When GMO Opponents Stay in Denial

By Keith Kloor | October 21, 2013 1:06 pm

I knew I could count on Michael Pollan for this tweet:

Of course, there is a scientific consensus, just as there is for the safety of childhood vaccines and the existence of man-made global warming. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again:

GMO Opponents Are the Climate Skeptics of the Left

CATEGORIZED UNDER: biotechnology, climate change, GMOs, select
  • mem_somerville

    Really. I was laughing at the Venn diagram of signatories and the list of folks hanging out with Jeffrey Smith and Joe Mercola at their events (past, present, and including last week before the list changed).

    If you ever appear on the same side as Joe Mercola, your grasp of science is in serious question.

  • Buddy199

    How are crop yields and populations going to be maintained as Mexico and other countries slide back into pre-industrial farming? Then again, maybe that’s the whole point in protecting Gaia.

  • Pel Abbott

    If they are so frickin wonderful, THEN LABEL THEM. I personally don’t want to eat pesticides woven into the DNA of any food.

    • mem_somerville

      What do you eat exactly? Plants make most of the pesticides you will encounter. http://www.pnas.org/content/87/19/7777.abstract

      I loved when the cucumber genome project also showed that the “fresh green” scent of a cucumber is a pesticide:

      The volatile (E,Z)-2,6-nonadienal (NDE) gives cucumber its ‘fresh green’ flavor and confers resistance to some bacteria and fungi.

      Please stop eating cucumbers until we’ve knocked that out for you.

      • Pel Abbott

        Like I said, if GMOs are oh-so-wonderful, then

        LABEL THEM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        Simple request, to which some jerk like you gives me some stupid response yet again. F**k off.

        • RobertWager

          Given facts and that is your response. Speaks volumes about you, it does.

          This will explain the complex issue of GE specific food labeling

          http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf

          • Pel Abbott

            I am in marketing. If GMOs were wonderful, every marketer would be salivating to LABEL THEM AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!

          • Dave Lee

            Except that fear-mongering has made GMOs the boogeyman so that when people see GMO on the label they run away.

          • Pel Abbott

            But if GMOs ARE so great – LABEL THEM – so people can start to learn about how truly GREAT they are. Otherwise science is just pandering to corporations. (As if they aren’t.)

          • bobito

            I’ve been asking the pharma companies for years to label their drugs with the planet the aliens brought them from. But they just keep saying it’s all safe… don’t worry about it.

            Clearly this is proof that the drugs are sourced from another world!!!

            Try and tell me otherwise and I’ll get all snippy and start swearing!!!!!

          • Rabidmob

            Lame argument.

            Labelling seems reasonable, not labelling seems deceptive.

            Deception implies ill intent.

            As such GMOs can’t be trusted unless labelled.

          • Pel Abbott

            Exactly.

          • bobito

            A lame argument is “F**k off”, so I was just trying to keep up…

          • Rabidmob

            Your reply seems a bit passive aggressive…

            I’m skeptical of GMOs, but I support the idea behind it.

            Not labelling leaves an obvious logical gap.

          • bobito

            Sorry for not footnoting that, the ‘passive aggressive’ quote was pulled from a post by Pel Abbott a few posts up…

            I don’t have a big problem with labels (depending on how you define labeling). I do have issues with people that come to a blog to preach instead of to learn…

          • Pel Abbott

            Go away, troll.

          • Pel Abbott

            At least I have the GUTS to use my real name and photograph.

          • bobito

            So, I guess I didn’t miss anything, thanks…

            I’ll gladly go away, clearly you are on the payroll of Monsanto to make anti-gmo folks seem unreasonable.

          • Pel Abbott

            LOL. Bye bye bobito, whoever the f**k that is, and who cares.

          • Karen Kapnick

            The only thing that is unreasonable is not labeling. Soon enough it will be labeled….no worries at all about that.

          • Buddy199

            Then we should label pork as endangering your immortal soul since 1.6 billion Muslims and millions of Jews are convinced of that fact. They have as much scientific proof of that as the anti-GMO crowd has to support their non-scientific, faith-based belief.

          • peter

            Right, and at minimum $3 million dollars to set up, monitor, and test will be pulled from other programs. That number doesn’t include litigation costs when farmers that don’t use GMOs are asked to label their products or when sneaky manufacturers decide to not label stuff. That’s $3 million dollars that won’t go to planned parenthood, that won’t go to subsidizing small farms, that won’t go to healthcare and education and insurance for public school teachers…

            Your side says, it’s only 10 cents per person over six years, what’s the big deal? It’s at least a $3 million dollar big deal and I don’t want to pay for something that only makes people feel better. You don’t want GMO, you pay for it by shopping at whole foods. It’s that simple, everyone wins.

          • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com Keith Kloor

            That doesn’t give you the right to be rude and to tell people to f**uck off.

            Chill out or go play in another sandbox.

          • Pel Abbott

            If that was the only part of my argument you remember, you clearly can’t keep up.

          • bobito

            I don’t consider ‘if they won’t label them they must be bad’ an argument. Did I miss something else worth discussing?

          • Buddy199

            Anybody who thinks that is actual communication should find a job in a field orher than marketing.

          • Kevin Folta

            No, labeling is not scientific. The only reason people are demanding labels is because they want them, and there is no difference between one and the other. It is fear of something they don’t understand.

            The same argument was once made about drinking fountains. “Just label them” because unsophisticated minds didn’t want to have to think.

          • Rabidmob

            Not scientific? Completely asinine, hiding the info is not scientific.

            I said not labelling makes people think you’re intentionally deceiving them.

            People should have the right to choose.

            Your reasoning is illogical.

          • Kitty Davenport

            There is a lot of difference between organic crops , heirloom crops and GMO crops. Difference in taste, appearance and nutrition. Some people actually *gasp* prefer the taste of heirloom organic produce and have a right to accurate labeling. To say that there is no difference between GMO crops and organic or heirloom crops is an outright misrepresentation of facts. Otherwise known as a lie.

          • Cairenn Day

            There is difference in a Red Delicious apple and a Granny Smith apple. You aren’t demanding that a jar of applesauce tell you what variety of apples in it.

            Do you have any evidence of a major difference in nutrition? If so please post a link to it.

            I still don’t understand why allowing non GMO producers to label their products is not enough for y’all. It is for organic, and Kosher and Halal, but not for y’all.

          • Kitty Davenport

            Not all non gmo food is or needs to be organic. And when I buy apples, yes I know what kind of apple I am buying. I dont buy applesauce. But yes I was just at the store and looked at some apple sauce and wow. They actually listed the type of apple as a point of pride and to assist in which kind to get. Granny smith is sour, red delish is sweet. So your argument is invalid. If GMO food is safe label it or STFU. Again I label ALL the ingredients in my soap. It is not hard.

          • Cairenn Day

            That is VOLUNTARY label. It is NOT a REQUIRED one. I am all for those that want to place a non GMO label to do it. I don’t the government making everyone do it.

            You are a small soapmaker, not Ivory. I had to call them to find out that there was coconut oil used in their soap.

            Soap making is NOT the same as farming.

            Have you ever talked to a real farmer about this? Real meaning someone with over 200 acres in a grain crop.

          • Kitty Davenport

            Yes I have. I was a member even of Future Farmers of America as a teen. I have even worked on farms. And still help a local organic farmer today.

            The government exists to preserve National security, to protect its people (We the People) from those who would exploit and defraud its people. The government exists to serve public interest. And if these giant corporations wont do the right thing and label on their own then yes we the people have a right demand honest labeling.

            That they spent millions fighting labeling makes them appear very untrustworthy, that they are hiding something. For less then the money they spent fighting they could have implemented their own labeling and an excellent public pr campaign. Which would have increased public trust.

            I also advocate for more accurate labeling of health and beauty products. Your welcome. If your going to buy soap at a market, I would recommend Kiss My Face or Dr Bonners as being relatively affordable and good products. Kiss My Face has an Olive Oil only soap and Dr Bronners is all Hemp Oil. Both have excellent labeling btw.

            As for make up, be careful and research carefully. There are some very unbeautiful things in those products and the labeling is designed to be very deceptive and confusing. There are some excellent brands of low to medium cost make up and personal care products that are wonderful and have honest labeling.

          • Cairenn Day

            I don’t use any makeup and I have been buying soap from artisan crafters for several years.

            I think that supplement and herbal products need to be labeled accurately and they are not. That is a case where voluntary labeling is not working. Many of them have little or none of the herb in them that they claim to have. I will only buy herbs from a creditable local herb store and I then use the raw herbs to make my own teas and tinctures. The government does need to regulate them, not GMOs.

            Even with the dried herbs, there is variance in level of the active ingredients.

          • peter

            LOL!! Dr. Bonners is one of the biggest funding sources of the yes on 522 campaign!

          • Kitty Davenport

            Yes. And they did not try to hide their contribution as Monsanto has done repeatedly. They make good soap and have ethical business practices. Monsanto? Not so much.

          • peter

            But this isn’t about labeling Monsanto products because their competitors want to cut their profits, that would be unconstitutional and unethical (or is it?). Just as if Monsanto started spreading lies and rumors that organic farm products were causing cancer and allergies and killing people and demanded labels that people would then interpret as unsafe would be unconstitutional.

            If you want to go after Monsanto’s practices you should do that. Instead your side is attacking technology in a much broader sense because you know that to blatantly say “we want to attack Monsanto’s profit margin” would not be politically acceptable.

            Meanwhile 522 WILL cost Washington state tax payers 10 cents annually for the next 6 years- that figure adds up to about $3 million dollars, it doesn’t include litigation costs or other hidden costs, and it doesn’t consider that large families with single incomes will bear the brunt even more because they have 5 or 6 children.

            More importantly, it will likely be ignored because the people that buy GMO products do so because they have no other choice because they cannot afford to shop organic. AND even more importantly, the marketers and drug pushers who push sugar/salt/fat won’t be held responsible for producing and marketing the foods (GMO or not) that really are making us all fat and sick.

            if 522 passes, Monsanto gets more ammo against you (we labeled everything, what more do you want). Peoples shopping habits change very little (unless the prices of food really do change a lot and then poor people will have an even harder time feeding their families). We lose they win, you can’t see that because you are wealthy and fat and you can afford to feed your stomach and your belief system.

          • peter

            How many teens with unwanted babies will not get the health care and counseling they need because $3 million was spent on labels that don’t make sense?

            How many public school teachers will have to go without insurance or salary increases because you thought it was more important to enact poorly thought out legislation?

            How many bridges will continue to deteriorate because labels are more important than infrastructure?

            522 doesn’t make sense. You want GMO labels, MAKE CORPORATE FARMS PAY FOR THEM! Not the average tax payer, that is not right.

          • Kitty Davenport

            oh good grief what a bunch of bullshit.

          • peter

            please elaborate?

          • Karen Kapnick

            Actually when we go to the store the Red Delicious and Granny Smith ARE labeled. So should GMOs

          • Cairenn Day

            Do you understand the difference in voluntary and mandatory labeling?

            Many stores want varieties of apples to me marked in some way, because there is often a price difference.

            How often do you see a variety on carrots? or watermelons or many other produce items. I can find unmarked apples easily.

            Often the ‘named variety’ sells for more, like Vidala or 1015 onions or Texas Ruby Red grapefruit.

            Check this site out and see how many different types of onions that they offer for sale.

            http://www.dixondalefarms.com/category/short_day_onions

            Or you can ignore it and remain ignorant. The choice is yours.

            I choose knowledge over ignorance and fear.

          • Karen Kapnick

            The only thing that is ignorant or fearful is not using labels for GMOs.

          • Buddy199

            I am convinced cameras are the work of the Devil. Millions of people the world over agree with me. Is it too much to ask that they be labeled to warn users that their souls might be stolen by such technological devilry?

          • Rabidmob

            Your metaphor doesn’t address my argument, instead you’re misinterpreting my argument and rebutting your own misinterpretation.

          • Buddy199

            How is labeling based on deception and foolishness going to empower consumers?

          • Arron Bound

            It isn’t deceptive to tell a person what is in their food.

            It is deceptive to hide how things are made.

          • RobertWager

            So why is “made with ionizing radiation mutagenesis” not called for on organic food? What are they hiding?

          • Kitty Davenport

            Yes GMo’s are deceptive and foolish. Which is why labeling them will help consumers avoid them if they want to. And scientists and gmo fans can them seek them out and eat them to exclusion. ;P

          • Rabidmob

            To my knowledge, it’s not deception to label something what it is.

            I’m not saying surgeon general’s warning.

            Personally I’m quite alarmed that processed meat from China has been cleared for sale in the US and does not require labeling either.

          • Karen Kapnick

            we don’t eat camera’s. illogical.

          • Karen K

            Look at the people on Argentina and how sick they are…all from
            Agrochemicals. which includes Glyphosate, the key ingredient in
            Monsanto’s Round Up products and in GMOs

          • bobito

            There is nothing GMO about agrochemicals, they are used on non-GMO crops as well.

            From the article I found on this (AP sourced on abcnews.com) it seems the issues are due to farmers not following regulations pertaining to the use of agrochemicals.

