency-pretend-debate/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork

[thecrow]

129. "a protein-based toxin"...

Alzheimer's Disease is all about proteins getting sticky in the brain...it is also starting to affect more and more people... is it possible that the GMOs are contributing to AD?

[Major Nikon]

143. It's possible the decline in the pirate population is causing global warming

[thecrow]

146. WTF, Nikon?

[Major Nikon]

147. You stole my line!

[PatSeg]

145. Kick to read later

[Zorra]

149. Just say no to the GMO. nt

[Bonx]

150. also reading & real science.

[Major Nikon]

154. But that doesn't rhyme

Just sayin'

[HuckleB]

155. Why?

An appeal to food activists: You are aimed in the wrong direction

http://www.themindrestrained.org/columns/gmo/an-appeal-to-food-activists-you-are-aimed-the-wrong-direction/