Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science

[nationalize the fed]

Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public

By Steven Druker



This book uncovers the biggest scientific fraud of our age. It tells the fascinating and frequently astounding story of how the massive enterprise to restructure the genetic core of the world's food supply came into being, how it advanced by consistently violating the protocols of science, and how for more than three decades, hundreds of eminent biologists and esteemed institutions have systematically contorted the truth in order to conceal the unique risks of its products–and get them onto our dinner plates.

Altered Genes, Twisted Truth provides a graphic account of how this elaborate fraud was crafted and how it not only deceived the general public, but Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Barack Obama and a host of other astute and influential individuals as well. The book also exposes how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was induced to become a key accomplice--and how it has broken the law and repeatedly lied in order to usher genetically engineered foods onto the market without the safety testing that's required by federal statute. As a result, for fifteen years America's families have been regularly ingesting a group of novel products that the FDA's own scientific staff had previously determined to be unduly hazardous to human health.

By the time this gripping story comes to a close, it will be clear that the degradation of science it documents has not only been unsavory but unprecedented--and that in no other instance have so many scientists so seriously subverted the standards they were trained to uphold, misled so many people, and imposed such magnitude of risk on both human health and the health of the environment.

http://www.amazon.com/Altered-Genes-Twisted-Truth-Systematically/dp/0985616903/

4.5 Stars at Amazon, 227 Customer Reviews

“A fascinating book: highly informative, eminently readable, and most enjoyable. It’s a real page-turner and an eye-opener.”--Richard C. Jennings, Ph.D., Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, UK

“This incisive and insightful book is truly outstanding. Not only is it well-reasoned and scientifically solid, it's a pleasure to read--and a must-read. Through its masterful marshalling of facts, it dispels the cloud of disinformation that has misled people into believing that GE foods have been adequately tested and don't entail abnormal risk.” --David Schubert, Ph.D. molecular biologist and Head of Cellular Neurobiology, Salk Institute for Biological Studies

“Altered Genes, Twisted Truth is a remarkable work that may well change the public conversation on one of the most important issues of our day. If the numerous revelations it contains become widely known, the arguments being used to defend genetically engineered foods will be untenable.”--Frederick Kirschenmann, Phd Distinguished Fellow, Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University, Author of Cultivating an Ecological Conscience

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

[proverbialwisdom]

1. More.

2016: http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16694-how-gmos-are-defended-by-distorting-the-facts

2015: http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/87-news/archive/2015/16183-lawyer-challenges-monsanto-to-find-inaccuracies-in-his-book-exposing-gmo-risks

2012: http://www.gmwatch.org/news/archive/2012/14197-altered-genes-twisted-truth-new-book-on-birth-of-gm

I have not read the book, however, it is fully supported by http://www.gmwatch.org -> KICK AND REC

[nationalize the fed]

2. Thanks for the links

most people have no idea that their kitchens are full of this garbage

Cheerios? GMO Sugar
Pancake syrup? GMO Corn
Canned Chili? GMO Soy

EVERYTHING



This stuff has infiltrated the entire food supply

[longship]

7. All harmless.

Genetic modification is safe. How do we know? Because humans have been doing it for thousands of years. That's how.

If one labels food from genetic modification one would have to label all of it. Nothing you eat is not genetically modified.

[PufPuf23]

8. There is a vast difference between plant breeding and gene splicing / genetic modification (GMOs).

Caveat: Gene splicing also know as genetic modification is a valid technology. However, the science is relatively new.
The technique has allowed a revolution in the medical, agriculture, research science, and other fields.

Corporate supporters understate the direct risks and overstate the benefits of genetic modification of food and material crops on a landscape scale. . The external risks to soil, genetic diversity, human society, etc. are understated or ignored. There are large short term financial rewards for manufacturers of gmo strains and corporate agriculture.

My perception is that there are shills at DU and elsewhere that seek to foster the idea that the questions attendant to corporate agriculture based upon gmos is a closed question when this is not in fact true.

Plant breeding

wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_breeding

Plant breeding is the art and science of changing the traits of plants in order to produce desired characteristics.[1] Plant breeding can be accomplished through many different techniques ranging from simply selecting plants with desirable characteristics for propagation, to more complex molecular techniques (see cultigen and cultivar).

Plant breeding has been practiced for thousands of years, since near the beginning of human civilization. It is practiced worldwide by individuals such as gardeners and farmers, or by professional plant breeders employed by organizations such as government institutions, universities, crop-specific industry associations or research centers.

International development agencies believe that breeding new crops is important for ensuring food security by developing new varieties that are higher-yielding, resistant to pests and diseases, drought-resistant or regionally adapted to different environments and growing conditions.

Genetic engineering (gene modification)

wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering

Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology. It is a set of technologies used to change the genetic makeup of cells, including the transfer of genes within and across species boundaries to produce improved or novel organisms. New DNA may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning methods to generate a DNA sequence, or by synthesizing the DNA, and then inserting this construct into the host organism. Genes may be removed, or "knocked out", using a nuclease. Gene targeting is a different technique that uses homologous recombination to change an endogenous gene, and can be used to delete a gene, remove exons, add a gene, or introduce point mutations.

An organism that is generated through genetic engineering is considered to be a genetically modified organism (GMO). The first GMOs were bacteria generated in 1973 and GM mice in 1974. Insulin-producing bacteria were commercialized in 1982 and genetically modified food has been sold since 1994. GloFish, the first GMO designed as a pet, was first sold in the United States in December 2003.[1]

Genetic engineering techniques have been applied in numerous fields including research, agriculture, industrial biotechnology, and medicine. Enzymes used in laundry detergent and medicines such as insulin and human growth hormone are now manufactured in GM cells, experimental GM cell lines and GM animals such as mice or zebrafish are being used for research purposes, and genetically modified crops have been commercialized.

[longship]

11. The line of demarcation is fuzzy.

That is what the science unequivocally says.

In fact, of your body mass, much of it is bacterial, more cells in fact.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-humans-carry-more-bacterial-cells-than-human-ones/

So these silly, ignorant Frankenfood arguments are based on ignorance, not science.

And it also ignores the entire science of evolutionary biology, that all life forms that we know of share a common genetic heritage. We were all bacterial before we became sponge form, before we became Cambrian sea creatures, before we became fish, before we became quadrupeds, before we became amphibian, before we became reptilian, before we became mammals, etc.

We share all those genetic lineages in our genes.

And people are getting their shorts all in a bunch about some gene splicing that nature has been doing for billions of years and that humans have been doing for thousands?

That makes for a very silly argument given that there is absolutely zero scientific evidence that genetic modification is in anyway harmful to humans. Even the basic science does not support that hypothesis.

[PufPuf23]

13. You are wrong.

The make up of our body is an ecosystem that has evolved.

The article you posted and what you state only proves that you do not nor do not want to understand.

Splicing genes and introducing organisms into an open ecosystem that thrive because they there is no incremental evolved response is analogous to introducing foreign organisms into an ecosystem where there is no competition, immune response or the like.

The introduced organism thrives initially but there can be unintended or unexpected negative effects.

An example is the introduction of the potato into Europe and how the potato fueled the Industrial Revolution followed by the Potato famine. Other examples are for all intents and purposes losing the eastern white pine and American chestnut, the two monarchs of the primeval forest of the USA, because of diseases introduced from nursery stock (and the subsequent failure of 75 years of plant breeding programs and genetic engineering to restore these trees to our forests). Similarly we are now losing Port Orford cedar to a root disease carried by nursery stock and vehicles. These were unintended results of plant breeding. Ecological science is rife with examples of foreign species introduced with unintended consequences. Other examples of what appeared to be miracle technology are substances such as DDT and 245T. These are the types of problems that can arise without the power of genetic engineering. Ooops.

Genetic engineering is an incredible and highly useful technology especially in closed ecosystems.

The types of gene splicing done in genetic engineering would not occur in nature and the very fact of the extreme potential usefulness over a short time frame is evidence of the potential power.

GMO food plants are highly productive in themselves and all so because they out compete and displace what otherwise would be termed as "weeds" (a plant out of place). The corporate GMO crops increase the production of harvestable crop but decrease overall primary productivity and reduce the amount of carbon in the soil.

I never said that genetic modification is wrong in fact I stated that I support genetic engineering.

However, your posts twist science and ignore real risks and I would posit because of propaganda from corporations wanting money and power.

Genetic engineering is not the "gene splicing" that nature has been doing for billions of years (nature selects and evolves) and that humans have been doing for thousands.

[bkkyosemite]

52. Please....the only authority on the matter

[Nailzberg]

18. The shill gambit. How clever.

[ellenrr]

24. I've seen ignorant posts at DU...

longship is confused.
genetic modification could not take place until the science of genetics had emerged, which was not "thousands of years ago".

btw, do you also believe the earth is 6000 years old?

[longship]

67. What an insulting response!

I respond by requesting that you cite any science that supports a contention that genetic modification is in any way harmful or is in any way different than what humans have been doing for thousands of years, that is introducing new genetic material into an organism.

The anti-GMO crowd must first respond to these issues before they can even get to first base.

And you speak of 6,000 years? It is biology which backs up my claims and falsifies those of the genetic modification deniers, who like creationists, climate change deniers, and other ideologues, cherry pick the science to advance their anti-science ideology. It is the ideology that drives their narrative. Meanwhile, science moves on.

My best to you.

[immoderate]

55. Is that why full bred dogs don't live as long?

--imm

[longship]

79. Full bred dogs don't live long because of inbreeding.

That is why they have so many genetic traits that cause early pathology.

Biology 101.

[immoderate]

87. They also have genetic traits that prevent natural birth, and cause discomfort

in other areas, because of those same traits and their unexpected results. There are stunted legs and short snouts and malocclusions, and overgrown bodies, with weak hips, etc. You need to go on to 102!

BTW, how is the repetition of the same seed culture, season after monoculture season, (same seeds, same fertilizer, same pesticides) significantly different? (Note: that the only consistent benefits derived so far, have been to the seed producers.)

--imm

[longship]

94. Or children who might otherwise go blind.

Golden Rice

Drops microphone.

[immoderate]

98. Some genetic engineering is justified. Golden Rice ain't it.

Although their intentions seem better than Monsanto.

I'm all in favor of vitamin A. Golden Rice is mostly hype, AFAICT.

--imm

[longship]

100. Do you mean other than kids going blind?

Sheesh!

[immoderate]

102. Give 'em a carrot!

--imm

[longship]

103. Maybe carrots don't grow in Asia. Golden rice does.

Plus, rice is already a staple in their diet. Vitamin A is NOT! That is why kiddies go blind and golden rice prevents that from happening.

Win win! Because of genetic modification, and because of... wait for it

SCIENCE!

[immoderate]

105. I am not aware of any place that has counteracted Vitamin A deficiencies with Golden Rice.

Where is this happening?

--imm

[longship]

107. Okay. Here is a balanced treatment of the topic.

Golden Rice Follow Up

And here is the first article:
Marketing Biofortifoed GMOs

Let the science speak for itself.

[immoderate]

110. The pieces you presented are science fiction.

Polemics, with no there, there.

--imm

[longship]

113. Science is a bitch, my friend.

It isn't easy. When one makes a claim -- I.E., that genetic modification is bad -- one had better have nature on ones side. Sadly, that is not the case.

I would invite you to cite a peer reviewed paper (that has survived peer review) that supports the proposition that genetic modification on its own has any deleterious health hazards.

That's right. You cannot.

N.B., I would gladly stand down from my stance if such evidence was presented and it stood up. That is the measure between science and mindless ideology against what science reveals.

[immoderate]

116. There is no peer reviewed paper that states they're safe either.

For the record though, I have gone over the protocols of the studies by Seralini and Pusztai and the study done on pigs. I did not see any flaws in those studies, except if they were inconclusive, then follow ups are implied. Unlike the feedlot dumps, these are well designed studies.

I mainly want GMOs labeled so people can track the experiment being performed on them. It will continue until someone is really hurt. I am not against genetic manipulation. I am against what Monsanto is doing on biological, ecological, economic, and environmental grounds. It's unstable and unsustainable.

--imm

[longship]

119. The Seralini paper has been universally slammed!

The extent that one would even mention it is a testament to ones bias, given that paper's odious history. It was withdrawn; not a good record.

And Carman's pig study universally failed peer review. It was excoriated. Excuse me, her major claim was the opposite to the data!

And of the 19 outcomes that were measured, none of them were hypothesized as the outcome of the study until after the fact, a sure indication of cherry-picking. That is doom for any science publication.

Here's the response to Seralini's rat study:
The Seralini GMO Study Retraction

As to the Judy Carman study, it did not pass peer review. Not even close!
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/judy-carman/

David Gorski's Blog post: https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/once-more-bad-science-in-the-service-of-anti-gmo-activism/

The anti-GMO crowd have nothing but rubbish (so-called) science on their side. None of it passes peer review let alone any experimental methodological rigor, let alone statistical means testing.

If the anti-GMO crowd wants to make their case they have to first step up to the basic science that states that they are likely wrong. They have not met that burden.

[longship]

127. Labels? Where is the line of demarcation?

This is where basic science (core science, if you wish) differs from popular science.

This is the realm of study, when one is going for a PhD, that questions like "What is the line of demarcation between cross-breeding and 21st century genetic modification?"

Well, that's a pretty good and fucking interesting question, one that possibly needs an answer. Except that it is not a new question, except to the anti-GMO non-scientists who are ignorant of this important question which has been going on for at least over a century and has been substantially fleshed out since then.

