Monsanto Myths

[Eko]

[drynberg]

1. No Neg. Health Consequences of GMO...WRONG

Short term (90 days or less) with corporate funding results ain't science. This is when I stopped listening to the above clip...instead go to real science go to the Food Revolution Network...this clip ain't worth listening to...really.

[longship]

2. Ummm! Nope. There are no known bad health effects from GMO food.

All claims to the contrary are based on cherry picked and misinterpreted studies. As Dr. Novella has stated a multitude of times -- Correctly! -- one cannot base an argument on a single study. Rather, one must look at what the entire research literature states. And GMO comes off clean. There are no adverse health effects from genetically modified foods. Period! (Drops mike)

Now if one wants to argue about the horrible business practices (some of which are just not true), or environmental impacts, then there is a reasonable discussion to be had. But it should be based on the science, not screeching ignorance.

[mother earth]

18. Simply not true, there are no long term studies & anything close exists due

to funding by GMO corps., and herbicidals and who knows what else is being added to seed which is probably the worst culprit, though wheat in itself is nothing like what wheat once was.

The entire process by which GMO seeds have been approved in the United States, beginning with the proclamation by then President George H.W. Bush in 1992, on request of Monsanto, that no special Government tests of safety for GMO seeds would be conducted because they were deemed by the President to be “substantially equivalent” to non-GMO seeds, has been riddled with special interest corruption. Former attorneys for Monsanto were appointed responsible in EPA and FDA for rules governing GMO seeds as but one example and no Government tests of GMO seed safety to date have been carried out. All tests are provided to the US Government on GMO safety or performance by the companies themselves such as Monsanto. Little wonder that GMO sounds to positive and that Monsanto and others can falsely claim GMO is the “solution to world hunger.”

http://truththeory.com/2013/01/23/gmo-scandal-the-long-term-effects-of-genetically-modified-food-on-humans/

-----------

Issues abound, but all of this can be corrected by simply labeling GMOs, I wonder why the big monied interest fights with millions upon millions to deny this single request. And further, the organic farmers cannot label their non-gmos as such either, I wonder why? What could it be? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Eko]

16. Why?

Do they have long term peer reviewed studies on it?

[KurtNYC]

3. Move over Monsanto, here comes Dow...

If one poison won't do the GMO trick anymore, how about 2?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said on Wednesday that it was planning to grant approval to a new herbicide developed by Dow AgroSciences that is designed to be used with new genetically engineered corn and soybeans and combat weed resistance.

The new herbicide, dubbed Enlist Duo, contains a combination of the herbicides 2,4-D and glyphosate, and has been heavily criticized by groups who say commercialization of Enlist will harm the environment and worsen weed resistance problems.

Regulatory approval of the herbicide and crops have been delayed for more than a year after the EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which must grant approval of the crops genetically engineered to be tolerant of Enlist Duo, were inundated with pleas to reject Dow's applications.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/30/agriculture-dow-enlist-idUSL2N0NM2IK20140430

This is the path for GMO crops -- more weed resistance, higher input costs for farmers (more pesticides), new GMO crops to replace the ones that can't handle the new poison combos, until the average farm is like the trenches in WWI.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

4. Clowns

too sad to laugh about

[longship]

6. Argue the science. Name calling accomplishes nothing.

The SGU is all about the science. As Steve Novella might say, if you have something to add, bring it on. But it had better be based on evidence, not name calling or mere opinion.

That's the way science works.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

7. this issue had been shown to have little science of worth to deal with

If one knows anything about how we test for problems and has an understanding biological processes one must conclude that at best we are lab rats - MOST OF THEM DO NOT HAVE A HAPPY LIFE

These questions are complex. But, I am sure that there are better long term solutions to food production than anything that the monsters in big ag have planned.

Therefore, crap like that presented in the video only serves to obfuscate the issue.

Want to talk science? Tell me the generational epigenetic effects of a process and then we can talk about the wide spread use of GMO crops.

