Why Are Liberals Denying Science When It Comes To GMOs?

dismissedwithoutevidenceOne of the most infuriating things about dealing with some people on the left is their rejection or mistrust of science. Sure, we like to point and laugh when politicians like Bobby Jindal call the Obama administration “science deniers” – especially when Jindal has a degree in science and we know he’s just catering to climate change deniers.

When a bunch of yahoos modify their vehicles to produce huge plumes of black exhaust, a practice known as “rolling coal” that burns excess fuel, we look at them and see it as an immature rejection of climate change science. Remember this video from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver? Some writers on the left took the video and posted articles with headlines like, “Amazing: Watch John Oliver and Bill Nye Crush Idiotic Climate Change Deniers (Video)” or “John Oliver Nails Climate Change Deniers On HBO Show (VIDEO)” as proof that climate change denialists were wrong.

What’s more, since Bill Nye, one of the great celebrities of the scientific world was in the video, it was considered by some to be a defining moment in the debate. Haven’t watched it yet? Here you go:

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg&w=560&h=315]

OK, so if 97% of scientists say that the evidence is irrefutable in regards to climate change, isn’t that the end of the argument? What’s more, if someone were to tell us that climate change isn’t real and that all of these scientists were part of a big liberal conspiracy with the green energy industry, we would think they were nuts. Right?

After all, we make fun of Alex Jones or others in his line of work when they go on long rants about giant conspiracies involving FEMA death camps, the Illuminati, or how we Jews control the entire media and the banks. One of the common refutations to these and other nutty stories their followers believe in is that if there was such a giant plot, wouldn’t someone eventually blow the whistle? Wouldn’t at least a few out of all of the thousands of individuals involved spill the beans either on their deathbed or to sell a book and get TV time?

With this line of logic, we laugh and dismiss claims from conservatives like the one that President Obama’s birth certificate was faked as part of a giant communist plot to destroy the United States or that global warming is a liberal hoax cooked up to destroy the fossil fuels industry. We also consider creationism a complete myth for which there is zero evidence, and we cheered when Bill Nye “destroyed” Ken Ham in that debate earlier this year. Remember that?

So then why do so many people on the left ignore that same reasoning when it comes to the subjects of vaccines and GMOs, and why do we find them embracing some of the same conspiracy ideas promoted by Alex Jones or David Icke? Take for example the fact that Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson is revered by a lot of us on the left, and despised by many on the right for his positions on climate change and evolution, among other things. Yet when he offered his opinion on genetic modification, he was angrily denounced as not being qualified to speak on the subject. There was a similar outcry when Jon Stewart had a segment on The Daily Show that mocked anti-vaccination liberals.

A recent study which was discussed in an article at Forbes found no evidence of the claim that GMOs are harmful compared to non-GMOs. The study looked at field data from more than 100 billion animals:

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. (Source)

In case you were wondering, 100+ billion is a huge number to pull data from and certainly if there was any statistical anomaly, it would have stuck out in a study that large. As mentioned in the Forbes article, if GE feed was indeed toxic to these animals as claimed in the retracted Seralini study, there would be sick or dead chickens, pigs and cows everywhere. This would stick out like a sore thumb and these commercial farmers would either suffer huge financial losses as sick or dead animals are not allowed to be sold for human consumption, or switch back to non-GE feed. If vaccines and GMOs were actually toxic to humans, wouldn’t the average life expectancy in the United States be declining instead of rising?

To be fair, there are farming practices such as clearcutting forests or failing to rotate crops that cause serious environmental issues. There’s also the overuse of pesticides, herbicides (which is partially responsible for the declining monarch populations), and fertilizers – but those are issues which should be tackled separately from the anti-GMOs hysteria which this study has shown to be completely misguided.

A common retort is that the studies are controlled by the seed companies (yes, there are more GE seed companies than just Monsanto) and that this means thousands of other studies were rigged in favor of Monsanto and others. Yet, there is no evidence that these studies, many of them independent, were improperly influenced by these corporations. After all, with thousands of scientists and others involved, certainly at least a few would have come forward and provided clearcut evidence that this had happened. If a conspiracy this huge existed, someone would eventually spill the beans, show documentation of the conspiracy, and become a huge hero of the anti-GMOs movement – except in all of these years, it hasn’t happened.

What is far more plausible is that individuals like Vani Hari and others are capitalizing on a legitimate mistrust of corporate and government organizations, and leveraging it for their own financial gain. Moreover, these grifters are exploiting those who are not scientifically literate and use long, scary-sounding chemical names to steer fearful people towards products that they endorse, usually for profit through affiliate marketing. They’re taking a populist message with a concern for food safety, combining that concern with an almost cult-like or social status mentality, and getting rich doing it.

Science is making our lives better and longer, and we shouldn’t be afraid of it. While a healthy amount of skepticism is something we should all practice when approaching new information, we shouldn’t throw out proven science and embrace conspiracy nonsense instead. Just because an attractive person with a smile, an over-sized prop magnifying glass, and a concerned-sounding message puts it on the internet doesn’t mean it’s true.

In closing, I know the usual crowd of anti-GMO people will accuse me of being a Monsanto shill or being jealous of Vani Hari’s success, neither of which are true. I believe in science and the findings of trained researchers who have spent their lives devoted to making the world a better place for humanity. If a majority of real scientists (not random food and diet bloggers with a degree from Google U) were to find that genetically modifying our foods was indeed harmful, then I would accept those results – but that hasn’t happened.

The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson


Comments

Facebook comments

  • Pipercat

    Conclusion first, evidence and supporting arguments second!

  • Pat

    You quote the 97% study in support of your argument. Thatbstudy was so bad, so flawed so teinted by bias and political idealism that it was actually completely wrong. Infact, it was so wrong it was actually RETRACTED. It was a glaring example of what is starting to make people uncomfortable with some “science”.

    There is no room for politice and activists in science. Period.

  • Rainbowteacher

    My biggest problem is taking an incredibly complex topic and reducing it to three letters. Just as “cancer” isn’t one disease, GMO means many many different things. My biggest concern is breeding plants and animals that are so dependent on one company’s product that that company has the potential to collapse the food supply with their failure. Our farming is being held hostage by a few mega-corporations. It isn’t the science that is the problem. It is the corporations using it to monopolize the market.

    • Kevin Mallborg

      The latest move by liberals is to move the goal posts and make this just about corporate conspiracies. That’s also wrong. There would be no market for GMO if farmers didn’t accept GMO crops as being beneficial to them. It’s not a corporate conspiracy. There are dozens of seed companies. Monsanto is not even the largest anymore. DuPont is the largest. If farmers want to buy Monsanto Roundup Ready crops and use someone else’s glyphosate they can do that.

      • Sterling Ericsson

        Especially since glyphosate has been in the public domain since 2001.

    • Randall

      I farm 30% GMO, 70% non-GMO.

      I do agree that each GMO stands on its own.

      Perhaps you misunderstand GMO’s or else I misunderstand you rstatement, because GMO plants will grow normally with any product that any conventional plant uses. GMO gives more options, it doesn’t limit options, this seems to be a big misunderstanding by the anti-GMO crowd.

      GMO’s give more diversity and more rotation, not less.

  • Jonas

    There’s a big difference between choosing what to put in your own body and choosing to ignore science that effects the world at large. If an individual chooses not to ingest certain foods due to personal belief, so what? If a person chooses to ignore global warming and continue practices which effect everyone else, then it’s an issue.

    • Sterling Ericsson

      Not being vaccinated puts everyone around you at risk and makes you a risk to the rest of society of carrying disease.

      Not eating GM crops wouldn’t be as big of a deal, but the people who are adamant about such a subject invariable campaign against it, pushing pseudoscientific natural fallacies and other woo nonsense against the clear science supporting GMOs.

    • Kevin Mallborg

      science is science.

    • Sheryl McCumsey

      It goes way beyond what goes in your body it has to do with patents, control of a market and contamination. There is still a “push” for marketing the “terminator” technology. These means the seeds from a plant become sterile…..nature has its way. Winds blow, birds and insects fly around. Imagine what this could do. Each product has it’s “problems” and effects much more than the individual that eats it. As the general public continues to consume a product that IS NOT LABELED in North America the “choice” does not exist if the consumer is uninformed. Lots of money has been spent to prevent that. The soy in Argentina fails….so what?…well this technology is affecting health and environment and economies….these products are used primarily in industrial agriculture which happens to be a big factor in climate change. Show me examples of a small family farm and I will show you examples of mono-culture agriculture and all of it’s problems…the UN has a report on this. I happen to know that most of the farms around us grow GMO Canola…and the cancer seems to be prevalent….this is a human health issue that affects ALL of us.

    • Why should companies be forced to offer a label simply to satisfy your personal beliefs?

      • Sheryl McCumsey

        Really…have you noticed that a “few” people want this…maybe even entire nations?….Just one personal belief? What an incredible exaggeration!

  • felipe63

    How can you deny science that does not exist? I say that because there are no scientific trials testing the effects of consuming GMO’s has on human being over the course of a lifetime, Show me one scientific experiment on a human being that was fed GMO’s from the moment they were born until the moment they died of old age. You can’t because it doesn’t exist.

    • Sterling Ericsson

      Show me one example for any kind of study for any kind of food? No? Then I guess you’d better stop eating entirely. And if you are going to claim we’ve been eating the other food for decades, we’ve also been eating GM crops for decades and there is no evidence for even a single case of harm.

      • felipe63

        Um…..”The China Study” by Dr. T. Colin Campbell follows a decades long study on the effects of the food consumed has on human health that was done in China, and I’m pretty sure it’s not the only study.

        You have google, why don’t you try looking it up. If you had done that you would not have dimished your credibility by saying something as silly as “Show me one example for any kind of study for any kind of food?” I did that for you. Did you honestly think it hadn’t been done?

        If you can’t differentiate between historical agricultural crossbreeding vs swapping bits of DNA from species from different kingdoms of biology you’re really not worth engaging.

      • Cassandra

        In the China study did they feed people one particular thing “from the moment they were born” and have a control group that differed in only one factor?

      • Warren Lauzon

        The China Study is one of those books where there is just enough truth to make you miss all the misinformation and missing information. I read it a few years ago, and about 1/4 of the way through I started getting this feeling that it had a lot of biased bullshit in it. As I recall, I gave up about halfway through.

      • Cassandra

        When I was studying about nutrition The China Study kept coming up, but I read several critiques that made me feel I didn’t want to read the book. So, of course, I can’t voice an opinion on it, but at least now you’ve made me feel better about my not having read it.

      • Warren Lauzon

        I only vaguely recall most of it, and as I said I never finished it (and I did not feel bad, because I got it for $2 at a used book store). But the one thing I do recall is that it struck me that the guy apparently was clueless about how Chinese CCP politics works, so a lot of the data seemed skewed to me.

      • Bongstar420

        I look at stuff to decide if I want to look more closely. Other people’s opinions just don’t suffice.

      • felipe63

        Never said it did, so why are you asking? I said show me a study on GMO’s that had done that. Read what I actually wrote, not what you think I wrote.

      • Cassandra

        Yes, you said show me a study that starts at birth, etc. You were told that there are no studies like that on food. Then you said yes there are, and you used the China Study as an example. If I’m wrong, that’s what I was going by. I’m not here to wrangle over who said what, when. If I misunderstood, I’m sorry. What counts is that food that is nutritionally the same as other food does not require a level of testing that wouldn’t even be done for a drug.

        Do you think a plant which has had its genes scrambled by radiation or mutagens should be tested for safety? This is where the unknowns are much greater than in changing just a gene or two. Unlike genetically engineered foods, mutated foods aren’t tested. That would be a more logical focus for your testing and labeling demands. People are only complaining about GM foods because there are all these lies being circulated about them. If you knew the actual history of plant domestication I think you would have a completely different perspective.

        The good news is that even with all the genetic changes we’ve brought since domestication, plants don’t tend to develop toxicity from kinds of fiddling humans do. It has happened twice or three times in known history, depending on your definition of toxicity and it was caught before any real damage was done. Fortunately there are ways to test to see if there are novel proteins or other differences in modified plants and they can be evaluated if they’re found. They’re mysterious to you, but not to the people working with them in the lab. Driving carelessly, eating too much, eating empty calories, and not exercising are some things you should be more worried about.

      • Bongstar420

        I don’t believe there are studies that can control for the genetic garbage people have…we are just too prone to have problems to definitely say it was not a heritable characteristic. We need to have knowledge of the whole genome and all the phenotypes away from these configurations of concern atm which is never going to happen even if we were technically capable of it.

      • rebeccagavin

        Double um…”The China Study” was NOT a study of GMOs. GMOs were not what was being studied. Just because Campbell mentioned GMOs in his book does not make the study about GMOs.

      • felipe63

        Read what he wrote “Show me one example for any kind of study for any kind of food?” He doesn’t specify GMOs, just food, period.

        It’s called reading comprehension.

      • rebeccagavin

        Since you are going to be snide about it…that is not what he meant by any kind of study for any kind of food. He was talking about pre-market studies for a particular variety before it became available – in the samesense that you are talking about GMOs having longitudinal studies where the individual is fed nothing but that food to assure safety. Of course there have been many studies about dietary habits and their long term effect on health. That is hugely different from pre-market human trials. Can you comprehend that reading? Sheesh. Apples and oranges (pun intended).

      • Bongstar420

        I would take both with a grain of salt

      • Bongstar420

        It happens regardless of what we do. Cross phylum genetic movement is constant.

        Enter the world of retroviruses and the likes.

        The real question is how immortal should we become and what standard should we have for letting people become immortal?