There is voluminous research to support genetic modification is safe and nothing to the contrary other than contrived experiments whose only goal is not nature, but to prove nature wrong, just like all science denialism.

[immoderate]

128. Where do you get the idea that all scientists think GMOs are safe?

It's called begging the question, no?

Basic science can not say that GMOs are safe.

--imm

[longship]

130. It is not up to me to prove genetic modification safe.

It is up to the contrarians to demonstrate the opposite, just like the climate science deniers. Put up, or shut up.

When a substantial body of science that crosses disciplines comes to a concensus about nature, it is not up to those people who have worked diligently to demonstrate their work to do so again to a wholly ignorant ideological cabal who disagree solely on the basis of the research instead of the evidence and results. There are numerous examples of such things. Creationism, and its evil spawn intelligent design. Lysenkoism which impeded Soviet medicine for decades to the point that when Chernobyl hit, they had insufficient doctors to solve the crisis.

Science is not a matter of opinion. The final arbitrator is nature, not anybody's opinion. But science does have a methodology, and it works well. The extent to which it does not agree with nature is the extent to which either the theory or methods should be adjusted, the former being preferred over the latter.

That is how science works, not by some ad hoc screechings by people who have no knowledge or no arguments.

When there are peer reviewed papers in the scientific literature which back up anti-GMO claims, I will consider them. However, warning! The basic science is against that hypothesis, which is not very promising as these things go. And therefore, there is no support for the anti-GMO claims.

[immoderate]

131. You don't know about science. Stop speaking for it. Stop invoking ghosts. You don't know me.

If your GMOs which science hasn't (and can't) declare safe, does damage, who pays? There are still no long term animal studies. Each modification requires complete testing. What about super pests and tolerant weeds? Contaminated water and affected wildlife? Bees? Butterflies? Are these evidence and results? Why do you ignore them?

You have a short sighted view. You think it gives you some authority. If you could, you would produce a paper that shows GMOs are safe. You can't. Because none exists. No long term epidemiological studies have been done. Do you think no knowledge can be gained from labeling food sources? Why? Is everything already known?

--imm

[longship]

139. Genetic modification has been shown to be safe.

Furthermore, the basic science also says it is safe because there is no difference between what humans have been doing for thousands of years and what they now have been doing in the lab. The only difference is that the new techniques have higher specificity in outcome. But when it comes down to it, cross breeding and gene splicing are all about the same thing, introducing new and unique genetic information into a cultivar.

Your casual dismissal of the science does not change those basic facts.

And it is incumbent on the genetic modification deniers to demonstrate their claims with real research just as those who support the science have been doing for decades. Otherwise it is just screeching from the sidelines. The fact is that the research is being done and genetic modification passes muster. Some people still don't like that fact so they have to deny the science by bleating from the sidelines and deny that the science is doing what it has always done, validate nature.

If you make a claim that genetic modification is somehow a bad thing, than it is up to you to demonstrate that claim. There is no such research that passes peer review muster. Until there is, the GM deniers have nothing.

That may sound tough but that is how it works. In other words, if one thinks that GM is bad, put up or shut up. Show everybody the science by citing good science. One doesn't get to just make stuff up here.

My best to you.

[immoderate]

140. Shown to be safe -- where?

Bees and butterflies? Tolerance in bugs and weeds? No answers.

--imm

[longship]

141. Yet again, the burden of proof is on the deniers.

Those who claim that it is not safe. Otherwise, it is just bleating from the sidelines about bees and butterflies with absolutely no science to back them up.

If the science stands against a position, one has nothing to stand on. Cite, or you have nothing.

Bees and butterflies! Bah! Where has any science said that genetic modification has anything to do with them? There's another bug that comes into this at this point. Crickets!

[nationalize the fed]

143. Total Rubbish

[longship]

144. Put up, or shut up!

Science is a bitch. Either one has the evidence on ones side or one doesn't. With regards to genetic modification, the basic science is clear -- there is no qualitative difference between cross-breeding and gene splicing. If one disagrees the burden is on you. Cite the research that falsifies that premise. If one cannot do that then one has no leg to stand on.

It really is that simple. Show folks the research that backs your position and people will willingly go along with that position. That is how this works. It is how one builds a scientific consensus. However, when one has no science (even a minority opinion) on ones side, one should be humble enough to give in to the overwhelming data that attests to genetic modification's safety.

The only minority opinion here publishes rubbish science (Seralini, Carman, et al) which universally fails peer review. Why the deniers keep trying with such shoddy research attests to the fact that their arguments are not so much scientific as they are ideological. Their science fails, so they argue on ideological grounds.

Well, that bullshit just does not work. In science one has to have the goods, or you're going to be torn to pieces, which all the so-called anti-GMO papers have been. Not one stands up to scrutiny.

[immoderate]

146. So you are a linear thinker. Pleiotropy?

--imm

[longship]

150. I love it when you talk dirty to me.

[Kip Humphrey]

66. Can't even watch a video, eh? Your facts are in error or very misleading and cause me to ask who is

paying you?

[longship]

68. Who? The Social Security Administration, that's who.

Why? Oh why do ideologues always defend their position by presuming the grand conspiracy?

The answer is: That is all they have! The science isn't on their side so they have to make shit up and concoct the grand conspiracies that anybody who disagrees is somehow corrupted by a putative evil influence (in this case, usually Monsanto).

Well, I would rather be poor, like I am, than corrupt myself by being a shill. Instead, I let the science lead me to a conclusion. BTW, if the science said otherwise, I would change my position.

What would it take to change your position?

[Kip Humphrey]

72. "What would it take to change your position?" I'll start when my botonist wife informs me otherwise.

[longship]

75. Aha! Argument from authority.

I would counter that with "the only authority is nature herself." (Personifying nature, as we are want to do.)

Science generally eschews authority in a person. That would be a huge mistake and has led many otherwise good scientists astray.

Regards to you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

83. Get your 'botonist' wife to tell you how to spell her profession

since the 'a' is nowhere near the 'o' on a keyboard. You obviously haven't looked into botany much.

[Kip Humphrey]

84. Wow. Pettiness AND rudeness. I'm glad I don't live nearby!

[muriel_volestrangler]

86. Rude? Nothing rude there.

I'm just suggesting you find out something about botany before you try to talk about it.

[HuckleB]

136. Oh, goodness.

Last edited Tue Mar 8, 2016, 01:37 PM - Edit history (1)

PS:


5 Reasons to Avoid GMO Food

http://modernliberals.com/5-reasons-to-avoid-gmo-food/

[Dont call me Shirley]

104. Monsanto makes up fake science.

[longship]

108. Monsanto == very little of genetic modification research.

Boing!!!!

So any mention of Monsanto is, by definition, a non sequitur.

Most genetic modification takes place in university laboratories which have little or no connection to any corporate donors, let alone Mon-fucking-santo.

So there's that inconvenience that flies in the face of the anti-GMO, anti-science ideologues. Like the creationists and the climate deniers, why let facts get in the way of my ideology?

[Dont call me Shirley]

109. Many university research is now either fully or partially funded by the industry who whants the

research, BOOM!

Trying to link the anti-gmo-anti-glyphosate movement to the pro-creationism and anti-global warming movements is like trying to link Galileo to flat-earthers.

[wordpix]

164. yes and the glyphosate that goes along with GMOs is safe too (sarcasm)

Researchers have found that glyphosate changes cell structure at every dilution tested up to 100,000x more dilute than the shelved products.

[longship]

168. What is this fixation on glyphosate?

As if that is the sole reason to genetically modify stuff. It is as useless a narrative as the ever present Monsanto screeching.

Genetic modification has accomplished much more than Roundup ready crops and is practiced in university labs all over the world, not just at Monsanto.

And d'ya know what? It is safe and it works. And if glyphosate and Monsanto are all you have, you've got nothing.

[nationalize the fed]

3. GMO's- the biggest scientific fraud of our age

“Altered Genes, Twisted Truth is very readable, thorough, logical and thought-provoking. Steven Druker exposes shenanigans employed to promote genetic engineering that will surprise even those who have followed the ag-biotech industry closely for years. I strongly recommend his book.”--Belinda Martineau, Ph.D., a co-developer of the first genetically engineered whole food and author of First Fruit: The Creation of the Flavr Savr™ Tomato and the Birth of Biotech Foods

[Archae]

4. Steven Druker? Are you serious?

Do you have any idea what Druker does when he's not writing books like this?

He's vice-president of the Maharishi "college," where they teach "students" there how to bounce on a mat in the lotus position and call it "yogic flying."

This book is written by a guy who has *ZERO* scientific credentials, but is very good at making hysterical accusations.

[proverbialwisdom]

12. Check it out.

http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16766-94-scientists-explain-why-efsa-got-it-wrong-on-glyphosate

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12312207#post33

[nationalize the fed]

22. Perhaps you should...

...notify these people immediately. You can save their careers, because if the word gets out about this Drucker chap they'll be finished if they don't retract their endorsements.

Richard C. Jennings, Ph.D., Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, UK

David Schubert, Ph.D. molecular biologist and Head of Cellular Neurobiology, Salk Institute for Biological Studies

John Ikerd, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Missouri – Columbia

Joseph Cummins, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Genetics, Western University, London, Ontario

Stephen Naylor, PhD CEO and Chairman of MaiHealth Inc., Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, & Pharmacology Mayo Clinic (1991-2001)

Frederick Kirschenmann, Phd Distinguished Fellow, Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University, Author of Cultivating an Ecological Conscience

Belinda Martineau, Ph.D., a co-developer of the first genetically engineered whole food and author of First Fruit: The Creation of the Flavr Savr™ Tomato and the Birth of Biotech Foods

Allison Wilson, PhD molecular geneticist, Science Director, The Bioscience Resource Project

Ralph Bunker, PhD

http://www.amazon.com/Altered-Genes-Twisted-Truth-Systematically/dp/0985616903/

It should be easy enough to find contact information for everyone above - except maybe Ralph Bunker, PhD. I'll even help if you want. It is JUST THAT Important, isn't it. Imagine how silly they will feel after being informed that they have endorsed a fraud. But You're here to save them!

Chop Chop- Time's a wasting

PS: Care to share your credentials? It would help establish your own credibility when it comes to GMO's. You can still remain anonymous, there are loads of PhD's and Doctors in the US. TIA!

[progressoid]

30. Oooo fun. Let's play the deflection game.

Nobel Laureate James D. Watson, credited for the landmark discovery of the structure of the DNA, says "genetically modified foods are good." 84-year-old Watson says he feels the use of genetically modified foods was a way to save the world from starvation.

Answering a question asked by NDTV at the ongoing Euro Science Open Forum (ESOF 2012), being held in Dublin where more that 4000 scientists are attending, Watson emphasized that the "use of genetically modified foods is non-brainer.

Watson said the opposition to genetically modified foods was "irrational" and went on to suggest that some environmentalists "are more whacko than you can think."

Coming down heavily on the American company that was instrumental in spearheading the early research on genetically modified foods, Monsanto. Watson said "it was a stupid decision by Monsanto to try and control all (research and development) on genetically modified foods."

http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/discoverer-of-dna-says-yes-to-genetically-modified-food-492338

[proverbialwisdom]

41. Long term animal feeding studies, the gold standard for demonstrating safety, do not exist.

http://gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16396-lessons-in-critical-thinking-and-william-saletan-part-2

Published: 08 September 2015

...A number of animal feeding studies have found toxic effects from GM crops. Thanks to the suppression of research finding problems with GMOs, these studies have not been followed up. So we don’t know if the cause of the toxicity was a pesticide the GMO was grown with (e.g. Roundup), a pesticide that was built into the plant’s cells (e.g. Bt toxin), or a “toxic mutation” in the GMO. And we still have no idea how likely it is that a GMO will produce a “toxic mutation”.

<>

In contrast, with GM, new toxins can appear unexpectedly. Because GM crop developers do not know what to look for, they are not reliably screened out. The researcher Dr Arpad Pusztai was shocked when he discovered that the GM potatoes developed by Prof John Gatehouse and the biotech company Axis Genetics had toxic effects on rats. Mysteriously, the glycoalkaloid content of the GM potatoes was less than that of the non-GM parent lines. The source of the toxicity is still unknown. What’s more, it never will be known, as Pusztai’s data were confiscated in the panic that erupted in the UK scientific establishment after Pusztai’s findings were made public...

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11801-pusztai-to-receive-stuttgart-peace-prize

Dr Pusztai on the 10th anniversary of GM safety scandal

The following is an email of 10 August 2008 from Dr Pusztai to Claire Robinson and Jonathan Matthews of GMWatch, in which Dr Pusztai comments on the 10th anniversary of the television interview.

Dear Claire and Jonathan,

I thought that I should write to you on the 10th anniversary of my 150 seconds of TV "fame" and tell you what I think now. It is very appropriate to write to you because you have provided the most comprehensive service to inform people about the shenanigans of the GM biotechnology industry and its advocates.

On this anniversary I have to admit that, unfortunately, not much has changed since 1998. In one of the few sentences I said in my broadcast ten years ago, I asked for a credible GM testing protocol to be established that would be acceptable to the majority of scientists and to people in general. 10 years on we still haven't got one. Instead, in Europe we have an unelected EFSA GMO Panel with no clear responsibility to European consumers, which invariably underwrites the safety of whatever product the GM biotech industry is pushing onto us.

