You don't need GMOs to be labeled

[magical thyme]

:large

[Nye Bevan]

1. So it's only GMOs that ever get sprayed with chemicals? (nt)

[AxionExcel]

2. Not only

but as a cog in the corporate industrial chemical Ag machine, they get sprayed a lot.

The introduction of GMOs in the 1990s was supposed to lower pesticide use in the United States, but that was just a pustulant pack of propaganda, which we find endlessly repeated. GMOs have done anything but that.

"Rural residents who drink water from private wells are much more likely to have Parkinson’s disease, a finding that bolsters theories that farm pesticides may be partially to blame, according to a new California study."

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/parkinsons-and-pesticides

[Major Nikon]

5. That study doesn't say what you think it says

For one thing, it's published in an open access journal, which means the authors of the study pay the publisher to publish it, which leads to questionable peer review.

But lets just assume for a moment that an obscure study published in an obscure pay-to-play journal is the gold standard of evidence, even though it only offers correlative data. Then lets further assume that correlation implies causation.

The key part you missed was this study was done in the California’s Central Valley, which grows very little GMO and a considerable amount of organic produce.

[petronius]

58. Open access is not synonymous with scam/predatory/low-quality journals

I think you're conflating an entire publishing model with the behavior of a set of pseudo-publishers who abuse that model. I don't know anything in particular about the journal that is apparently being referred to by the broken link in Axion's post, but it appears to be published with US government support, and as far as I can see it doesn't collect author charges.

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/journal-information/

[Major Nikon]

59. I didn't claim it was

But pretty much all scam/predatory/low-quality journals are open access, so it's worth considering what the peer review process is. In this case it may or may not be a junk study, but even if it isn't it doesn't say what the poster thinks it says.

[petronius]

60. My point is that you didn't consider what the peer review process is; you made

a broad-brush assumption and negative judgement based on the publishing model, without reference to the specific journal in question. All A may be B, but it doesn't follow that all/most/many B are A. That's the objection I'm raising...

(And as an aside, it seems to me you may have misunderstood Axion's argument as well, but I'll let you two hash that out.)

[Major Nikon]

61. I assumed exactly the opposite, so your point makes little sense

You might want to try reading what I actually wrote.

[petronius]

65. I would suggest the same to you, starting

with your very own post #5.

[HuckleB]

66. Uh, say what?

You are not being honest here. Don't play that crap.

[petronius]

67. Read the subthread. Carefully. Without preconceptions.

My comments to Nikon were meant to be friendly and constructive, and they're completely sound, regardless of how either of you choose to take them...

[HuckleB]

68. "Preconceptions."

Those are all you have on this topic.

[roody]

3. You missed the point. Try again.

[magical thyme]

4. GMOs have tremendously increased insecticide use. nt

[Major Nikon]

6. Wrong

[magical thyme]

8. Let me correct that to pesticide and herbicide up.

The studies that showed decreased insecticide use didn't take into account pre-treatment on seeds.

http://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-4715-24-24
Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. -- the first sixteen years
Results

Herbicide-resistant crop technology has led to a 239 million kilogram (527 million pound) increase in herbicide use in the United States between 1996 and 2011, while Bt crops have reduced insecticide applications by 56 million kilograms (123 million pounds). Overall, pesticide use increased by an estimated 183 million kgs (404 million pounds), or about 7%.


Conclusions
Contrary to often-repeated claims that today’s genetically-engineered crops have, and are reducing pesticide use, the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied. If new genetically engineered forms of corn and soybeans tolerant of 2,4-D are approved, the volume of 2,4-D sprayed could drive herbicide usage upward by another approximate 50%. The magnitude of increases in herbicide use on herbicide-resistant hectares has dwarfed the reduction in insecticide use on Bt crops over the past 16 years, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es506141g
Large-Scale Deployment of Seed Treatments Has Driven Rapid Increase in Use of Neonicotinoid Insecticides and Preemptive Pest Management in U.S. Field Crops

Neonicotinoid use increased rapidly between 2003 and 2011, as seed-applied products were introduced in field crops, marking an unprecedented shift toward large-scale, preemptive insecticide use: 34–44% of soybeans and 79–100% of maize hectares were treated in 2011. This finding contradicts recent analyses, which concluded that insecticides are used today on fewer maize hectares than a decade or two ago.



http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/gmos-and-pesticides/
?w=900

Figure 3. Timeline of glyphosate-based herbicide use on corn, cotton, and soybean in response to the growing popularity of their GMO versions. Since the introduction of Roundup-tolerant crops, herbicides have experienced a significant increase in application. (Adapted from [15])

[Major Nikon]

9. I call your open access study with another

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4218791/

[magical thyme]

12. your study is an analysis of other studies that did not include pre-treated seed.