      • debbie3554

        not true. There is evidence of a single case of harm…me. I had my nasty reaction to GMO corn on the cob in late summer 2009. I’m not waiting for a major health crisis to avoid GMOs. I know already there is a reason to be concerned.

      • hyperzombie

        How do you know it was GMO corn? Very little Corn on the cob is GMO.

      • debbie3554

        Farmers in this area of Ontario have been growing and selling GMO corn for many years now. GMO sweet corn has been sold off the farm since at least 2009 when it first made me sick. One farmer I spoke to was quite specific in telling me he was selling Btcorn direct to customers at his farm. In the last few years, the farm store clerk is now distinguishing between regular corn and ‘we plant the GMO corn a few weeks later.’. And, Sterling, what an excellent question: “what exactly is different ..?.”. Is the answer to that listed in the patent application? Is it the Bt? Is it the process of creating the GMO? Is it unintended collateral DNA damage? Is it the creation of novel proteins or toxins? I have no trouble with organic or conventional corn. Why just GMO corn (and HFCS and vinegar)?

      • hyperzombie

        So do you get sick from eating Organic corn??? it is also treated with Bt.

      • debbie3554

        Bt that can be sprayed on and washed off is not the same as Bt that is expressed IN each cell of a plant, as you well know.

      • hyperzombie

        what makes you think it can be washed off??? Name a study that claims this???

      • Sheryl McCumsey

        OMG…how do you do this all the time Mr. Zombie?

      • hyperzombie

        What? Typing on the computer is not that hard.

      • ForGMOEducation

        Maybe you should learn about how GMOs are made to answer your questions on whether or not the modification process is harmful.

      • Bongstar420

        They wouldn’t know that GMO is mostly processed goods and animal feed atm.

      • Sterling Ericsson

        Anecdotal evidence does not make the cut. You have nothing to back up the claim and also have no idea what exactly it was that caused the claimed harm. What exactly is different about GM corn from non-GM corn that would hurt you?

      • Bongstar420

        Even if it was actually Bt toxin or glyphosate residue, it is still not a highly meaningful statment. We need to hear over 20% of people experience x…and that results in a gluten warning or something.

      • rebeccagavin

        Oh, well, pardon us for being unaware of your personal anecdote and only focusing on peer reviewed and published science.

      • Warren Lauzon

        How do you know it had anything to do with GMO? You have probably been eating GMO corn products for 15+ years, so why now? And something less than 2% of all corn on the cob is GMO anyway according to the USDA.

      • Bongstar420

        That can happen with just about anything depending on your phenotype.

    • David Gray

      Felipe, lack of evidence can also be stated as ‘evidence of nothing.’ There have been more than 2300 peer reviewed studies of the safety and efficacy of GM crops, and only 2 of the 2300 returned negative results. One was the universally debunked Seralini study, and the other is from 1996, though they have NEVER been able to reproduce the results of that study. Should you have peer reviewed data that refutes the 2300 studies, please present it, because you obviously don’t understand the subject, nor how science goes about it’s work.

      • felipe63

        Read what I wrote, and not what you wish I wrote. What I asked for is “one scientific experiment on a human being that was fed GMO’s from the moment they were born until the moment they died of old age.”

        Isn’t that what true scientific method would require, 2 groups of HUMAN test subjects, one control group and one experimental group, tested over a lifetime? That hasn’t happened (because it’s chronological impossible at this time) and until it does, nobody can say with any degree of certainty that GMOs have any effect on humans, positive, negative or neutral.

      • David Gray

        Well Felipe, with GM science available to consumers for nearly 30 years, we await ANY calamity. If your threshold of evidence requires a ‘lifetime’ test, might I suggest that you underwrite such an effort. There are currently more than 50,000,000 consumer products containing GM ingredients worldwide. Nom, nom, nom…

        Good luck.

      • debbie3554

        Since I have experienced the unpleasant effect of consuming GMO corn on the cob without knowing it was GMO, I’d say there was a reason for concern. That was back in the late summer of 2009 when supposedly there was NO GMO sweet corn for sale to consumers. You can have my portion of GMO corn, soy, etc. I don’t need to wait until I develop a drastic health crisis before I avoid GMOs. Feel free to chow down.

      • David Gray

        That’s interesting Debra, because all GM corn is ‘dent’ corn, which is only harvested for by product. Unless you’re a 400 .lb sow, you are mistaken about ‘consuming’ GM corn. But please feel free to prevaricate… but remember, evidence speaks louder than bullshit.

      • debbie3554

        Well, Dave, you must know by now that that isn’t true. Even Health Canada had stated back in 2009 that a number of GMO corn approvals were for both animal and human consumption. Feel free to check out their website.

      • Rob Bairos

        Hi Debbie. In all honesty, and with no disrespect If you can medically show any personal negative effect from ingesting GM corn you would make international headlines. The fact that no one to date has yet claimed this title should give you pause to consider if perhaps something else was involved in your situation.

      • debbie3554

        Hi Rob: I could do what you suggest but the results would still not be accepted. I am not the only one who gets a negative effect from GMO corn and soy. I am just one of many who’s reports have been dismissed by Health Canada. There was nothing else involved in my situation to account for the negative reaction I had. It was corn alone that time. The soy reaction was, according to the doctor I saw, an allergic reaction in my blood! I do not react negatively to organic soy. I’m just one of many who have made the absolute connection. It’s just a matter of time until critical mass is achieved and changes are made to finally protect consumers.

      • Rob Bairos

        Did you document other factors? Spoilage? Variety? Lifestyle? Other parts of your diet? Did you even double blind the setup to make sure your own bias wasn’t a factor? Organic soy may also uses pesticides as well, including Bt for what its worth.
        In psychology tests, most people believe one sample of food is tastier than another identical sample if the label ‘organic’ is added to it.

        Please understand its very difficult to do a feeding study properly, many people come to conclusions well before they are justified in doing so.
        No disrespect intended but was your doctor a practitioner of alternative medicine?

      • debbie3554

        Hi again, Rob. Sorry for the delay…life does get busy. I understand your questions and they are valid. At the time I did get the allergic reaction to soy, it was before I had ever heard about GMOs. I didn’t know such a thing existed; I was just trying to add more soy into my diet with soy cheese and soy burgers. As for the corn issue in late summer 2009, the first two times I had that cramped up nasty reaction, I did think it was a) my hamburger or b) my steak. The next morning, while waiting for my coffee to perk, I noshed on one leftover cob and within minutes the same reaction happened. Now I knew it was the corn and I was shocked as I was so sure that sweet corn was not on the market for human consumption. As for your last question, the doctor I saw was an M.D. at a clinic, not an alternative practitioner.

      • Rob Bairos

        Hi Debbie. Sounds like you are right to avoid the corn causing you cramps. I’d do the same. However its still a far way off to determine what about that particular corn caused the issue, that a specific brand of organic corn didn’t. Especially since the symptoms were so sudden and pronounced.

        There are hundreds of varieties of corn, and all sorts of differences in storage, preparation, etc. You’re picking the one difference that you are aware of and ignoring all the others, contrary to all extensive testing. What if I told you I got cramps from corn handled by minorities, and it happened twice? Would you urge me to keep an open mind about what exactly was going on before coming to the conclusion that food should be labelled if handled by minorities?
        Why or why not?

      • debbie3554

        Hi Rob: I had moved on and haven’t checked this thread…sorry. As I had said, my intention was to enjoy sweet corn…that’s it. I was not led to believe that there was any GMO sweet corn available…anywhere. As for ‘storage, preparations, etc’…what can I say? It wasn’t stored, it was picked in the morning, offered for sale and in my kitchen that afternoon. Preparation consisted of shucking the corn and putting it in a pot of boiling water…sounds easy, doesn’t it? I don’t understand your reference to ‘picking the one difference…’. There was NO difference that I was aware of as I had purchased corn from that same farm for 28 years without a problem. But then, it make me sick. AFTER that, I was told that GMO sweet corn was approved for human and animal consumption. That was a surprise to me. And if you get cramps, etc., from corn handled by minorities, then you may have some serious racist leanings to contend with that is beyond the scope of this reply. Sophistry in action, eh? I see your little pet zombie has joined you. This is my final reply. I do hope you both can someday realize that scientific enquiry means repeating experiments over and over, independently, by those who do NOT have a vested interest in the outcome. Then, the pros and cons can logically be discussed. Until then, I’ll continue to warn others about GMOs as I know you and your little zombie pal will try to confuse as many as possible. See you on the next thread. 🙂

      • Rob Bairos

        Hi Debbie, I was referring to the preparation the corn itself received before being handed off to you. The handled by minority comment was an analogy, not fodder for your insults.
        Do not speak of the scientific method while publicly claiming anti-GMO conclusions based on your own extremely anecdotal information.
        You help no one, except organic competitors of course.
        Cheers.

      • felipe63

        Actually no it hasn’t, it’s been less than 20 yrs. You can’t even get the basics right but you’re well informed right?. Have a nice day.

      • David Gray

        Again felipe63, I might suggest you get YOUR facts straight before embarrassing yourself attempting to embarrass me. The first patent for GMO was issued in 1980, and the first GMO consumer product, Humulin, a GM product made from E. coli. bacteria, was on the CONSUMER market in 1982, or 32 years ago. Perhaps your lack of familiarity with the subject has left you confused… a common malady suffered by the scientific illiterates.

      • felipe63

        Humulin is NOT food. You really not very bright, are you? On your bike junior, you’re not worth my time.

      • Shelley Jones Beek

        No one has even done the lifetime studies with animals. Some multi generational studies have been done with a couple GMO plants but as far as I can find none with Round up ready crops actually grown in the presence of Round-up. The genetic modifications have been tested but not the result of why the crops were modified in the first place – to grow crops in the presence of pesticides and herbicides. No multi-generational animal studies have been performed feeding crops being fed to humans right now.

      • hyperzombie

        Round up has been used widely since 1972, there are 100s of studies on it.

        presence of pesticides and herbicides.

        I hate to be picky, but herbicides are pesticides. Thats like saying in the presence of snowmobiles and ski-doos or in the presence of vacuums and hoovers

      • debbie3554

        nope, that is a fallacy. Have you gone through that cobbled up list of ‘peer reviewed studies of the safety …etc.”? I suggest that throwing together an assortment of random studies regarding a variety of issues does not make for ‘good science’, let alone a verdict of ‘safe’.

      • David Gray

        So… show us your evidence Debra.

    • Bongstar420

      My tummy aches from the round up ready corn. Thats all the evidence I need.

  • felipe63

    BTW – the results from a 100 billion animals that are NOT human beings being fed GMOs proves exactly NOTHING about the effect they might have on humans.

    • Sterling Ericsson

      Except it would be even more apparent with humans if GMOs were causing injuries or deaths. And there is no evidence for them doing so to even a single person.

      • Blythe Dolores

        There is evidence but no one is looking. So side effects of GMOs are written off. Point is… label GMOs and let the consumer decide. There is NO reason to use GMOs we waste millions of pounds of food every day so it isn’t about sustaining life or warding off hunger.

      • Kevin Mallborg

        There is evidence? really? where? How do you know? Please enlighten us with actual scientific sources and not conspiracy theories.

      • Sterling Ericsson

        There have been thousands of studies that found no evidence of harm and the small handful of studies that claim to have found harm have invariably been unreproducible and had serious methodological flaws that were just plain embarrassing.

        There is also no reason not to use GMOs, obtaining more yield and using less pesticides and fertilizer is a benefit both to the manpower of farmers and to the environment.

      • debbie3554

        Your information is still incorrect. There have NOT been thousands of studies done showing no evidence of harm. You also seem to be fixated with old outdated stats regarding less pesticides as even the USDA is acknowledging increased pesticide usage.

      • Sheryl McCumsey

        Many people have had this experience but of course that is not evidence. It is apparent if you look at those illnesses associated with similar symptoms in animal studies and correlation it with the increase of GMO’s but again that is not evidence. But when you say it is not apparent or that there is no evidence you can not support your statement because it is a blatant lie.

    • Kevin Mallborg

      Yet antiGMO activists constantly cite Seralini’s project where he claimed GMOs and glyphosate cause cancer in rats. That’s an animal study. AntiGMO people repeat this all-the-time, 24/7.

      Why is that animal research ok? Please try to answer without the inevitable circles, hypocrisy, and conspiracy theories.

      • felipe63

        I didn’t cite Seralini’s study anywhere so I have no clue why you would bring it up. I would say the issue with citing 100 billion farm animals is mainly those animals weren’t allowed to age naturally and therefor there isn’t any data relevant to long term effects of GMOs

  • David Gray

    I was recently told by a GMO ‘activist’ that Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist and therefore ‘not qualified’ to comment on the subject of GMO. Apparently, my GMO activist friend, a glass blower with a high school education, feels that he and his ilk are more qualified to comment when it comes to the SCIENCE of GMO. smh.

  • Blythe Dolores

    The point is that no life should be patented as is the case with GMOs – this creates a very serious food monopoly which is not in the interest of the common good. Secondly, pesticide resistant GMOs aren’t a solution to pests, diverse farming is. Weed and pest poison has increased by GMO farmers exponentially and I find it interesting that you don’t cite the declining bee population which is linked to these toxins. And lastly, I don’t want a preacher or a scientist to tell me what to eat or how to live. LABEL GMOs and let the market do its job. People have the right to choose what is best for their families. This is my biggest issue: when corporations or governments decide FOR the people. NO NO NO NO NO

    • hyperzombie

      he point is that no life should be patented as is the case with GMOs – this creates a very serious food monopoly which is not in the interest of the common good.

      All new crops can be patented, and it has been this way since the 30s, Organic farmers grow patented crops as well.