            How does a farmer not following instructions in Argentina connect with a requirement for GMO labels in the USA?

          • Arron Bound

            Because even in America we continue to increase our use of pesticides and chemicals while increasing our use of GMO crops.

            http://www.examiner.com/article/gmo-crops-increase-pesticide-use

          • bobito

            Amazing… the use of roundup increased after the introduction of roundup ready crops!

            Did you look at the information (including the slideshow) in the article you supplied? To say pesticide use is increasing BECAUSE OF GMO is quite a stretch given the information contained in the charts…

          • Arron Bound

            You are miss-reading what I said. I said, “in America we continue to increase our use of pesticides and chemicals while increasing our use of GMO crops.” You said because of GMO.

            What I am eluding to is GMO crops that splice pesticides into the product maybe worthless. As the article says a “main selling points for GE crops was that they would decrease pesticide use. This has not been realized.”

            So not only do the crops we eat have roundup in them, they aren’t doing the job they were advertised to do. Now farmers have to continue to pay licensing fees for grain and increase amounts of pesticides. Who pays for this increase?

          • bobito

            You are mixing up technologies. There are GE crops with BT pesticides built into the product.
            - and -
            There are roundup ready crops that are tolerant of roundup.

            On the BT crops, BT is part of the product, so will be there regardless of anything that is sprayed, or not, on the fields.

            Roundup in the food is due to roundup being sprayed on roundup ready crops.

            The fact that roundup ready crops are leading to roundup tolerant weeds is no different than any other herbicide. If you use it enough the weeds will adapt.

            This is all logical, and has nothing to do with GMO being harmful or as a reason to label foods that contain GMOs.

          • Karen Kapnick

            It has everything to do with labeling. The herbicide is the same regardless of the technology.

          • Karen Kapnick

            Once the chemicals are used bugs develop a resistance to the GMO crops. SO farmers use MORE of it. Rinse Repeat.

          • Karen Kapnick

            The crops in the pictures are of GMO crops. It just proves how toxic they are…no safe level.

          • bobito

            Sigh… The issues they are talking about are due to chemicals, not GMO. Herbicides would be used either way. Unless they go back to tilling, which causes soil erosion and silting of watercourses.

            And having BT baked into the crop means LESS spraying of chemicals until the bugs get a resistance to the BT, of course…

          • Karen Kapnick

            Sigh.Glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Round Up products…which is also ingred in GMOs. And actually..no it hasn’t been proven that the stuff baked into the crops means less spraying of chemicals..in fact..its taking more of it. Which is why the farmers in Argentina are sick. Wow…you “scientists” sure do twist the facts around. Sigh.

          • bobito

            Glyphosate is not engineered into plants, a tolerance to it is engineered into the plants. If I’m wrong, please send me a link to something that shows otherwise because I’d like to learn about it.

            Glyphosate is a herbicide used to kill weeds. Unless weeds are eating crops it wouldn’t help to have it be part of the plant…

            I think you are mixing up roundup ready GMO with BT GMO… BT is a pesticide that is engineered into the plants so it kills the bugs that try to eat it.

            And, I’m not a scientist, just a curious googler…

          • Kevin Folta

            You got it right. Roundup resistance replaces one enzyme in the plant with a version that does the same thing thng but does not bind glyphosate.

            Super cool!

          • Benjamin Edge

            And you take the word of non-scientists with an agenda over data and facts from scientists. Sigh.

          • Karen Kapnick

            That’s so funny..Follow the money. Monsanto has left a very obvious trail. That’s called an agenda.

          • Benjamin Edge

            Where is the funding for the GMO-labeling bills coming from? Mercola, Dr. Bronner, the OCA, Jeffrey Smith, etc. They certainly aren’t doing it out of concern for my health. The organic industry has much more revenue than Monsanto. These folks are going after agribusiness’ livelihood, and question why they are defending themselves. What do the GM-labeling sponsors expect to get out of it? Market share!

          • Karen Kapnick

            Are you serious? They don’t gain anything from GMOs being labeled..they don’t sell seeds or farm…so how could they get market share? The people buying the stuff with GMOs in don’t buy organic. Funny how you were the one who mentioned out of concern for health. And FYI.The gov’t spend 54 million on GMOs..$775,000 on organics.

          • RobertWager

            “We are going to force them to label this
            food. If we have it labeled we can
            organize people not to buy it.” Andrew Kimbell-Center
            for Food Safety http://www.activistcash.com/person/1562-andrew-kimbrell/

            }“Personally,
            I believe GM foods must be banned entirely, but labeling is the most efficient
            way to achieve this”

            ◦- Dr.
            Joseph Mercola

            http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/02/29/new-vermont-gmo-labeling-policy-officially-introduced.aspx

            }“How
            – and how quickly – can we move healthy, organic products from a 4.2% market
            niche, to the dominant force in American food and farming?

            }“The first
            step is to change our labeling laws.

            ◦–
            Ronnie Cummins

            https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/02-0

          • Karen Kapnick

            Right. its bad for people and bad for environment. That’s why it was never FDA approved in the first place.

          • RobertWager

            The National Academy of Sciences 2010 report “Impact of GE crops on Farm Sustainability in the US said:

            }In general,
            the committee finds that genetic-engineering
            technology has produced substantial net environmental and economic
            benefits to U.S. farmers
            compared with non-GE crops in conventional
            agriculture.

            -Generally,
            GE crops have had
            fewer adverse effects on the environment
            than non-GE crops produced conventionally.

            -The
            adoption of HT crops
            complements conservation tillage practices,
            which reduce
            the adverse effects of tillage on soil
            and water quality.

            -Insecticide use has decreased with
            the adoption of
            insect-resistant (Bt)crops.

          • Karen Kapnick

            That contradicts with other reports from scientists. There was one out today..plus you need to disclose how much Monsanto paid for the report. Like they pay for everything. Sadly, including scientists. Again, you must not sleep very well.

          • RobertWager

            Karen we are trying to show you how you are myth-informed. The global scientific opinion is overwhelmingly in support of GE crops and food. I sleep very well knowing I am helping people understand the real science of GMO’s. Monsanto made $11 billion last year, do you really think they paid off every science organization in the world off with that?

          • Karen Kapnick

            Monsanto made 11 billion of poisoning the entire planet. How sickening. And Yes..the govt spent 54 million on GMOs..so I’m sure that bought a lot.

          • RobertWager

            Did you know 70 countries have active R&D programs in GE crop development?

          • Karen Kapnick

            Organic farmers didn’t make near that amount…but I am going to change that.:) I’ll remember you Robert.

          • RobertWager

            The idea of little organic farmers is quaint. Today the same food corporations that bring you conventional food also sell you organic food for an elevated price.

          • Karen Kapnick

            Look at how this myth was cleared up…http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24625808

          • Karen Kapnick

            And the FDA is RUN by former Monsanto employees and they STILL couldn’t get it approved. Like I said..how the hell do you sleep at night. You must not know about karma.

          • Cairenn Day

            The organic food industry profits are almost flat, they need more folks to buy their expensive, unneeded products.

          • Karen Kapnick

            You are really sick..of course all you’re worried about is the money/market share. Not the HARM this crap is doing to our planet. That’s why France, Italy, Mexico among many others BANNED it. Does Mercola and the rest have control over those countries.

          • RobertWager

            And the $50 billion in organic food is ?

          • Cairenn Day

            If you bake a batch of cookies and you put a half cup of salt in them instead of the 1/2 teaspoon the recipe called for, it is not that the salt is ‘toxic’ that will make the cookies uneatable. The problem is YOUR MISUSE of the salt.

            The farmers in Argentina are not following the instructions. Don’t blame the product when it is misused.

            Heck there is a poster on this thread that is attempting to bully folks. That doesn’t mean that we should eliminate the internet.

          • Kitty Davenport

            i understand what your talking about. However pesticides and herbicides while connected to GMO’s are not in themselves GMO’s. As we are dealing with paid trolls we need to be as specific and careful as we can.

            HOWEVER GMO crops do require more pesticides and herbicides. And that is a serious concern especially for people with sensitive systems and illnesses that can be irrated by them.

          • bobito

            Pesticides and herbicides are used on non GMO crops a well, so a GMO label won’t help anyone to identify if they have been used on their food.

          • Kevin Folta

            Organic farmers dump 6-10 lbs of copper per acre as an anti-microbial. THey say it is okay because it is natural. it is a toxic heavy metal. It poisons groundwater and is toxic to humans.

          • Arron Bound
          • RobertWager

            Here is the world opinion of the pseudo-science that scared you.

            http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/gmf-agm/seralini-eng.php

          • Kevin Folta

            So do the controls. Which the researchers conveniently omit from Figure 3. Are you being deceived? Look at table 2 and figure 3. Table 2 says non GM controls get tumors. No control in figure 3. You’ve been manipulated and are defending it. How do you feel about that? Tell me, why not show the control in Figure 3?

          • Karen K

            Look at the people on Argentina and how sick they are…all from Agrochemicals. which includes Glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Round Up products and in GMOs. Truth hurts.

          • mem_somerville

            Oh, CAPS and exclamation points are an awesome marketing strategy. Incredibly convincing. In what course did you pick that up?

            However, those of us in science ask for more. Can you (asking again) tell me what you eat that doesn’t make pesticides in their DNA?

          • Arron Bound

            Oh you want science miss “scientist.” While mez not smart enough to answer you. But here is a link to scientific articles on how “DNA from GE foods can end up in your genes.” Now I’m no smart like you, so you go read over all of the articles and tell me what you think, OK.

            http://www.psrast.org/dnauptakechick.htm

          • RobertWager

            Really? If that fear story were true then why are you not your favourite food by now?

          • Pythia Renfield

            We should label gay people too, they should have to wear little stickers that code for gay, you know, just to be safe.

          • Kitty Davenport

            We have ex Monsanto and other bio tech employees in our regulatory agencies. It is a clear case of conflict of interest. Also considering how much money these giants have given to politicians creating the laws regarding these issues it is no wonder people do not trust GMO’s. Easy solution? LABEL GMO food. Let people make their own choices.

          • RobertWager

            So if not those who actually understand the science of GMO’s , who would you like to regulate the science?

          • Kitty Davenport

            scientists who have not worked for large corporations in that field. Even in the private sector we have non compete contracts and laws. I can not bounce from one large real estate corperation to another. I have to wait a year. There is nothing wrong with doing the same thing with these positions. There is a concept in high security jobs I have worked in called the appearance of impropriety. And in this case it is relative. There is an appearance of impropriety that has to be addressed. Take care of that issue, label the food and let people work it out for themselves. If your proud of your GMO food label it.

        • Dave Lee

          That’s the whole point. They aren’t harmful so why should they be labelled? Also, who’s going to pay for the increased costs of labelling? You? And what body is going to oversee the labelling?

          • Pel Abbott

            The same “body” that requires expiration dates on food, as well as all ingredients listed. The MANUFACTURERS will pay for the labeling, like they do for ALL labeling.

            Yet another STUPID reply.

          • mem_somerville

            You are aware that the MANUFACTURERS are having issues with the dates because it’s causing FOOD WASTE, right?

            LIke the GMO labeling gambit, it’s actually a MARKETING strategy.

            Misleading labels are such a bad idea. But some people want them anyway.

          • Pel Abbott

            Yet another fake profile and a coward.

          • mem_somerville

            Still evading the question, eh? I don’t care who you are if you are astonishingly clueless. But if that’s who you want to be–embrace teh vacuousness!

          • Arron Bound

            Expiration dates and labeling what is in the food are two different things.

            To argue the necessity of expiration dates and tie it into GMO labeling is far fetched.

            Since you are the scientist can you explain your reasoning to me?

            Maybe the only label on a product should be ‘Food, Milk, Bread’ and of course the manufacturer’s name.

            End the labeling of all food products!

          • Kitty Davenport

            There is nothing misleading in labeling GMO’s unless the ingredient is non GMO. Logical fail.

          • RobertWager

            And how would you label a loaf of bread? Remember it must be truthful.

          • Kitty Davenport

            The same way I label my soap and many food companies already do label their food. Its so easy.
            Let me give you an example of how easy, ok? I am starting my timer:

            Current Label
            Ingredients

            WHOLE WHEAT FLOUR, WATER, UNBLEACHED ENRICHED WHEAT FLOUR [FLOUR, MALTED BARLEY
            FLOUR, REDUCED IRON, NIACIN, THIAMIN MONONITRATE (VITAMIN B1), RIBOFLAVIN (VITAMIN B2), FOLIC ACID],
            SUGAR, FLAXSEED, BULGUR WHEAT, WHEAT GLUTEN, YEAST, ALMONDS (NUTS), MOLASSES, HAZELNUTS
            (FILBERTS), SOYBEAN OIL, SALT, SESAME SEEDS, CALCIUM PROPIONATE (PRESERVATIVE), MONO- AND
            DIGLYCERIDES, DATEM AND/OR SODIUM STEAROYL LACTYLATE, GRAIN VINEGAR, CALCIUM SULFATE, CARAMEL
            COLOR, NATURAL BLACK WALNUT FLAVOR, SOY LECITHIN, CITRIC ACID, WHEY, SOY FLOUR, NONFAT MILK

            Updated Label for example ONLY. I do not know if this company uses GMO sourced ingredients. I am not implying that they do.