The decline is pesticide application in the field is due to the dramatic increase in pre-treated seed.

[Major Nikon]

13. pre-treated seed =/ GMO

[magical thyme]

17. pre-treated seed includes GMO seed.

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/05/catching-my-reading-ahead-pesticide-industry-confab

90 Percent of Corn Seeds Are Coated With Bayer's Bee-Decimating Pesticide
• As I've written before, Bayer's neonicotinoid pesticides, which now coat upwards of 90 percent of US corn seeds and seeds of increasing portions of other major crops like soy, have emerged as a likely trigger for colony collapse disorder. Watch this NBC News report from last week linking bee kills in Minnesota to Bayer's highly profitable product.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2012/05/16/what-do-gmo-seeds-have-do-bee-die-offs-corn-belt
What Do GMO Seeds Have to Do With Bee Die-Offs in the Corn Belt?
Corn is far from the only crop treated by neonicotinoids, but it is the largest use of arable land in North America, and honey bees rely on corn as a major protein source. At least 94 percent of the 92 million acres of corn planted across the U.S. this year will have been treated with either clothianidin or thiamethoxam (another neonicotinoid).


GE corn & neonicotinoid seed treatments go hand-in-hand
Over the last 15 years, U.S. corn cultivation has gone from a crop requiring little-to-no insecticides and negligible amounts of fungicides, to a crop where the average acre is grown from seeds treated or genetically engineered to express three different insecticides (as well as a fungicide or two) before being sprayed prophylactically with RoundUp (an herbicide) and a new class of fungicides that farmers didn't know they "needed" before the mid-2000s.

[Major Nikon]

25. Along with non-GMO seed

Which means it's a bit silly to point to GMO and allege the pesticide load is higher because of it when the exact same treatment is applied to non-GMO.

[magical thyme]

35. 90+% of corn is pre-treated. 90+% of corn is GMO. funny how that works.

http://time.com/3840073/gmo-food-charts/

More than 90% of all soybean cotton and corn acreage in the U.S. is used to grow genetically engineered crops.

[Major Nikon]

38. ...and 95% of all US corn production isn't used for human consumption

...and of the 5% that is used for human consumption, 90% of that isn't GMO.

Funny how that works.

[magical thyme]

39. tell it to the environment that is poisoned.

The bees and other pollinators still get poisoned by those pre-treated seeds.
The water supply for humans and other animals still gets poisoned by those pre-treated seeds.


HA!HA!HA!HA!HA! Isn't that a riot?

[Major Nikon]

40. Your own link doesn't even claim that much

Very telling how speculation turns to fact with the true believers.

[NickB79]

57. The field corn see we planted on the farm in the 1980's was pre-treated with pesticide

I remember that well: my dad didn't want us kids playing with the corn seed before planting because it had pesticides already on it. It gave the seeds a reddish, dusty look.

A DECADE before GMO corn came to market.

[fun n serious]

16. They sweat pesticide. nt

[Buzz Clik]

28. That is completely wrong. Try again.

[magical thyme]

33. unsourced claim, as usual. nt

[Buzz Clik]

49. Yes, I noticed the lack of documentation. And you cannot document your claim because it is untrue.

[GreatGazoo]

11. What's in the name "RoundUp Ready" ?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814613019201

[Major Nikon]

15. Shit research published by a shitty pay-to-play journal citing other shit research

Cites discredited work by cranks Benbrook and Seralini both of which was funded by the organic industry.

[GreatGazoo]

18. As long as we are labeling things "shit" how about labeling GMOs?

[Major Nikon]

29. Sure, all we need is more pseudoscience to prove it's necessary

[womanofthehills]

7. Can you just imagine the numbers of workers

being poisoned just applying this shit. These guys have masks but I bet a lot of poor farm workers do not.

[Nitram]

10. That is true, hillwoman, but it's not the company's fault.

In fact, a lot of the produce we eat is grown in Central American countries that use pesticides that are banned in the US. Workers usually spray insecticides and herbicides there without protection. It would take a huge campaign in consumer awareness to change that. Meanwhile, songbirds and butterflies that migrate to Central and South America are dying by the thousands after crops are sprayed.

[Buzz Clik]

27. And labeling GMOs would change that because....

[Brickbat]

14. What "crop" is this person spraying pesticides on?

[SidDithers]

19. From the "Cauliflower: How does it grow?" video...

Produced by the fine people at Lakeside Organic Gardens.
http://thekidshouldseethis.com/post/cauliflower-how-does-it-grow


Jeez, imagine those organic farmers needing to wear hazmat suits, when they "water" their cauliflower.