      Weed and pest poison has increased by GMO farmers exponentially

      Herbicides are up a bit but the toxicity is way down, and insecticides are Way Way down, over 90% in the corn belt.

      declining bee population which is linked to these toxins.

      Nope, caused by the Varroa Mite.

      This is my biggest issue: when corporations or governments decide FOR the people. NO NO NO NO NO

      You can decide now, why make everyone else pay for your looney food choices.

      • Charles Vincent

        The Varroa mite isn’t the only possible cause nor is it proven to be.
        “The mechanisms of CCD and the reasons for its increasing prevalence remain unclear, but many possible causes have been proposed: pesticides, primarily neonicotinoids; infections with Varroa and Acarapis mites; malnutrition; various pathogens; genetic factors; immunodeficiencies; loss of habitat; changing beekeeping practices; or a combination of factors.”

        “You can decide now, why make everyone else pay for your looney food choices.”

        We can’t choose because companies aren’t required to label GMO foods or seeds that produce them.

      • Bongstar420

        Why not GMO resistant bees…afraid of northerized africanized bees?

        There are many more pollinator insects under the sun. Its time people start looking around. The honey bee can take a break.

      • Charles Vincent

        Just because people can do it doesn’t mean they should.

      • Bongstar420

        Who is to say who should do what and why?

      • Charles Vincent

        logic and reason.

      • Bongstar420

        My point exactly

      • Charles Vincent

        Logic and reason dictate that we should leave what you mentioned well enough alone.

      • Bongstar420

        You can get the same patent. Stop whining

    • ForGMOEducation

      Patenting one gene is not a patent on life. You would need tens of thousands of patents to accomplish that goal.
      Live how you want, but let me eat GMOs if I want.

      • NoToGMOs

        But isn’t patenting one gene effectively the same as patenting that organism/life?

        A farmer can hardly grow the single gene……..instead he has to grow the whole organism (GMO crop, for example). And if he grows it without permission from/ paying royalties to the patent holder, he is in violation of patent rights, right?

        Unless you are a research scientist or institution with the capacity to isolate single genes, there is no other option but to utilize the whole organism.

      • Randall

        Seeds have been patented since 1930’s. What does a patent have to do uniquely with GMO?

      • NoToGMOs

        I was referring to ‘ForGMOEducation’s statement that ‘Patenting one gene is not a patent on life’.

      • Randall

        A plant can grow just fine without that particular gene. I don’t get your point, can you explain better?

        A patented plant is a patented plant, whether it is a conventional hybrid, or a GMO plant.

        I don’t understand your concern, could you please re-phrase?

      • NoToGMOs

        I was trying to refute ‘ForGMOEducation’s statement:

        She/he said: “Patenting one gene is not a patent on life. You would need tens of thousands of patents to accomplish that goal.”

        When a company puts a foreign gene in a plant, that plant (organism) can no longer be used by anyone else without having to pay royalties to the patent holder. So now the company has a patent on life (the whole plant) because it has inserted one single foreign gene into it.

        Yes, this happens with both GMOs (specific, known genes) and hybrids (patent on whole organism, without knowing the specific genes changed or mutations that happened). But I was not talking about GMOs or hybrids and whether I agree with patents on them, I was just trying to say that if you patent a single gene, you are effectively patenting the life form into which it was inserted.

        I don’t know how to better explain it 🙂

      • Randall

        Maybe we’re all saying and understanding the same thing, but not understanding each other?

        Here is my (true) example:

        I buy a conventional hybrid from Mycogen. Lets call it HyX1 (this one is not GMO)

        Mycogen also has that exact same hybrid available with a gene they have licensed from Monsanto, which is the RR trait. Lets call it HyX1R (this one is GMO)

        If I copy HyX1, I’ve broken the patent law pertaining to Mycogen’s patent, If I copy HyX1R, I’ve broken the patent law, pertaining to Mycogen and Monsanto’s patent.

        I don’t see how this has anything to do uniquely with GMO’s nor is it patenting “life.” Each of those unique plants is patented according to its specific traits, which the companies have spent a lot of time and money developing.

        Is this your understanding?

      • Bongstar420

        People don’t consider singular genes to be analogous with an entire life form.

        They are many orders magnitude different

      • NoToGMOs

        No one is saying they are analogous. I’m just saying it is impossible to use ONLY the patented gene construct without using the entire life form.

      • Bongstar420

        That doesn’t exist…patents last 20 years

      • J. Randall Stewart

        Perhaps better reworded to “Patents have been given since the 1930’s” Luther Burbank’s developing the russet potato was a factor in the first plant patent laws. I didn’t mean the patents granted then haven’t expired.

      • ForGMOEducation

        It’s not the same because the genes used in genetic engineering thus far come from bacteria. No one grows bacteria as a crop, so I can’t see how these laws would prevent any plants (other than the specifically modified plant) from being grown. The farmer can always choose the non-GMO variety if he/she wants, which will be the same except for the one gene. No one has ever tried to patent a gene that is in all corn plants for example. It would be immoral obviously and also wouldn’t meet the criteria for a patent.
        Plus, as Randall pointed out, we already patent cultivars of crops, and there can be lawsuits in regards to these as well.

      • NoToGMOs

        Let’s say a biotech company introduced the Round up resistance gene into a particular variety of corn that does well under drought conditions (just an example).

        They have a patent on the gene (actually on the whole gene construct, which consist not just of the RR gene from bacteria, but also antibiotic marker genes, promoters and other regulatory sequences from sources not necessarily bacterial in origin).

        A farmer wants to grow this particular variety of drought-tolerant corn, but he cannot use that variety because it contains the patented gene.

        So, even though they have only patented one gene in that organism, what the biotech company has effectively done is patent the whole organism since no one can use/grow it unless they pay royalties.

        In other words, they have patented life.

        Yes, the farmer can grow the non-patented variety (which becomes harder as cross-contamination and monopolistic practices take over), but the basic point is: by patenting a single gene, the company has essentially patented life. Which contradicts what you said earlier that ‘patenting one gene is not a patent on life).

      • ForGMOEducation

        It’s exactly the same as with conventional breeding. You can patent an organic cultivar if you want, and no one else can use it without paying you. How is patenting a GMO crop any different? Both are “owning” lives.

      • Bongstar420

        Yes..and they are owned by people that did not create the organisms or could for that matter.

      • ForGMOEducation

        Yes, that’s why plant patenting isn’t a part of the GMO issue. If people have problems with plant patenting, then the plant patenting acts passed in the United States in 1930 and 1970 should be overturned.

      • Bongstar420

        Correct…but anti-GMO advocated don’t seem to separate the concepts when discussing the “dangers” of GMO (that is not to mention the idiocy of using GMO instead of properly referring to GE).

        If patent laws are part of the “danger” of GMO’s (actually GE), then why aren’t they dangerous in every other aspect that they are being applied to?

        This “GMO” stuff is part of a wider agenda.

      • Randall

        That plant would be patented whether or not it had that gene in it. That plant could also exist with or without that gene. If RR gene is in the plant, it can be grown with or without RoundUp.

        That plant is patented, with or without the gene. Are you thinking that plant can only exist with that gene? It can exist both ways, I have purchased patented plants with and without the RR gene, and they were, otherwise, identical plants.

        Is there a problem I’m not seeing?

      • NoToGMOs

        I was thinking of the drought-resistant plant in my example above, to have developed that trait over time naturally, not being selectively bred into it by man. Are you saying that it is possible to have a patent on this naturally occurring plant (before Monsanto comes in and inserts their gene)?

      • Randall

        I’m not sure what you mean by “naturally occurring.”

        I can’t think of a crop that we commonly farm that isn’t selectively bred for a specific purpose, meaning it isn’t naturally occurring, someone somewhere has made that plant by breeding.

        The breeder of that plant has a patent on his work. He may sell that particular plant to different companies who will market it as their specific variety.

        It is also common that a company will breed their own plants, and keep them internally.

        This work is protected for a period of time. After that time, the plant, (including GMO plants,) become public domain.

        I’m not an expert in plant patents, so I may have missed something.

        This is why there is no difference between GMO and non-GMO as far as patents are concerned.

      • Bongstar420

        A sport…sometimes a single growing tip on a plant mutates and grows into a branch which is different. You clone that branch and characterize it.

        The ‘Russet’ potato I believe is a famous example. Could be wrong tho

      • Bongstar420

        Yes.. I can patent something I find in my yard or in a legally collected specimen.

        I can claim royalties from anyone selling my plant or using its name. And tell them how why when and who or what ever I want. For 20 years.

      • NoToGMOs

        No, not quite.

      • William Carr

        Well, there’s the farm that was growing their own Canola seed for local conditions, and selling it.

        A neighboring farm planted a genetically modified version of Canola and then guess what happened…

        The farmer got sued. His work of years was RUINED.

      • Bongstar420

        If I were a farmer, which I am in a way, I would figure out what my neighbors were like, and what they were up to. You see, its good to know if there are irresponsible or rambunctious folk around.

        I certainly don’t want hemp pollen around. And I gather I wouldn’t want a whole host of other potential factors eroding my brand.

      • Bongstar420

        What if it were Homo sapian?

      • Bongstar420

        They patented the processes to assemble those constructs. They have those patents for 20 years. Then the information, which is recorded in great detail, becomes public property for everyone to access and utilize.

      • Bongstar420

        Nope…genes float around individually.

        Monsanto can only own the processes or claim royalties from people who profit from their genes.

      • NoToGMOs

        Wha?? Genes float around individually?!!

      • Bongstar420

        Patents only have a 20 year life. They expire. You can keep copywrites and trademarks forever though.

    • Randall

      I farm 70% non-GMO’s.

      I use less pesticide on my GMO crops. Having GMO’s is part of diverse farming, we call it rotation. We rotate crops AND methods.

      It is totally false when you say “Weed and pest poison has increased by GMO farmers” It is exactly the opposite.

      Please reconsider your sources instead of reading activist sites.

      I’m happy to discuss modern farming practices in a transparent and respectful manner.

      • William Carr

        Actually, Roundup-Ready crops are engineered to be more resistant to Roundup, so farmers can use more and really DOUSE those stubborn weeds.

        Perhaps you now realize there’s more than one form of GM ?

      • Randall

        At the maximum glyphosate application rate, less than the weight of a grain of salt is applied per square foot. This “poison” is less toxic than a grain of salt.

        How accurate is the term “douse” to describe this? It is a term used to mislead and frighten when used in conjunction with “poison.”

        Insecticide use is down to nearly zero with Bt trait crops, and less toxic and less polluting herbicides are used with RR trait crops. Because glyphosate has decreased over 95% in CPI price, it is also replacing tillage, the reduction in fuel and iron use is also better for the environment.

        Arguments can be made against GMO crops, but pesticide usage is an argument that is actually in favor of GMO crops.

      • Bongstar420

        You get the benefit of optimum timing because maximum susceptibility for the weeds occurs at critical developmental stages in the crop.

        Them weeds stay down better too because your round up ready corn chokes out any young stuff under the actual competing weeds.

        Bt toxin is a ubiquitous compound, the result of bacillus thuringiensis. It can be dusted on organic produce the day before market as per OMRI.

      • J. Randall Stewart

        Spot on.

      • Frank Cannon

        They are also designed to strictly adhere to a massive chemical dumping in the area of fertilizers which also makes the Agro-Chemical companies an obscene amount of profit. This practice alone actually encourages weeds and rejects the strategy employed by Nature for countless thousands of restricting the proliferation of weeds in all mycorrhizal plant root ecosystems. Farming should replicate most all ecosystems and they don’t. The main reason is money. Take for example of recent mycorrhizal plant studies like Corn and Potatoes. This debate has never been about biomimicry of Nature as much as protecting a giant greedy corporate business interest.

        http://creating-a-new-earth.blogspot.se/2015/02/using-natures-mycorrhizal-tool-kit-to.html

  • OldCowboy

    As a microbiologist, I am concerned about GMOs. The genes that confer herbicide resistance come from microorganisms. Although the term used to describe the procedure is called ‘gene splicing’, in reality, the result is ‘chromosome chunk splicing.’ What else accompanies the wanted gene is generally unknown. While the studies noted above probably prove there is no dangerous short term toxicity, the possibility of long-term effects on humans cannot be determined by surveys of animal populations. If there are long term effects, they may be very difficult to parse from other possible environmental causes.

    At the very least, we should label GMO food destined for human consumption. Consumers who are not concerned about GMOs, can buy GMO containing food and those who prefer not to eat GMO containing food can avoid them.

    • Leigh

      I absolutely agree with you. Good comment. Don’t understand why not wanting GMO in our food supply until fully tested is equated with not accepting science. I would think it’s the exact opposite.

      • Sterling Ericsson

        What exactly is your definition of “fully tested”? The average GM crop takes 16 years to create, fully test, and get to market.

      • Charles Vincent

        16 years isn’t even a generation and when Leigh speaks of long term it probably means several generations.

      • Sterling Ericsson

        And yet there is absolutely no testing or safety verification required for all the conventional and organic heirloom breeds made using radiation and chemical mutagenesis, which causes thousands of random mutations.

      • Charles Vincent

        Two questions. Where is your proof? And in the event you have proof of your assertion. How long have they been utilizing those techniques?

      • Sterling Ericsson

        Proof of…what? That chemical mutagenesis causes mutations or that no testing or safety regulations exist? I can’t exactly prove the non-existence of the regulations. And, the techniques have been used since around the beginning of the 20th century. 1920-30’s era.

      • Charles Vincent

        Proof that this “That chemical mutagenesis causes mutations or that no testing or safety regulations exist” was used to hybrid heirloom seed instead of the traditional way to hybrid those seeds and then a few heirloom seed producers that used them.