All of us asked for independent, transparent and inclusive research into the safety of GM plants, and particularly those used in foods. There is not much sign of this either. There are still "many opinions but very few data"; less than three dozen peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published describing the results of work relating to GM safety that could actually be regarded as being of an academic standard; and the majority of even these is from industry-supported labs. Instead we have the likes of Tony Trewavas and others writing unsupported claims for the safety of GM food and defaming people like Rachel Carson who can no longer defend herself; not that she needs to be defended from such nonentities.

In normal times one would not pay much attention to such people desperately trying to be seen as the advocates of true science, but these are not normal times. The mostly engineered (GM engineered) food crisis gives the GM biotech industry and its warriors an opportunity to come to the fore with claims that GM is the only way to save a hungry world; a claim not much supported by responsible bodies, such as the IAASTD. The advocates of GM also now think that they have found a chink in the armory of people's resolve that they can exploit by telling us that we would not be able to feed our animals without GM feedstuffs. In this way, they hope to bring in GM by the backdoor. Please remember that whatever our animals eat, we shall also get back indirectly. Rather ominously, there has been no work whatever to show the safety of the meat of GM-fed animals.

We must not underestimate the financial and political clout of the GM biotechnology industry. Most of our politicians are committed to the successful introduction of GM foods. We must therefore use all means at our disposal to show people the shallowness of these claims by the industry and the lack of credible science behind them, and then trust to people's good sense, just as in 1998, to see through the falseness of the claims for the safety of untested GM foods.

Let's hope that on the 20th anniversary I shall not have to write another warning letter about the dangers of untested GM foods!

Best wishes to all
Arpad Pusztai

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-09-03/news/0009030374_1_genetically-modified-new-proteins

"Genetically Altered Foods: We Are Being Exposed to One of the Largest Uncontrolled Experiments in History"

Martha Herbert, MD, PhD
September 3, 2000

BOSTON - Today the vast majority of foods in supermarkets contain genetically modified substances whose effects on our health are unknown. As a medical doctor, I can assure you that no one in the medical profession would attempt to perform experiments on human subjects without their consent. Such conduct is illegal and unethical. Yet manufacturers of genetically altered foods are exposing us to one of the largest uncontrolled experiments in modern history.

In less than five years these companies have flooded the marketplace with thousands of untested and unlabeled products containing foreign genetic material. These genetically modified foods pose several very real dangers because they have been engineered to create novel proteins that retard spoilage, produce their own pesticides against insects, or allow plants to tolerate larger and larger doses of weed killers. Despite claims that these food products are based on "sound science," in truth, neither manufacturers nor the government has studied the effects of these genetically altered organisms or their new proteins on people-especially babies, the elderly, and the sick. Can these products be toxic? Can they cause immune system problems? Can they damage an infant's developing nervous system? We need answers to these questions, and until then genetically altered ingredients should be removed from the food we eat.

As a pediatric neurologist, I especially worry about the safety of modified foods when it comes to children. We know that the human immune system, for example, is not fully developed in infants. Consequently, pediatricians have long been concerned about early introduction of new proteins into the immature gut and developing body of small children. Infants with colic are often switched to soy formula. Yet we have no information on how they might be affected by drinking genetically engineered soy, even though this product may be their sole or major source of nutrition for months. Because these foods are unlabeled, most parents feed their babies genetically altered formula whether they want to or not. Even proteins that are normally part of the human diet may, when introduced too early, lead to auto-immune and hypersensitivity or "allergic" reactions later.

Some studies suggest that the epidemic increase in asthma (it has doubled since 1980) may have links to early dietary exposures. The behavior problems of many children with autism and attention disorders get worse when they are exposed to certain foods. Yet as more unlabeled and untested genetically engineered foods enter the market, there is no one monitoring how the millions of people with immune system vulnerability are reacting to them and the novel proteins and fragments of viruses they can contain. In fact, without labeling, there is no possible way to track such health effects. This is not sound science, and it is not sound public health.

<>

More at link.

[progressoid]

59. Actually they do exist...

Writing in the Journal of Animal Science, in the most comprehensive study of GMOs and food ever conducted, University of California-Davis Department of Animal Science geneticist Alison Van Eenennaam and research assistant Amy E. Young reviewed 29 years of livestock productivity and health data from both before and after the introduction of genetically engineered animal feed.

The field data represented more than 100 billion animals covering a period before 1996 when animal feed was 100% non-GMO, and after its introduction when it jumped to 90% and more. The documentation included the records of animals examined pre and post mortem, as ill cattle cannot be approved for meat.

What did they find? That GM feed is safe and nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO feed. There was no indication of any unusual trends in the health of animals since 1996 when GMO crops were first harvested. Considering the size of the dataset, it can reasonably be said that the debate over the impact of GE feed on animal health is closed: there is zero extraordinary impact.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/09/17/the-debate-about-gmo-safety-is-over-thanks-to-a-new-trillion-meal-study/#5d39adcdca93

Here is a comprehensive list of animal feeding studies. Many of these studies are independent. The list included systematic reviews, all of which conclude that GMO feed is safe.

[proverbialwisdom]

64. Check search engine at homepage of http://www.gmwatch.org/ for objective vetting of research/news.

eg. http://www.gmwatch.org/search?searchword=Alison%20Van%20Eenennaam&searchphrase=all
eg. http://www.gmwatch.org/search?searchword=animal%20feeding%20studies&searchphrase=all

Related: https://twitter.com/GMWatch/status/706855676665008128

[progressoid]

71. Bwahahaha. The first link I clicked on went to a Seralini study.

Fraud. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair

[proverbialwisdom]

74. Try these 3 analyses/critiques.

http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/15948-claims-of-gm-feed-safety-misleading-agricultural-consultant
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15669
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15677

[progressoid]

77. Answered

As Dr. Steven Novella notes on his blog Neurologica:

This data is observational, meaning the authors are looking at data collected out there in the world and not part of any controlled prospective experiment. Observational data is always subject to unanticipated confounding factors. However, robust observational data is still highly useful, and has the potential to detect any clear signals.

The findings also comport with long-term GMO feeding laboratory studies. The GENERA database, found at Biology Fortified online, lists more than three-dozen examples of multi-year studies. A recent review of 24 of these studies by Snell et. al found: “Results…do not suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed.” There have been a few outlier studies, such as the retracted GMO corn research. But if Séralini’s data were real and 80% of food was poison, animals and people would be dropping like flies.

The authors also found no evidence to suggest any health affect on humans who eat those animals. No study has revealed any differences in the nutritional profile of animal products derived from GE-fed animals. Because DNA and protein are normal components of the diet that are digested, there are no detectable or reliably quantifiable traces of GE components in milk, meat, and eggs following consumption of GE feed.

In other words, the debate over the risks associated with GMO food is effectively over. As Novella writes:

We now have a large set of data, both experimental and observational, showing that genetically modified feed is safe and nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO feed. There does not appear to be any health risk to the animals, and it is even less likely that there could be any health effect on humans who eat those animals.

In order to maintain the position that GMOs are not adequately tested, or that they are harmful or risky, you have to either highly selectively cherry pick a few outliers of low scientific quality, or you have to simply deny the science.

[proverbialwisdom]

97. “Generation Rx” - it's all a big mystery. Food allergies affect 1 in 13 children in the US...

http://robynobrien.com/how-kids-are-driving-the-mainstreaming-of-organics/

How Children Are Driving the Mainstreaming of Organics

May 26, 2015
Posted by Robyn O'Brien

Today’s announcement that Similac will offer a GMO-free baby formula exclusively at Target speaks to the changing landscape of the health of our children. Similac announced the change in response to consumer demand.

The landscape of childhood has changed. No longer are our children guaranteed a childhood free from diabetes, obesity or food allergies, and parents are standing on the front line.

Parents are looking for food that is free from artificial ingredients: artificial dyes, artificial growth hormones and the newly patented genetically engineered ingredients, engineered to be “Roundup Read” and resistant to a weed killer that contains glyphosate, an ingredient that the World Health Organization recently declared a “probably carcinogen.”

The escalating rates of childhood cancers, increasing diagnoses for conditions like autism and food allergies, and the rates of obesity and diabetes have earned this generation of children the title of “Generation Rx”. They are the first generation of kids expected to have a shorter lifespan than their parents.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, cancer is the leading cause of death by disease in children under the age of 15. The journal Pediatrics has reported that 15% of American girls are expected to begin puberty by the age of 7 (with the number closer to 25% for African American girls) and a growing number of American children struggle with obesity. On top of that, the rate for having food allergies is 59% higher for obese children, with the Centers for Disease Control reporting a 265% increase in hospitalizations related to food allergic reactions. And while not all of those hospitalizations are for our children, what is becoming increasingly obvious is that the health of our children is under siege.

U.S.-born children have a 34.5 percent chance of developing asthma, hay fever, eczema and food allergies, compared with just 20.3 percent of foreign-born children. In addition, children born outside the U.S. but then moved here were more likely to develop allergies the longer they lived in the country.

When I shared this data with a journalist, she was speechless, and I found myself again wondering: What have our children possibly done to deserve this? And more importantly, what can we do to protect them?

This changing landscape of childhood is changing the face of American families and our economy. We already spend almost 18 cents of every dollar on health care, managing disease. The pharmaceutical companies can’t keep up with demand, and now there are shortages for drugs used to treat cancers and ADHD.

But more often than not, the solution is not found in the medicine cabinet, but in the kitchen, and parents are doing everything they can to protect the health of their children.

<>

Dr. Michael P. Wilson PhD: What The Public Can Do -> http://www.democraticunderground.com/101691490#post9

[proverbialwisdom]

112. Study suggests potential association between "soy formula" & seizures in children w autism (3/13/14)

1) DEVELOPING... This research is preliminary, of course. Watch for the follow-up.

http://news.wisc.edu/study-suggests-potential-association-between-soy-formula-and-seizures-in-children-with-autism/
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0080488
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025195414#post75 (caveats)

2) Shocking independent statistic, as posted at the Seattle Children's Hospital website:

http://www.seattlechildrens.org/medical-conditions/brain-nervous-system-mental-conditions/epilepsy/

Epilepsy in Children

Epilepsy happens more in children than it does in adults. It affects about 1% of the general population - one out of every 100 people. About 5% of children younger than 5 years old have epilepsy. That is about one in every 20 children under 5.

This number does not include children who have seizures caused by a high fever. These kinds of seizures are different from epilepsy. They are called febrile seizures. They either happen only once or only when your child has a fever.

<>

[progressoid]

121. "we can’t say that this is cause and effect"

From your link.

[proverbialwisdom]

126. True. However, enough is unknown currently to justify caution, IMO. You may decide differently.(nt)

[immoderate]

90. The feedlot studies are not scientific. They are worthless.

No controls.
No search for pathology.
Fed with antibiotics.
Unnatural diet.
Slaughtered before maturity.

Obviously sick animals are culled before feedlot, and aren't counted or examined.

I've been through a bunch of those data dumps, (it's a dirty business) and there is not one single paper that concludes that GMOs are safe. If you can find one post it here.

(Also, Alison Van Eenennaam, is a former Monsanto employee, now with the FDA in some capacity. IMO, she functions as a propagandist. )

--imm

[progressoid]

118. What kind of studies would it take?

Environmental impact? Gene flow? Cancer? Threat of exploding chickens?

GE crops are some of the most analyzed subjects on the market.

Here are a few hundred: http://genera.biofortified.org/viewall.php

This team of Italian Scientist have cataloged 1783 studies from around the world: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07388551.2013.823595

I'm guessing none of these will suffice.

On the flip side, since GE plants have been around for about 30 years, one would think there are at least a few studies somewhere that show, without a doubt, the horrors that Genetic Engineering have brought on. Where is that smoking gun?

Why are we so afraid of GE crops? People inject genetically engineered stuff (insulin, vaccines, etc) into their bodies every day. And except from anti-vaccine nutters, nobody complains.

Hell, there are even genetically engineered batteries on the horizon. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102647672 Why aren't we holding rallies to stop GE Batteries?

[immoderate]

122. Cite ONE of those 1783 studies that concludes GMOs are safe.

Since I've perused quite a few of them, I'll advise you that the vast majority have no relevance to GMO safety, though some suggest it be studied.

--imm

[progressoid]

123. Cite one study that concludes they are dangerous.

[immoderate]

125. OK, one is Pusztai. Now you go.

No deflections, please.

--imm

[progressoid]

132. So we are using flawed studies?

[immoderate]

133. Your turn. Post an unflawed study in response. You got one? Beuhler?

Or post a flawed one. Why not? Cause you have nothing! Zero! Zilch! Nada!

You told me to post one first. I did. Pusztai may be flawed. It's arguable. His study appeared sound to me. But he claims evidence that GMOs pose a danger. Now you should easily be able to produce a document that refutes that. So do it!

--imm

[progressoid]

134. It's not arguable. It is flawed, and it ruined his career.

Pusztai has been criticized severely for the quality of his experiments. His experiments have been attacked for their small sample sizes, the use of inappropriate statistical procedures, and the fact that a diet of raw – or even cooked – potatoes is a bad diet for rats, even when supplemented with a bit of extra protein. But oddly enough, in all that has been written about these experiments, no one seems to have seen their central flaw, which was that he did not use appropriate controls

glyphosate-tolerant soybeans on mouse fetal, postnatal, pubertal and adult testicular development

It was concluded that the transgenic soybean diet had no negative effect on fetal, postnatal, pubertal or adult testicular development.

Evaluation of transgenic event Bt11 hybrid corn in broiler chickens

It was clear that the transgenic corn had no deleterious or unintended effects on production traits of broiler chickens in this study.