Sid

[GeorgeGist]

20. That would be soap spray ...

inhale at your pleasure.

[SidDithers]

21. How do you know it's not soap spray in the OP's picture?...

The two "farmers" are wearing exactly the same PPE in both pictures.

Sid

[HuckleB]

22. So what?

The OP's meme may be exactly showing the same thing. The point is that these memes are not honest.

[progressoid]

23. What? But it's super organic and natural. How can it be harmful?

[Rex]

31. Well it is Monsatan! So probably using the tears of the unholy or something. nt

nt

[progressoid]

24. And how would labeling GMOs change whatever this guy is doing?

For all we know that's an organic spray.

...organic farmers do use pesticides. The only difference is that they're "natural" instead of "synthetic." At face value, the labels make it sound like the products they describe are worlds apart, but they aren't. A pesticide, whether it's natural or not, is a chemical with the purpose of killing insects (or warding off animals, or destroying weeds, or mitigating any other kind of pest, as our watchful commenters have correctly pointed out). Sadly, however, "natural" pesticides aren't as effective, so organic farmers actually end up using more of them!*

Moreover, we actually know less about the effects of "natural" pesticides. Conventional "synthetic" pesticides are highly regulated and have been for some time. We know that any remaining pesticide residues on both conventional and organic produce aren't harmful to consumers. But, writes agricultural technologist Steve Savage, "we still have no real data about the most likely pesticide residues that occur on organic crops and we are unlikely to get any."

Scientists can examine pesticides before they are sprayed on fields, however. And what do these analyses show?

"Organic pesticides that are studied have been found to be as toxic as synthetic pesticides," Steven Novella, president and co-founder of the New England Skeptical Society, recently wrote.

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/06/the_biggest_myth_about_organic_farming.html

[Buzz Clik]

26. Yeah. That meme is devoid of any content that has an association with reality.

Like I'm surprised.

[magical thyme]

34. and your claims are as devoid of content and sourcing as usual. no big surprise there. nt

[Buzz Clik]

51. Okay, Ace. Step up to the plate: What is this guy spraying? What is the crop?

Is he in Tyvek and breathing through filters because of the crop or the spray?

Is that spray specific to GMO crops?

Come on, now. Let's see that substance.

[Rex]

32. This is something that cannot be debated rationally in GD on DU.

Been tried and never works.

[Bonx]

36. When one side is bringing a flat-earth type argument...

[Rex]

37. Both side could have original source documents and it wouldn't matter.

Both sides view the other as sell out, CTer, nothing to bring to the table so there is no real reason to try and discuss labeling or GMOs vs Organics.

[HuckleB]

41. The problem is that the science is quite profound.

It's like trying to debate climate change or evolution. There's just not really much to debate, despite what some people believe.

[Rex]

42. Not all in the scientific realm agrees with you. Also, you cannot simply dismiss their credentials.

You seem to think GMOs are mostly safe. So there is not a single reason to discuss the issue. Whoever your nemesis would be on the Organics side would say the same thing about Organics. So there is no point is a discussion, both sides already won and lost. Case closed.

People believe, science deals in facts.

I've seen this PHD against that PHD in article after article and are we any closer to a conclusion? No, never. You call this PHD a hack, they call that PHD a sellout.

I will make is simple, you will never win an argument with an Organics supporter and they will never win an argument against you or the many GMO supporters.

This site is not equipped to handle that kind of debate.

[HuckleB]

43. The consensus is as profound as for those other topics.

The anti-GMO movement is not about discussing anything relevant. I used to be a supporter of organics. Many others, as well. Constructive discussion can occur, but honesty has to be at the core. The problem is the extremist rhetoric of the anti-GMO movement. It is simply impossible to change, it seems, yes. My mind has been changed, not just on this topic. And I know others at DU who have changed their minds, as well.

[Rex]

46. I've been turned off the subject by so much petty fighting.

I was anti-GMOs, until I started reading up on GMOs, now I feel they are mostly safe and that is supported by a huge amount of scientific evidence. Problem is, no matter what I say now...I am a sell out. Just an unwinnable battle imo.

[HuckleB]

47. Exactly.

Still, the ethical and real-world parts of the issue make it something that is of importance for the future.

[Rex]

48. True. We don't want to end up in a real life Idiocracy.

And if people don't think it is possible, I give then Donald Trump as evidence!