      • Bongstar420

        NO…and its not also why we exist either…definitely not

      • Bongstar420

        Random mutations happen every day…Oh no its the end of the world…

        Even worse, people might figure out how to control it and become immortal..How bad

      • Bongstar420

        The bible says so. Thats it

      • Charles Vincent

        And there it is folks the stupidest thing I’ve read all day.

      • Bongstar420

        More missed points by you.

      • Charles Vincent

        First you have to have made a “point” for it to be missed.

      • Bongstar420

        It would appear that way to a person who doesn’t understand.

        Its dogmatism.

        BTW..my icon there is literally from a movie called “Dogma”

      • Charles Vincent

        Ah I see ignorance is Bliss in your little bubble.

      • Bongstar420

        I see you feel as strongly about your agenda as I do mine..

        Would you like to arrange to compare IQ’s, educational status, and creativity?

      • Charles Vincent

        I don’t have an agenda just like you have zero reading comprehension.

      • Bongstar420

        Unlike me. You are a liar

      • Charles Vincent

        Ah ad hominem the last resort of fools with no valid arguments.

      • Bongstar420

        You said you don’t have an agenda. That is clearly a lie. No one is without an agenda

      • Charles Vincent

        Again you have provided no facts here.

      • Bongstar420

        If you are making claims of fact and are a liar, that is pertinent.

        If your your agenda is to BS everyone, that is also pertinent. It is also pertinent if you agenda is to not do or do anything else.

      • Charles Vincent

        OOO to bad Chief that Circular argumentation wont cut it. You have a limited capacity for rational thought and argumentation don’t you? First you didn’t prove anything I said as a lie mostly because you offered no proof that I lied They you resorted to Ad Lapidem nonsense in a feeble attempt to dismiss what I had said with out offering a shred of proof that what i said was incorrect or a lie. Good luck with your garden chief, because if you garden as poorly as you debate you’ll kill all the things you plant in it.

      • Bongstar420

        You said you had no agenda.

        I’m sure you would know about my Garden skills..being a stranger and all

      • Charles Vincent

        By definition I don’t.

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re the one who said you had a “degree” in horticulture;

        “Bongstar420–>Charles Vincent•3 days ago
        Correct..I am just another troller with an actual bioscience degree.
        I have a degree in horticulture.

        But incorrect. I am not anonymous. I really am Brian R. Brown.”

        Again you are an anonymous internet poster And what ever you claim your name is is irrelevant. Furthermore colleges don’t just hand out their students transcripts to anyone yay for your ignorance on trying to provide “proof” that cant be gotten by another person on the internet.

      • Charles Vincent

        Having a “degree” in Horticulture also doesn’t make you a Geneticist. Which makes your argument an argument from false authority.
        Dr David Suzuki is a Geneticist And he seems to think you’re wrong.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl0-Ds6Cioc

      • Cheese McQueen

        Suzuki is a jackass knowingly capitalizing on ignorance. Obviously it’s working 🙂
        PhD Cell Biology
        BS/MS Crop Science

      • William Carr

        {facepalm}

        A-hem. You don’t see the distinction between breeding crops for a useful trait, juggling genes that are already there, and inserting foreign genes that humans don’t normally eat?

        ‘Kay…. I’ll put genes from a Coral Snake in the beets used to make sugar, and we’ll see what happens !

        What could go wrong?

      • Sterling Ericsson

        I see a big difference between using radiation and chemicals to force thousands of unknown gene changes on a crop and inserting a single gene of known activity into a crop. The former is a concern, the latter is not.

      • Cassandra

        This is the most important point that most anti-GMO folks don’t realize about plant improvement. Genetic engineering and gene editing are better than what came before.

      • Sxxxx Wxxxx

        Um, no, it’s not. What it is until it’s not is potentially the same caveman-like science as transfats, fluoridated water, arsenic-tainted chicken feed, bio-sludge fertilizer, leaded gasoline, special-interest based politics…

        http://gmo-awareness.com/2014/01/20/does-your-body-absorb-genetically-engineered-dna/

      • Bongstar420

        Its not… You are mixing misconceptions with actual bad ideas…Get your ideas straight.

        Hint…Fluoridated water is not an actual issue while leaded gasoline is.

      • Bongstar420

        They want to cause human extinction.. They believe humans are separate from nature and our way of life is evil.

        I had them say mining asteroids would be wrong because we would “pollute” the asteroid belt. Insane!

      • Bongstar420

        Neither are of real concern. Nature is nasty anyways

      • Bongstar420

        The former occurs more frequently. Or am I to believe that cosmic radiation doesn’t reach the surface of the planet or that alpha emitters do not exist in the crust?

        I see variegated sports all the time- the result of alpha emissions colliding with the apical meristem’s stem cells.

      • Sterling Ericsson

        Yeah, the former happens all the time. And it’s how we get things like poisonous potatos and zucchini that had higher amounts of a certain chemical in it that ended up killing people in New Zealand.

      • Bongstar420

        I don’t see why consciously mutating organisms is less preferable to randomly, unconsciously doing it.

        Is being dumb and ignorant more preferable to being intelligent and informed?

      • Bongstar420

        That is because the consumers are morons. Its really just anti-rich people BS.

      • Bongstar420

        Because you totally know all you food is safe…Ever heard of gluten intolerance. Well that is a protein that didn’t exist in the ancestral diet. Guess what, I’m still loving it. Just because gluten upsets your tummy doesn’t mean I need to hear you whine about how its bad for my tummy..Yes, gluten is entirely from GMO grasses. We bred it from weeds. Wild wheat species are extremely unproductive.

      • Charles Vincent

        UGHHH The reading comprehension you display here is abysmal. And its propped up by a strawman in the form of a hasty generalization. Please don’t procreate and please crawl back into whatever cesspool you crawled out of.

      • Bongstar420

        Do you have a college education in the bioscienes?

        You just don’t comprehend my point.

      • Charles Vincent

        You apparently don’t.

      • Bongstar420

        You are wrong again. I can give you the contact for Oregon State University..You can request my transcripts.

        Brian R. Brown

      • Charles Vincent

        Right Chief this is the internet and you are just another anonymous poster with a “Bio-science degree” and we will all just take your word for it…

      • Bongstar420

        Correct..I am just another troller with an actual bioscience degree.
        I have a degree in horticulture.

        But incorrect. I am not anonymous. I really am Brian R. Brown.

      • Charles Vincent

        Sure you do and I am a PhD Physicist from MIT…

      • Bongstar420

        Approval from the environmentalist Gaia god

        DUH

      • Bongstar420

        The human diet is far more restricted now than in the past…humans evolved being exposed to all kinds of upsetting substances…

        If an item upsets your tummy, don’t buy it…also, don’t waste your time convincing me to not buy it because I don’t care about your allergies.

    • David Gray

      Better idea Cowpoke… Since you cannot produce a shred of evidence that GM science is harmful to humans, how about you and your Whole Foods cronies label the food you approve of, and leave the rest of us alone. You people claim 90% support for labeling, though we’ve never seen such a thing at the ballot box, and even where the politicos have unilaterally instituted ‘bans’ and ‘labeling laws’ they are so ridiculously full of conditions and exceptions that they amount to nothing but political theater. (see Connecticut)

      With 50,000,000 products worldwide containing GM ingredients, it would be much simpler, and cheaper for consumers, if you GMO hysterics label your food… unless you can produce some actual evidence to support your nonsense.

      Remember, ‘hysteria’ is the root of ‘hysterical,’ and that’s ‘hilarious.’

      • Bea

        we do label our food it is called “organic” which I don’t think is subsidized by the government. However organic farmers have to jump through hoops and pay fees to get that organic label.

      • rebeccagavin

        Well then, since your food is labeled, what is your problem?

      • Bongstar420

        That the others are not.

      • Bongstar420

        I grow pot that is more organic than any of the organic produce you purchase from the stores (unless you get certified “never been sprayed”). I guarantee that.

      • bea

        If you really care how about googling Arpad Pusztai –British biochemist. in 1998 exposed dangers of GMO’s causing organ damage, reproductive failure, and much more. He was immediately fired from his job and his teamed dismissed24 hours from the time. their finding went public. (wonder why?)

        Another name to google if you really care is
        Hussein Kaoud. did studies on rats for three years (that would be SEVERAL generations for rats). In human life the 16 year Monsanto “says” they did is nothing — not even one generation. Google him and you will see the rumors that these rats developed.

      • rebeccagavin

        Everybody knows about the “Pustazi Affair.” Pustazi was fired for going on national television and discussing the results of a study that was not yet finished, let alone peer reviewed or published. And guess what, no one has been able to replicate it. Kaoud’s “study” has apparently never been published. Are you remotely aware of what huge news it would be in the scientific community is somebody did a valid and worthwhile study on GMOs with the kind of results he claimed? Important science journals would be clamoring to publish it. What are your standards for accepting evidence. BTW Monsanto does not claim to have studied GMOs for 16 years…that figure is an average of how long it takes to get a gmo from the drawing board to the market…most of that time being testing.

      • William Carr

        Worldwide?

        You know that Europe requires labeling, and many countries ban GM food outright, don’t you?

        I think we’ll just insist that the Genetically ALTERED foodstuffs be labeled.

        That way consumers can simply avoid the damned stuff.

        Unless you’re going to insist that honest labeling would be the “kiss of death”… and you’d be right.

        Labeling laws are the thing that keep Monsanto executives up at night.

        People should learn from History.

        There was a time Mercury was a plaything.

        It was used in industrial processes, thermometers, etc.

        People didn’t KNOW it was so dangerous.

        After all, it doesn’t kill you quickly, so it must be safe, right?

        Wrong.

        In fact, it’s quite toxic over time, and we banned it.

        I wonder though… if there were people using Mercury to make mirrors fought bitterly against such safety laws.

      • “In fact, it’s quite toxic over time, and we banned it.”
        Yep, it was BANNED. It WASN’T LABELED but BANNED. And it was banned from consumers products because it was proven dangerous to human health.

        So far, anti-GMO activists have all dismally failed to prove that GMO are dangerous for human and livestock health. And that isn’t for a lack of trying! They have tried very, very hard for the last 20 years!

        And this is why you’re insisting on labeling food containing GMOs. You’re hoping that marketing will achieve what activists haven’t been able to accomplish through science: convincing consumers that GMOs are dangerous even though there is no shred of evidence of it, only the conviction that genetic engineering is “unnatural” and therefore “bad”, no matter what.

      • Ken Gage

        Have you ever considered listening to your customer? Many businesses do this. You should try it. It would be cheaper than fighting labeling merely because of corporate arrogance.

      • Bongstar420

        The labeling actually exists. Its “non-GMO.” They want the psychological capital and comparative leveling of having “GMO” labels imposed on their competition.

      • William Carr

        Why do you fight labeling?

        Shouldn’t consumers be able to simply make a choice?

        Odd diseases like “gluten intolerance” was mushrooming, when they didn’t exist before.

        There’s reason to believe SOMETHING is causing it, and the timeline fits precisely with the introduction of GM foods.

        As for livestock, they don’t live long; we raise them, kill them, and eat them.

        If a cow lived a longer lifespan, subtle effects like Gluten Intolerance might start to become visible.

        It took long enough for me, that’s for certain.

        Like anybody, I was eating bread all the time.

        But weird vitamin deficiencies started making me sick.

        And finally I figured out what has happening, but it’s too late, the damage has been done.

        Can you tell us honestly, why you resist simple labeling laws?

        Is it because you revere “Science”…

        Or is it because you’re in the GM field and are worried about losing your job?

        I’m a Liberal, I have nothing against Science.

        I just don’t want people tampering with my food and preventing me from knowing.

      • JeremyStreich

        “Odd diseases like “gluten intolerance” was mushrooming”
        Gluten Intolerance, much like sensitivity to electromagnetism, as a condition in itself isn’t a recognized condition. In studies reaction to gluten in “gluten intolerant” subjects failed to beat nocebo effect (it’s like the placebo effect, but with side effects rather than beneficial effects). Note, that this doesn’t mean that they don’t feel distress or symptoms when subjected to gluten, just that the cause isn’t likely to physical.

        Celiac, however, is a real condition and has been described since the 2nd century AD, and became understood enough to be a real diagnosis in 1856. So the timeline doesn’t fit. If you have may celiacs, you should get tested for it. The diet isn’t just “gluten free” it is a bit more complex than that and it isn’t anything to play with.

        Moreover, non-Celiac Gluten sensitivity (intolerance) can be a symptom of other conditions like Lyme. Lyme was first diagnosed in humans as a separate condition in 1975, which might explain the timeline, if there is a large population with un-diagnosed Lyme Borreliosis. If you are in a region with ticks, I’d recommend you be tested for Lyme using a Western Blot test. I know the CDC recommends the ELISHA test first (and Western Blot to confirm), but it has lower threshold and higher incidence of false positives. That said, this isn’t medical advice, and I’m not doctor don’t sue… But seriously get tested.

        “[T]o believe SOMETHING is causing it, and the timeline fits precisely with the introduction of GM foods.”

        Correlation doesn’t causation make. Controlled trials has shown GM food to be no different than it’s non-GMO food. Moreover the timeline doesn’t fit, as Gluten as shown above.

        “I’m a Liberal, I have nothing against Science.”
        So, a political standpoint means that you can’t have human baises against something, even though there is no evidence for that belief? I think you need to do some soul searching about your beliefs. Everyone has biases that not consistent with evidence, and this is one of yours.

        “Can you tell us honestly, why you resist simple labeling laws?”
        My only objection is: it raises costs without changing behavior. We mandated calories be posted on labels and menus in restaurants, and it didn’t change people ordering behavior. I suppose I have no problem with it, but I’m pretty sure it won’t do anything.