            Ingredients

            WHOLE WHEAT FLOUR, WATER, UNBLEACHED ENRICHED WHEAT FLOUR [FLOUR, MALTED BARLEY
            FLOUR, REDUCED IRON, NIACIN, THIAMIN MONONITRATE (VITAMIN B1), RIBOFLAVIN (VITAMIN B2), FOLIC ACID],
            SUGAR GMO, FLAXSEED, BULGUR WHEAT, WHEAT GLUTEN, YEAST, ALMONDS (NUTS), MOLASSES, HAZELNUTS
            (FILBERTS), SOYBEAN OIL GMO, SALT, SESAME SEEDS, CALCIUM PROPIONATE (PRESERVATIVE), MONO- AND
            DIGLYCERIDES, DATEM AND/OR SODIUM STEAROYL LACTYLATE, GRAIN VINEGAR, CALCIUM SULFATE, CARAMEL
            COLOR, NATURAL BLACK WALNUT FLAVOR, SOY LECITHIN GMO, CITRIC ACID, WHEY, SOY FLOUR GMO, NONFAT MILK

            That took me less than 2 min. There is no excuse not to label accurately. Any excuses not to are just whinning and distraction. If GMO food is safe label it. Stop complaining, stop spending millions in hidden donations to prevent honest labeling and just label the damn GMO’s.

          • Buddy199

            WHAT is your PROBLEM??? OMG!!!

          • Kitty Davenport

            If we can label Organic food we can easily label GMO food. If we can label ingredients we can easily label GMO food. Seriously. If GMO food is safe label it.

          • RobertWager

            Read this and you will understand what you are asking

            http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf

          • Kitty Davenport

            Sweetheart this article is gas lighting. It is not that hard to add three initials on an ingredient list. I make organic soap as a side gig. I label my soap ingredients very accurately. As is required by law by the way. It is simple. I read the FDA guidelines for soap labeling, I sat on my computer for an hour or so and made ingredient labels. So easy. Not at all a big deal. If I an Etsy seller ca do this giant corporations with massive resources can do this. I am proud of the soap I make. And I know some of the essential oils I use may potentially cause allergic reactions in people. And I label accordingly. My allergy warning label and ingredient labels have not slowed sales in any way. In fact I am often complimented and thanked for my clear labeling. So there is no acceptable excuse for not labeling GMO food. People want it, people care about it it is our money so if your proud of your GMO food label it.

          • peter

            I wouldn’t oppose a labeling program that made the companies profiting off of GMOs pay for labels, but $3 million dollars of tax payers money is being pissed away. Your side agrees with that number, they just divide by the population and say “it’s just ten cents per citizen for 6 years, who cares”. When I go broke and have to eat at the food bank at the end of every pay period ten cents matters, every penny matters. And it’s not going to just be ten cents. The Monsanto’s of the world will flood the courts with litigation and the tax payers are going to eat the costs when they win.

            522 is a bad idea.

          • Kevin Folta

            Let companies voluntarily label. Why should I have to pay for a new level of bureaucracy and enforcement because you are scientifically illiterate? HELL-O, our country is broke, states have no funding for necessary programs and now you want to create a new, expensive infrastructure because you are affluent, have plenty of calories and are afraid. Listen to scientists, not activists. Activists are lying to you and you are falling for it. (BTW, I’m one of thousands of independent, public scientists that oppose anti-GM nonsense).

          • Jake

            You label organic food voluntarily so that you can command a premium price. It has nothing to do with whether the label can be used, it is about whether it has to be used. Forced labeling is unnecessary

          • Arron Bound

            So what you are saying is we shouldn’t label any food product? Or we shouldn’t label GMO food products. Why label anything we eat?

          • Jake

            There is a distinct difference between requiring a label for a product without any evidence of harm to the public health and between voluntarily labeling your product to reach a different market. If you are going to require a label, you’d better have some evidence that the label is necessary to protect public interests.

            People label their food as organic because THEY CAN USE THAT LABEL TO MAKE MORE MONEY. They are not required to use the label.

            What the “label all GMOs” campaign does, is blanket a hazard statement across an entire science. If it can be proven and reviewed scientifically that a specific GM product does cause harm – then by all means label it. But you cannot say that “GM is bad and nothing good can come from it”. What about golden rice? What about the thousands of acres of crops growing on marginal land? What about the incredible DECREASE in the use of chemical pesticides due to pest-resistant crops?

          • Arron Bound

            We forced labeling of sugar before we there was evidence of its toxicity if ingested at high doses. We force the labeling of food additives. So when one is shown to be cancerous we can read the labels and not buy that product that contains chemicals/sugar/ingredients we don’t want.

            Many organic companies are putting non-GMO labels on their products, and yes it is a market based choice. When you see non-GMO those farmers didn’t have to pay a companies licensing rights to grow their product. Yes the organic companies that add non-GMO labels will start to see their market share increase.

            You are promoting the licensing of seeds to farmers, I understand and have no argument for that. But if you want to wait for an ingredient to be proven cancerous then that mentality should be used against all labeling not just GMO labeling.

            Finally yes they have produced rice with higher protein. Great I still want to know. If there is nothing wrong with GMO crops why do so many countries around the world ban it? I want the chance to make the decision to buy something with GMO or not.

            Do you fear choice?

          • Cairenn Day

            Your first link discusses potatoes, a NON GMO crop.

            The second one, only addresses the OVERALL use, not just the use on GMO crops. It is not good for evidence of your point. One also needs to look at the amount of land planted also.

            The push for ethanol has increased the amount of corn planteed,

            Why don’t you talk to the farmers that BUY and use the glyphosate? They choose GMOs because they need less chemicals.

            The farmers had to deal with weeds before there were GMOs.

          • Jake

            Many things wrong here:

            1) We did not “force labeling of sugar” – sugar is the product being sold. If you are talking about the nutritional disclosure that goes for all food substances. And following your logic about “sugar being toxic in high doses” – are you suggesting that we should label water as “toxic at high doses: significant risk of hyponatremia”?

            2) I live in Missouri – I work and interact with farmers every single day. Talk to them every day about how they used to control pests and weeds: spraying 4-5 times a year with a multitude of different products. Now they are basically spraying with glyphosphate and that is it – and their average yields and profitability has increased. I understand the point – that patenting life and licensing seeds is an unsavory concept – but it is increasing the living standards of farmers and making farming a better business to be in, at least in Missouri.

            Resistance is an issue, but the best tool to fight against fast-mutating pests is not organic farming – you can either stop planting monocultures or you can rely on the incredible power of genetic modification. Organic does not confer resistance to monocultures – just ask all those organic potato farmers in the famine.

            3) You do not need a mandatory label to avoid GMOs – look at the ingredient list for basically any trace of commodity crops – if they are there, then avoid that food and buy organic produce. Modified corn starch, soy lechiten, isolated soy protein, etc. etc. If you are so informed, you should already know what you are buying.

            This is not about choice, it is about drumming up hysteria – and it has been successful in other countries – DESPITE scientific evidence that GMOs are safe to eat.

          • Kitty Davenport

            Say that to a parent with a child who has severe food allergies. Or religious food restrictions. Sorry but if your proud of GMO food label it. So simple. To do otherwise makes people think your afraid and hiding something. And trying to take a choice away from them. Not good.

          • Karen Kapnick

            EVERYTHING is labeled. And GMOs will be too. You can either let it happen or participate.

          • Arron Bound

            How in the world would it increase the cost of labeling? Like every manufactured produced is already labelled? So adding ‘GMO’ would cost a lot of money? The production process is already in place from field to store shelf.

            Dave your argument is pretty lame, it makes me question your ability to reason and the validity of your comments.

          • RobertWager

            No the costs come form the law that states all food labels must be truthful Therefore all claims must be verified by one method or another. In Europe they avoid GE ingredients. here in NA we have 70% of our food with some GE ingredients. So in order to have truthful labels a tracking system which would involve significant increase in the food distribution system would come at a significant cost to consumers. Did you not read the AMA/AAAS document . Here is the link again

            http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf

          • peter

            It’s oversight and litigation that will cost us all. Both sides agree that the price tag is minimum $3 million dollars in six years WITHOUT CONSIDERING LITIGATION COSTS.

          • Kitty Davenport

            We already make people label foods. Ingredient lists, nutrition information. A little extra ink saying contains GMO corn is not going to break the bank or hurt anybody. And the regulatory agency already enforcing ingredient lists and nutrition information is more then good enough to say ad the initials GMO before ingredients that are GMO sourced. Its not that hard or expensive. If your proud of your GMO’s then label them.

          • peter

            NO! BOTH SIDES IN WA AGREE THAT IT WILL COST WA TAX PAYERS A MINIMUM OF $3 MILLION DOLLARS TO IMPLEMENT AND ENFORCE LABELING FROM 522. THAT FIGURE DOESN’T INCLUDE LITIGATION!!!

          • Karen Kapnick

            There is no cost for labeling…MUTIPLE studies have proven that. You’re using old messaging.

          • peter

            No, BOTH SIDES IN WA AGREE THAT IT WILL COST TAX PAYERS A MINIMUM OF $3 MILLION DOLLARS.

            That’s three million that won’t go to subsidize micro farms, that won’t go to public education, that won’t go to planned parenthood. That is 100 times my annual salary.

          • Karen Kapnick
          • peter

            So you are saying that companies will just comply to the law for free and we won’t have to oversee the process, or that overseeing the process will somehow have a zero price tag? Doesn’t add up, doesn’t make sense. Doesn’t include litigation for basically attempting to unconstitutionally harpoon a legitimate business because it conflicts with your business.

            You want to go after Monsanto(s), do it in a legit way and I will support you. Spread lies and fear and cost the tax payers money with poorly thought out legislation, I take issue.

          • Karen Kapnick

            Peter…now you throw in the word unconstitutionally…you are such a troll..done talking with you, And yes before CT passed their label laws they did their own research…NO Cost.

          • Karen Kapnick

            COST THE TAXPAYER MONEY…WE”VE BEEN PAYING FOR GMOS! GOVT SPENT 54 MILLLION>>>WHERE DO THEY GET THEIR MONEY FROM. Clueless and corrupt.

          • peter

            If you don’t think that the government should subsidize research that is a separate issue.

            I personally think that insulin and other drugs that save lives from a beaker instead of from slaughtering cows or harvesting cadavers is worth spending some money on. But we are talking about food, and farmers, especially corn farmers, do get a lot of subsidies. Is that the 54 million you are talking about or what? I am not familiar with that dollar amount, where does it come from? Did you post it previously and I missed it?

          • peter

            Look, your side agrees that the oversight will cost us, the Washington State tax payers $3 million. We don’t have income tax so it’s not going to come out of the big corporate guys salary. Whether or not you agree with that figure is irrelevant because that is the projected cost and that is roughly what the Washington State government will place in that coffer. Which means that $3 million, plus litigation costs, will not go to other programs that are more immediately relevant.

            I sympathize with your movement because I don’t agree with corporate farming or ownership of DNA. I don’t like the way you are going about it and I think you know that deep in your heart you just want to see the Monsanto(s) fail. I also can’t always afford organic food and I am concerned that the economic factors that can’t be accurately predicted will mean higher costs. I would be more excited about a bill that labels harmful products regardless of their GMO status.

            Anyway, sorry you feel like you’ve been trolled. I am genuinely concerned that this is a bad bill that will take money from other programs and do little to stop people from corporate farming.

            Best of luck to you.

          • Karen Kapnick

            I really don’t care if Monsanto fails. Hiding information for the last 20 years is just despicable…was Monsanto’s choice and why they’re in the position now. I’ve never seen a number like 3 million and I make sure to get information from multiple sources..not just one. People should have the right to choose…good or bad. THATS what I support.

          • peter

            The figure $3 million comes from the WSAS here:

            http://www.washacad.org/initiatives/WSAS_i522_WHITEPAPER_100913.pdf

            The yes side took basically the same number and divided it by the population to estimate 10 cents per tax payer annually for 6 years, which is admittedly a crude but reasonable estimate of the amount that most tax payers will have to pay for oversight of the program (recall, no income tax in washington state so it will have to come from sales tax which means poor people will pay the same as rich people).

            It doesn’t consider large families with single incomes, so maybe some poor families with lots of kids will have to pay 50 or 60 cents per year. Doesn’t seem like much when you put it that way, but- when you consider that $3 million dollars will be spent that could have gone to better programs that directly benefit the poor it’s a big number to piss away (and this labeling will *not* directly benefit the poor because they will still be forced to buy the cheapest food products out there which is guess what, GMO).

            I resent people like you because you don’t realize that what you’re doing by calling for these labels is not going to dent their bottom lines, it’s going to dent the bottom lines of the penniless who couldn’t afford organic products anyway.

          • Karen Kapnick

            You know Peter…for a scientist or whatever you are…you make a LOT of assumptions. and your math is just plain WRONG. I resent someone like you for TELLING people what they should eat. We get a choice in this country..thats the way it is and the way it should be.