CRICKETS -

[longship]

8. Lab rats? That is a non-sequitur.

Again, argue the science.

"Generational epigenetic effects?" What do you have? A random buzz word generator? I don't even know what that phrase means, and unlike many, I am actually educated in science.

Humans have been modifying crops genetically for thousands of years. It's called agriculture. There is absolutely no qualitative difference between cross breeding crops and GMO.

Now if you have a cogent, evidence-based argument about Monsanto's corporate behavior, or about any evidence-based dangers, I will gladly listen. Your passion is much appreciated; your irrationality not so much.

As always,
My best regards.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

9. if you do not know about the field of epigenetics???

You should avoid this topic.

"There is absolutely no qualitative difference between cross breeding crops and GMO. "

This is not true - only a simple mind would believe that statement.

No you want me talk about Monsnato's corporate behavior - if you can not see that they are a bad actor in this issue - we have nothing to talk about.

As always, I hope you can learn to see things as they really are.

[Eko]

10. We have been lab rats

since agriculture was first domesticated. If you would like to point out the "crap" in the video I am sure we would like to know it, and as far as generational epigenetic effects of GMO's do you have specific instances or are you just putting it out there?

[SoLeftIAmRight]

11. Show that you are an honest thinker

Name three things about organic agricultural practices.
Name three concerns about GMO's

If you are an honest thinker we will continue.

[Eko]

12. naw,

pretty sure I asked you some questions first and I didn't even have some silly test for you either. Can you not answer the questions I asked?

[Eko]

13. To you

it's a GMO vs organic thing, its not to me. I am fine with organic and GMO's, my buddy has a large organic farm and his produce is great. To me it is a logic vs illogical thing and I think some people are out there with their GMO claims. When you make a claim for something and then someone asks you to back up your claim and your response is more questions, you are acting just like the anti-climate change or anti-evolution people. So, answer the question then I will be happy to answer your questions. Not too hard.

[Eko]

14. Funny,

I asked you about the generational epigenetic effects of GMO's and you answered with other questions instead of talking science.

CRICKETS -
CRICKETS -
CRICKETS -
CRICKETS -

[Eko]

15. I think generational epigenetic effects

is the new sciencey word the organic vs GMO crowd is using.

[longship]

17. Again, lab rats are irrelevant to GMO...

since lab rats are ubiquitous to lots of medical research. (For something really cool in medical research try knockout mouse, an awesome research method.)

However, the animal argument is irrelevant to the GMO argument. It is a non sequitur, as I said.

Humans have been genetically engineering plants for millennia. It's called agriculture. There is no qualitative difference between GMO and what humans have been doing since the birth of civilization. If you disagree, you have a very tall wall to climb. None of the food you eat has not been genetically altered. None of it, animal or vegetable.

(drops mike)

[mother earth]

19. 10 Reasons Why We Don't Need GM Foods

6. GM foods have not been shown to be safe to eat

Genetic modification is a crude and imprecise way of incorporating foreign genetic material (e.g. from viruses, bacteria) into crops, with unpredictable consequences. The resulting GM foods have undergone little rigorous and no long-term safety testing. However, animal feeding tests have shown that GM foods have toxic effects, including abnormal changes in organs, immune system disturbances, accelerated ageing, and changes in gene expression.[15] Very few studies have been published on the direct effects on humans of eating a GM food. One such study found unexpected effects on gut bacteria, but was never followed up.[16]
It is claimed that Americans have eaten GM foods for years with no ill effects. But these foods are unlabeled in the US and no one has monitored the consequences. With other novel foods like trans fats, it has taken decades to realize that they have caused millions of premature deaths.[17]


“We are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences.” – Dr Suzanne Wuerthele, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxicologist.

Read more at http://www.internationalgmobanalliance.org/p/10-reasons-why-we-dont-need-gm-foods.html#buXmCSOEDqOdFbc6.99

[longship]

21. Absolute Rubbish.

All the science, and I do mean all the science says the samed damned thing.