        Then again, when there was an increase in gluten free labeling there was increases in “gluten intolerance” so it may create a new condition of “GMO intolerance”….

      • Bongstar420

        You should advocate for the chemistry of the items being disclosed. The means of producing the chemistry are pretty irrelevant. Gluten intolerance is not caused by GE wheat. Actually, maybe GE wheat could be produced for gluten intolerance. I’m not sure on the carbohydrate requirements of the species, so its more or less really.

      • Warren Lauzon

        So you are basically admitting that your real goal is not labeling, but the elimination of GMO’s.

      • William Carr

        If people don’t mind, they can buy whatever they want.

        I’m concerned with NOT buying it myself.

        I think that one day, we’ll have GM trees to soak up CO2, and they’ll grow back rapidly after you cut them.

        And that will be fine, really. Because I don’t eat trees.

      • Bongstar420

        So you only buy stuff labeled “non-GMO?”

        …because it goes without saying, everything that isn’t that, has GMO in it. So far, I rarely eat things that don’t have some GMO stuff in it. I really like the grain diet..I do way better on that than any other diet, and you know those are all probably at least 30% round up ready stuff.

      • Bongstar420

        We all want a boogie man to fight don’t we? I just lost mine- the state cannabis prohibitionists. Now, my only claim to “high” injustice is out the window.

      • Mark Stolzoff

        Gay people are banned in Hundreds of countries, you still want to continue with your retarded logic?

      • William Carr

        Speaking of “retarded logic”… good grief !

        You took a thread about simple labeling laws, and turned it into a strawman about Gay Rights?

        There are a FEW countries in Africa where Gays have no rights, not “hundreds of countries”.

        And really, the two subjects don’t have anything in common.

        Do you even understand where you went wrong?

        You can’t argue against someone else’s position by inventing a whole new argument on a different subject !

      • Bongstar420

        Its never just about the article above now is it.

      • Ken Gage

        Funny how so many claim that labeling GMO foods is too difficult, yet these Monsanto types have no trouble at all identifying their transgenic GMO crops and persecuting small farmers who end up with their patented crops in nearby fields.

      • Cassandra

        The companies who make the seed product DO label the seed. Labeling food for the grocery store customer is a different thing altogether and that is something farmers and sellers would have to start doing. The seed itself is labeled and the actual traits and the variety are all documented and on the label for the farmer who buys the seed. So, seed companies do label GMOs.

      • Ken Gage

        The enitre supply chain is controlled. Exactly my point. You’re not going to accidentally sell grapes for cantaloupes, even if you genetically modified them to look the same. They come from different plots.

      • Bongstar420

        I’d love to see the day when you couldn’t legally sell a crop unless it had been analyzed for pesticide residue. I’d also like to see a full nutrient profile range, but I understand that to be “dreaming.”

      • Mark Stolzoff

        No farmer has ever, in the history of the world been sued by monsanto for accidental pollination

      • Bongstar420

        Right, but people apparently get their product denied because Monsanto genes got into their germ supply.

        They don’t want that cutting into their margins or making them believe they are ill. We should all be Star Treking it anyways. Why can’t we all just get a hand held spectral analyzer?

      • Bongstar420

        Its not. Its easy. Its just that the politics around it are retarded and people just are too shallow to get beyond the brand GMO.

        Really we should label all the chemicals in the items…Like wheat isn’t really a chemical, but the polysaccharides and gluten are chemicals which the wheat is composed of that should be on the label and people should be informed about.

    • hyperzombie

      Consumers who are not concerned about GMOs, can buy GMO containing food and those who prefer not to eat GMO containing food can avoid them.

      You can do that now, there is Organic and Certified Non GMO

      • Brad Farnsworth

        hyperzombie the paid Monsanto troll screw off puke

      • hyperzombie

        LOL, did Whole foods let you type that out while you were on your break between making wheatgrass smoothies?

      • Warren Lauzon

        You should read some of Brad’s past posts, on many subjects. The guy is truly a nut case. He accuses almost anyone that disagrees with him on any subject as being some kind of corporate shill, and is very fond of calling people idiots. It is a waste of time to respond to him.

      • Sxxxx Wxxxx

        Unfortunately it’s not that simple. Or, alternatively, it is that simple. People that don’t treat their bodies like garbage dumps, or pets, have fewer and fewer inroads to non-toxic food sources while food production inc and infrastructure continues unabated. Meanwhile the general public, unawares and self-absorbed, is only getting less sustainably minded and *more a liability* as neurotoxins and nephrotoxins, heavy metals and pesticides, as well as the side affects of GMO’s become more pervasive and pernicious. Kind of like ancient Rome with their lead pipes and caveman like ignorance… or “modern” America with it’s leaded gasoline, special interest groups, and some of the most infamous instances of pseudo-science.

        The problem isn’t just access to food though, it’s sounding an alarm and educated a distracted public to give a voice to prevent or resolve what has enough science behind it to stop just doing the same thing or allowing that same thing to continue to fester. And if there’s really no problem, then both *sides* will need to cooperate, disseminate, and agree. Pretending there isn’t a problem, isn’t the solution.

        http://gmo-awareness.com/2014/01/20/does-your-body-absorb-genetically-engineered-dna/

    • Sterling Ericsson

      If you are truly a microbiologist, i’m ashamed of the university that conferred you that degree. You do know the main method used for GMO cultivation is agrobacterium, right? Also that the gene transfers can be analyzed so you know what exactly is being transferred, so your hypothetical fear mongering about “what else accompanies the wanted gene” is just that, fear mongering. You should know enough about the actual science to know that it is not a valid concern.

      Now if you raised a concern about epigenetic effects on the genome that is being inserted into, then maybe you would have a better argument. Not that that is a good argument either, since the entire genome of the target plant is sequenced both before and after the insertion and any changes noted and catalogued for analysis. GM crops are extensively studied before they go to market and any possible allergenic or other cause of harm investigated.

      • OldCowboy

        I would be more inclined to believe you except for the fact that the seed manufacturers have no requirement to prove the GMOs are safe. In fact, the CEO of Monsanto stated that it wasn’t his job to prove that GMOs were safe for human consumption.

        And if you believe that companies like Monsanto spend billions of dollars to fully investigate exactly what is being transferred, then I’ve got a bridge with your name on it. Special today only.

      • Sterling Ericsson

        They have a requirement to run allergen tests and other things to show no harm was detected. There’s no way to prove something safe, that isn’t a part of science. Too much of anything can be harmful to you. And if you are concerned about GMOs, all you would have to do is run a proper scientific study and show that harm is caused by them. But there’s never been such harm shown in thousands of studies.

        And do you have a source for that supposed statement by the CEO of Monsanto?

      • OldCowboy

        “Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.’s job” – Phil Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications. “Playing God in the Garden” New York Times Magazine, October 25, 1998.

        “Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety” – FDA, “Statement of Pol…icy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties” (GMO Policy), Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 104 (1992), p. 229

      • Warren Lauzon

        “..In the late 1990’s, then-Communications director Phil Angell did say this. It was a hasty remark even in the context of that exchange over a decade ago, and a mistake. It does not reflect Monsanto’s position on the safety of our products, then or now…” (Monsanto statement)

      • Bongstar420

        Any sociopath would say that. Come on now. Are there new owners and operators, that is the question?

      • Bongstar420

        So then, it is happening despite Monsanto not wanting to do it..I do believe its in their bottom line interest to keep it as level as possible. That means it can’t be much worse than eating over cooked BBQ with Tobacco sauce.

      • NoToGMOs

        “They have a requirement to run allergen tests and other things to show no harm was detected.”

        What other things specifically?

      • Sterling Ericsson

        Nutrient composition reviews (and non-nutrient reviews), pesticide residue testing, and allergen testing. Basically a full compositional breakdown.

      • Bongstar420

        I get stomach aches from corn syrup. Can we ban it please? Its probably that Bt and round up ready corn.

      • Mark Stolzoff

        Anyone saying they’re against GMOs clearly doesn’t know what a GMO is. A GMO could simply produce more vitamin A, or it could kill you–it depends how an organism’s DNA has been modified, which is a very exact process. Saying you’re against GMOs is like saying you’re against children playing with “things”. A thing could be a puppy, or it could be a gun.

      • Bongstar420

        It could also produce enormous quantities of drugs and put all the pot growers out of business.

        🙁

      • Bongstar420

        I don’t know. It seems epigenetic factors can be heritable. So we have the potential for movement of the gene itself and divergent epigenetic factors over multiple generations. Its probably innocuous in most cases, but still these things are of concern.

    • ForGMOEducation

      As a microbiologist, you should know that by PCR it is possible to only amplify the exact area that you want to clone. There won’t be any extra DNA sequences along for the ride.

      • hyperzombie

        Don’t confuse the fake microbiologist…..

      • Bongstar420

        Don’t they have concern for the distribution of the cloned DNA after its released and its unknown effects?

        I’m pretty sure it can recombine in new regions of the genome as normal process. The GMO really does create divergent evolutionary trajectories.

      • ForGMOEducation

        What unknown effects are you talking about? Please give me a specific example of what could happen. If you are speaking of glyphosate resistance for example, there are already many soil dwelling microbes that contain a glyphosate resistant versions of EPSP. In other words, the gene of concern to you is already present in the environment in this case.
        I’m assuming from your second paragraph that you are concerned that the inserted DNA will move around the genome. There are a couple of ways that can happen. One way is by transposon activity. However, most crops would need to be crossed to another line that contained an appropriate transposase for this to be possible. Since GMOs are only used for one season, I see this as a very unlikely event. There is always the chance of a chromosomal rearrangement, but the chance of one occurring and being in the same location of a transgene is again low. Once again, the seed would not be saved, so there would be no passing this to the next generation. This is also assuming the plant is healthy following the chromosomal rearrangement (it may die or be too sick to produce ears that people eat) and that there actually exists a place in the genome where the transgene can cause harm to someone who is eating it (may not exist). Personally, I think it’s a lot to assume. There can’t be a “divergent evolutionary trajectory” when the seeds are not saved. In that sense, all of the plants we breed using non-GMO, conventional methods are also on new evolutionary trajectories because their DNA was been altered by humans.

    • Cassandra

      Since you’re a microbiologist, I’m not asking this to spar with you, but because I’m actually curious. How does the danger you perceive in gene splicing compare with possible dangers of mutagenesis and gene editing? Do you think there are novel proteins or other chemicals produced in GM crops that scientists can’t detect? I’m not clear on what danger you see and why you think it’s not being caught by testing.

      • William Carr

        If you’re referring to natural mutations in food crops ?

        That’s “background” risk.

        I suppose if crops were sprayed with Acetone just before pollination, you might well get weird mutations that would be bad for human health.

        Fortunately, that sort of thing is much more rare in terms of risk, because there’s no MONEY in doing it.

        The sole reason Monsanto does Genetic Modification is to copyright plant varieties and control the market.

        Actual benefits to crops from Genetic Modification are somewhat dubious.

        Yields don’t seem to be as advertised, and some GM varieties are reported to be less drought resistant than normal varieties.

        When you add in Monsanto’s business practices, and how hard it is to AVOID them in some markets…

      • Bongstar420

        No..its because you can get useful outcomes light years faster. Its the result of consciousness

      • Frank Cannon

        This has really has never been about a yield problem. It’s an obsession with forcing a global food monopoly issue.
        http://timeless-environments.blogspot.se/2015/06/genetically-modified-information.html

        .

    • “The genes that confer herbicide resistance come from microorganisms. Although the term used to describe the procedure is called ‘gene splicing’, in reality, the result is ‘chromosome chunk splicing.’ What else accompanies the wanted gene is generally unknown.”

      Well, that is even more the case with artificial selection, since it is based on the traits that get expressed and that we can actually see or feel directly! We actually have no idea what came with the desired traits that determined the selection of a new breeds, unless we start looking directly into their DNA. And dangerous traits might not be detected simply by mere observations. They could reveal themselves in the long run, after years of feeding to hundreds of millions of people.

      “If there are long term effects, they may be very difficult to parse from other possible environmental causes.”

      This issue is even more acute with artificially selected breeds, since, as stated above, we actually don’t know what got passed on to the new breed along with the selected traits! Why, I don’t see anyone among the anti-GMO crowd crying out for longer term study about the potential effect on human health these plants can have if consumed as food.

      Is it because they feel that artificial selection and hybridization is closer to “nature”? But to what “nature”? In what way is “gene splicing” not natural or not so natural? Is what is “natural” forcibly beneficial to human beings? These are, in my opinion, the issue that underpin this whole debate and determine what people consider to be dangerous or not.

      So, I guess, we should label not just GMO-based food, but also any food whose components haven’t undergone a long-term study on human health…..something tells me that this kind of proposal will have everyone throw their arms in the air and yell at an overbearing state administration!

    • Mark Stolzoff

      You’re not a microbiologist, nice try tho

    • Bongstar420

      Did you miss the part where 100 billion animals consumed items which people like you are still skeptical about (BT and round up ready corn probably applies to this 100 billion number). You won’t ever see any evidence.

    • Cheese McQueen

      If you’re a microbiologist, I’m a unicorn…or you went to a terrible school.

  • Blythe Dolores

    What I don’t get is people who claim to want “big government” out of their business who are pro-GMO. GMOs are “big government” – government that is in bed with Monsanto, Dupont, etc.

    • Cassandra

      There’s a lot more to it than that. I’m a liberal, I’m for socialized medicine, for example, so I’m not against “big government.” I’m not pro-corporation and certainly not pro-multinational businesses. But I am a scientist and I’ve worked in both classical breeding and molecular biology and I’m thoroughly pro genetic engineering. It’s a life saver in the field of medicine and in medical research and we’re only at the tip of the ice berg as far as what it can do. It will be the saving grace against Ebola, I believe.