          • peter

            I never said I was a scientist. I haven’t completed my training and I am starting to wonder if I will complete my training.

            Tell me what my assumptions are?

            I never said you should or shouldn’t eat GMO. I’m saying if you have the money you should support stores like Whole Foods and pay them to do the oversight. Or pay for organic produce at your store of choice.

          • peter

            It’s not my math anyway. It’s your sides math. Assuming that implementing a new government program will just fall out of thin air without investment is just plain crazy.

          • peter

            Here’s a snippet from some real scientists.

            “There have been no statistically significant, repeatable evidence of adverse human health consequences due to GM products. Given the current state of knowledge and evidence, GM foods are considered to “not differ” in safety as compared with foods with non-GM ingredients. Continued surveillance of food safety, including long-term health effects, is warranted for both GM and non-GM containing foods.” (WSAS)

          • peter

            This article is primarily talking about a change in food prices due to economic factors (ie a shift in the economics due to a change in labeling). That may or may not happen, but for sure there will be a $3 million dollar price tag associated with oversight.

          • Karen Kapnick

            How did you get 3 million and where is the research done to prove it?

          • Karen Kapnick

            Govt spend 54 million on GMOs last year…$775,000 on organics. Don’t tell me about subsidies for micro farms…

          • peter

            I’m going off the report from the WSAS and the YES on 522 ads that claim it’s 10 cents annually for every tax payer.

          • Kevin Folta

            Karen, then who pays for setting up a system to ensure compliance and enforcement? This will be volunteer work? It will be millions per year, on top of the costs to farmers to segregate crops or stop growing GM.

            Frankly, the farmers I know are seriously nervous about well fed city folks dictating their practices.

          • Karen Kapnick

            There’s no “system” for compliance. Corporations are the ones who label..they redo their labels every few years. The gov’t does not pay for it. That’s a huge lie. The “city folks” are 90% of Americans and actually include many farmers!!! Wash, St, New Hampshire, Long Island. Every country expect US and CA Labels! Even CHINA.

        • Ripshed

          Why do GMOs need to be labeled? What is wrong with them that requires labeling? See, here’s the thing with labeling: we label things that are harmful or potentially harmful, like tobacco.

          To ordinary consumers, this label will carry the same weight as the Surgeon General’s warning.

          Should food prepared by black people be labeled too?

          • Pel Abbott

            You obviously haven’t read the thread at all. Big food corporations want to HIDE the fact that their foods are genetically modified.

            If they WERE really good for you, they’d have labels all over them! Liars.

          • Pel Abbott

            By the way FAKE profile people, why don’t you post your very OWN comment, and stop replying to mine.

          • Cairenn Day

            You attacked anyone that disagrees with you.

            Let’s look some FACTS.

            There are almost 1800 studies showing GMO food to be safe.

            http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdf

            Don’t think there are any long term studies? Here are some.

            http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2012/10/24/a-survey-of-long-term-gm-food-studies/

            Don’t trust any studies from the US? Here is a decade of studies from the EU.

            https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7hhP5QasNtsX1AwV2YzNnlrZTA/edit?pli=1

            What do the experts from around the world say?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          • Pel Abbott

            Another fake profile tries to school me in what this article already states. Please – go right ahead and ingest all the GMO food you care to. Please – by all means – drink rat poison if you like. The sooner the better.

          • Pel Abbott

            I have found the BEST STUDY OF ALL!

            http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/06/addressing-the-global-food-crisis

            The HERITAGE FOUNDATION supports genetically modified food! Thanks KKKoch Brothers. This explains why Discover Magazine has gone to the dark side. Soon we will be reading that climate change is normal (i.e. the Ice Ages were) and we should be happy to be breathing pollution.

          • Buddy199

            Please take your broken Caps Lock button and go back to DailyKos.

          • Pel Abbott

            LOL!!! That was quite a slapdown! Thanks for making me laugh. Now I know you fake profile people are just hired Bagger trolls. Big surprise.

            Good job Discover Magazine!

          • Buddy199

            Keith, where’s my check for October?

          • Kevin Folta

            That’s some scholarly logic Pel. You realize that Hitler ate all organic food, right?

          • Pel Abbott

            LOL – Hitler?

            You’re an idiot.

          • Cairenn Day

            I am NOT a fake profile. Lady. I am as real as you are.

            Your last statement shows your intolerance for anyone that does not share your beliefs.

          • Pel Abbott

            Am I required to be tolerant now? LOL! At least I have the GUTS to show my real photo and use my real name. Why don’t you go post your own comment instead of pissing on mine…oh that’s right, because no one cares what you think. *don’t have a nice day!*

          • Cairenn Day

            My photo is one of MY artwork. It is unfortunate that you have to use a picture of yourself, instead of something you created.

            Is is possible for you to not attack others? Did you teach your children that insulting and verbally assaulting others were ok? If so, then you are a part of the bully problem.

            Tweeners and younger folks name call. Adults have discussions. You can’t seem to manage that.

          • Pel Abbott

            I can manage quite well with people I know and care about. Which excludes you.

          • Benjamin Edge

            I’d rather be a fake profile (I’m not) than such a vile person. Maybe you should take to heart your Google plus profile statement: “Into marketing and music and liberal politics. Can’t stand haters.” If you can’t stand haters, don’t be a hater.

            It’s interesting that you post on someone else’s open blog page and then feel you have the right to criticize others for replying to your posts. If you post, you are fair game for others to reply to, unless the blog owner says something different.

          • Ripshed

            I have read the thread and addressed it by asking you what is wrong with GMOs to require that they be labeled.

            Please tell us why GMOs need to be labeled for the consumer.

          • Pel Abbott

            Yes, irrelevant. Fake profiles are not worth replying to.

          • Kitty Davenport

            Consumers have the right to make that decision for themselves. We have a right to make informed purchasing decisions. My money is not an entitlement for food manufacturers. And if I want to buy non gmo food that is my right. If your proud of it label it and explain to people why you are proud of it. Otherwise it creates the appearance of impropriety. GMO;s need to be labeled for the consumer because we want it labeled. That simple. Our money and our decisions are our own. And it is exactly this entitled behavior that causes people to mistrust GMO food and its advocates to begin with.

          • Jake

            They aren’t trying to HIDE anything – labeling and segregating products costs A TON OF MONEY. If you want a product that is “free of GMOs” you have that right – and you can go find it at your local Trader Joe’s or wherever you shop.

            For millions of people that cannot afford the luxury of organic produce, they are going to pay more for the same thing because you “perceive” that they should know this particular thing about their food. There is no solid evidence that GMOs are unsafe – even if you produced evidence that a particular GMO was unsafe, it does not preclude the necessity of mandatory labeling for all GMOs.

            THAT IS RETARDED. Like super-duper science illiterate witch-doctor quackery retarded.

          • Pel Abbott

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/amywestervelt/2012/08/22/monsanto-dupont-spending-millions-to-oppose-californias-gmo-labeling-law/

            The money being spent to OPPOSE labeling speaks for itself. It’s not about the money. It’s about the secret GMO sauce – and patent rights. Neither Monsanto nor scientists are trying to “feed the world.” QUITE THE OPPOSITE.

            LABEL THIS CRAP posing as food. Better yet, ban GMOs altogether.

          • Cairenn Day

            Well, one you finally admitted the REAL reason behind the demand for labeling.

            YOU, want to eliminate GMOs altogether, in spite of all the benefits to the farmer, the consumer and to the environment that they provide.

          • Pel Abbott

            I never said anything less. I only ask why, IF indeed GMOs are so WONDERFUL, you don’t want them labeled. And all I get is that “it would cost all those poor corporations too much money.” Even though they are spending that amount to fight labeling.

            Something smells like poison here. And that would be GMOs and the GMO-loving fake profile trolls on this website. Like you, carrion. < yeah, I spelled it that way ;)

          • Cairenn Day

            GMOs are labeled for farmers, that is the proper place to label them.

            Have you checked out any the links I have posted? Or are you too busy thinking up another silly insult?

          • Kitty Davenport

            Your argument is invalid. Many things have labels that are not toxic pleasure items. Go pick up a box of cereal. Read the ingredients. It has a label. It tells you what is in the prepared food you are eating. Look up to nutrition information, it will tell you all kinds of useful information like the amount of calories, protein and nutrients. Adding the initials GMO before corn or soy on a label is easy. If GMO’s are safe and your proud of them label them. We label the ingredients in yogurt. And bread and everything else. Adding a few extra initials will not cause panic or cost extra money. It is not our job to protect the financial investments of corporations.

        • Cairenn Day

          Why? GMOs are a benefit to the farmer and there they are labeled. To the consumer, they are just a process. Do you demand to know if a field was plowed with a John Deere tractor or an International Harvester one or with a team of Belgian horses or with a team of mules?

          It is not a ‘simple request’ . It is one that will COST everyone more money. GMO crops will have to be separated from farm to store. Stores will have drop products so they can carry the ’boutique’ labeling you wish.

          I can’t afford that cost, you can buy organic now and avoid GMOs. You have a choice.

          • Arron Bound

            Crops are separated and labelled at the field. Farmers make more money if they have organic crops or non-GMO crops. How do you think products can label organic?

            You reasoning lacks any common sense.

            Stores don’t drop what sells, products that don’t sell get dropped. You have no understanding of business.

          • Cairenn Day

            Yes there organic farmers do label theirs, but most farmers don’t.

            Why don’t you try talking to some folks that really FARM, instead of those with big gardens.

            If a new product is introduced, a store has to make ROOM for it, that means that they have to DROP something else.

            I do understand business.

          • Benjamin Edge

            And that is part of why organic costs more. Of course the biggest reason organic costs more is that it can be used as a marketing tool to make more profit. The same thing you accuse the agribusinesses of doing, being in it for the profit.

            Keeping the great majority of the US crop production isolated by GM or non-GM would be extremely expensive. Organic can do it BECAUSE it is such a paltry proportion of the nation’s food supply.

            Admit it, what the pro-labeling push is all about is to force food companies to choose between GM and non-GM, and you hope they will choose non-GM.

        • Kitty Davenport

          Seriously. IF independent peer reviewed science proves GMO’s to be safe and pesticides to be safe LABEL them. If pesticides are so safe why are there signs warning people not to enter corp farms due to chemical hazards? Why do the farmers wear hazmat suits when spraying? If pesticides are so safe have a Monsanto CEO drink a glass of it on the Late Show. LABEL them. Anything less then accurate labeling is a lie. If your proud of your product stand by it and stop trying to force people to eat it or use it.

          • facefault

            On GMOs: “GMO” tells you nothing about the product. I’d be all for labeling what specific proteins they contain.
            On pesticides: do you know what “dosage” means?

          • Arron Bound

            To label or not to label that is the question.

            We do label, every farmer has to label their crop to sell it. But some people here
            are objecting to manufacturers having to label the processed food? Why don’t some of you think it is important for the everyday consumer to
            know what they are eating? Why? There would be hardly any added cost if
            every manufactured product is labeled already, dah. Oh wait yes, to print three letters will cost so much, tons of money.

            Farmers already have to label their GMO crops because there are a number of countries in the world that don’t want GMO crops in their food chain. So they have banned the import of them. And EU countries that can’t ban the import they ban the production of.

            Oh ya if GMO pesticide
            spliced crops are so good. Why has the use of pesticides increased along
            with the planting of GMO crops in the United States? You’d think it would be the other way around if the food product spliced with pesticide
            was effective. But one of you “scientist” can explain that to simple old me.

            So what was my point; pesticide usage has increased in the US, the cost to print GMO on a product is nothing, did I mention the
            study about rats that grow tumors after eating GMO crops (no look it up) or the Indian farmers that committed suicide after their GMO crops failed. Oh now I remember, GMO crops can be patient so farmers are
            forced to pay for something that was once free and now have to pay licensing fees. Who pays for the added cost of more pesticides (in the
            streams and lakes) and licensing fees? Hint not GMO producers.

          • facefault

            >Why don’t some of you think it is important for the everyday consumer to know what they are eating?
            For the same reason it’s not important for the everyday consumer to know what brand of fertilizer was used to produce what they eat.
            >Farmers already have to label their GMO crops
            No, they don’t. Import’s banned in the EU, but they aren’t labeled.
            >Why has the use of pesticides increased
            Because insects’ resistance to pesticides is always rising. It’s more cost-effective to use higher doses of a pesticide that insects have some resistance to than to switch to a more expensive pesticide that they have no resistance to, so that’s what farmers do.

            >Seralini study
            Terrible choice of model organism, since Sprague-Dawley rats naturally have extremely high cancer rates. Tiny sample size. “Creative” statistical methods, failed to report the relative rates of tumors, and no plausible mechanism.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair#Scientific_evaluation

            >Indian farmer suicides
            Myth.
            http://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2013/03/demolishing-myth-monsantos-engineered-cr

          • Kitty Davenport

            GMO tells you the product…contains GMO’s. And regardless of if you like it or not that matters to people. Corporations are not entitled to our purchases and money. If they want our purchases then they need to label their products. To do any less is creating an appearance of impropriety. And yes I understand about dosage. I was being sarcastic. However again as a consumer I have a right to choose not to eat pesticide treated produce. Again if it is so safe label it.