[immoderate]

135. I gave you one. You give me one to chew on.

--imm

[wordpix]

165. there are plenty of yogis who have high levels of education and achievement

One yogi friend of mine has a Ph.D from Yale and a post-doctorate from Harvard in nuclear physics. During his career he specialized in developing diagnostic tools for medical imaging---MRI's and scanning equipment.

[Archae]

6. Heck, I've seen more actual science from creationists.

Anti-GMO advocates say "all they want is labeling," but they have an extensive propaganda campaign, with "guilt by accusation" charges that GMO's are "poison," "cause cancer," and "frankenfoods."

Meanwhile the anti-GMO organic producers are charging far more for their food, up to 4 times more.
And they are laughing all the way to the bank.

[womanofthehills]

37. the gmo cancer lawsuits are coming big time

From Reuters:

U.S. lawsuits build against Monsanto over alleged Roundup cancer link

Personal injury law firms around the United States are lining up plaintiffs for what they say could be "mass tort" actions against agrichemical giant Monsanto Co that claim the company's Roundup herbicide has caused cancer in farm workers and others exposed to the chemical.

The latest lawsuit was filed Wednesday in Delaware Superior Court by three law firms representing three plaintiffs.

The lawsuit is similar to others filed last month in New York and California accusing Monsanto of long knowing that the main ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, was hazardous to human health. Monsanto "led a prolonged campaign of misinformation to convince government agencies, farmers and the general population that Roundup was safe," the lawsuit states.

The litigation follows the World Health Organization's declaration in March that there was sufficient evidence to classify glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans."

"We can prove that Monsanto knew about the dangers of glyphosate," said Michael McDivitt, whose Colorado-based law firm is putting together cases for 50 individuals. "There are a lot of studies showing glyphosate causes these cancers."

[Archae]

46. No wonder you left the URL off...

This lawsuit was last October, and has gone nowhere since.

Also these law firms you cite are trolling for clients, who are long on accusations, but nonexistent on evidence.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-monsanto-lawsuits-idUSKCN0S92H720151015

[Johnny2X2X]

82. Excellent post

This sums it up nicely, this junk science is being pushed by corporations pushing organic produce that they over charge for.

There is zero evidence GMOs are in any way harmful to consume.

[Dont call me Shirley]

9. All you gmo defenders can eat all the gmos you want, many of us make a choice not to. We have the

right to know what's in our food.

[True Earthling]

10. There are zero credible studies that show anything harmful or any adverse health effects

from GMO food. Why should there be a label?

Did you know that 95% of animal feed in the U.S. since 1996 has been GMO? And prior to 1996 0% were GMO. More than 9 Billion animals per year eat a stable diet of GMO feed and no adverse health effects have been observed or reported in the livestock. Whole protein, RNA or DNA from the food we eat is digested.. GMO genes have never been found in animal tissue.

[proverbialwisdom]

14. Yeah, everything's fine for everybody.

2000: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-09-03/news/0009030374_1_genetically-modified-new-proteins

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/12/living-sick-and-dying-young-in-rich-america/282495/

Living Sick and Dying Young in Rich America
Chronic illness is the new first-world problem.

LEAH SOTTILE
DEC 19, 2013

http://www.nap.edu/read/13497/chapter/1

The National Academies Press

U.S. HEALTH IN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Shorter Lives, Poorer Health

by NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL AND INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4414511/

PLoS One. 2015; 10(4): e0124120.
Published online 2015 Apr 29. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124120
PMCID: PMC4414511
Trends in the Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder, Cerebral Palsy, Hearing Loss, Intellectual Disability, and Vision Impairment, Metropolitan Atlanta, 1991–2010

Kim Van Naarden Braun,* Deborah Christensen, Nancy Doernberg, Laura Schieve, Catherine Rice, Lisa Wiggins, Diana Schendel, and Marshalyn Yeargin-Allsopp

Developmental Disabilities Branch, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America
University of Tuebingen Medical School, GERMANY

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Conceived and designed the experiments: KVB DC ND MYA. Analyzed the data: KVB DC. Wrote the paper: KVB DC ND LS CR LW DS MYA.

FIGURE 1:

[True Earthling]

15. Don't blame GMO's...blame cigarettes, alcohol, poor diet & lack of exercise etc

Playing video games, texting and watching Netflix isn't helping either...

Health Risk Behaviors that Cause Chronic Diseases
http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/overview/

Health risk behaviors are unhealthy behaviors you can change. Four of these health risk behaviors—lack of exercise or physical activity, poor nutrition, tobacco use, and drinking too much alcohol—cause much of the illness, suffering, and early death related to chronic diseases and conditions.

In 2011, more than half (52%) of adults aged 18 years or older did not meet recommendations for aerobic exercise or physical activity. In addition, 76% did not meet recommendations for muscle-strengthening physical activity.

About half of US adults (47%) have at least one of the following major risk factors for heart disease or stroke: uncontrolled high blood pressure, uncontrolled high LDL cholesterol, or are current smokers.8 Ninety percent of Americans consume too much sodium, increasing their risk of high blood pressure.9
In 2011, more than one-third (36%) of adolescents and 38% of adults said they ate fruit less than once a day, while 38% of adolescents and 23% of adults said they ate vegetables less than once a day.10
More than 42 million adults—close to 1 of every 5—said they currently smoked cigarettes in 2012.11 Cigarette smoking accounts for more than 480,000 deaths each year.11 Each day, more than 3,200 youth younger than 18 years smoke their first cigarette, and another 2,100 youth and young adults who smoke every now and then become daily smokers.11

Drinking too much alcohol is responsible for 88,000 deaths each year, more than half of which are due to binge drinking.12, 13 About 38 million US adults report binge drinking an average of 4 times a month, and have an average of 8 drinks per binge, yet most binge drinkers are not alcohol dependent.14

[progressoid]

16. You're not seriously blaming autism on GMOs.

Talk about a spurious correlation.


Lets ban cheese because it causes death by bed sheets




And clearly spending on science and technology is causing a rise in suicides by hanging, strangulation and suffocation.

[yawnmaster]

20. Everyone knows that ingestion of cheese can lead to restless sleep. Especially, if the cheese...

comes from a cow that has been genetically altered or cheese that has been melted in a microwave.

As for hanging, strangulation and suffocation, technology has created some plastics (often from fossil fuels) that when placed over the face can inhibit breathing or when wrapped around the neck can cause strangulation often mistaken for hanging.

Obviously, the technology derived from scientific research is usually bad and is wise to fear.

[progressoid]

28. Full disclosure. I eat both cow and goat cheeses.

So to be safe, I don't sleep under sheets. I have a 5000 watt sun lamp to keep me warm. Now I look like an un-handsome, out of shape George Hamilton.

[yawnmaster]

73. You are very wise to take those precautions if you are going to keep eating cheese. eom

[proverbialwisdom]

21. I'm simply advocating for applying the Precautionary Principle.

FYI: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=269576

Check it out: http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2016/02/americans-greater-risk-glyphosate-exposure-europeans

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12312207#post2

Meanwhile, Dr. Elizabeth Mumper's 2013 study (published/vetted by Harvard's leaders in the field) zeroed autism in her practice by altering MULTIPLE VARIABLES including "NUTRITION." Six cases of autism were statistically predicted in her practice, none occurred. Modest, anecdotal, yes, but important to further explore. Earlier: http://www.democraticunderground.com/101672031

http://najms.net/wp-content/uploads/v06i03.pdf#page=34

Preface to the special issue of autism

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the fastest-growing complex neurodevelopment disorder, continues to rise in its prevalence, now affecting up to 1 in 50 children in the USA, and averaging 1% globally, according to the latest CDC report. More children will be diagnosed with ASD this year than with AIDS, diabetes & cancer combined in the USA. ASD costs the nation $137 billion a year and this debt is expected to increase in the next decade. Hence, ASD has become a huge healthcare burden and global threat, categorized by the CDC as a national public health crisis.

ASD is characterized by social-communication impairment, and restricted, repetitive, and stereotyped patterns of behavior, which cause significant disability for those affected. With its etiology still largely unknown, and its pathophysiology poorly understood, ASD currently has no universally accepted therapy. ASD is affecting more and more families; unmet services and limited resources need to be addressed urgently. Researchers, clinicians, healthcare providers, social agencies and government need to coordinate efforts to develop more effective treatments and a satisfactory continuum of care, across the lifespan. Ultimately, a cure needs to be sought for the various subtypes of ASD that exist.

The current issue of North American Journal of Medicine and Science (NAJMS) represents a continuation of our previous two special issues on autism (NAJMS Vol. 5 Issue 3 and Vol. 4 Issue 3) published in July 2012 and July 2011, respectively. In this issue, we are honored to have another panel of expert researchers and clinicians on the frontlines of ASD research and treatment to present their newest research findings and views from different perspectives.

This issue of NAJMS consists of five original research articles, two comprehensive reviews, one case report and two commentary articles, covering topics in genetics, pathogenesis, metabolic disorder biomarkers of ASD, and a clinical study, that bring into focus our newest understanding and treatment strategies.

<>

The data presented in Dr. Mumper’s review of the medical literature, suggests that ASD may be impacted by environmental toxicants, duration of breastfeeding, gut flora composition, nutritional status, acetaminophen use, vaccine practices and use of antibiotics and/or frequency of infections. In her current general pediatric practice (Advocates for Children), she has noted a modest trend toward a lower prevalence of ASD than in her previous pediatric practice or recent prevalence estimates from the CDC.

<>

Xuejun Kong, MD
Editor-in-Chief, NAJMS
Department of Medicine
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Harvard Medical School

Christopher J. McDougle, MD
Guest Editor, NAJMS
Lurie Center for Autism Massachusetts General Hospital
Harvard Medical School

http://app.autism360.org/MumperPrevention.pdf

Jul 2013 Vol 6 No.3 North American Journal of Medicine and Science

Can Awareness of Medical Pathophysiology in Autism Lead to Primary Care Autism Prevention Strategies?
Elizabeth Mumper, MD, FAAP

Emerging research suggests that the timing of environmental factors in the presence of genetic predispositions has influenced the increase in autism spectrum disorders over the past several decades. A review of the medical literature suggests that autism may be impacted by environmental toxicants, breastfeeding duration, gut flora composition, nutritional status, acetaminophen use, vaccine practices and use of antibiotics and/or frequency of infections. The author reports her retrospective clinical research in a general pediatric practice (Advocates for Children), which shows a modest trend toward lower prevalence of autism than her previous pediatric practice or recent CDC data. Out of 294 general pediatrics patients followed since 2005 there were zero new cases of autism (p value 0.014). Given the prevalence of autism for that cohort of 1 in 50 children in the United States, it is important to consider implementing strategies in primary care practice that could potentially modify environmental factors or affect the timing of environmental triggers contributing to autism.
(N A J Med Sci. 2013;6(3):134-144. DOI: 10.7156/najms.2013.0603134)

INTRODUCTION
During the author’s career, reported prevalence of autism increased from 1 in 5,000 (1975) to 1 in 2,500 (1985), to 1 in 500 (1995) to 1 in 250 (~2001) to 1 in 166 (~2004) to 1 in 88 (~2008) to 1 in 50 (2013); all reflected birth cohorts born earlier.1,2 Further research into autism prevalence studies have debunked the initial contention that higher numbers could be explained away by better diagnosis and broadening of diagnostic criteria.3-6

Environmental Toxicants...
Breastfeeding...
Probiotics...
Nutritional Factors...

...We recommend strategies such as avoidance of pesticides and herbicides during pregnancy, feeding children and pregnant women a whole food diet that is as organic as possible, and using less toxic “green” cleaning products in the home in hopes of preventing some cases of neurodevelopmental disorders and in the knowledge that it seems to be safe and reasonable anticipatory guidance for all children.

Antibiotic Stewardship...
Role of Acetaminophen...

[progressoid]

25. When you keep posting autism links, that is more than advocating for the Precautionary Principle.

You're implying there is a link.

Here you go:

UNIVERSITY PARK, PA. -- The greater than three-fold increase in autism diagnoses among students in special education programs in the United States between 2000 and 2010 may be due in large part to the reclassification of individuals who previously would have been diagnosed with other intellectual disability disorders, according to new research.

In a paper published online in the American Journal of Medical Genetics, scientists at Penn State reported their analysis of 11 years of special-education enrollment data on an average of 6.2 million children per year. The researchers found no overall increase in the number of students enrolled in special education. They also found that the increase in students diagnosed with autism was offset by a nearly equal decrease in students diagnosed with other intellectual disabilities that often co-occur with autism.

The researchers conclude that the large increase in the prevalence of autism is likely the result of shifting patterns of diagnosis that are complicated by the variability of autism and its overlap with other related disorders.


Recent reports from the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggest that there has been an increase in the prevalence of autism from 1 in 5,000 in 1975 to 1 in 150 in 2002, and to 1 in 68 in 2012. Much of this increase has been attributed to increased awareness and a broadening of the diagnostic criteria for autism. But this new research provides the first direct evidence that much of the increase may be attributable merely to a reclassification of individuals with related neurological disorders rather than to an actual increase in the rate of new cases of autism.

http://news.psu.edu/story/363374/2015/07/21/research/increasing-prevalence-autism-due-part-changing-diagnoses

[Orrex]

27. You can always tell when someone's catapulting the propaganda

Anti-GMO types love to "argue" by dumping shitloads of lengthy quotes and citations, knowing full well that no one except an idiot would waste time reading all of that redundant garbage, much less refuting it.