There is no qualitative difference between agriculture as has been practiced for millennia -- that is cross-breeding plants and animals -- and genetically modifying the same. Both are the same fucking thing, as any biologist knows.

Now if one wants to argue about corporate patents about genetics, or the behaviors of corporations who want to control such patents, we can have a reasonable discussion. And, of course, genetic modification has dangers, albeit often way overstated by the outright fear-mongering and ideological screeching. But genetical modification is what agriculture is about. None of the foods we eat would be here without it. And I hope you all enjoy your pet doggies, of so many cross breeds -- now called pure breds with their inherent genetic problems, none by nature, but by genetic twiddling.

Science is an open enterprise and is accountable. The Monsanto conspiracy screeching in this context, is utter rubbish. Not that I support Monsanto; I support the science which unequivocally states that there is no qualitative difference between GMO and what humans have been doing for millennia

And there is zero substantive research that counters that position.

We've been eating so-called Frankenfood for millennia. The extent people do not know that to be true is the extent of their scientific ignorance. Check out just about any food we eat. A good example is the modern banana. Look it up. It is a human made life form. As is just about all our food.

[Eko]

22. Maybe you should read the citations, they dont come to the conclusion IGM tells you.

6. Gm foods have been shown not to be safe. "However, animal feeding tests have shown that GM foods have toxic effects, including abnormal changes in organs, immune system disturbances, accelerated ageing, and changes in gene expression.[15"]
The conclusion from that report they cite is "the absence of adequate explanations by Calgene, the issues raised by the Pathology Branch, including those listed above, remain and leave doubts as to the validity of any scientific conclusion(s) which may be drawn from the studies findings." Do those two sound the same? I will give you a clue, one, the not scientific test says they are not safe, the other which is the scientific test says there are doubts? even close? not.

[cpwm17]

5. I enjoy 'The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe' podcast.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/podcast/sgu

They cover a lot of issues:

The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe is produced by SGU Productions, LLC – dedicated to promoting critical thinking, reason, and the public understanding of science through online and other media. The first episode of the SGU podcast went online on May 4th, 2005. It soon became a popular science/skeptical podcast, and remains one of the most popular science podcasts on iTunes.

[mother earth]

20. I enjoy reading reports by Jeremy Scahill and wonder why corporations like Monsanto promoting GMOs

need the services of mercenaries. I mean what's the point, they are so safe...

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/297701

The news that Monsanto hired a Blackwater company for intelligence reports is rocketing around the world via anti-GMO activists. Blogger Rady Ananda summed up the relationship between Monsanto and Blackwater as
"... A death-tech firm weds a hit squad."

Citing the growing movement to destroy GMO crops, Ananda thought Monsanto was hoping to be able to quell dissent through infiltrating actvist groups that take direct action. Ananda concluded his article saying
"... Monsanto, by hiring a mercenary army and former CIA field agents, is deadly serious about protecting its deadly products. Yet, this contract further discredits the company. The public can now paint an even bleaker picture of the firm that brought us Agent Orange, PCBs, rBST, DDT, aspartame and, now, hitmen."

I think that the best thing that could be done, is to boycott these companies as much as possible. Monsanto might be a little hard to boycott for some folks, though the other companies shouldn't be. In fact, Monsanto shouldn't be either for most folks.
Blackwater (Xe) is one of the most dangerous entities facing the American people. It's like the enforcement arm of corporate interests that does not have to operate under the same "restrictions" that government enforcers have to operate under under. It's like a private army for TPTB.
Americans and citizens of the world should be irate over the very existence of a company such as Blackwater and we should all stand together against the Nazi-like tactics and the anti-freedom agenda of such an evil organization."

The documents obtained by Scahill show that Monsanto paid Blackwater's subsidiary, Total Intelligence a total of $232,000 for intelligence services provided in 2008 and 2009.
Aside from the brief statement provided to Scahill, Monsanto is keeping quiet on the matter, as is Blackwater and the other organizations cited in Scahill's article.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/297701#ixzz3AUynegsO