          • Cairenn Day

            Your example is silly and foolish. We need salt for our bodies to operate, but you don’t drink salt water. In fact, one could drink almost twice as much glyphosate as salt water without any issues.

            You want some studies, here they are, including ones from the EU

            Almost 1800 studies

            http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdf

            A Decade of EU-funded GMO Research

            https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7hhP5QasNtsX1AwV2YzNnlrZTA/edit?pli=1

            A Survery of Long Term GM Food Studies

            http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2012/10/24/a-survey-of-long-term-gm-food-studies/

          • Kitty Davenport

            Then drink it. Put your money where your mouth is and film it. Beyond that, label the food. If your proud of GMO food and feel it is safe label it and allow consumers to choose.

          • Cairenn Day

            Why would anyone drink something that is NOT made to be drank? That is the silliest reasoning I have recently heard.

            It is designed to kill weeds. Drinking it would make as much sense as asking you eat the soap you make.

            Would you eat a bar or two of it?

          • Kitty Davenport

            I would not like to, however my soap is safe enough to eat and if somebody had a concern about the ingredients I would be happy to adjust my labeling or eat some of it. Actually I end up eating small amounts of it every batch as a second test for ph. (I use ph paper and the zap test. I really care about my product being safe) I label my soap very honestly and completely.

            So if you think GMO food is safe, label it. And don’t tell me that pesticide is safer to drink then salt water and get huffy when you get called on it. Drink it or admit it is not safe to drink. Poison is poison. I certainly would not eat Monkshood or put it in my soap. So why would I want poison on or in my food? If you want to eat poison, good for you. I dont. So label food accurately. It is easy it is honest.

            The only people NOT labeling food serve are the people who profit from it. And that is why people do not trust this industry. Label it.

          • Cairenn Day

            Do you understand how either bt works or how glyphosate works?

            They do not have an effect on animals. You can eat chocolate, but it can kill your dog.

            Poison is also related to the dose of it.

            It is labeled accurately, you want a nonsense label on it, like one on applesauce that tells the variety of the apples in it.

          • Kitty Davenport

            Nope. I want a label that lists gmo ingredients. Very simple. Very cheap. Very easy. Label GMO foods. Its not rocket science. It is simple and easy to understand. And is less costly then the massive legal battles and political donations to prevent the labeling.

          • Cairenn Day

            Then you can chose to buy from those that do. I cannot afford to pay for your desire for boutique food.

            In another post, you mentioned working for an organic farmer, so pushing labels is to your and their benefit.

            What would say if someone from Monsanto posted here?

            The labeling campaign is being underwritten by the organic food industry. But that seems to be ok by those opposed to them.

          • Kitty Davenport

            Yes and unlike Monsanto I do not try to hide my donations or past work history. I am open and honest. But then maybe your just butt hurt because mexico just banned GMO corn and more and more states and Nations are requiring honest labeling. :) Cry all you want and try to distract from the simple and reasonable demand to your hearts content. But HONEST GMO labeling is happening. :)

          • Cairenn Day

            I don’t work for Monsanto, either.

            It would be nice to discover that you had done any research other than reading a meme on a MaM site, sometime.

            The country did not ban GMOs, ONE judge did. I have seen no evidence that he even consulted any experts in Mexico. It is being appealed and I would expect it to be overturned.

            A couple of years ago, almost the same thing happened here, with a judge ruling that GMO sugar beets couldn’t be sold. It was overturned, but not before it caused financial damage to many farmers.

          • Kitty Davenport

            And BTW, labeling will not prevent ANYBODY from eating less expensive GMO products. Nor will it prevent the makers of such products from presenting their views on GMO food. So really, stop whining. Dairy Farmers can not even label their milk products as being hormone and antibiotic free without also adding the ridiculous and unnecessary statement that there is no proven difference between milks that do or do not use them. So really. Suck it up label the GMO food and eat it to your hearts content. Labeling does not force you or anybody else to eat organic.

          • Cairenn Day

            Why do object to a label that tells folks FACTS instead of fiction?

            The real goal of the label GMO folks is eliminate all GMOs. Some of y’all have been honest enough to admit it.

            The labeling campaign reminds me of how the state of Texas is working to stop abortions in the state. They frame their argument under it will make them, safer, when the real reason is make it nearly impossible to get one.

            What y’all refuse to accept is that it will RAISE the price of ALL food.

            Would you please tell me why allowing companies to choose to label non GMO products is not an option for you? It is good enough for organics, for Kosher, for Halal and for things like Fair Trade coffee.

          • peter

            I think it is completely legit to ‘whine’ that at least $3 million dollars of taxpayers money will be wasted on labeling oversight.

          • peter

            If three million dollars is so cheap to you then you should be able to start your own farm and you would never need to buy groceries again. Problem solved.

          • Kitty Davenport

            It would not have to cost 3 million if they voluntarily labeled. Its just the addition of three letters in an ingredient list. Sorry. You can try to steer away from the simple facts but it all comes down to, if GMO food is safe label it. It does not cost me anything to add an ingredient to a label for soap. Just 2 min of typing before I go to print. But Mexico just banned GMO corn and Hawaii is moving forward on great legislation so your arguments mean nothing. The people spoke and are speaking and we will get our honest labeling regardless of the distractions and nonsense. And if GMO food is safe it will do well on the market with honest labels. :)

          • peter

            Again, it’s not the cost of printing labels it’s the oversight. Why would anyone want to label a perfectly safe product with something that has been demonized and slandered to such an extent?

            Should we force hot sauce manufacturers to label their products as neurotoxins?

          • Kitty Davenport

            LMFAO Sorry hun but these companies made their bed with their unethical practices and they can lay in it. What part of they are not entitled to sales dont you get? If people do not want to buy their food they dont have to and refusing to label the food in an attempt to force people into buying it is again unethical. Sorry. If GMO food is safe then label it. People have a right to know and to purchase the food they feel most comfortable with.

          • Peter

            The advertisement falsely contends the implementation of I-522 would “not cost a dime.”
            The Office of Financial Management’s fiscal impact statement for I-522
            states: “Known state agency implementation costs are estimated at
            $3,368,000 over six fiscal years.” And, in fact, a study of I-522 done
            by the Washington Research Council concluded that these costs are
            grossly underestimated. The Washington Research Council report
            estimates that state government costs for implementation and enforcement
            of I-522’s regulations would exceed $22 million per year. In addition,
            the report estimates that I-522 would increase grocery costs for a
            family of four by more than $450 per year (Washington Research Council
            Report on I-522, September 2013). The claim that I-522 “won’t cost a
            dime” is clearly false and defies simple common sense.

          • Benjamin Edge

            Kitty, remember the old saying, better to keep quiet and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth…?

            Fields are signed when pesticides are applied so that people unaware that it has been sprayed (often part-time farm employees, or even Greenpeace activists) will know not to enter until it is safe to go in.

            Farmers are required by law to wear protective gear while spraying because they run the risk of being exposed to concentrated amounts of chemical. The amount any specific plant receives is very low, and there is a time period after spraying before the crop can be harvested, so that the residue is at accepted safe levels.

            If you consider no level of pesticide safe, you better stick with organic, even though organic regulations allow certain pesticides to legally be used on them, too. Oh my, what to eat?

          • Kitty Davenport

            All of this distraction from the simple and salient point.

            If GMO food is safe then label it.

            My point about pesticides was lost on you. So let me rephrase it for you. Pesticide and herbicides are poison designed to kill insects, small rodents and weeds.

            Some people choose not to eat them. So they eat organic. They have labeling to identify the food they choose to eat.

            If GMO food is safe label it. As not all non gmo food is organic or needs to be. But also because when non organic companies label their food as non gmo companies like Monsanto sue them for doing so.

            Besides the issue of GMO food itself many people are against Monsanto and other large corporations due to their unethical business practices. We do not trust them or their products and they are NOT entitled to our purchases.

            Here are some links demonstrating the tip of the iceberg of why people do not trust gmo food or its creators.

            http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/19489-washington-attorney-general-sues-gmo-labeling-opponents-for-hiding-corporate-donors

            http://www.nelsonfarm.net/glovesoff.htm

        • Loren Eaton

          Stop being a child, Pel. And you too, Kitty. To require labeling there needs to be a compositional or safety issue. There isn’t. Stop trying to play the ‘chicken’ card.

      • LeafSci

        Do you seriously not know the difference between natural and synthetic??? By your definition, my skin is a “pesticide” because it protects my body from bacteria and fungi. This is a perfect example of why GMO requires continued skepticism

        • mem_somerville

          Well, I actually agree that antibiotics are natural pesticides–and I’m sorry about the organic fruit has such challenges and terrible alternatives.

          But the list of “organic” pesticides is pretty bogus from a science perspective. But I’m sure it makes you feel good.

          • LeafSci

            Organic crops are gifted with natural pesticides. Sometimes they don’t work and/or aren’t cost-effective. Then humans use synthetic pesticides, believing we can play God. A lot of the time we mess up (remember DMT?). I believe GMO draws a good parallel. We’ve probably messed up, we just don’t know how badly yet…

          • mem_somerville

            Well, I’m glad we can agree that plants make pesticides. So many people are confused on that topic (see Pel, for example).

            But I’m afraid I’m not with you on the “god” thing. I don’t see the evidence that a deity is responsible for stuff. I do know that humans have been choosing crops with chemical deterrents for a long time, though. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9431670

          • Ripshed

            “We’ve probably messed up”

            Really? Do you have evidence to support this supposition? Or are you just making a fallacious appeal to nature?

            What, precisely, makes a natural pesticide superior or preferrable to a synthetic one, hmm?

          • LeafSci

            Evolution

          • Loren Eaton

            All crops are gifted with natural (and sometimes harmful) pesticides. Learn some biology before you post, please.

      • ATM

        Are you saying that consumers should not be allowed to get labels they ask for?

        • mem_somerville

          Are you saying that consumers should be able to say sugar is a “toxin” and Oreos = heroin if that’s what they ask for?

          I think labels should have scientific merit, not whims. You disagree?

          • Arron Bound

            I agree they should have scientific merit that is why they should be labelled GMO or not.

            As a “scientific” person I would expect you to understand why sugar is considered toxic to humans. That is why they have to label how much sugar is in a product. But maybe you are against labeling the quantity of sugar in a product? Are you?

          • mem_somerville

            Water is toxic in the wrong dose. Caffeine is toxic (and, actually, a pesticide). Theobromine (in chocolate–same thing). I think misrepresenting the safety or characteristics of an item is a bad idea as a labeling strategy–especially a government mandated label.

          • Arron Bound

            So you think we should stop labeling sugar on packaging because it is found to be toxic?

            So the labeling strategy is your problem. While I want my products labelled because I believe to know what is in my food.

            Like excess amounts of sugar can be toxic, so the labels help me come to the conclusion to buy that product or not.

            Because of what I know, I don’t buy sugary foods. Because of what I know I want products to be labelled GMO so I can make a decision on what to buy.

          • mem_somerville

            None of the GMO label proposals I’ve seen are science-based about the actual ingredients. You couldn’t make a decision about the contents of an item based on “May contain…” on the package.

            If you want to avoid them because of your philosophy (not science), then it’s just like Kosher and should be handled as such–as a voluntary system managed by a third party.

          • Arron Bound

            You have lost me? I don’t think your argument is logical.

            Putting ingredients of a product on the packaging is scientific. If a civilization is unable to label what is their food then they are a little behind. By intentionally misleading people by excluding what is in the food they eat is pretty unscientific to me.

            You are making the association with GMO and it being bad, but why can’t the population make that decision for themselves.

          • mem_somerville

            But none of the GMO labels proposed put the ingredients that are GMO on the label. That’s exactly the point.

            And that is why it’s not scientific.

          • ATM

            A warning label should have scientific merit. Example: Cigarets are bad for health. Informational labels can be just as important to consumers. Example U diary, kosher, organic where a good originated from etc. Scientific or not many consumers would like to have a choice to opt out of the global scientific study to determine the safety of GMOs. Labels would allow the study to continue on folks who choose not to opt out by not buying GMO free.

      • Karen Kapnick

        Seriously…go crawl under a rock. your comparing a PLANT made by nature to a manmade synthetic. Dumb.

    • Benjamin Edge

      They ARE labeled. Just like every other food product. Just not with the irrelevant information you want.

      • Pel Abbott

        It’s not only me that wants these foods labeled. And somehow conveniently, 1 million Californians who voted YES for labeling dropped off the vote tally.

        Corrupt liars. That’s what corporations, scientists who work for corporations and the Republican party base (and I do mean BASE) have become.

        • Buddy199

          Stop taking the cat’s meds.

        • mem_somerville

          Oh, it was a voting CONSPIRACY. Of course.

          Funny, that’s usually what the Republicans try to claim when they lose.