      Genetic engineering saved the papaya industry in Hawaii and will probably save the entire citrus industry from citrus greening disease in the next decade.

      Public sector scientists have developed many kinds of drought resistant crops and nutritionally improved crops such as Golden Rice, which could prevent the hundreds of thousands of cases of blindness and deaths that occur annually now due to Vitamin A deficiency in impoverished rice-eating communities around the world. It breaks my heart that the people who know the least about GMOs are so adamantly opposed to them.

      • Warren Lauzon

        And there is also mounting evidence that GMO’s might be required to save bananas.

      • Blythe Dolores

        Hi Cassandra,

        It isn’t black and white, of course. I have big issues with terminator seeds – there is no good-for-humanity argument for this and I have an issue with the lack of labeling. Let the consumer decide. I find the lack of labeling to be indicative of the GMO companies awareness that their products would be less successful because consumers would choose non-GMO by and large.

        Conventional agriculture is problematic when homogeneous fields of one crop are produced and require herbicides and pesticides that diverse farming does not. We eat those toxins. Our rivers are polluted with those toxins. Our soil health is destroyed by those toxins.

        My bottom line is not political. I think humans are arrogant and believe they know better than nature. They don’t. Nature will always correct itself. And regardless of pro-or against GMO, there SHOULD be labeling for consumer choice. It is supposed to be a “free market” and keeping secrets about ingredients does not an ethical corporation make.

      • Cassandra

        You’ll be glad to know that so many people, myself included, didn’t approve of the idea of terminator seeds when the concept was first publicized that the originators of the trait have never used it in any crop.

        Monoculture isn’t a characteristic of GMOs, in particular, it’s a characteristic of industrial scale farming.

        There is no GMO designed to require insecticides. Quite the opposite, in fact, Bt crops are designed to reduce or eliminate a need to apply insecticide and the Bt reduces the plant-eating insect populations so much that nearby plants are helped, as well, so Bt crops would be just fine in mixed plantings.

        Roundup Ready crops don’t required Roundup, they merely allow the farmer to use Roundup to kill weeds instead of the more poisonous alternatives such as atrazine. So, GMOs don’t really change conventional agricultural practices in a bad direction, as you keep hearing.

      • Warren Lauzon

        The so-called “Terminator Seeds” were first researched as an answer to critics about GMO crops spreading into the wild, but it turned out that the backlash was worse than the cure.

      • Cassandra

        Exactly!

      • Cassandra

        I don’t know what you mean by diverse farming. If you mean organic, I have recently learned that some pesticides that are allowed in organic farming, such as rotenone, are very bad for the soil and water. I’m not against organic gardening, of course, and the one time I grew a vegetable garden I did it organically and no-till with no pesticides, period. That’s the luxury of growing small scale and staying on top of things manually.

        Have you done your homework about the history of plant breeding before genetic engineering? If so, are you also campaigning to get crops labeled if they were developed through blasting and modifying their genomes using radiation and mutagenic chemicals?

  • jimv1983

    The thing about Neil deGrasse Tyson commenting on GMOs vs scientists studying climate change is that people studying climate actually have a background in climate science. Neil deGrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist. His field of study is not genetic engineering.

    Now that doesn’t mean he can’t be right or have a good understanding of something outside his field of study but it is a difference worth noting.

    My personal opinion is based on whatever the true science says. If enough information from independent sources not paid by anyone with a vested interest in the outcome of the study says there are no harmful effects then I will accept the science. The hard problem is knowing if those studies are from an independent and honest source. Plus, it is also worth mentioning that the science behind climate change is much more apparent than the safety of GMOs.

    Another thing that concerns me is that the genetic changes made to plants make them undesirable for pests to eat. What does that mean for humans? It’s like the video the time lapse of a fresh burger and fries next to a burger and fries from McDonald’s. The McDonald’s food didn’t get rotten. It just dried out. Even bacteria wouldn’t eat it.

    Whether or not food with GMO ingredients is bad or not it should at least be labeled. People have the right to know what is in their food.

    I also can’t stand the confusion some people have between selective breeding and GMO. They are NOT the same thing.

    • Sterling Ericsson

      Every single major scientific organization in the world has stated that GMOs are safe based on the evidence and research. Also, the plants produce Bt toxin, which kills certain families of insects. It doesn’t affect vertebrates in any manner whatsoever. It’s also one of the main pesticides used in organic farming, if that assuages you at all.

      I also can’t stand the people that are ignorant that all crop breeds, including all organic heirloom breeds, were made over the past century using radiation and chemical mutagenesis, which is as unnatural as you can get, while GMOs are made using the natural processes of agrobacterium, making GM crops more natural than organic crops.

      • hyperzombie

        using radiation…unnatural as you can get

        HULK disagrees! *smash computer*

      • Sheryl McCumsey

        You know that there are many things that have been done to food…but GMO’s are the worst invention yet. And you are wrong that every “single scientific organization has stated they are safe”…one only has to look to see that is a lie. So I hope you are eating them because it is one great revenge to imagine people like you choking on some cancer at a later date.

      • Sterling Ericsson

        Oh? Here’s a list of the international scientific organizations that support the safety of GMOs. Please tell me what organizations i’m missing.

        American Association for the Advancement of Science
        American Medical Association
        World Health Organization
        National Academy of Sciences
        The Royal Society of Medicine
        The European Commission
        American Council on Science and Health
        American Dietetic Association
        American Phytopathological Society
        American Society for Cell Biology
        American Society for Microbiology
        American Society of Plant Biologists
        International Seed Federation
        International Society of African Scientists
        Federation of Animal Science Societies
        Society for In Vitro Biology
        Society of Toxicology
        Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
        International Council for Science

      • NoToGMOs

        ” Also, the plants produce Bt toxin, which kills certain families of insects. It doesn’t affect vertebrates in any manner whatsoever.”

        Why don’t you elaborate on what Bt toxin does to the gut flora (bacteria) of those vertebrates you mention??

      • Sterling Ericsson

        Little to nothing, since it very rarely passes through the bacterial cell wall. The rate of passage is so low as to be practically non-existent. And that rate, mind you, is if someone was dosed with a large amount of Bt toxin at once. The picograms of toxin in residues on food is too little to even have the chance of killing even one bacteria.

        In fact, you’re more likely to find Bt toxin on organic food, since it’s one of the main pesticides used in organic farming. Also, bt toxin expression in GM crops is in the stalk and leaves, not in the fruiting body.

      • NoToGMOs

        “Little to nothing, since it very rarely passes through the bacterial cell wall. The rate of passage is so low as to be practically non-existent. And that rate, mind you, is if someone was dosed with a large amount of Bt toxin at once. The picograms of toxin in residues on food is too little to even have the chance of killing even one bacteria.

        Links to citations/studies/proof of above?

      • jimv1983

        Genetics is a very complex subject. A scientist might be able to isolate a gene in one species that codes for a certain trait and then transplant it into a different species but that doesn’t mean that the receiving species will only be impacted by expressing that one trait. It is possible that there could be unintended side effects that aren’t immediately apparent. It’s even possible that one genetically modified species could be totally safe while another genetically modified species might not be.

        For example, take that Bt toxin you were talking about. You say that the toxin might not affect vertebrates directly but maybe that toxin could react with something else that COULD be harmful to humans over a long period of time.

        I’m not saying that the result of scientific research is wrong and I’m not going to just say it isn’t true. All I am saying is that with as complex as genetics is and as new as GMOs are(only about 20 years) there could be information we just don’t know yet. As far as the human species has progressed scientifically we are far from being experts in the field of genetics.

  • DontWannaRegister

    This article pretty much destroys all your credibility, Schewitz.
    The fact that you needed half of it to try to compare everyone who disagrees with you to all the nastiest people you could think of is childish and reeks of a man who has no logical argumentation to support his claim and is aware of it. It doesn’t help your position any that most of the people you’re using as the demons in your story use the s?ame tactic. Essentially, what you’re saying is that when all liberals use Alex Jones’ tactics, that’s completely wrong — unless that liberal happens to be Manny Schewitz.
    The study you cite is absolutely useless in comparison to humans. First, there are all the base problems with it that other people have already cited. Second, we don’t kill or otherwise remove humans from the food cycle when they reach or outgrow their prime. This study has no way to know what happens even to animals in the long-term.
    Third, the conclusion you attempt to draw from the study rests on the fallacious notion that because some GMOs have not been proven to be harmful, it must necessarily follow that no GMOs can be harmful. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that snakes, spiders, insects, bacteria, and cars are safe and we should stop worrying about them.
    Fourth, you cite journalists and astrophysicists as your sources, not microbiologists. That’s not how science works. You freak out when people try to cite people with doctorates in theology as experts in biology, why won’t you apply that standard to yourself?
    Fifth, you make a big deal of “there is no evidence that…” as your rationale. Your beloved Christopher Hitchens set the entire field of logic back by centuries when he popularized the notion that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Unfortunately for you, that idea is and always has been fallacious. The problem is expounded by the fact that you only allow yourself and those who agree with you to use that argument. See, you also can’t produce any evidence that GMOs meaningfully increase nutrition, are hardier, or produce more yield than their non-GMO counterparts because no such evidence exists. You don’t even know why you’re shilling for these products.

    Now, I freely admit that I’m not a microbiologist either. But, I have actually worked in the industry that you’re calling us all to worship, so let me set you straight on some things.
    Your comment that Monsanto isn’t the only player is an exercise in false equivalency. Yes, Monsanto has competition, the same way that Wal-Mart has competition from mom’n’pops. Almost all of them are bit players. Of course, having or lacking competition doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not GMOs are the gift to mankind that you want us to believe they are, so why did you even bring it up?
    I’m sure that somewhere in the past, there were some positive reasons for GMOs. There are real problems faced by farmers. Diseases, pests, hardiness, climate changes, nutrition value, flavor, etc. GMO science has the potential to fix these problems faster than selective breeding. The problem is that your hero-scientists at Monsanto are not interested in solving these problems. They want to produce plants that can be patented. That’s it. If they happen to have some tangible advantage over the competition, hooray! But most of Monsanto’s GMO product line-up is all about its resistance to Monsanto pesticides. Even that wouldn’t be all bad, except that we still haven’t meaningfully improved yields through these strains.
    Another problem is some GMOs have been shown to be harmful. Monsanto can’t do human trials in the States, so what they do is engineer stuff and send it to starving populations as a “humanitarian” gesture. Sometimes, these people do get sick. But hey, they’re not Americans, so I guess that’s OK with you, eh, Manny?
    And of course, who, besides Manny Schewitz, Allen Clifton, and Neil deGrasse Tyson, can forget that biology sometimes needs years and years of study before results can be known? Look how long it took them to determine the real effects of daily aspirin regimens. Of course, you might say that because that one GMO from 1990 seems to be OK that it must mean that the other GMO from 2014 must also be OK, but that’s because of your own science-denying nature.
    What’s really sad is that Monsanto usually has to buy politicians to get them to sling drivel like this. You didn’t even get paid, did you? How’s it feel to be below a sell-out, huh, Manny?

    • John Warde

      Says someone who wants to hide behind the anonymity of the internet to call someone a sellout. Ok then.

      • NoToGMOs

        That’s all you have? Nothing to refute any of his/her points?

    • NoToGMOs

      Excellent points!

  • David Gray

    Those who practice conspiracism are not interested in evidence.They will never offer any, nor will they ever accept any.

    Conspiracism is a narrative form of scapegoating that portrays an enemy as part of a vast insidious plot against the common good. Conspiracism assigns tiny cabals of evildoers a superhuman power to control events, frames social conflict as part of a transcendent struggle between Good and Evil, and makes leaps of logic, such as guilt by association, in analyzing evidence. Conspiracists often employ common fallacies of logic in analyzing factual evidence to assert connections, causality, and intent that are frequently unlikely or nonexistent. As a distinct narrative form of scapegoating, conspiracism uses demonization to justify constructing the scapegoats as wholly evil while reconstructing the scapegoater as a hero.

  • Genevieve Laurin

    The study cited may have had a gynormous sample size (and I even find it a little hard to believe that they had that much data analyzed), but even if it was well done and objective, it doesn’t prove that GMOs are safe. I don’t know exactly what the scientists looked for, but it would most likely be obvious defects or diseases. If there were, say, long-term toxicity, I doubt it would be noticeable in the data. As many substances are accumulated in the tissues of living organisms, the concentration of the contaminant often increases from prey to predator. And even if there is no toxicity or other long-term health effect derived from eating GMOs or GMO-fed livestock, there is still the other issues raised with GMOs, such as the way they are used (many would say “abused”) by Monsanto and the like. The environmental impacts of RoundUp-Ready plants are undeniable. Lastly, I am most of all concerned and angry about the way the companies are fighting the labeling laws. I for one think the precautionary principle, which is rooted in science, should be applied to GMOs, especially those that are consumed as food. I would at least like the opportunity to make an informed choice when I buy food. I don’t see how a scientist could oppose that.

    • David Gray

      Much easier, and less expensive for YOU and your ‘natural food’ cronies to label your products, again, unless you can produce actual evidence to substantiate your hysteria, it’s your problem, YOU and your cronies can fix it yourself. Label thy own products.
      Thanks.

      • Sheryl McCumsey

        The “hysteria” and lack of science comes from goons like you.

      • Genevieve Laurin

        I think I framed my concerns in a rational and informed way. Show me the hysteria, please? And please don’t assume you know anything about me.

    • Warren Lauzon

      Nothing, ever, anywhere, has ever been proven to be 100% safe. Why are GMO’s held to a higher standard of proof than everything else in the world?