It's a tactic transparently intended to distract from the actual issue, because on some level you know that you don't have a leg to stand on. But a casual reader might mistakenly conclude that you've offered a strong argument.

This tactic is commonly seen by other anti-science types, like creationists and climate change deniers. It's called The Gish Gallop.

[Lancero]

26. Yesteryear, vaccines caused Autism, and now GMO's do.

Better understanding leads to higher diagnosis rates. But at the same time, many medical professionals are alleging that autism is being overdiagnosed.

Realsitically, increasing autism rates aren't the smoking gun that the antivaxxers say it is, nor the smoking gun that the antigmoers are wanting.

[Orrex]

29. It was also power lines, too. NEVER FORGET!

No matter what the primary purported cause, its advocates are certain that they're correct, even if they were certain that some entirely different factor was the primary purported cause just a few years ago.

[progressoid]

124. Remember when cell phone were killing bees?

Ah, the good old days.

[proverbialwisdom]

38. Epigenetics.

http://www.marthaherbert.org/library/EverydayEpigenetics-fromMolectoPublicHeatlhLifestyle-NAJMS2013.pdf

MORE: http://www.marthaherbert.org

[Orrex]

154. That PDF says nothing about genetically modified organisms

[proverbialwisdom]

161. True, it's implicit: "...eat high nutrient density food; avoid junk food, allergens, toxicants..."

http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2016/02/americans-greater-risk-glyphosate-exposure-europeans

According to a new paper in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe, Americans have sprayed more than 2.4 billion pounds of glyphosate in the past decade.

In fact, the only explicit mention of GMOs by Dr. Herbert I've ever read is the 2000 op-ed published by a single newspaper, again: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-09-03/news/0009030374_1_genetically-modified-new-proteins

Fascinating observations about that article and era here. Check it out.

http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/News-Biotech-Bias29apr02.htm

Biotech Bias on the Editorial and Opinion Pages of Major United States Newspapers and News Magazines

NICK PARKER / Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy 29apr02

Written and researched by Nick Parker, Media Coordinator,
Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy (1)

Introduction/Summary

This is the report of an investigation of possible bias concerning the issue of genetically modified (GM) crops and foods, on the opinion pages of some of the largest and most influential newspapers and weekly news magazines which circulate and are ‘opinion-leaders’ in the United States. A search was made to find all opinion pieces over a two-year period—from September 1999 through August 2001—in the The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, The Chicago Tribune, The Chicago Sun-Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Houston Chronicle, Newsday (New York, NY), The Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, and The Economist. A total of 669 articles on genetically modified crops and foods were found. Of this total, 72 could be classified as ‘opinion’ rather than ‘news’ pieces. Of these, 32 were editorials and 38 were op-eds (opinion pieces by authors other than the editorial boards of the periodicals under consideration). We found a four to one (81.58% to 18.42 %) ratio of opinion pieces favoring genetically modified crops and foods compared to those opposing them or taking a generally critical stance. In the process of conducting the investigation we also categorized the editorial position of these publications, and found them to be uniformly supportive of GM crops and foods, and we examined the arguments they utilize to bolster their support.

<>

The op-eds appearing over this two year span were somewhat more varied in argument, if only because the Tribune published an opposing view. That op-ed, Feasting on the Unknown (September 3, 2000) by Martha K. Herbert, discusses the safety considerations ignored by many proponents while manufacturers make and market their GM food. This, she says, adds up to “one of the largest uncontrolled experiments in modern history.” The questions she brings up are absent in any of the pro biotech editorials throughout this survey, specifically “Can these products be toxic? Can they cause immune system problems? Can they damage an infant’s developing nervous system?” These are questions that would come naturally to her. She is a pediatric neurologist.

Herbert continues: “Without labeling, there is no possible way to track such health effects. This is not sound science, and it is not sound public health.” Only “complete, thorough, long-term and independent evaluation of all of these novel organisms” will suffice, as well as labeling of biotech foods after the testing is done.

This op-ed was picked up by The Tribune from the New York Times News Service and the writer is from Boston. The Boston Globe is owned by The New York Times Company, publishers of The New York Times yet neither paper ran this op-ed.

<>

Many of the editorials and op-eds call for a trust in the science and the testing that has been done. There’s very little regard for questions surrounding possible long term effects, unless one considers the ten years or so GM foods and crops snuck onto the market as proof of safety. But, as Dr. Martha K. Herbert, the pediatric neurologist from Boston, pointed out, proponents ignore babies and children who would eat biotech foods in their baby formula. Gerber decided not to wait that long. It has pledged not to use biotech foods in its baby foods.

<>

STRATEGIES (consume organic, avoid processed foods): http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002622361#post15
RELATED: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024663144

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/03/the-toxins-that-threaten-our-brains/284466/

[Orrex]

162. Gish gallop

[proverbialwisdom]

174. FOOD ALLERGIES are sufficient. Pivot away from the rest if you choose not to be ahead of the curve.

Nothing new here? Nothing to see? No compelling reason to pause and perhaps reflect?

https://www.foodallergy.org

1 in 13 children in the U.S. has a food allergy.
Help stop this emerging epidemic.

http://www.foodallergy.org/facts-and-stats

EXCERPT: Food Allergy Reactions & Anaphylaxis

Every 3 minutes, a food allergy reaction sends someone to the emergency department – that is more than 200,000 emergency department visits per year.
A reaction to food can range from a mild response (such as an itchy mouth) to anaphylaxis, a severe and potentially deadly reaction.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that food allergies result in more than 300,000 ambulatory-care visits a year among children under the age of 18. Food allergy is the leading cause of anaphylaxis outside the hospital setting.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/11/13/obama-signs-bill-to-increase-epipen-availability-in-schools/

Obama Signs Bill to Increase EpiPen Availability in Schools

By DEBORAH SOLOMON
Nov 13, 2013 6:13 pm ET

President Barack Obama signed legislation Wednesday aimed at increasing the availability of epinephrine in schools, saying the law will help people like his daughter, Malia, who suffers from a peanut allergy.

The medicine can help prevent adverse reactions and death in children with severe food allergies.

<>

“I think anytime the House, Senate and president all say this is something we should do, we should stock epinephrine in schools, I think this will reopen the debate among those states that have already passed, but haven’t mandated it,” said John Lehr, CEO of the Food Allergy Research & Education organization.

<>

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/11/13/president-obama-signs-new-epipen-law-protect-children-asthma-and-severe-allergies-an

President Obama Signs New EpiPen Law To Protect Children with Asthma and Severe Allergies, And Help Their Families To Breathe Easier
NOVEMBER 13, 2013 AT 5:17 PM ET BY VALERIE JARRETT

Summary: President Obama signs into law the School Access to Emergency Epinephrine Act, which will encourage schools to plan for severe asthma attacks and allergic reactions, and provide millions of families with greater peace of mind

ARTICLE AT LINK

http://spideysgenetics.weebly.com/testimonies.html

[Orrex]

175. Gish gallop

If you can't summarize the relevant points in your cited articles succinctly and meaningfully, then you have no business linking to them.

Further, you haven't demonstrated that GMO foods pose a demonstrably greater allergy risk than non-GMO foods. Please do so, or else abandon the point that you've obviously selected for emotional impact.

In addition to your continued Gish gallop, you're moving the goal posts.



Unsurprising.

[proverbialwisdom]

176. National Acad of Sciences: "genetic transformation has potential to produce unanticipated allergens"

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1505660#.Vdmv4nQypco.facebook

The New England Journal of Medicine
Perspective

GMOs, Herbicides, and Public Health

Philip J. Landrigan, M.D., and Charles Benbrook, Ph.D.

N Engl J Med 2015; 373:693-695
August 20, 2015
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1505660

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are not high on most physicians' worry lists. If we think at all about biotechnology, most of us probably focus on direct threats to human health, such as prospects for converting pathogens to biologic weapons or the implications of new technologies for editing the human germline. But while those debates simmer, the application of biotechnology to agriculture has been rapid and aggressive. The vast majority of the corn and soybeans grown in the United States are now genetically engineered. Foods produced from GM crops have become ubiquitous. And unlike regulatory bodies in 64 other countries, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not require labeling of GM foods.

Two recent developments are dramatically changing the GMO landscape. First, there have been sharp increases in the amounts and numbers of chemical herbicides applied to GM crops, and still further increases — the largest in a generation — are scheduled to occur in the next few years. Second, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified glyphosate, the herbicide most widely used on GM crops, as a “probable human carcinogen”1 and classified a second herbicide, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), as a “possible human carcinogen.”2

The application of genetic engineering to agriculture builds on the ancient practice of selective breeding. But unlike traditional selective breeding, genetic engineering vastly expands the range of traits that can be moved into plants and enables breeders to import DNA from virtually anywhere in the biosphere. Depending on the traits selected, genetically engineered crops can increase yields, thrive when irrigated with salty water, or produce fruits and vegetables resistant to mold and rot.

The National Academy of Sciences has twice reviewed the safety of GM crops — in 2000 and 2004.3 Those reviews, which focused almost entirely on the genetic aspects of biotechnology, concluded that GM crops pose no unique hazards to human health. They noted that genetic transformation has the potential to produce unanticipated allergens or toxins and might alter the nutritional quality of food. Both reports recommended development of new risk-assessment tools and postmarketing surveillance. Those recommendations have largely gone unheeded.

<>

In our view, the science and the risk assessment supporting the Enlist Duo decision are flawed. The science consisted solely of toxicologic studies commissioned by the herbicide manufacturers in the 1980s and 1990s and never published, not an uncommon practice in U.S. pesticide regulation. These studies predated current knowledge of low-dose, endocrine-mediated, and epigenetic effects and were not designed to detect them. The risk assessment gave little consideration to potential health effects in infants and children, thus contravening federal pesticide law. It failed to consider ecologic impact, such as effects on the monarch butterfly and other pollinators. It considered only pure glyphosate, despite studies showing that formulated glyphosate that contains surfactants and adjuvants is more toxic than the pure compound.

The second new development is the determination by the IARC in 2015 that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen”1 and 2,4-D a “possible human carcinogen.”2 These classifications were based on comprehensive assessments of the toxicologic and epidemiologic literature that linked both herbicides to dose-related increases in malignant tumors at multiple anatomical sites in animals and linked glyphosate to an increased incidence of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in humans.

These developments suggest that GM foods and the herbicides applied to them may pose hazards to human health that were not examined in previous assessments. We believe that the time has therefore come to thoroughly reconsider all aspects of the safety of plant biotechnology. The National Academy of Sciences has convened a new committee to reassess the social, economic, environmental, and human health effects of GM crops. This development is welcome, but the committee's report is not expected until at least 2016.

In the meantime, we offer two recommendations. First, we believe the EPA should delay implementation of its decision to permit use of Enlist Duo. This decision was made in haste. It was based on poorly designed and outdated studies and on an incomplete assessment of human exposure and environmental effects. It would have benefited from deeper consideration of independently funded studies published in the peer-reviewed literature. And it preceded the recent IARC determinations on glyphosate and 2,4-D. Second, the National Toxicology Program should urgently assess the toxicology of pure glyphosate, formulated glyphosate, and mixtures of glyphosate and other herbicides.

Finally, we believe the time has come to revisit the United States' reluctance to label GM foods. Labeling will deliver multiple benefits. It is essential for tracking emergence of novel food allergies and assessing effects of chemical herbicides applied to GM crops. It would respect the wishes of a growing number of consumers who insist they have a right to know what foods they are buying and how they were produced. And the argument that there is nothing new about genetic rearrangement misses the point that GM crops are now the agricultural products most heavily treated with herbicides and that two of these herbicides may pose risks of cancer. We hope, in light of this new information, that the FDA will reconsider labeling of GM foods and couple it with adequately funded, long-term postmarketing surveillance.

Link from: http://ecowatch.com/2015/08/24/mark-hyman-labeling-gmos/
Related: http://ecowatch.com/2015/01/23/health-problems-linked-to-monsanto-roundup/

MISC:

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/allergies-and-gmos/

First of all, there’s no data (at least that I know of–feel free to provide if you have it) linking GMOs to the rising prevalence of allergies.
August 13, 2015 at 9:11 pm

TAKEAWAY: "GM foods and the herbicides applied to them" are a package deal. Important overview articles will address open questions on both food allergy and cancer risks.

[Orrex]

177. Gish gallop

You really don't understand rhetoric or composition, do you?

[proverbialwisdom]

179. Just saw this -> 3/8/16: "USDA Called Out by 50 Groups for Censoring Science"

http://robynobrien.com/usda-called-censoring-science/

USDA Called Out by 50 Groups for Censoring Science

March 8, 2016
By Robyn O'Brien

Today, a coalition of over 50 consumer, agriculture and environmental groups sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture expressing growing concerns over the alleged suppression, harassment, and censorship of agency scientists, particularly with regard to research showing harms to pollinators from certain pesticides—a controversial topic in the agriculture community.

It is understandable how deep this concern goes, as food security is a national security issue, especially in light of the escalating rates of diseases in the United States.

According to the President’s Cancer Panel, 41% of Americans are now expected to get cancer in their lifetimes. The Centers for Disease Control reports that cancer is now the leading cause of death by disease in American children, with pediatric cancer rates escalating.

If we’ve learned anything from the tobacco industry and what came to be known as “tobacco science,” industry can financially engineer the science as much as they genetically engineer the food.

As this ‘he said/she said’ scientific debate continues, it is even more important to follow the money.