          But PEL joins the ranks of CTers, meaning any hope of facts getting through are lost. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/10/vaccine-denial-conspiracy-theories-gmos-climate

          • Pel Abbott

            Meme_Amityville – It’s a bit too early for Halloween. How about you remove your fake troll account?

          • bobito

            I read this blog all the time. I recognize all the commenters you are calling trolls, paid shills, fake accounts, etc… They comment on all sorts of topics. You, however, just showed up with an agenda and started insulting everyone.

            Who is the troll?

          • Pel Abbott

            Not you black square Bobito. LOL!

          • bobito
    • Pythia Renfield

      You already eat pesticides, the plants make pesticides naturally. If they didn’t they wouldn’t exist at all.

      • Pel Abbott

        Read the thread, and then go reply to someone else who cares about your opinion.

  • Dave Lee

    Keith, I would love a post taking apart the report that Michael Pollan cites. I love that that organisation supports Séralini’s findings even though that study has been discredited many times over

  • Pingu

    You mean a consensus like that which allowed the development of the nuclear industry?

  • JudsonParker

    This is a pretty short and uninformative post

  • Kevin Folta

    I’m going to contact these signatories and get them to agree to a short interview that I will post. I want to know what they actually know about the technology, etc. I didn’t even google them. My guess is that they are all Huber-esque has-beens with outdated understanding and no formal training in the area, yet getting a little long lost recognition for their title and position. I could be wrong. However, it will be a future blog, either way.

    • mem_somerville

      That’s an excellent idea Kevin. Some of them you already know of–Huber is on there, Mae-Wan, etc. That will be a cool project.

      • Karen Kapnick

        Yes…you should eat all GMOs…soy and corn for one year. Then lets see how fat and sick you are.That’s all the science we need.

        • Kevin Folta

          An experiment designed by a true scholar. Karen, you are embarrassing yourself. There is no demonstrated association between transgenic crops and “fat and sick”. If you have a source from PubMed, please cite.

          • Karen Kapnick

            “10 Years of Failure” Video on how farmers were deceived by #GMO corn http://youtu.be/hCuWs8K9-kI

          • Kevin Folta

            Okay Karen. So you are saying that farmers that grow 90% of soy, corn, cotton and canola are stupid? They are buying a “failure”? Not quite. I’m done with you. You have the talking points and YouTube videos memorized but know nothing about the farmers, the science or the food. Best wishes to you, and I’m always happy to answer your questions by email.

          • Karen Kapnick

            Obviously you didn’t watch what I sent…there is nothing that implies the farmers are stupid.

          • Kevin Folta

            Hi Karen. I’ve seen it before. It says that the technology does not work and causes more pesticide use. It is a failure.

            However, every farmer I know that uses it swears by it and some could not function without it. 90% of acreage is GMO.

            Farmers are tough customers. They will not use it if it does not work. They use GM crops because they allow them to compete in a tight market.

            So to say that farmers don’t understand that they are planting a failing technology really shows how little you know about it. It works!

            We’ll do a Google Hangout or something sometime. I want you to understand this issue. Funnel your obvious passions into science and technology that can help people. That would be great.

          • peter

            Hey Kevin, How can I get in touch with you. I’d like to see if I can fly you in to give a talk at my university. We are looking for successful industry scientists…

          • Cairenn Day

            My best friend owns the family farm in Ark, around 200 acres. With GMO crops she makes around 20% or so more.

            Not only that, but she feels that she is treating the land better because of no till, reduced spraying, the ability to use cover crops. She can have the unneeded plant portions, mulched instead of burning them. (one of the purposes of burning is to eliminate insect eggs and larvae.

    • Arron Bound

      I’ve got a better idea. Why don’t you start eating a diet of GMO products for only, let’s say 6 months. All corn, soy, veggies, what ever you eat has to be a GMO product. Blog that. “That would be a cool project.”

      • Cairenn Day

        I guess you think that there are a lot more GMO crops than there are. A diet of corn, soy, papaya and sugar beets wouldn’t be a good one if all of them were heirloom varieties grown like my grandfather would have grown them.

        I am 62 and other than bad knees (injured doing a full contact martial art when I was in my 40s) I am in good health.

        I need to eat better and I need to drink less real Cokes. Hmm, I have some nice grapes from Aldi. I have a tight budget for my groceries. If I have extra, I would rather buy a book that waste money on organic items.

        • Arron Bound

          Mr. Day that is another vein of the problem with GM crops, is the disappearing verity of food, or when a farmer’s crop planted with heirloom seeds get contaminated by GM pollen we can never go back.

          Well anyhow I’m glade you were a martial artist and yah stay away from the soda. One day people well understand like you do now, soda is bad for you but we still drink it. It will be the same for GMO.

          • Cairenn Day

            Do you have evidence for them contaminating heirloom crops?

            That reminds me of the cotton farmer that complained about contamination from their neighbor’s organic colored cotton.

            This a reason for both farmers to work together to establish buffer crops between them.

            I do not expect that GMOs will ever become like sodas. There is far too much evidence that they are not a health issue for anyone.

          • Arron Bound
          • Cairenn Day

            The first link just takes me to their home page.

            The second one is just about a suit being filed for the strange case of the GMO wheat in Oregon state. There NO evidence that that contamination was caused by the trial crops that had not been raised there for 5 years.

            The 3rd one has this in the article.
            “He said it is not clear if the farmer bought seed
            that was genetically modified and mislabeled or if his field was
            contaminated by some other means. And testing could reveal no
            contamination at all, he noted.”

            Since the article is over a month old and the tests would have been completed in a few days, it would seem to indicate that no contamination was found.

            There are a total of 8 crops, and that includes cotton and alfalfa.

            Your evidence falls short.

          • Cairenn Day

            I am going to ask you again. What are the commercial GMO crops available in the US?

          • RobertWager

            There are 60,000 seed varieties available today about 140 are GE.

          • Arron Bound

            Hey I’ll have to admit I’ve got no prof on the decrease in the variety of fresh produce at the grocery store. You’ll have to take my grandma’s word for it.

            Farmer grow less variety of different foods then we did say 20 years ago, but you find the evidence yourself, I’m tired.

          • RobertWager

            How old are you Arron. I am mid fifties and I can definitely say the choice today is far superior to decades ago

          • Pythia Renfield

            I agree, I can remember when the Piggly Wiggly produce section was the saddest place you could go outside a funeral parlor.

        • Karen Kapnick

          GREAT! You can be the science project and eat and drink all GMOs. That’s the thing.,.people should be allowed to say if they want to participate. Some don’t want to be a science experiment.

          • Cairenn Day

            Then you can buy organic food. There is no ‘science experiment’. that is nothing but a fear monger term you picked up somewhere.

            Did you look at any of the links that I posted?

            Here are more groups that have looked at the science their conclusions.

            I am beginning to think that you are like the creationists that deny evolution because it doesn’t agree with their belief systems,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • Karen Kapnick

          soy is in everything as preservative or emulsifier. I had a health issue and cut out GMOs as much as I possibly could….and voila..it went away. I am my own data.

          • Cairenn Day

            So if you toss a coin 3 times and it comes up heads, then it must not have tails?

            That is an anecdotal evidence. It seems that you made at least 2 changed in your diet, cutting out soy and cutting out GMOs.

            May I ask what GMO products did you cut out? and what did you replace them with?

          • Karen Kapnick

            I just started reading labels and making sure I didn’t eat any canola, corn or soy. I didn’t make 2 changes..just 1. Replaced with more organic greens..and grassfed organic meat. pasture raised eggs.

          • Cairenn Day

            That is more than 2 changes. NO corn, no soy, no canola. Add in more greens and less fatty meat. That is a minimum of 5 major changes.

            I would expect that you ate a lot less processed food (to avoid the GMOs) and you did more cooking that had less fat in it. If so, that is another major change. If avoiding corn, including eliminating sodas that is another one.

            That is how science works. You eliminate one item, or you eliminate all and then add items back in.

            BTW, I have had Environmental Ethics, and biology, microbiology, botany, chemistry, some pre vet biology courses, geology, physics, oceanography and astronomy.

      • Kevin Folta

        GMOs have been part of my diet since the 90′s, in fact, they are in the diet of most Americans. Not one case where they have been linked to a problem. That’s a pretty solid record!

        • Arron Bound

          GMO started hitting the market in the late 90′s and it would have been a small percent of what you found in the grocery store.

          No my challenge to you is to eat the GMO crops spliced with pesticides for 6 months and tell me how you feel. You can through in livestock that only feed on those types of crops.

          • RobertWager

            What do you mean “spliced with pesticides”?

          • Arron Bound

            Crops producing Bt toxins.

          • RobertWager

            These Bt genes?

            4. Human Risk Assessment
            65. The acute oral toxicity data on Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac, Cry9C, Cry3A, Cry1F, Cry2Ab2, Cry3Bb1,
            Cry34Ab1, and Cry35Ab1 supports the prediction that the Cry proteins would be non-toxic to humans.
            When proteins are toxic, they are known to act via acute mechanisms and at very low dose level (Sjoblad
            et al., 1992). Therefore, since no effects were seen in the acute tests, even at relatively high dose levels,
            these δ-endotoxin proteins are not considered toxic to humans. Both the long history of safe use of B.
            thuringiensis and the acute oral toxicity data allow for a conclusion that these and other δ-endotoxins pose
            negligible toxicity risk to humans. pg 33

            From the UN-OECD CONSENSUS DOCUMENT ON SAFETY INFORMATION ON TRANSGENIC PLANTS EXPRESSING
            BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS – DERIVED INSECT CONTROL PROTEINS

          • Karen Kapnick

            You can put up all the data you want…it still doesn’t show that GMOs are safe.

          • Kevin Folta

            Karen my dear, this shows your lack of sophistication when it comes to scientific topics. How do you prove a negative? We can never show anything is safe. Can your prove grass fed beef, organic food is safe? You can’t, and in fact, there is evidence that they have sickened many.

            All we can do is show evidence of harm and gauge relative risk . That’s it.

            There is no harm ever demonstrated from transgenic crops. Not one shred.

          • Karen Kapnick

            There is PLENTY of harm demonstrated. its obvious.

          • peter

            Right, so obvious that you have to follow around every American to observe said harm? Come on? It’s fine that your opinion is what your opinion is, but you’re contradicting yourself…

          • Kevin Folta

            Okay then. Me and tens of thousands of scientists are wrong and you are right. Now I know how those climate change profs feel. The activists know more than the experts. That’s the world we live in. Best wishes Karen. Welcome to the Tea Party of the Left. I will not answer your future posts. It is not worth my time.

          • Kevin Folta

            Arron, do you have any idea about how Cry proteins work? You can find no example in the literature where they are shown to demonstrate association with any receptor outside of insects, and even then almost always in targets. Yes, the fear mongers have told you that these are “spliced with pesticides”- taken straight from their twisted literature.

            But scoot over to PubMed and read real science. There is absolutely no effect on animal cells. Bt has been used in organic culture for ages and it is completely harmless– unless you are a lepidopteran larvae. You’ve been fooled. Check the science, it is super cool!

          • Karen Kapnick

            Have you actually SEEN a real cow and cut open its insides to see the effects of GMOs. Your silly data can’t show you that.

          • peter

            What you fail to mention is cows aren’t really great with corn feed no matter where it comes from. I am sure there are pictures of this cow you refer to, where can I see them?

          • Karen Kapnick

            I agree. I only eat grassfed meat and dairy. Not sure..I posted many things and I can’t find what your talking about.

          • Pythia Renfield

            You eat animal products and want to play the superiority game?

          • Karen K

            That whole comment is insane. Must be the GMOs.

          • Steven Shapiro

            “spliced” refers to inserting some chemical or chemical producing genetic sequence into a chromosome. Remember “everything is a chemical”.

          • RobertWager

            Scroll down a couple posts to read the UN-OECD Consensus document on Bt proteins. I can give you the link and you can read the 100+ pages of research on Bt proteins if you like.

        • Karen Kapnick

          Really..have you followed every single American? You are so silly…I mean stupid. No wonder you think GMOs are great.

          • RobertWager

            Over three trillion meals containing GE ingredients and not a stuffy nose. Yet over the entire history of GE crops and food critics have bee looking intently for harm. What does that say to you Karen?

          • Karen Kapnick

            I would gladly take a stuffy nose over cancer. Plenty of evidence of that,plus allergies and all kinds of digestive problems.

          • Cairenn Day

            Where is your evidence that GMO crops cause cancer? I hope you don’t believe that discredited Serelini study.

            Can you show allergies from them?

            and please don’t try the ‘rise in allergies’ link to the rise of the use of GMO crops. The rise of allergies also coincide with more organic foods. And global warming with a decrease in pirates.

          • Karen Kapnick

            The rise in allergies has NOTHING do with less pesticides..i.e,Organics. How do you sleep at night? is your brain gen modified not to have any common sense.

          • Cairenn Day

            I sleep very well, How do you manage to leave the house, when you seem to believe that Correlation=Causation ?

            That is basis of old wive’s tales, like bad luck from black cats and broken mirrors and spilled salt.

            Science shows use that testing is what is needed. Not finding too things and linking them. I think I have seen that when women’s skirts are short, that one party wins the White House. I didn’t think anyone believed that nonsense.