[nationalize the fed]

50. The problem is that we've all been lied to

I highly recommend this book Altered Genes, Twisted Truth-

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

The author sued the FDA and received unpublished files on GMO.

His research has shown that this crap has been pushed by lies and mis information. Just take a look at who endorsed the book - many PhD's and industry professionals

“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

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



I'm on Chapter 2, and it's excellent. A real eye opener. Don't believe me- there are 240+ reviews on Amazon.

This is the biggest scientific fraud of our age- the case is made from the FDA"s own files.

[Rex]

52. And that is a huge part of this problem imo. We live in a plutocracy. Companies control

the government and not the other way around. So it means we have to be spot on when it comes to blaming a corporation for known malice. So far the MOST evidence points in Monsanto's favor, that might change. However until it does, I will go with the majority of scientists on this one. They cannot be all bought and paid for. It does feel like it, like I said we live in corporate times so it is very easy to feel the science is skewed on the side of Big Biz. And some of it is no doubt.

I will look into it, I've had others recommend that book.

[HuckleB]

54. Books like that are a big part of the problem.

It is an individual making money by lying to people into to cause unjustified fear. It is not based in science, nor does the author show an understanding of the science. The book is a scam in and of itself, and very much reminiscent of the anti-vaccine movement. You know this, and yet you keep pushing this stuff. Why would you do such a thing?



http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2013/03/29/anti-gmo-writers-show-profound-ignorance-of-basic-biology-and-now-jane-goodall-has-joined-their-ranks/

http://www.yourdoctorsorders.com/2015/03/altered-genes-drukers-new-book-is-filled-with-logical-fallacies/

http://academicsreview.org/2015/07/steven-druker-twisted-truth-in-altered-genes-book/

[nationalize the fed]

44. I just found out that my Kikkoman Soy sauce is made from GMO Soybeans

and I'm LIVID

I'm going to make as many people as I can aware of this assault on our food supply.

Almost everything in the market that comes in a box contains this crap. And many bottles too. Corn syrup is made from GMO Corn.

Sneaking stuff into the food supply is criminal behaviour.



just when you think you've eliminated this garbage from your kitchen something else pops up. This is outrageous.

[HuckleB]

45. So you like it, it's a good product, but ...

... you have a pointless reason to get angry about it, and you're going to tell the world!!!!



Which anti-GMO outfit is spreading the word for people to go attack Kikkoman? Hmmm.

[Major Nikon]

53. Imagine the horror if people knew where this stuff comes from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding#Notable_mutagenized_varietals

http://www.stxorganics.com/product-information.html

Nothing more organic and natural than bombarding seeds with ionizing radiation, eh?

[progressoid]

55. You should be more concerned about the sodium content.

920 mg in a tablespoon.

[HuckleB]

56. True that.

It's great for backpacking spice, though!

[Major Nikon]

72. Table salt is almost twice as toxic as Roundup

Roundup

Acute oral toxicity
Rat, LD50 (limit test): > 5,000 mg/kg body weight

Table salt

Acute oral toxicity
(LD50): 3000 mg/kg [Rat.]

[Lancero]

62. But...but...but... The label says natural!

Huh, odd isn't it? How companies try labeling things as natural, when they really aren't, just to sucker people out of money.

Wonder what other labels they are misappropriating to sucker people out of money?

[HuckleB]

64. Can you define "natural?"

[Lancero]

69. Depends - You want the dictionary definition...

Or the 'lets move a few goalposts' definition that some groups have adopted?

I could give you the first, but the second tends to change based on what day it is.

[HuckleB]

70. You are a part of the "move the goal posts" crowd.

So, lit would be. Good for you to recognize reality from the start.

[Lancero]

71. I think you've got me confused for someone else. Or you've misinterpreted what I'd said.

...You know what, screw it. Not going to bother.

[Major Nikon]

73. Organic

[ohnoyoudidnt]

63. Since GMO is the standard, wouldn't non-GMO products just print 'Non-GMO' on their items?

If the GMO interests succeed in preventing GMO labeling, non-GMO can just market as non-GMO and any consumer who cares to pay attention could easily tell the difference.

[Major Nikon]

74. ...

[Dont call me Shirley]

75. If gmos are so safe why are the gmo companies spending so much energy and money to defeat

labeling? That is the biggest red flag here!

[Major Nikon]

76. Probably for the same reason the organic industry would fight a "fertilized with cow shit" label

Because while accurate it would convey no useful information to consumers and would only serve the interests of stroking irrational fear.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/gmo-labeling-ama-american-medical-association_n_1616716.html

[HuckleB]

78. Eight Lies About GMOs Debunked

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/8-lies-about-gmos/