It is also critical to the health of our families, our country and our economy that American consumers have complete transparency into how their food is made, if it’s been genetically engineered and how much of these pesticides and weed killers now called “probable carcinogens” are being applied to their foods.

http://www.foe.org/news/news-releases/2016-03-usda-urged-to-reform-scientific-integrity-policy-after-scientific-censorship

PRESS RELEASE

USDA urged to reform scientific integrity policy after allegations of scientific censorship

WASHINGTON, D.C. — As scrutiny of censorship of federal scientists has grown—including a feature in Sunday’s The Washington Post Magazine—a coalition of more than 50 sustainable agriculture, environmental, beekeeper, and public interest organizations is once again pressing the agency for overdue reforms. The coalition sent a follow-up letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture today expressing growing concerns over the alleged suppression, harassment, and censorship of agency scientists, particularly with regard to research showing harms to pollinators from certain pesticides — a controversial topic in the agriculture community. As a result, the groups are urging the USDA to publicly investigate these allegations, and make immediate binding reforms to the agency’s scientific integrity policy.

In October 2015, Dr. Jonathan Lundgren, a senior scientist at the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, filed a whistleblower complaint charging the agency with suppression of research findings that challenged the safety and efficacy of a widely used class of pesticides, neonicotinoids. In the letter sent today, the groups and their millions of members are calling on USDA to 1) conduct a thorough investigation into the matter, 2) make the investigation publicly available once it is complete, 3) take any necessary steps to ensure that the USDA maintains scientific integrity moving forward, and 4) request that an independent, third party conduct an investigation into this issue

The story in The Washington Post Magazine also highlights issues of the lack of scientific integrity at the agency, pointing to retaliation against other scientists, most whom have remained anonymous fearing reprisal. One former USDA scientist now speaking out, Jeffrey Pettis, says he was told by a member of Congress that he “hadn’t followed the script” at a congressional hearing meant to focus on mites without bringing up issues of pesticides.

In contrast, an internal scientific integrity review panel at the USDA recently rejected the complaint of scientific suppression by Lundgren, claiming that agency had not violated its scientific integrity policies. In February 2016, USDA Inspector General Phyllis Fong said the USDA will open a broad investigation into the issue of scientific censorship, but did not specify whether the investigation would be made publicly available.

Earlier last year, the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility filed a citizen petition requesting that the USDA adopt new policies that would further protect the ability of government scientists to evaluate and communicate freely about the safety of agricultural chemicals without political interference or fear of retaliation. PEER reported that more than ten USDA scientists have faced consequences or investigations when their work called into question the health and safety of agricultural chemicals. The global neonicotinoid insecticide industry sells more than $2.6 billion annually.

“The USDA has a responsibility to protect the health and safety of the American public and to ensure the long-term viability and sustainability of the environment and our natural resources. It is imperative that we are able to trust that our government and its employees serve the public interest rather than private corporations,” said the groups.

Lundgren and Pettis are not alone in their experiences of research suppression. “The challenges are significant for scientists just trying to do their jobs,” said Evaeggelos Vallianatos, PhD, a former scientist for the EPA and the author of the book Poison Spring: The Secret History of Pollution and the EPA. He also documented the challenges federal agency scientists face standing up for their research and speaking out, in the face of political pressure. “Senior managers have expectations and scientists know the consequences of not being a good ‘team player’, despite the undermining of scientific integrity.”

Groups submitting today’s letter continue to urge federal agencies to strengthen scientific integritiy policies — and follow the science to protect bees and other pollinators. The White House Task Force on Pollinator Health was established as part of a Presidential Memorandum, issued by President Obama in June 2014; it called for a federal strategy to protect pollinators and mandated the EPA and the USDA, as co-chairs of the Task Force, to assess the effect of pesticides, including neonicotinoids, on bees and other pollinators and take action where necessary. Recent allegations of the USDA’s censorship and suppression of scientific research on pesticides calls into question the agency’s ability to co-chair this task force and develop a meaningful federal strategy that will truly protect bees, birds, monarchs, and other critical pollinators.

Republished from Friends of the Earth.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/was-a-usda-scientist-muzzled-because-of-his-bee-research/2016/03/02/462720b6-c9fb-11e5-a7b2-5a2f824b02c9_story.html
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/usdacensorshipletter_final_1-29_tfh_lw_lw_85868.pdf
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/11/usda-researcher-claims-harrassment-and-retaliation-pesticide-research
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/06/20/presidential-memorandum-creating-federal-strategy-promote-health-honey-b

[Orrex]

180. ibid

[nationalize the fed]

163. +1 excellent thanks for posting

From the book (it's very good, easy to read and packed with little known documented info- I highly recommend. Worth every cent)

Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: CHAPTER EIGHT

Malfunction of the American Media
Pliant Accomplices in Cover-up and Deception

snip...For instance, during the question and answer session, the molecular biologist Liebe Cavalieri was asked to comment on the fact that many eminent scientists declare genetic engineering to be substantially the same as traditional breeding. As noted in Chapter 4, his answer was not timid. He denounced their behavior as “disgraceful” – and their claim as a “sham.” 2 He then added, “And you can quote me on that.”

But none of the articles did. Instead, they quoted several spurious assertions from proponents of GE foods issued in response to our suit.

One of the most outrageous was from Stephen Ziller, vice president of the Grocery Manufacturers of America, whose members produce most of the name brand foods and beverages sold in the US In extolling the safety of GE foods and the soundness of FDA policy, Ziller painted the plaintiffs as “opponents of progress and science-based research.”  (NTF: HELLO- SOUND FAMILIAR?)

In light of the fact that the plaintiffs were actually suing the FDA for ignoring science-based research, and were demanding that more research be performed, this accusation was absurd.

But due to the deficient reporting, readers could not discern its absurdity – and many were probably being taken in by it. For the same reason, many may have also been deluded by another absurd assertion, made by an FDA official to trivialize the differences between GE foods and conventional ones that our call for labeling was like demanding that labels be placed on grapes picked by non-union workers...snip

This book is amazing. The American people have been hoodwinked into being guinea pigs for a bunch of power/money hungry companies and their mad scientists.

Executive Summary
http://alteredgenestwistedtruth.com/additional-content/executive-summary/

In contrast to the experts who counsel caution, many of the scientists and scientific institutions that promote GE foods have systematically suppressed evidence and distorted the truth in order to advance them.

Steven M. Druker is a public interest attorney who initiated a lawsuit against the US Food and Drug Administration that forced it to divulge its files on genetically engineered foods.

[Major Nikon]

53. Rock-n-Roll causes devil worship too

[progressoid]

61. Well sure. It's right there in the song...

Back in the 80's some bible beaters actually walked around campus warning us not to see the Rolling Stones when they came to town. Because, ya know, DEVIL!!!



I went anyway.

[Major Nikon]

49. So does this mean you've given up on your "vaccines cause autism" shtick?

[proverbialwisdom]

65. Here's how retiring NVICP Special Master Denise K. Vowell stated it in Wright v HHS - 9/21/15 (ii).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027408511#post304
https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2012vv0423-91-0

[Major Nikon]

78. I'll take that as a yes

[CanSocDem]

31. Not counting the millions...

...of Americans waddling around overweight and in ill health, yammering about their undying faith in ScienceINC.



.

[True Earthling]

33. Science requires proof... not faith.

[LanternWaste]

47. And yet people still have faith in science..

And yet people still have faith in science...

[trotsky]

36. Wait a minute...

are you actually admitting someone could get sick due to external factors, against their will?

That would be quite the change from your well-documented statements indicating blaming sufferers for their own diseases:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1018&pid=219075

If you're going to be consistent here *cough*, you should be 100% in favor of GMO food since in your world, people choose to get sick and it shouldn't matter at all what they eat.

[CanSocDem]

40. Obtuse R us.

Eating unhealthy food is 'a choice'. Being relatively un-informed is also a choice.

When I was growing up and things didn't go as I had hoped, I blamed my parents , my teachers, God or whoever was in charge. They all had one response generally speaking: "Take some personal responsibility!"

So I did and am living happily and healthy ever since.

My choice.

Your choice seems to be waving your arms and jumping up and down whenever I post about my beliefs. You seem to be blaming me for your inability to take 'personal responsibility'. What are you afraid of...???


.

[trotsky]

42. Aha, so if we don't label GMOs...

people will THINK they are eating healthy, and BOOM! disease is over. Way to go!

I love using your "logic" against you.

[CanSocDem]

45. What are you talking about?

Take a deep breath, dig out your dictionary and look up the word CHOICE. You do have a dictionary don't you?

Please highlite the places you are using my "logic". I'm not seeing it.




.

[trotsky]

48. So you admit consumption of food plays a role in disease?

I think we're making great progress here.

[CanSocDem]

50. Duh...(eom)

[trotsky]

57. Fantastic.

Glad to see you accepting science.

[womanofthehills]

39. Roundup and non-Hodgkin lymphoma

Roundup Lawsuits

Lawyers for Roundup Cancer Claims: Free Case Review

The product liability lawyers at Saiontz & Kirk, P.A. are reviewing potential class action lawsuits and individual injury cases for individuals diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma or other cancers that may have been caused by side effects of Roundup.

In early 2015, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on cancer (IARC) warned that the weed killer glyphosate was a probable carcinogen.

As a result of Monsanto’s failure to adequately warn about the potential cancer risk, financial compensation may be available through a Roundup lawsuit for individuals diagnosed with:

Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
Multiple Myeloma
Leukemia
Other Cancers

- See more at: http://www.youhavealawyer.com/roundup/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=ppc&utm_campaign=Roundup#sthash.9sLQkF4T.dpuf

[womanofthehills]

44. So are you saying the World Health Organization is not credible

because their belief on GMO's is not in line with yours.

[Major Nikon]

56. Seems pretty straightforward

8. Are GM foods safe?

Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.

GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/

[True Earthling]

69. The WHO agrees with me...GMO foods are safe...

8. Are GM foods safe?

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/

Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.

GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.

12. Have GM products on the international market passed a safety assessment?

The GM products that are currently on the international market have all passed safety assessments conducted by national authorities. These different assessments in general follow the same basic principles, including an assessment of environmental and human health risk. The food safety assessment is usually based on Codex documents.

[immoderate]

62. The feed lot studies you cite are not scientific. Those animals are raised on antibiotics.

There are no controls. The animals are not screened for most pathology, and they are slaughtered long before pathologies would manifest.

The few long term animal studies do show cause for concern. BTW, none of the studies you cite has concluded GMOs are safe. And you are welcome to produce one, if it exists.

--imm

[Nailzberg]

19. then why aren't you fighting to label all breeding methods?

Instead of just labeling the most precise and most tested method?

[Dont call me Shirley]

106. We al have the RIGHT TO KNOW how our food is grown, what is in it, what animals are fed, what

is sprayed on them before market, if they are irradiated or some other form of such alteration, country of origin of all food ingredients and seed.

Are all you against the FREEDOM TO KNOW WHAT IS IN YOUR FOOD AND THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE what food you eat? Then holy shit you are against our Constitutional right to freedom.

The New Anti-Choice Movement abounds here!

[nationalize the fed]

23. +2 exactly

We DEMAND the right to know, and we will not settle for anything less.

Period. End of story.

This fight has just begun. And the pro info side will win. It's that simple.

People in the US have barely begun to understand that the GMO industry has snuck this garbage into almost everything in the supermarket that comes in a box. And when I talk to people in stores they are usually amazed that their market basket is filled with GMO's. In almost every box.

It's not nice to sneak things into people's food. Not nice at all. In fact, it's criminal.

[Archae]

34. The only ones being 'sneaky" or "secret" are the organic lobby.

Organic is big business, and uses factory farm methodology.

And they are being deceptive constantly, putting out propaganda about GMO food.

That's why books like the one in the OP, and ones by Jeffrey Smith are revered.

Monsanto is SOOOOO secretive, they invited Bill Nye the Science Guy to their lab, to view what they do.

[womanofthehills]

43. WHO says probable human carcinogen

The World Health Organization’s cancer agency IARC has published the full report which caused a huge worldwide response, when they announced earlier this year that the World’s most sold herbicide, glyphosate, is a probable human carcinogen.

http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/07/30/who-publishes-full-probable-human-carcinogen-report-on-glyphosate/#.Vt2eshh5x-J



YUM YUM - I want some of this on my food!!

[Archae]

51. Water is a "probable carcinogen."

Let's look at the reality, of just how "toxic" Roundup is, shall we?

Not hysterics like this from the anti-GMO demagogues:



Actual science and facts.

[Major Nikon]

63. They also put coffee and aspirin in the same category

[progressoid]

17. Why don't Druker and his buddies at the Maharishi Institute just meditate this problem away.

They did that for world peace and look how well that worked!




And then we can all start yogic flying!

[AxionExcel]

32. Meticulously researched, highly informative

Recommended reading.

[Archae]

35. "Meticulously researched, highly informative"

Same thing was said about "Chariots Of The Gods."

The only thing organic producers "meticulously research" is how much they can charge extra for their food until consumers complain.

[womanofthehills]

54. Actually organic food is not expensive

Here in NM at Whole Foods, Vitamin Cottage, La Montaneta, etc (we have loads of organic supermarkets) - lettuce, carrots, & celery all cost between $1.50 and $2.50.

Organic Valley milk and yogurt comes from individual farms not big corporations. I would rather pay a dollar more and support individuals who care about our planet and do not have toxic pesticide runoff into our surface waters. Plus, who the hell wants to drink milk with hormones?