            Have you read about the hygiene hypothesis? Right now it seems to be the best explanation for the rise in allergies and auto immune disease.

            Have you checked out any of the links I posted?

          • Steven Shapiro

            Karen, do you know how to interpret evidence?

          • Pythia Renfield

            Karen, the rise in allergies is showing to be more about a persons bacterial make-up than the food they consume.

          • peter

            that explains why Somalia has such cool summers these days…

          • Karen Kapnick

            Where’s your evidence I work in the organic food industry.

          • Cairenn Day

            Sorry, I may have you confused with another poster.

            Where is your evidence that GMOs cause allergies?

            The best explanation of the rise of allergies and auto immune disease available right now is the ‘hygiene hypothesis’. It will take testing and more studies to confirm it. You see, that is the difference in someone that wants the truth and in someone that just wants an answer.

            Taking it in another field. We have all heard of DAs that felt a high conviction and closure rate of crimes was more important than making sure that they convicted the right person.

            Some years ago, locally, a little girl was taken from a soccer game. Her body was found some days later. A man was convicted on some very poor evidence. Less that 2 years later, Amber Haggerman was taken from near a grocery store and found dead a few days later. The ages, and circumstances of the girl’s deaths were similar. It caused folks to look into the first conviction and it was found that, while he was a child molester, there was no evidence linking him to the first killing. There is a good chance that, if the DA had kept looking that Amber would be starting her own family now, instead of giving her name to the Amber Alert.

            Evidence, in crimes and in health is what is needed.

          • Pythia Renfield

            There are more people killed by organics than have even fallen to a tummy ache from a GMO product.

          • Karen Kapnick

            And Robert..i know you’re capable of spinning all night…but I’ve had enough. Good luck to you.

          • Kevin Folta

            Karen, I’d be glad to match wits on the topic any time you’d like. I’ve been studying this area going on 30 years. I know my stuff. If there was any sensitivity to these products it would have been detected before release, certainly while plants have been deployed (and analytical tools have become amazingly sensitive), or absolutely in epidemiogical trends. There are none.

            I work strictly by science and evidence. I don’t really care what activists think or lying authors write. It is about hard evidence. To date, there is no evidence of harm from these technologies.

          • Karen Kapnick

            Right Robert…If there was so much hard evidence it would have gone through the FDA process. And there are plenty of scientists who say GMOs have not been proven safe.

          • Karen Kapnick

            “One thing that surprised us is that U.S. regulators rely almost exclusively on information provided
            by the biotech crop developer, and those data are not published in
            journals or subjected to peer review,” Schubert said. “The picture that
            emerges from our study of U.S. regulation of GM foods is a rubber-stamp
            ‘approval process’ designed to increase public confidence in, but not
            ensure the safety of, genetically engineered foods.”
            http://rrvsga.com/nature-vs-gmo-sides-face-off-over-genetically-modified-food/

            http://unclematts.com/dev/why-im-pro-no-gmo-an-open-letter-from-uncle-matt/

          • Kevin Folta

            Let’s assume everything you say is true. Then why hasn’t anyone come out and blown the lid off the massive conspiracy? Why has nobody shown good data that the products are dangerous?

          • Karen Kapnick

            People are showing the good data….no one knew about GMOs for +20yrs…if the public had been TOLD about GMOs in the first place…good data would’ve come out sooner. How would you like it if I hid something in your food for +20 yrs…didn’t even have enough common decency to DISCLOSE it. Actions speak much louder then words or data.

          • Cairenn Day

            Karen that is not true. I have known about GMOs since the first commercial item in the early 90s.

            They were never hidden. The fact that you didn’t know about them just means that you weren’t paying attention to what was happening in science.

            Lots of folks are more interested in other things, from politics to sports or music.

            Farmers have known and have chosen to use them because of the increased yields and reduced need for chemicals.

          • Karen Kapnick

            That’s because you work for the biotech industry. And no..farmers who grow corn, soy and canola had no choice since GMOs are the only seed available. Good try troll.

          • Cairenn Day

            Karen, I have TOLD you several times that I do NOT work for nor have and connections to the agri-chemical industry, and yet you continue to insist I do.

            I knew, because I keep up with science and not sports or movie/music stars.

            Would you please retract your lie about me.

            Farmers have plenty of non GMO choices, in fact the hybrids are priced lower.

            http://www.heineseeds.com/varieties.html

            That is just one company. If you notice there are several types of non GMO seed.

            There are more GMO seeds for the same reason that the grocery store has more sugar sweetened cereals than granola. More demand.

          • Karen Kapnick

            The data shows that you do. And there is not a demand for nasty toxic GMO seeds…it all that’s available.

          • Cairenn Day

            What data ‘shows that I do’? Either post it or retract your lie.

            I gave you a link to a seed company that has non GMO seed for sale. It seems that you ignore that, like you ignore any fact that is posted.

            Are you afraid that clicking on one of our links will ‘contaminate’ your beliefs?

          • Cairenn Day

            I wonder why farmers in the EU are demanding more GMO crops?

            I am going to post much of the article, since you seem unable to click on a link I provide.

            Explain WHY they want GMO crops if they are as bad as you think they are.

            “A NUMBER of EU farming organisations have joined forces to demand changes to EU rules to make it easier for GM crops to be developed and grown in Europe.

            The organisations representing farmers in the four countries of the UK, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Portugal and Romania have written an open letter to the European Commission expressing ‘deep concern’ about the effects of EU GM policies and regulations on ‘the potential of modern biotechnology to strengthen the sustainable production of food’.

            The letter states: “If the EU wants to make its farming more sustainable and be less dependent on import of agricultural products, then EU farmers will need to have access to crop varieties that are less dependent on pesticides, that produce more per hectare, that require less mechanical soil treatment, that can withstand the effects of climate change, etc.

            “Developing such crop varieties cannot be done by conventional breeding alone. Modern biotechnology can help considerably in reaching these goals, and in some cases it is the only solution available.”

            The letter adds that ‘extensive research’ has shown GM crops cultivated today are ‘as safe as – and sometimes safer – for human health and the environment than their non modified counterparts’.

            “However, rather than fine tuning the regulations on the basis of this evidence, the EU moves in the opposite direction, by continuously intensifying the regulatory requirements,” it says.”

            http://www.farmersguardian.com/59632.article?mobilesite=enabled

          • Kevin Folta

            Dear Karen, once again a swing and a miss. GMO crops for Bt and EPSPS have been around for over 30 years in the scientific and popular press. Progress and testing has been documented over this period. From the beginning a suite of activists bent on harming America’s conventional farmers and the companies that supply the seeds have opposed them.

            You have only recently fallen into their fear campaign, as judged by your naive comments.

            In the three decades of negative commentary the critics have not levied ONE SINGLE report where transgenic (GMO) technologies have negatively impacted human health. Environmental risks clearly outweigh benefits.

            I’m done here. I do appreciate your passions but hope that you reach out to more sophisticated thinking about the real science. Challenge yourself. Challenge what I tell you, but challenge what your influential cohort of anti-GMO, anti-science interests tell you.

            I’d be very happy to help you understand the science. Hopefully when you learn the realities of the technology you’ll put equal energy into advocating for the technology that can help farmers, consumers, the needy and the environment.

            I kindly invite you and anyone reading this thread to contact me at kevinfolta at gmail. It would be my pleasure to help you navigate this complicated topic. Best wishes. kf

          • Karen K

            You are in total denial. The bottom line is that over 60% of the world labels them. Here in USA we believe in freedom of choice. We don’t believe in science dictating our choices. Science is turning the American people against them…and you can only get so far with just corporate $$$. Look at GMA. Momsforlabels beat them and they had to disclose which Corps were paying them to fight labeling. You will never win.

          • Kevin Folta

            Science always wins. In the short term we’ll see labels, we’ll see bans, we’ll see no more vaccines, more use of fossil fuels. We’re uneducated as a nation and call public scientists stooges for big corporations. When labels and bans cause farmers to fold, then we lose dairy and beef, then we can buy our food from China like we buy everything else, maybe we’ll reconsider.

            In the short term science loses. In the long term we’ll look back on 2012-2013 as a time that the crazies dictated food policy, destroyed American farmers, kept good technology away from those who could use it, and made Jeffrey Smith a wealthy man.

            Me, I’m fine. I’ll keep teaching science. We’re spending a lot of time getting 3-6 graders interested in plant science.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbCrn3106_o

            Maybe our next generation will get it. Ultimately science will win because we can demonstrate the hope of a technology and show how it will help people and the environment.

            I’m acting as an agent of hope and education, teaching how to make decisions from science. Your camp is filled with jaded souls filled with rage for a company– and will deny facts, withhold technology, and vilify scientists in the process.

            Education, love, hope… always beat hate and anger. Bank on that.

          • Karen K

            Science is KILLING this planet. If that’s what “winning” is to you.

          • Karen K

            “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.”


            Mahatma Gandhi

          • Cairenn Day

            BTW, Karen works in the organic food industry, so she has been thoroughly brainwashed by them, I presume.

          • Karen Kapnick

            Another lie. I do not work in the organic food industry. Just more proof you make things up.

          • Cairenn Day

            You can put up all the data you want…it still doesn’t show that GMOs are safe.I am sorry then, I must have confused you with another poster.

            However, comments like this “You can put up all the data you want…it still doesn’t show that GMOs are safe.” Shows that you are unwilling to accept anything other than the misinformation you have received in your ‘brainwashing’.

            Why do deny the science and the facts?

          • Karen Kapnick

            You are the one who is in major denial. Theres nothing that shows GMOs to be safe…you can’t review your own products and be objective. Do you know what Objective means? It means you aren’t affiliated and don’t benefit like can’t make money from it. Because if you could profit from it..then OF COURSE you would say its safe. Might want to take an ethics class.

          • peter

            There is massive evidence that GMOs are not unsafe. No one can prove a food is safe. This is true of a new apple variety regardless of where it came from.

          • Cairenn Day

            That is so true, there is this story of a normal hybrid potato from the 1960s

            The toxic potato

            http://boingboing.net/2013/03/25/the-case-of-the-poison-potato.html

          • Cairenn Day

            I have stated before here, that I have NO connection to the agrichemical industry, but you ignored that, just like you did the links that were posted, just so you could use a veiled implication.

            You talk about bias and yet one of your links to ‘evidence’ is a BLOG by an organic farmer. That is as biased as if I had posted a link to Monsanto.

            You have offered no links to evidence nor to any consensus by experts in the field. Sorry the views of a ‘flying yogi’ master don’t count.

            I am going to try again. I suggest that you try clicking on them this time or at least reading the opinions of experts from around the world.

            A Decade of EU-funded GMO Research

            https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7hhP5QasNtsX1AwV2YzNnlrZTA/edit?pli=1

            Almost 1800 studies

            http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdf

            A Survery of Long Term GM Food Studies

            http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2012/10/24/a-survey-of-long-term-gm-food-studies/

            Now the experts, I am not listing the ones from the US, since you would just say that they were ‘bought by Monsanto’ ( and you would not be able to show evidence of that)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          • Karen Kapnick

            THE EU is NOT a NON-Biased credible source. Any link that isn’t a 3rd party source that has no tie to gov’t and the biochemical companies is NOT credible.

          • Cairenn Day

            Why do you say that the EU is a bias source?

            If Monsanto had a lot of power in the EU, then GMO crops would be grown in many countries.

            Did you look at any of the almost 1800 studies?

            You know that you have to apply the same standard to other studies as well. You can use one that an organic food company and an anti GMO organization funded.

          • peter

            see, she totally is on Monsanto’s payroll, or maybe Dupont.

          • peter

            I’m nearly positive she is a Monsanto shill, paid to make organic food purists look like reactionary religious zealots who are easily deceived and over-privileged.

          • Cairenn Day

            I wish I thought that Monsanto could afford to hire folks to ‘shill’ for them.

            It seems that non of these folks know that that is illegal.

          • peter

            I was thinking about reply with, “no one could be that…” and then I remembered Frat Row and ESPN game day, kids chugging vodka in the parking lot next to my apartment at 9 am… and I thought, oh yeah, they are that…

          • peter

            I don’t want to live on this planet anymore…

          • Karen Kapnick

            Look up the word lobbyist. Another dumb “scientist”

          • Cairenn Day

            What part of NO Connection to the agri chemical industry do you NOT Understand?

            Even a lobbyist cannot go on line and ‘lobby’ for a company without revealing that they are being paid to do it.

            Not a ‘dumb’ scientist. At least I post facts and I don’t name call.

            I understand science. I know that ignoring the facts and instead clinging to a set of beliefs formed by misinformation is not something that is considered ‘smart’ or ‘wise’.

            Using studies that have received poor peer reviews, like Serilini and Carmen is like building a house on sand. Almost 1800 studies, many of them independent are a firm foundation on bed rock.

          • Karen Kapnick

            And you show how stupid science really is…dumb as post.