      • Genevieve Laurin

        I never said that. I said I’d like the opportunity to chose not to eat them, by having clear labeling. Why should that be a problem?

      • Warren Lauzon

        In one way I don’t care if they are labeled – it will not affect my buying decisions. But in another way I look at the reasons for wanting labels, and there is not one shred of any scientific evidence to back up any reason to label.

  • Shelley Jones Beek

    The one factor not addressed in the study cited in this article is lifetime affects of consuming GMOs. Since the data is looking at animals raised to be consumed, most are not very old before they are consumed. This is different with chickens raised to lay eggs and dairy cows. But how old are they before they stop producing? Middle age? I don’t know about everyone else but I would like to live the full span of my lifetime without possible food related health complications. And I would like to see the data from multi-generational controlled animal studies raised on GMO crops I am eating (where the animals die of old age and not because they were slaughtered) .

    • hyperzombie

      And I would like to see the data from multi-generational controlled animal studies raised on GMO crops I am eating

      Generations of chickens and pigs were in this study as well, when is enough enough with you people. Do we need a study on a trillion animals, will a Zillion be enough?
      No matter what study is done it will never be enough for you folks……

      • Shelley Jones Beek

        Generations of pigs and chickens that did not die of old age but of being consumed at a young age. The conclusions from this study are based on productivity data. Animals aren’t usually productive after middle age or younger. And yes, a reproducible, controlled multi-generational study where the animals are fed the GMO feed fed to livestock (ie. grown in the presence of Round-up) and the cause of death determined, would be sufficient for me. While this is an expensive study it is much less than all the money spent to fight GMO labelling. I can’t find such a study. Why?

      • hyperzombie

        The conclusions from this study are based on productivity data.

        Breeding stock is also included, and breeding stock comes from breeding stock so it is Multigenerational.

        And yes, a reproducible, controlled multi-generational study where the animals are fed the GMO feed fed to livestock

        Just do a GOogle scholar search for GMO multi Generational studies.

        There are over a dozen of them (but I know that this will not be good enough for you)

      • Shelley Jones Beek

        Breeding stock doesn’t live past middle age, only as long as the animal can breed. Studs live longer but they are too small a percentage of the population to matter in the study cited. So no, these are not multi-generational, controlled studies where animals are studied from birth to natural death (not slaughter). I really can’t understand, given the controversy, why these studies haven’t been done long ago. The only one I have heard of is the much maligned French study. In all the rancorous comments about this study I have not seen any mention of similar studies performed that contradict the French study findings. You may not care but I personally would like to know the affects of ingesting Round-up over the natural life span for an animal, not just it’s productive life span since I can easily imagine the effects of accumulated Round-up exposure would show up later in life.

      • hyperzombie

        Breeding stock doesn’t live past middle age, only as long as the animal can breed.

        Which is way past middle age for most animals.

        The only one I have heard of is the much maligned French study

        That was just a 2 year study, the rats were euthanized at the end.. P.S If you are worried about Round-up, the rats that were exposed to roundup had the best health outcomes is this horribly flawed study.

        In all the rancorous comments about this study I have not seen any mention of similar studies performed that contradict the French study findings.

        Well actually there has been 3 done since, you can find them with Google scholar or pubMed. The reason you didn’t hear about them is because they found no effects from GMOs or roundup. Just like “All planes landed safely” never makes the news.

  • Brad Farnsworth

    hyperzombie is a paid monsanto troll

    • Shelley Jones Beek

      I think you might be right.

      • Sheryl McCumsey

        Yep.

    • Sheryl McCumsey

      Absolutely you are right…kind of funny too…hyperzombie. Some of us actually have a name.

      • hyperzombie

        It was my nickname in High School…

  • Ken Gage

    Whether the science behind GMOs is solid or certain is immaterial. A huge number of consumers have decided that they prefer pesticide-free and GMO-free foods. That is, in a word, ORGANICS. So what has been the reaction to this by corporations? Instead of accepting consumer demands and moving toward transparency, Monsanto and their ilk have spent millions to fight against openness on the subject — against labeling. So who is being honest?

    There is no hard science behind foods being designated with “holy” terms like Kosher and Halal either, yet the food industry has no problem labeling such foods. It is obvious who the hypocrites are — anyone fighting against labeling. (I’m looking at you, Monsanto!)

    • Jason

      Your argument is messed up here. Organic, kosher..etc… Those are all VOULUNTARY labels. Companies are free to use them or not use them as they see fit. That is EXACTLY what companies are suing to keep. Companies are suing to keep the choice of whether or not to market their products as GMO free with the company…not with the govt. Many organizations are trying to mandate that all companies MUST label their food as containing gmos. Why is this different than any other type of label? Why should we mandate this one, but all of the others are left voluntary? How is that stance NOT hypocritical? If customers really are demanding GMO free foods, companies will meet that demand with GMO free offerings. That has worked for organic and kosher labels… Why can’t it work with GMO?

      And, I hate to burst your bubble, but as of the last USDA ag census, organic acres in America were still less than 1% of the total. if a huge number of consumers were demanding these foods, our farm acreage would represent it.

      • borrowed.time

        So there can never be a lag between demand and supply? Supply always keeps up with demand? All acres produce only food for human consumption?

      • Jason

        Obviously there is a lag between supply & demand. In fact, you see that in the data. Organic sales doubled since the last census (5 year period), yet still only accounted for 0.8% of total acres. Obviously it’s growing, but is still very much a niche product. If it double again by the next census, it’ll be a whopping 1.6% by 2017.
        And, of course, not all acres are produced for human consumption. Organically produced meat needs organically grown feed and organic pastures. Those are represented in the census data.

      • Ken Gage

        Voluntary sounds nice, but it doesn’t always work with corporations and safety standards. “Oh, please voluntarily refrain from poisoning our groundwater with your factory run off!” “Oh, please voluntarily refrain from using child labor in your textile sweat shops!” History is a matter of activism and government intrusions to protect workers and consumers from the usual band of short-sighted dollar-driven capitalists. I hate to burst YOUR bubble, but labeling your products properly is a walk in the park and you know it — and you’d put your political monies to better uses by not squandering them in a losing battle. Getting a jump on the right side of history might even make you appear ethics-driven for a change.

      • Jason

        I’m not sure what you mean by “walk in the park”. Unless you can show how gmo labeling is a matter of public need (health or safety issue) then I don’t see how you can get around a challenge on the grounds of first amendment free speech.

        As for voluntary…we’re not really talking about safey standards here…are we? We already have food safety laws that cover this. If you had any evidence what so ever that gmo products violated any of these food safety laws you’d have yourself quite a case. Good luck with that.

      • Ken Gage

        Poll after poll shows that a majority (over 80 percent!) of North Americans would like to be able to tell if the food they’re purchasing contains GMOs. My argument is not about the safety of GMOs. It is about consumer perception and that old fashioned business model of listening to the consumer. If you continue to tell over 80 percent of your customers that they are wrong and stupid to want to know which products are GMOs, then you’re going to have a big problem real soon — one that money and PR spin may not be able to extricate you from.

      • Jason

        It doesn’t really matter what the majority want. We don’t live by mob rule. You’re not talking about any kind of business model at all. You’re talking about trying to legislate your agenda. The good old fashioned business model you’re referring to would be for people to buy the products that label to their satisfaction and avoid those that don’t. That would show businesses that people want that sort of thing. That won’t happen because the people that really care about it are a very small minority. Your poll is worthless because it does ask “at what cost” do they still want this label. That’s why when it was actually brought before people (in Cali & Wash) it was voted down both times.

        Again…when you’re talking about infringing on another’s right to free speach, passing that law and having withstand legal challenges will be no walk in the park.

      • Ken Gage

        Free speech rights? You’re talking like a right wing nut who believes speech equates to money. (And corporations are people! 😀 )

        The GMO labeling proposals in both California and Washington were very close votes — and the GMO food industry and their lobbyists outspent organic interests by a HUGE margin just to eek by. So what is essentially worthless is your attempt at spin doctoring this conversation.

        If the food industry actually tried transparency, there would be no need to legislate the issue. And then the free market really could decide. But, as usual, real change doesn’t come about by sitting around quietly hoping the ruling-owning classes are going to do the right thing.

      • Jason

        Corporations aren’t people. But they ARE owned by people. And people have rights. I realize, that other people’s rights are only important until they keep you from getting what you want… But they do still exist.

        Why can the free market not work right now? We have gmo free alternatives. If those were really in demand, why wouldn’t we see that in sales and why wouldn’t businesses react by offering more or labeling appropriately to gain sales?

      • Ken Gage

        Your rights toward owning shares in corporations are not at stake.

        This is a progressive site. And if there’s one thing that progressives worry about more than how well capitalists are doing managing their investments, it’s a just cause. What could be more just and easier to understand than clear labeling?

        This is why those of you who put business interests first are going to lose the GMO labeling war.

        We’ve all heard the drivel time and time again about how corporations can police themselves and the free market will prove values. That might sound good on American Heritage or Fox News, but history proves corporations don’t do the right thing just because they’re run by swell people.

      • Jason

        There is no need for corporations to police themselves. The market will do it for them. It will force them to follow the will of the consumer. Your problem is that your will is in the very small minority.

      • Ken Gage

        Oh true market believer, the Force of idealism is strong in this one! John Galt whistling in the vacuum of governmental collapse when they finally realized they were rendered overblown and obsolete by the acuity of Jason’s rhetoric. All the world needs is obedient consumers and all-powerful corporations to achieve Heaven on Earth. How could such a belief system possibly go awry? 😀

      • Jason

        It’s good to see that we finally agree on something.

    • Randall

      I farm 70% non GMO.

      Separating crops after they are harvested is a huge expense. Forcing farmers, brokers, and the food processors/manufacturers to separate GMO from non-GMO will add a tremendous cost for no apparent benefit.

      Labeling works best when it is market driven, and the government with their cumbersome regulations are not involved.

      • Ken Gage

        If you really farm 70% non-GMO (and boy do you sound like a broken record of right wing propaganda on here with all your cut & pasted posts!) then of course you must already maximize your profits by separating the non-GMO crops from the GMO ones. Good Job, Randall!

        Market-driven events didn’t bring us the 8 hour work week or clean drinking water or the EPA. So get a grip on reality. Corporations are not benevolent — they will take the shortest route to the dollar every time if not watched vigilantly and regulated.

      • Randall

        Thanks, Ken.

        I do agree there are needs for government involvement and government oversight, but I firmly believe that GMO labeling would be useless, expensive, and cumbersome.

        I was once pro-label, but I have switched. I’m not out to prove anything, and evidence or reason can make me change practices, or change my mind. I make mistakes, and I try to course-correct. I’ve left my profile open, and I haven’t changed my comments–you can see where I have been wrong.

        Maybe my consistency on this GMO issue appears as cut and paste?

        I’m on Disqus to share my experiences as a farmer. I decided to do this when our High School English teacher sent home with my children a bunch of anti-GMO “literature” that simply told a bunch of lies of how we farm.

      • hyperzombie

        Randall I would be pro label if they labeled it in an appropriate way. Sugars, starch, and oils should not be labeled, or animals that were fed GMOs. I would be OK with that

      • Randall

        I’m ok with any type of real consumer driven product.

        I’m in favor of labels, but not government required labels.

        The government should only be involved when necessary. As Ken mentioned, in the case of drinking water. That is a place government should regulate.

  • dizzydaisydog

    Why do people resist the scientific conclusion that GMOs are safe? I can think of a couple of reasons offhand. Did 97% of scientists say that DDT was perfectly safe? Oh, guess it’s not after all. Did most scientists and MDs tell us that eggs were practically deadly because of their cholesterol? Oops, not! Did virtually all psychiatrists assert that refrigerator mothers caused autism? Many more examples exist. No wonder redneck conservatives and educated liberals alike don’t trust what we’re being told.

    • Warren Lauzon

      Please provide a cite for the 97% that said DDT was safe.

      • Cassandra

        Exactly!

  • Bea

    Sorry I still do NOT want eat ROUNDUP CORN or any other food they have injected roundup into nor do I want to eat the meat of the animals they feed it to. Monsanto is or has patented seed and their farmer can’t save seed for next years crop they have to buy new seeds. I really like Niel DeGrasse Tyson but I don’t want to eat Roundup (they stuff we spray on our weeds) and tons of insecticides. Besides I’ve read that chronic diseases have continually risen since these chemicals have beenntroduced. Look how many cases of breast cancer, asthma, parkisins, MS you hear about these days. Not mention food allergies — when I was a kid everyone I knew grew up on peanut butter now your kid can’t even take it or nuts to school. I think that all says something about our food.

    • Jason

      No one injects round up into anything. That’s nonsense. And whether the crop is GMO or not has no impact on whether there are pesticides used on them. There are pesticides used on conventional crops every bit as much as GMOS crops (and in cases of insecticeds, much more so).
      Also, farmers don’t save corn seed and rarely saved soybean seeds, even before GMOs existed. That’s an irrelevant argument because garners just don’t do that. Even if they did, all a farmer would need to do is to buy conventional seeds and they could save all they wanted. But overwhelmingly, they choose to buy GMOs KNOWING that they can’t save them. Why do you suppose that is?

    • Warren Lauzon

      LOL!.. “injected Roundup into”. I would really like to know where you are getting all of your bad information from.