I am definitely not complaining!

[AxionExcel]

58. Have you read the book?

? Or are you just going to go with a standard knee-jerk splurt of uninformed innuendo and ad hominem blather?

[proverbialwisdom]

178. Are the health outcomes comparable? Paraphrasing Springsteen,"It's hard to be a saint in the city."

And it's hard to be healthy on a conventional contemporary American diet. eg. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1208169

http://www.marthaherbert.org/library/EverydayEpigenetics-fromMolectoPublicHeatlhLifestyle-NAJMS2013.pdf

PUBLIC HEALTH AND LIFESTYLE EPIGENETICS CAN BE IMPLEMENTED NOW

At present we already know enough to improve the everyday
epigenetics of vast numbers of people. The problem here is
not scientific but economic and political. While targeted
epigenetic treatments may emerge in the future, and while
some of them may turn out to be benign, we do not have to
sit on our hands doing nothing while we wait for these
clinical trials to proceed (and often fail). For myriad reasons
a concerted attempt to improve the baseline everyday
epigenetics of the general population, and particularly the at
risk populations, is a path that we need to take as soon as
possible to reduce the comorbidity patterns and suffering we
are facing in autism spectrum disorder as well as many other
severe health conditions such as diabetes and obesity where
very similar considerations apply. The political and
economic programs are spelled out provocatively in a New
England Journal of Medicine guest editorial in the fall of
2012 entitled “What’s Preventing Us from Preventing Type
II Diabetes?”36 where it is shown that we know how to
prevent a large proportion of the illness on which we are
spending $750 billion per year in the US - it would basically
require lifestyle coaching in diet and exercise - and yet we do
not do it.
It may well take a grass roots epigenetics/lifestyle medicine
revolution to shake off the worsening health trends we are
facing in the setting of a progressively sicker and more
endangered planet. In order to improve our diet, reduce
toxins, allergens and infection, reduce stress and increase
exercise and sleep and better nurture each other, we not only
need to make healthy personal choices but aggregate these
together to make healthier social and planetary choices. Let
everyday epigenetics inform science of what is possible so
that we can respond on an appropriate scale to the magnitude
of the crisis we are facing.

32. Fradkin JE, Roberts BT, Rodgers GP. What's preventing us from preventing type 2 diabetes? N Engl J Med. 2012;367(13):1177-1179.

[center]

[/center]

http://www.ewg.org/research/ewgs-dietary-guidelines
http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary.php

http://drhyman.com/blog/2015/05/21/eat-healthy-on-a-budget-with-these-strategies/
http://robynobrien.com/real-people-real-budgets-can-afford-organic-food/
http://foodbabe.com/2013/05/20/how-to-eat-organic-on-a-budget/

[Bonx]

70. Certainly not the fake science book in the OP

or were you referring to the rebuttals ?

[AxionExcel]

76. I'm willing to wager* a giant imperial gallon of glyphosate that

...you also are among the many posters who have not read the book.

* loser has to use to 'enhance' his or her beer.

Oh, wait, I forgot, glyphosate, the GMO partner-substance-in-crime, is already in your beer. My bad.

[Major Nikon]

81. Sure, because the one sided book you keep harping on is the end all on the subject

Silly meme games are fun, can I play too?

[AxionExcel]

85. Oh, so you are yet another critic who has not read the book...

There's a distinct pattern evident in this thread.

[Major Nikon]

89. So are you claiming the book isn't one sided?

Because that's all I said about it.

So yeah, there is a distinct pattern in this thread, but it isn't what you think.

[AxionExcel]

115. I'm merely observing that horde of "critics" on this thread has not read the book

and appreciating why so many DUers have no respect for them,
and why so many DUers suspect their motives.

[Major Nikon]

117. I didn't ask bout no horde

I asked why you said that of me when the only critique I offered of the book was it's one sided, because it obviously is.

Dodging that question speaks volumes about your motives, BTW.

[ebayfool]

91. You vill desist! 0-7 jury sez someone has hurt feelers ...

and won't be able to push that alert button for 24 hours. Amazing ... I've seen 2 unanimous 0-7 juries in the space of @ 12 hours. I'm thinking the denizens of DU are getting a wee bit fed up with frivolous alerts! Good!

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Chemtrails are a forbidden topic on DU.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Mar 7, 2016, 11:59 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: not really a topic more of a response - and hurt feelings dont warrant a hide
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
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: Good Gawd Almighty! Verbotten! Frivolous alerts are also forbidden on DU, yet here we are!
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Most woo is forbidden here on DU. How in the world does the alerter gather the alerted post was seriously promoting chem trails. He was funnin' them. The whole thread is woooo-ish enough to alow someone to lampoon them for wooooo.

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]

93. Gee, I wonder who that was?

Thanks for the results. I can always use the chuckle.

[ebayfool]

95. I got a laugh out of it ...

from juror #6

[Bonx]

114. Why would I read a fake science book ?

[AxionExcel]

167. Why would anyone condemn something they know nothing about?

it appears all the critics of this book are unanimous is NOT HAVING READ IT.

Talk about anti-intellectural.

[Bonx]

171. No Idea. I read the reviews. It's fake science from an attorney.

That was enough.

[whatthehey]

60. Yes there sre some massive, world-changing side effects of this stuff

like less land per capita needed for environmentally depleting agriculture..



and plummetting famine deaths despite massive population rise.



Gaia damn those interfering white-coated tinkerers and their doomed "science"!

[PufPuf23]

137. The first GMO food was not sold until 1994 so the drop in global death rate

in the chart is not because of GMO but because of plant breeding and other agriculture technologies.

An organism that is generated through genetic engineering is considered to be a genetically modified organism (GMO). The first GMOs were bacteria generated in 1973 and GM mice in 1974. Insulin-producing bacteria were commercialized in 1982 and genetically modified food has been sold since 1994. GloFish, the first GMO designed as a pet, was first sold in the United States in December 2003.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering

Many posts in this thread confuse the difference between genetically modified organisms and organisms selectively bred for wanted attributes.

[whatthehey]

148. The OP specified the timeframe, and we sure see a nice drop after the 1990s too...

[Major Nikon]

157. Your own link proves you are confused on the subject

Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology.

Biotechnology is the use of living systems and organisms to develop or make products, or "any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use" (UN Convention on Biological Diversity, Art. 2).[1] Depending on the tools and applications, it often overlaps with the (related) fields of bioengineering, biomedical engineering, biomanufacturing, etc.

For thousands of years, humankind has used biotechnology in agriculture, food production, and medicine.[2]

(emphasis mine)

[PufPuf23]

158. Either you are not understanding what I wrote or you are confused. Also see posts #3 and #8 above.

Direct manipulation of an organisms genome is genetic engineering, a relatively new technology which is a subset of biotechnology.

Prior to genetic engineering, biotechnology to improve or maintain wanted attributes of cultivars was by plant breeding (selection of phenotypes and breeding within favorable phenotypes) or cloning.

Genetic engineering differs from traditional methods in that the chromosomes themselves are modified and sometimes foreign genes are introduced into the genome in a laboratory. There is usually some effort designed to keep the bio-engineered organisms from mixing with wild or traditional populations and for good scientific reasons).

I don't see what the problem is with my posts as I am pro-GMO and tried to clarify some items.

I do think that people have the right to know they are eating GMO foods.

I do think that there are aspects of GMOs that impact the environment, sustainability, biodiversity, and the corporate and financial aspects of agriculture that should be (and to a degree are considered). For example, an agricultural soil mono-cultured with a GMO-glyphosate regime will have increased crop productivity over a short time but reduced overall bio-productivity and soil carbon over time. This is something to be recognized and work with not a reason to not use GMOs.

There are nutrition and sometimes food quality trade offs of GMOs. For example the GMO tomato. The goal was to produce a tomato that harvest and ships better and has a longer viable period of time as a fresh commodity. Scientists were successful, and consumers benefitted. Essentially this improved tomato has more cellulose and less fructose. But few would argue that they would not rather have a fresh varietal tomato for dinner because of flavor.

[Major Nikon]

159. I'm not sure your clarification helps much

Genetic engineering differs from traditional methods in that the chromosomes themselves are modified and sometimes foreign genes are introduced into the genome in a laboratory. There is usually some effort designed to keep the bio-engineered organisms from mixing with wild or traditional populations and for good scientific reasons).

I'm not sure what you mean by "foreign genes". I'm not sure what the "good scientific reasons" would be over and above any new varietal derived from any other method.

I do think that people have the right to know they are eating GMO foods.

Where is that right enumerated? Or is this just your opinion and not really a right? You are certainly entitled to have an opinion on that point, but calling it a "right" is pretty disingenuous at best. You have a right to know what is in your food per federal law, you don't have a right to know how it's produced. So what you're really talking about is creating a right where one does not currently exist.

For example, an agricultural soil mono-cultured with a GMO-glyphosate regime will have increased crop productivity over a short time but reduced overall bio-productivity and soil carbon over time. This is something to be recognized and work with not a reason to not use GMOs.

Substitute "GMO-glyphosate" with anything else and the statement is equally (if not more so) true.

[Johnny2X2X]

80. The Climate Change Deniers of the Left

Shameful.

[AxionExcel]

88. Interesting coincidence

...this just happens to be among the Top 10 corporate "Talking Points" of the GMO-chemcial pharmaceutical Borg, Inc.

I'm sure you thought it was your original idea, so I certainly forgive you for being tricked into parroting the corporate line.

[Major Nikon]

92. So you think they thought of it first?

It's been repeated right here on DU for years before you got here, at least in this iteration. You certainly aren't the first to trot out pseudoscience and silly-assed skull memes either.

[Archae]

96. Heck, I still remember when I challenged astrology buffs here.

I got insults, attacks, anything and everything, except actual even acknowledgement of my challenge, much less taking it up.

And to this day astrology is still believed in by a few people, even though all credible evidence shows it's pure bullshit.

Just look above at the "chemtrail" post.

This whole "GMO's iz perzen!" meme has all the actual evidence and credibility of the "Moon landing hoax" guy who got his bell rung by Buzz Aldrin.

[Major Nikon]

99. When the usual suspects all say those who disagree are part of the conspiracy

...that's when you know it needs to be moved to creative speculation along with the AIDS denialists, 9/11 "thruthers", anti-vaxxers, and anti-fluoridation windbags, who all too often all seem to be one and the same.

See if you can spot the anti-vaxxer who is now saying GMOs cause autism.

[Archae]

120. Seriously?

I knew there was a fervent anti-vaxxer here, but this is a new one to me.

GMO's cause autism?
I've seen all sorts of stuff that "causes autism."
Pesticides.
Wi-Fi.
Vaccines, of course.

But now GMO's?
Bro-ther!

[proverbialwisdom]

129. Top experts (Herbert, Mumper) recommend "a whole food diet that is as organic as possible."

True, neither mentions GMOs but the practical result would be unchanged if they did. And instead of fixating on "cause" how about framing the focus to be "helps vs harms" recovery/overall health. Mischaracterize and mock less, problem solve more.

http://www.marthaherbert.org/library/TOC-HerbertAutismCh10-GENETICEXPLANATIONS-SenseNonsenseHUP2012.pdf

GENETIC EXPLANATIONS: Sense and Nonsense: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674064461

Headers from Dr. Herbert’s chapter in new Harvard U Press book

Here is the citation for my new chapter:

Herbert, M.R., Autism: From Static Genetic Brain Defect to Dynamic Gene-Environment-Modulated Pathophysiology.
Chapter 10 of Genetic Explanations: Sense and Nonsense.
Krimsky, S. and Gruber, J. eds, Harvard University Press (2012).

The chapter covers similar material to what is in the book THE AUTISM REVOLUTION, but pitched to upper-division undergraduate college students. Here are the chapter’s Section Headers. Please get the book to read more.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/new-book-the-autism-revolution-offers-hope-help-for-families-201203274529

[center]
http://www.autismrevolution.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/DietTxAutism-HerbertCharlieFdtnDiet4EpilepsyChicago2012-0920-pdf.pdf[/center]

[Skwmom]

101. This is the untalked about scandal of the century. n/t

[Rex]

111. Wow. I can only imagine the mad googlers in this thread with many windows opened

with one on wiki and another on the CDC website! LOL! Thank you all for a good laugh, I see so many experts in this thread I wonder when they find the time to work!

[PufPuf23]

138. I used wiki in the 3 posts I made in this thread.

I don't work.

I also think the creation of GMOs is a valid technology that can be mis-used.

I have not read the book in the OP but there are many secondary issues to the use of GMOs.

GMOs are fundamentally different from traditional plant breeding.

There is a lot of BS on both sides of the issue in this thread, enough to make the thread close to valueless.

[Major Nikon]

145. GMOs aren't fundamentally different from traditional plant breeding

All plant breeding involves rearranging DNA to produce a more desirable result. The difference with GMO is that genes are spliced by more predictable methods.

Unlike GMO, significant public health issues have been created by so-called traditional breeding methods.

[PufPuf23]

149. This is wrong - "GMOs aren't fundamentally different from traditional plant breeding"

If you believe that "GMOs aren't fundamentally different from traditional plant breeding", you have no business having an opinion on the subject.

[Major Nikon]

151. Well you certainly make a convincing argument

[nationalize the fed]

142. From the forward by Jane Goodall

Chapter 5 shows how the key step in the commercialization of GE foods occurred through the unbelievably poor judgment – if not downright corruption – of the US Food and Drug Administration (the FDA). This regulatory body is supposed to ensure that new additives to foods are safe before they come to market, and it had a responsibility to require that GE foods were proven safe through standard scientific testing.

But the information that Druker pried from the agency’s files through a lawsuit revealed that it apparently ignored (and covered up) the concerns of its own scientists and then violated a federal statute and its own regulations by permitting GE foods to be marketed without any testing whatsoever. The evidence further shows how the agency assured consumers that GE foods are just as safe as naturally produced ones – and that their safety has been confirmed by solid scientific evidence – despite the fact it knew that no such evidence existed.

Druker makes the case that it was this fraud that truly enabled the GE food venture to take off. And he asserts that the fraud continues to deceive the public and Congress, despite the fact that the lawsuit he initiated thoroughly exposed it. His description of the proceedings surrounding this lawsuit was, to me, one of the most astounding and chilling parts of the book.

And what of the role of the media? How have the American public been so largely kept in the dark about the realities of GE foods – to the extent that until quite recently, a vast majority of the populace did not even know they were regularly consuming them? Druker describes, in Chapter 8, how the mainstream media have been highly selective in what they report – and have consistently failed to convey information that would cause concern about these engineered products.

Moreover, Druker demonstrates that the policies imposed by the media magnates have been, in his words, “not merely selective, but suppressive.” And he relates several dramatic incidents in which journalists who tried to bring unsettling facts to light had their stories altered or totally quashed by higher level executives. So it is not surprising that the American public, and a good many key decision-makers, believe that there are no legitimate concerns regarding GE foods.

CHAPTER FIVE

Illegal Entry

The Governmental Fraud that Put GE Foods on the US Market
*****************

The Criminal Media treats the GMO issue like they treat the TPP- It doesn't exist.

“You can stop splitting the atom; you can stop visiting the moon; you can stop using aerosols . . . But you cannot recall a new form of life. . . . It will survive you and your children and your children’s children. . . . Have we the right to counteract irreversibly the evolutionary wisdom of millions of years in order to satisfy the ambition and the curiosity of a few scientists?” -Erwin Chargaff

[CanSocDem]

147. Reading this thread...

...it is clear that the USA will never rise above its' complete dependence on the corporate philosophy of profits over people.


Many are arguing that whenever 'people' question the veracity of this philosophy it is because they don't understand SCIENCE. Any thinking person would have to wonder how this conclusion was reached.

It is becoming quite obvious that it is they who don't understand social SCIENCE specifically SOCIOLOGY. They fill their posts with links, opinions, insults and deflection without an understanding of the rules that create stable societies.

Society is a group of people- not a marketplace for every hair-brained corporate invention whose only purpose is to make a profit. So when a group of people step up and deny the corporate propaganda, pick and choose alternative, less costly solutions to their problems, why do so many Americans forget where they come from and start regurgitating corporate-speak...

SOCIOLOGY explains why: People assume beliefs (not because of scientific authority) but because they want to feel part of a group, part of a society. This is why the USA is content with ill health, bad food, undrinkable water and a plethora of useless gadgets.

Understand this and there may be hope for you when you become a social democracy.



.

[Buzz Clik]

153. Fear over reason...

[Buzz Clik]

152. I ate GMO food and died.

It was horrible.

[Major Nikon]

155. GMO made the hens stop laying and now the cows won't milk

[Buzz Clik]

156. And Monsanto just laughed.

[drokhole]

160. THE COMPLEX NATURE OF GMOS CALLS FOR A NEW CONVERSATION

THE COMPLEX NATURE OF GMOS CALLS FOR A NEW CONVERSATION
from Ensia



October 7, 2015 — The GMO debate is one from which I’ve kept a purposeful distance.

For one thing, it’s an issue that has already garnered more than its fair share of attention. For another, when you consider that many domesticated crops resulted from seed irradiation, chromosome doubling and plant tissue culture — none of which are genetically engineered — the boundaries of “natural” are more porous than they initially appear.

But I study seed science and policy, in which genetically engineered organisms — more often referred to as genetically modified organisms, aka GMOs — are pervasive, so it’s an issue I cannot ignore. Most recently, the director of a science communications program asked if I could engage her students on a few topics: Is there a scientific consensus on GMOs? How is the media doing when it comes to covering biotech in the food system? Where are the biases and blind spots in reporting?

Swapping emails, we discussed the retraction of a study on “golden rice,” a Slate feature calling the war against GMOs “full of fearmongering, errors, and fraud,” and the infamous tangle among Vandana Shiva, David Remnick and Michael Specter in the aftermath of “Seeds of Doubt,” a critical New Yorker profile of Shiva’s crusade against genetically modified crops. (Read Shiva’s response to the profile, and Remnick’s counter response.) Anyone who examines these stories will appreciate the thicket of fact, interpretation and framing that makes the GMO terrain explosive.

Let me begin with a frank admission: I am a proponent of agroecology, food sovereignty, and the rights of farmers to save and reproduce their seed. But I am not anti-GMO. In agreement with my colleagues at various universities and non-governmental organizations, I believe that some GM crops could have some benefits. What I object to is a lack of complex evaluations of the technology, the overzealous selling of its benefits and the framing of cautionary skeptics as anti-science scaremongers. The tendency to treat GMOs in isolation from their historical, social and political contexts is also of no help: The technology was developed as a tool to enhance the scope and scale of industrial agriculture. I don’t argue that GMOs cannot be — and never will be — extricated from that context, but that discussion is very different from the more common debate about health benefits or risks.

Why do the merits or demerits of GMOs grab more headline space than systemic food and agriculture concerns? Can we get past what Jonathan Foley calls the “silver bullet” and reductionist thinking on this issue? As a molecular biologist turned science journalist turned social scientist, I’ve been puzzling over these questions for some 15 years. What I’ve come to realize is that GMO stories point to deeper struggles over how science is conducted, interpreted and deployed in the arena of “sustainable food.”

...more at http://ensia.com/voices/the-complex-nature-of-gmos-calls-for-a-new-conversation/

One of the most comprehensive I've come across, but added to it a bit of a lengthy response/addition:

Yes! It's stuff like this that the myopic/hyper-focus on GM overshadows and blocks out from the debate. Its become less about the problem (drought, yield, pest and disease-resistance, nutritional content, etc...), and almost exclusively about the wonders of GMOs. They can't tease apart the "wonders" (which are simply the idealized solution...which often times does still ignore the greater environmental context) from the GMO. Proponents forget, the purpose shouldn't be to cheer lead GMOs, it's about better addressing and resolving these issues - and they fail to question (or investigate) whether GMOs are the best way to achieve those results.

For example, they think they can simply splice in a gene to make a crop drought resistant, rather than, say, building porous soil rich in organic matter that increases rates of water absorption and leads to vastly larger stores of water retained (particular in times of low rainfall) - which itself often includes mixed stocking of crops and animals (among a host of other techniques). Or that pest resistance again comes down to adding another gene, rather than building the plants own existing defenses (again, through a robust soil teeming with biodiversity) and attracting and encouraging beneficial predators with a healthy and biodiverse landscape. It actually speaks largely to an all-too-common reductionist (not to mention "gene-centric&quot approach across the sciences - we've lost sight of (or simply failed to identify in the first place) the mutualistic relationships of nature.

Here, mycologist Paul Stamets describes one such relationship between a grass, mychorriza fungi, and a virus that allows the grass to grow and thrive in an environment with extreme temperatures (should be cued up around 23:42...if it isn't, skip ahead to that time):

Paul Stamets and John B. Wells - Mushrooms & Environment

?t=23m42s

You can't just genetically modify that into existence, you have to foster the relationship. It, in my opinion, is a much more advanced science/technique than the myopic "gene for every mean" approach. Which is why it's not only disingenuous, but exceedingly patronizing and insulting, for people like the NYT's Amy Harmon to throw around "anti-science" accusations and seedy equivocations. It not only falsely frames the terms of the debate (thus cementing positions and automatically granting one side an imagined intellectual high-ground), it ignores good science itself:

Organic agriculture: deeply rooted in science and ecology

Like farmer Joel Salatin says:

"Of course I think I’m using science, but so does Monsanto. And so the question is whose science will be used as a regulatory foundation and enforcement action? It won't be pasture-based livestock, compost and symbiosis through multispeciation. It will be further animal abuse, chemicals and pathogen-friendly protocols."

Further, problems like malnutrition (like Vitamin-A deficiency) involve a myriad of issues, including the physical (involving a broader lack of a complex of dietary fats and nutrients...which are actually required for proper absorption of Vitamin A) and the socio-politico-economical. GM-opia ignores the scope of the issues and smacks of simplistic solutionism.

Final thought, I'd even challenge the thought that "most" of the GMOs are safe to eat. Particularly those that exist in actual fact today. Reason being, almost no thought (and certainly hardly any study, particularly from the industry) has gone into considering the effects of these foods on our microbiome - those trillions of bacteria and other micro-organisms that live on and within our bodies (a large portion of which are in the gut), that are crucial in not only keeping us healthy but alive in the first place. One reason for this is we are only beginning to discover, realize, and appreciate just how crucial these critters are to health and well-being, with functions ranging from digesting and deriving nutrients in our food, to fighting off pathogens and regulating/boosting our immune-system. In fact, it is those very bugs in our guts we have to worry about when it comes to GMOs - not only when it comes to the chemical pesticides that the plants are engineered to withstand, but especially those "modified" with Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) within the plant itself. Plenty of our "modern" disease epidemics seem to be rooted in inflammation stemming from gut/GI issues...and it could very well be that these "foods"/ingredients derived from them are contributing to that problem in large degree (and I seem to recall some preliminary findings hinting at such).

On a somewhat related (and equally fascinating) note, George Monbiot points out how - through a process dubbed "trophic cascade" - wolves can in fact change the course of rivers:

How Wolves Change Rivers

And, on a similar note, we see how "whales effect climate":

How Whales Change Climate

Also, the importance of keystone species like beavers:

The Plan to Make California Wet By Bringing Back Beavers

Scientists Acquire More Proof That Only Beavers Can Save the World

And starfish:

The Ecologist Who Threw Starfish

Additional material:

An Essential Citizen’s Guide to the Truth About GM Crops and Food

“Using peer-reviewed studies and other documented evidence, GMO Myths and Truths deconstructs the false and misleading claims that are frequently made about the safety and efficacy of GM crops and foods. The book shows that far from being necessary to feed the world, GM crops are a risky distraction from the real causes of hunger. What is more, there is no reason to take this risk, since GM crops do not consistently raise yields, reduce pesticide use, or provide more nutritious food. GM crops and foods have not been shown to be safe to eat – and both animal feeding studies and non-animal laboratory experiments indicate that some GM foods, as well as most of the chemicals required to produce them, are toxic. Fortunately, the book shows that there are effective and sustainable alternatives to GM that can ensure a safe and plentiful food supply for current and future populations. GMO Myths and Truths is an invaluable and easy-to-read resource for everyone, including students, scientists, and members of the general public.”--David Schubert, PhD, Professor and Director, Cellular Neurobiology, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, California, USA

and

Genes, Organism, and Environment with Richard Lewontin

[CanSocDem]

170. Great post.

An informed 'conversation' would indeed serve the public interest.


.

[AxionExcel]

166. Long term study shows the harm GMO diet causes

http://gmojudycarman.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/The-Full-Paper.pdf

[AxionExcel]

169. GMO Boosters, Inc.: DO NOT READ THIS STUDY

So far the GMO Boosters, Inc. have a perfect record of NOT HAVING READ THE BOOK THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE OP, and that they have knee-jerk condemned and slandered with endless ad hominem attacks.

Please stick to your list of long-ago disproven Talking Points, and don't spoil your group record by actually becoming
informed before you CONDEMN this study, too.

[Bradical79]

172. Seems the paper has been widely discredited

and fails at some basic things one would expect in such a study. A lack of hypothesis, a failure to look at the stomach histology to verify inflammation (it was just eyeballed), and lack of proper statistical analysis are some common criticisms of the study. Basically it seems to get shredded to pieces from every angle.

[HuckleB]

173. The fact that the poster doesn't know the reality about that "study" is astounding.

Dunning Kruger is powerful stuff.

[nationalize the fed]

181. From chapter 13: The Devolution of Scientists into Spin Doctors

Genetic Engineering’s Most Malignant Mutation

“The scientist . . . must conform to the facts. The sanction of truth is an exact boundary which encloses him.” Jacob Bronowski, Science and Human Values

As the previous chapters have documented, the scientist-proponents of genetic engineering have not merely failed to adhere to the facts as assiduously as scientists are supposed to, in several respects, they haven’t even maintained higher standards of truthfulness than people engaged in politics. And we’ve seen that as science became more politicized in regard to genetic engineering, and as its scientist-promoters strove to augment their influence over the political process, the media, and public opinion, they increasingly adopted the techniques of spin specialists advancing political campaigns.

The transformation of doctors of science into spin doctors began at least as early as 1977, when GE proponents mounted a major effort to quell the growing concerns about the risks of genetic engineering. As we saw in Chapter 1, the historian Susan Wright, in chronicling this endeavor, documented several examples of the proponents’ propensity to spin the facts in a misrepresentative manner. This tendency toward spin has also been noted by Diana B. Dutton, a Senior Research Associate of the Stanford School of Medicine, who observed that as the proponents strained to project a positive image of their technology, “[e]ven accumulating evidence that there were, indeed, risks was interpreted in a positive light.”...snip
From the FDA Files- obtained via Lawsuit