  • Sheryl McCumsey

    What is science? I guess an industry is redefining that. It must go along with “consensus”…although even that is very murky as I find a lot of references to that to be unsubstantiated. Why is it so many articles on this topic refer to many unrelated issues as an argument? It almost disgusts me at the stupidity of it. Most GMO’s are designed to tolerate herbicide but we are supposed to “believe” that means these plants have less herbicide on them….REALLY?? ….everything including the “true” evidence says otherwise. The reason there is so much controversy is because there really IS something wrong with them. Multiple things unless you work for a company that makes them or you have some vested interest in the profits. Lots of money alright buys a lot of rubbish propaganda and people are getting wise to it. Every single GMO has an antibiotic resistant gene…every one of them. This still does not dive into the “science” of it all. It is the “science” of genetic modification that does not include hybridization (which is frequently also used an another ridiculous argument) that is seriously flawed. Notice how often those who support this are arrogant and rude. Goes with the territory. It’s called apathy and greed.

    • No, comparing GMO to hybridization and/or conventional is not a ridiculous argument. In conventional thousands of genes are transferred willy nilly with the hope you get the desired result and that can take years. With GM you only transfer one or two genes you need. They know if there are any unintended consequences before it leaves the lab. So, I would say that GM is a safer method of breeding since there are no unknowns. Look up the Lenape potato as a classic example of unintended consequences. it was found to have high levels of the toxin solanine which they didn’t know until people started eating them. That was conventionally bred. Using GM they would have noticed the high levels of solanine in the lab..

      • Sheryl McCumsey

        The problem with people like you is you just pick what ever part of this that suits your intention…..inserting bacterial and viral genes into plants is completely different. Stop confusing what is the truth and what is the real science. Lots of unknowns with this science. ALL of them have an antibiotic resistant gene in them…a bacterial gene.

      • Not *all.* Anyway, your gut and soil have naturally occurring antibiotic resistance genes as well. It is highly unlikely that the genes will transfer from a plant to a bacterium. If they do use resistance markers, they can use a protein or related gene that makes the gene unusable by bacteria. Also, depending on what method they use, marker genes can be bred out so they don’t appear in the final line. Also, the idea of “lots of unknowns” is silly. They know how it works. They know how the mechanisms work. If you research it and talk to scientists and not rely on activist information, you’ll see that.

      • Sheryl McCumsey

        Obviously you haven’t researched this or you would know that ALL GMO’s have this. You are confusing many issues again to suit your purpose. There is nothing “silly” about unknowns. They know how it works is different from knowing what they have. Doing my research by taking information from genetic scientists what are you doing?

      • Warren Lauzon

        You keep repeating that – please provide an actual link or cite from a scientific site that says anything like that.

      • What scientists are you talking to? Seralini? Jeffrey Smith? And no they all don’t have this. They can use Green Fluorescent Proteins or the GUS reporter system. And even if they do have it, I explained to you how it gets neutralized. They know what they have before it leaves the lab. Also, the FDA has only approved antibiotic resistant genes that aren’t “critical” to medicine.

        They have this to say about it:

        “It is highly unlikely that antibiotic resistance genes could be transferred from plant genomes to gut microorganisms. First, there are no known mechanisms for the direct transfer of plant genomic DNA to microorganisms. Second, there are several barriers to potential transfer. These include degradation by acid and nucleases in the stomach and intestines, the bacterial restriction and modification systems that destroy foreign DNA that enters the cell, the absence of homologous ends for efficient integration into the bacterial genome, and lack of selective pressure.”

        AND this from the Lancet:

        “We contrast the potential increase in the antibiotic resistance reservoir created by antibiotic-resistance markers in GM plants with the current situation created by medical antibiotic prescribing. We conclude that, although fragments of DNA large enough to contain an antibiotic-resistance gene may survive in the environment, the barriers to transfer, incorporation, and transmission are so substantial that any contribution to antibiotic resistance made by GM plants must be overwhelmed by the contribution made by antibiotic prescription in clinical practice.”

        What are your sources?

      • Warren Lauzon

        “.. ALL of them have an antibiotic resistant gene in them…a bacterial gene…”
        Uhm.. no they don’t. You really need to get your information from reliable sources, not just the Mercola type anti-GMO sites. That statement is just SO wrong on so many levels.

      • Cassandra

        No, that’s not correct.

    • Warren Lauzon

      Your post is filled with so many logical fallacies that I don’t feel like taking the time to address them all. But just picking one – please explain to me the logic of “if a plant is resistant to a herbicide, then it contains more of that herbicide”.

  • What I see here are many comments from people who have no clue about the science of GMOs or DNA.

  • William Carr

    Well, you seem to be honest.

    And your writing style is clear and logical.

    So I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

    In the spirit of friendship, let me offer a few points.

    “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.”

    1) Great. However, can I point out that animals raised for meat mature within two years?

    Chickens mature in a matter of months.

    Let’s suppose there WERE some inimical effect from eating GMO food.

    The cows and chickens aren’t sticking around for long.

    So any deleterious effects wouldn’t have much time to build up and wouldn’t show up in your study.

    You can understand that, right?

    Need an example?

    A little lead exposure, or a little arsenic exposure, won’t kill you immediately.

    But it builds up.

    Imagine cattle were being fed minute amounts of lead.

    Would we notice? Probably not.

    Would the lead build up in their tissues anyway?

    Yep.

    How would we find out?

    We’d have to dissect their brains to look for the lead-related neural damage, and test their blood and bones for lead.

    THEN we’d know.

    And humans eating the meat, as apex predators, would also bioaccumulate lead.

    That’s just an example.

    Suppose the practice of using genes from bacteria, implanted in corn, is actually NOT safe, after ten years or so of exposure.

    You won’t find out from cows !

    Only a few stick around that long; bulls kept for stud, maybe.

    Humans, though… we live a lot longer.

    If we’re being exposed to something with toxic effects, and it takes ten years to show up…

    Now, the funny thing is, there has been a surge in cases of Gluten Intolerance.

    The term didn’t even exist twenty years ago.

    There was Celiac Disease, and that was it.

    Now, we have a lot of people that don’t seem to have full-blown Celiac Disease, but get sick from eating wheat.

    I am one of them.

    You may have been told Gluten Intolerance is a hoax, you may have been told it’s a marketing scam.

    It’s neither.

    I started getting sick eight years ago, and couldn’t explain it.

    My Doctor just shrugged.

    I suffered through intermittent symptoms of Beri Beri for years… attacks of weakness, confusion, shakiness…

    I was tested, of course. Nothing. Not Hypoglycemia, not Diabetes…

    I did a lot of suffering.

    Until I finally figured out that I wasn’t absorbing Vitamin B from my diet, and B1 shots helped immensely.

    But the CAUSE… the problem faded away after I eliminated wheat from my diet.

    I don’t really need the monthly shot any more.

    And there’s some suspicion that eating GM Corn is the cause of Gluten Intolerance.

    So there you go. A possibility you overlooked, perhaps?

    2) “I believe in science and the findings of trained researchers who have spent their lives devoted to making the world a better place for humanity.”

    I see the problem here.

    You are equating REAL Science, where the Scientists don’t get paid MORE for publishing their results on Global Climate Change, with Genetic Engineering.

    You don’t see the conflict of interest?

    As I’ve explained to others, don’t confuse REAL Science with Genetic Engineering.

    Genetics is a Science, yes.

    Genetic Engineering is… Engineering.

    So, Liberals have no problem believing in Genetics, or Climate Change.

    But maybe some of us have a problem putting faith in the companies pushing Genetic Engineering in our food.

    If you didn’t see the distinction between Science and Engineering, and the light is now dawning… “I accept your apology”.

    3)”If a majority of real scientists (not random food and diet bloggers with a degree from Google U) were to find that genetically modifying our foods was indeed harmful, then I would accept those results – but that hasn’t happened.”

    The Genetic Engineers who tinker with genes in food crops get paid by companies with deep pockets.

    You’d need their equivalents in the Public Sector; Scientists paid to investigate the effects of GM foodstuffs on humans for a decade or more.

    You see the problem, right? The CDC isn’t jumping up and down to investigate this, and the Private Sector isn’t funding long-term research either.

    Well, I guess we just have to wait until people start keeling over, and then scold the companies that made billions while polluting the Earth.

    4) Uh, you might want to re-examine your claim of the American lifespan getting longer?

    That applies to people who get full Health Care. People who don’t, in other words, poor people… their lifespans are diminishing.

  • Leabrand

    I’m not particularly concerned with the safety of GMOs per se but the proprietary control of the seeds etc. by the corporate labs does cause concern. When a corporation holds patents on seeds it seems that they can hold farmers, and even countries, hostage. I don’t like seeing any group, especially profit driven corporations, with the (future) power to withhold food production.

    • Well, seeds have been patented since the early 20th century, but it seems that people only raise this issue when GMO are concerned.

      Moreover, no one is forced to buy those patented seeds. There are plenty of breeds that are now in the public domain and whose seeds can be used free of charges by anyone. By the way, some GMO will also soon fall into the public domain….If farmers keep buying new seeds every year, it’s because their crops yields is better that way.

    • Warren Lauzon

      I am still trying to figure out why this myth keeps coming up. There is nothing at all that prevents any of the farmers using non-GMO seeds, or any of the traditional seeds. It is not like they anyone has any patents on those.

  • cckb

    Hey Manny Schewitz

    Look these articles up at the Union of Concerned SCIENTISTS

    Risks of Genetic Engineering

    The Rise of Superweeds—and What to Do About It

    Promoting Pesticide Resistance: Eight Ways Monsanto Fails at Sustainable Agriculture

    Spreading Gene Contamination: Eight Ways Monsanto Fails at Sustainable Agriculture

    Suppressing Research: Eight Ways Monsanto Fails at Sustainable Agriculture

  • Will M Davis

    In principle the National Academy of Sciences is correct: genetic engineering could be safe. The current corporate biotech paradigm is a brilliant strategy: using the blueprint of life, the DNA codons to to create medical and agricultural solutions. However due to the quantum genetic principle, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, there are many peer review published measured dangerous side effects, as is exactly the case in the corporate pharmaceutical industry. By transcending the current corporate genetic algorithm and going to deeper more comprehensive and more unified laws of nature, the unified field Lagrangians, we can theoretically use the blueprint of the universe to correct these quantum mechanical errors which are currently creating molecular chaos.

    For example, The Lancet Neurology, reported in 2014, that there is an epidemic of new neuro-toxicants contributing to loss of US IQ scores and lowering the US gross domestic product (GDP). This medical report includes a review of 115 toxicology studies and accounting equations to calculate the loss of US dollars from the correlation between IQ scores and GDP, which may be causal in both directions. Neuro-toxicants included in this report are chlorpyrifos, glyphosate, methyl mercury, and lead, etc.

    The US could implement school lunch programs that exclude such neuro-toxicants, by providing non-GMO and organic meals to all students. As Dr. Lee Evslin, MD., reported in The Garden Island, Wednesday, December 28, 2016, quarter mile neuro-toxicant pesticide perimeter zones are required around all Hawaii schools, as is mandated in California. The highway to and from Waimea, Kauai, also needs 1/4 safety zones, where the school buses travel.

    Furthermore, the prestigious physics journal Entropy reports in 2013, that glyphosate which lowers serotonin levels, is directly connected to an epidemic of bullying and school violence in US schools since 1990. This is because lowering serotonin can lead to increased aggression.

    An MIT scientist reports in the Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry, 2016, that radio-labeled glyphosate was fed to chickens and tracked. This ultra-modern medical technology can locate the radioactive tagged glyphosate in the chicken’s body and eggs. This research study concluded that glyphosate is built into the chicken’s muscles [proteins], and into the next generation proteins in the chicken’s eggs.

    Such molecular chaos leads to problems like “a multitude of cancers that are reaching epidemic proportions, including breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, kidney cancer, thyroid cancer, liver cancer, bladder cancer and myeloid leukaemia,” reports the same Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry.

    Mutagenic effects from corns like MON 810, MON 863, NK 603 are camouflaged by biotech studies which eliminate gender to hide gender specified diseases. For example, international eighth graders are being taught the following, using (x,y) ordered pairs to understand destruction of the human fetus at only 100 parts per million (ppm) by a corporate biotech class of bacterial [Bt] pesticides engineered inside plant foods like MON 810 corn (Journal of Applied Toxicology, 2011), which is deceptively camouflaged by corporate statistical manipulations. When plot dots are in quadrants I, II, III, & IV, for example, they are all colored black in corporate studies indicating no disease values for rats. However the dots in quadrant I & IV, showing positive X numbers, are really black for female rats. Quadrants II & III, showing negative X numbers, are really supposed to be all red for male. This indicates the male rats have liver disease and the female rats have kidney disease (Int J Bio Sci, 2009), for example.

    “The repartition of effects is thus sex-dependent. In addition, in general liver (Fig. 1) and kidney (Fig. 2) parameters in all rats are sex differentially expressed. This is evident not only in the experiments involving NK 603, independently of the treatment at week 14, but also at week 5 (data not shown), but similarly observed in the MON 810 and MON 863 feeding tests…Males are clearly more sensitive than female animals to show physiological disturbances when fed NK 603. This is not observed for all three GM maize varieties. Moreover, most effects appear to be dose-dependent since 83% of male effects emerge only at the 33% feeding level (15/18), the highest GM maize concentration in the diet (Table 1). The maximal mean differences are observed in male kidney parameters,” reports the International Journal of Biological Sciences, 2009.

    This research was used by the High Court of Paris for achieving victory. On 25 November 2015, the High Court of Paris indicted Marc Fellous, former chairman of France’s Biomolecular Engineering Commission, for “forgery” and “the use of forgery,” to cover up such research problems with Monsanto’s corn. The Biomolecular Engineering Commission has authorised many GM crops for consumption.

    Eliminating pesticide safety perimeter zones around Waimea, Kauai, is another corporate violation of the safety measurement protocols required for the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which governs quantum genetic evolution.