          • Peter

            It was only meant as a joke. But, to say that science is dumb using technology that science developed (e.g. a computer and the communications systems that links us through them) is a little absurd. I think you should rethink your stance on science. In the end, if you are right, you will need science to prove it. Otherwise all you have is belief, which is fine- except it’s very easy to con people if you know their belief system well. Relying only on belief can lead to being fooled in a lot of circumstances.

            Best of luck to you Karen. I hope you are successful in whatever your true goals are.

          • Karen Kapnick

            Your a sad little troll.

          • bobito

            *You’re

          • peter

            Karen, you must be a shill for Monsanto because you have reaffirmed my original suspicion that transgenic food products are perfectly safe and that the i522 supporters are basically in denial.

          • bobito

            I was thinking the same thing! A pro-GMO person could not be as effective at garnering support for GMO than some of the anti-GMO commentators have been on this post.

            I am honestly 50/50 on if these folks are actually pro-GMO / anti-Labeling and are hitting this blog to inspire people to get behind the GMO cause!!! The comments in the post are just soooooo effective in garnering support FOR GMOs that it must be contrived!!!

          • Kevin Folta

            I think that when you contrast the informed posts of scientists against the insane wackiness of the anti-GMs it is truly illuminating which side holds the science. Karen is a GREAT asset to my mission. Keep pluggin in that foot.

          • Karen Kapnick

            You can make your silly condescending comments all you want…at the end of the day labels and then BANNING of GMOs will happen. Then you and your little filthy greedy ugly “science” friends can go somewhere else and do your little science experiments.

          • Pythia Renfield

            You are on a science blog, Karen. If you are bothered by scientists countering your argument, you should probably stay off the science blogs.

          • Karen Kapnick

            You must be a little chicken since you don’t even show your name. The truth will come out..it always does.

          • Pythia Renfield

            Attack the person rather than the content of their argument, that’s how you win when you are losing.

          • peter

            If there was plenty of harm, why would you need to follow around every American?

      • peter

        If you’d be willing to cover my food bill for 6 months I would be happy to eat any food you send me. I would prefer GMOs that weren’t highly processed, which is good because then I would definitely be eating the transgenic genes. Otherwise you might see that the foods that are making us fat and sick are highly processed, regardless of their genetic origins. Let’s get this party started! We can make a documentary called “super-gmo me”!

        • Kitty Davenport

          Honestly I think it is a great idea.
          Get two trusted Dr’s to moniter the health of the participants.

          Have one person on a GMO heavy diet and one person on an organic diet. Document changes in their health over a year and their feelings on the taste and quality of the food.

          It would certainly be interesting!

          • Karen Kapnick

            That’s been done in other countries with rats. They grew HUGE tumors when fed a gmo diet. All around the pelvis area..funny how prostate cancer has exploded. Must be coincidence.

          • Peter

            I know the research you are speaking of. The other rats also got tumors, Karen.

          • Kevin Folta

            Right on peter. You got it.

          • Karen Kapnick

            No they didn’t. Only Rats fed gmos.

          • Peter

            The reason it’s not showing my name on some of my posts is because these forums are a huge distraction and I keep deleting my account to try to get away from them.

            If you have a new document to talk about regarding rats and tumors I am all ears, or eyes rather… but my understanding from perusing the literature that your side cites when talking about rats with tumors is that the scientists only found ‘more’ tumors in the rats fed GMOs. I don’t know a lot more than that, other than out of the 600 or so studies that were independently carried out less then a handful resulted in reproducible data that inferred a safety issue. It’s likely that if organic hybrids were also tested so rigorously a few false positives would also be evident and more likely due to poor controls or random errors. But I don’t know. I am not a scientist, yet; I’m still trying to get through school and I need to learn to be more professional when dealing with people who are, well… less professional.

            What I do know is that your precious labels will cost the tax payers of Washington $3 million to implement and enforce + litigation costs and (possibly) + economic costs. Ultimately, poor people will suffer more than the wealthy who can already afford to take advantage of the federal labels that denote foods that are not transgenic products (e. g. USDA ORGANIC).

            I understand you are passionate about the issue but I promise you that the negative attitude is only hurting your movement. People like Kevin are genuinely good people with an opinion that is contrary to yours. They have spent a lot more time investigating the issues on both sides and they have come to a rational conclusion. You would be wise and successful if you embraced the dialogue with them more professionally and encouraged them to be cautious about foods that cannot be proven to be safe, because NO FOOD can be proven to be safe, only unsafe- and yes contrary to your opinion organic hybrids have been shown to be unsafe in some cases (check out the toxicity of potatos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato).

            In the end you will want to work with the people that disagree with you, rather than ignore and insult them. I’m saying this because I’ve learned the hard way that engaging in destructive dialogue just makes you look foolish and alienates people that might otherwise sympathize with your cause.

          • Karen Kapnick

            this week, a group of international scientists (the real kind, not the
            ones paid by the biotech industry), physicians and academics signed a
            statement to set the record straight. No, they wrote. Despite the many
            claims to the contrary, there is no consensus that GMOs are safe.

            Learn more
            http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_28589.cfm

            Read the statement
            http://sustainablepulse.com/wp-content/uploads/ENSSER_Statement_no_scientific_consensus_on_GMO_safety_ENG_LV.pdf

            Read the list of scientists, physicians and academics
            http://sustainablepulse.com/wp-content/uploads/First_signatories_to_the_statement_no_scientific_consensus_on_GMO_safety_lv.pdf

          • Karen Kapnick

            You sound totally brainwashed. I have a GREAT attitude..its called getting all the information before you make a decision. The bill will not cost the taxpayers 3 million. The tax they ALREADY PAY might not fund GMOs…but that’s the way they want. Enjoy my post that includes non paid REAL scientists.

          • Pythia Renfield

            Yes, they did, go read the study. If you aren’t going to read the actual thing you cite, then you might want to hold off on commenting.

          • Kevin Folta

            Karen, I should not be surprised that you’d find that report compelling . They fooled you! Look at Figure 3. Where is the control? Where is the “non-GMO/Roundup” rat?

            Oh, they conveniently left that one out. Oops. Forgot to show that one. Table 2 says it had tumors too. Did you read the paper? Of course not!

            I think that omitting a control for the purpose of shock value is deplorable manipulation and scientific fraud. What do you think?

          • Karen Kapnick

            Take a look at the top of the comments.

          • Kitty Davenport

            Sadly that study has been disputed. However there is no reason it could not be easily repeated with GMO proponents as the new lab rats. ;)

          • Kitty Davenport

            And normally I wouldn’t ask humans to be in a study of this nature. HOWEVER I think if a corp is willing to spend over 15 million blocking fair and honest labeling then they should be the ones to show the public that the food is safe by eating it themselves.

      • Loren Eaton

        GMO veggies?? Whcih ones? The only one I know of is squash.

    • Karen Kapnick

      You all can do whatever you want…fact is..labels are coming. Yes they are…:)))

      • Kevin Folta

        You probably are correct that they are coming. So is teaching creation in science class, so is no action on climate change, so is increased disease from lack of vaccination. Some just don’t respect science anymore.

        The affluent with plenty of calories and money will attack and limit good technology they don’t understand.

        I’ll add your name to the death count. By blocking sound technology it prolongs suffering and confines choice. Today I gave a talk to a dairy group that are concerned about higher corn prices for feed once labels start. One farmer even said, “This is sinful what these activists are doing to hurt farmers and the poor people of the world.”

        Farmers get it. Rich whiners that can afford to deny reality don’t, but they make a lot of noise. We’ll soon have a new expensive bureaucracy to test and enforce un-necessary laws. We will all have to foot the cost of your ignorance.

        • Karen Kapnick

          Sound technology according to the people who who work for Monsanto..that’s about it. And I know PLENTY of farmers who HATE Monsanto..b/c their farms have been contaminated by GMOs..and then they are dragged into court and sued by Monsanto. I don’t agree with a company that has 90% market share of seeds…something created by nature and then altered so you greedy pigs could patent it.
          Meanwhile, cancer rates continue to explode…You can call me all the names you want…it doesnt change the truth.

          • RobertWager

            Another myth. here look for yourself and see Monsanto has never sued for trace amounts of GM in non-GM fields.

            http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=156

          • Karen Kapnick

            You’re going to deny there have been cases in court where Monsanto has sued farmers? Your facts are wrong.

          • RobertWager

            No Karen I am saying (with a link to court documents proving it) that no farmer has ever been sued by Monsanto for trace amounts of GM coming into their non-GM field. Those who have been sued were caught stealing the GM seed and had planted many acres of it without paying the TAU fee.

          • Karen Kapnick

            They didn’t steal it..they SAVED the seeds from the year before. Seeds that mother nature made.

          • brian

            Seriously?

          • maureenogle

            But if mother nature made the seeds, then what’s Monsanto got to do with the situation?

          • Kevin Folta

            Hi Karen, Sorry, wrong again. I don’t work for Monsanto, and neither do 99.99% of plant/biotech/molecular scientists worldwide that support wider deployment of these helpful technologies.

            Very cool that you know “plenty” of farmers that have been sued. Could you please name three? Certainly their cases are part of the public record and we can discuss.

            My guess is that you will not produce even one. See, I know of just about all of the cases, even some of the professional witnesses. None have been sued for trivial issues.

            They also do not have 90% market share of seeds. BASF, DuPont/pioneer, Bayer, Syngenta and MANY non-GM companies produce loads of seed for markets worldwide.

            You need to do a little more homework darlin’. Take a step back and think about your claims- you are parroting tired talking points, not reality. I’m always glad to help you understand this important issue.

          • Karen Kapnick

            Really…you don’t get any funding from Monsanto or any of the other biotechs? or grants from the gov’t that are included in the 54 billion they spent on GMOs. I’m sure the research would show you do benefit.

          • Pythia Renfield

            If so many farmers hate Monsanto, then how does Monsanto make so much money?

        • Karen Kapnick

          And the farmers I know…none are worried about corn being expensive. Just more of your lies. Ironic you choose to use the word “sinful”…projection of your own actions.

          • Kevin Folta

            “Sinful” came from one of the cattle farmers that is affected by feed prices. If you would like to contact him he’d be happy to talk to you. He’s a leader in our industry.

            I did a talk yesterday for a large farm group and they aren’t very happy with folks like you. He’d love to have your ear. Let me know.

  • Kevin Folta
    • Buddy199

      Looney birds of a feather, and all that.

  • Pel Abbott

    Read it here, along with a complete list of the scientists who say there is no consensus:

    http://sustainablepulse.com/2013/10/21/global-scientists-issue-gmo-safety-warning-breaking-news/#.UmZw-PmsiSr

    • Cairenn Day

      A few folks don’t alter the ‘consensus’.

      Experts from around the world are a consensus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Read those and LEARN.

      • Buddy199

        Do you really think a rational arguement is going to do any good in this case? Great info, I’m saving to personal archive.

        • Cairenn Day

          I have more info, if you wish it. I figure that there are more lurkers than posters and I hope to get them to look at some of my links.

          I am just a skeptical artist with a geology/physics background that hates misinformation and fear mongering. It doesn’t matter if the subject is GMOs or ‘protecting yourself from getting killed in a gang shooting’ .

          The above poster has showed her ‘intellect’ by her repeated ad hominum attacks on others here.

          • Arron Bound

            I think I should make myself clear, yes GMO have saved some plants from extinction. But my main concern is with corn crops that add pesticides into the genetic makeup of the corn’s DNA. And the business practices of the companies that peddle those products.

            We all can find someone who can back up our points of view. Time will tell and until then I’m eating what I can that is GMO free. My budget is tight too, but I’ve made a choice.

            It doesn’t make me any better just a little smarter.

          • Cairenn Day

            I don’t know any plants that GMO have saved from extinction, since there are ONLY 8 commercial GMO crops at this time.
            They are
            Corn
            Soybeans
            Papaya (all the papayas in Hawaii would be dead without the GMO papaya
            Canola
            Sugar beets
            Squash ( very limited varieties)
            Alfalfa (used for livestock)
            Cotton

            The pesticide that is used in corn is BT, it is sprayed all over your organic foods as well, because it is so safe.

            It is not even expressed in the kernels we eat. It can ONLY effect some insects, since it needs an alkaline gut to survive. The acid in our salvia would kill it.

            Do you really think that all of these groups are wrong?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            I can give you about that many more twice, if you want them. I only picked a few, because all of them make the post a ‘wall of text’.

          • Loren Eaton

            You’re mixing up Bt and RR. Bt produces a very safe insecticide inside the plant. RR plant have a resistance gene/protein in the plant to withstand Round Up.

  • ian drever

    “GMO Opponents Are the Climate Skeptics of the Left”
    I believe that they are even worse, not only are they affecting the health and welfare of future generations they are killing REAL people today eg. Golden Rice. They also cause more environmental degradation and higher food prices. And as a big bonus, we now have far more pesticides in the environment organic and synthetic. Crazy

  • Tom

    In response to all the fear mongering on this thread I hereby volunteer to eat nothing except genetically engineered foods for one year. Or two years. Or ten years. The only condition is that I don’t have to limit myself to commercially available variants so I can still have bacon (from EnviroPigs), tomatoes with anthocyanins in them (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081026150149.htm ), AquaAdvantage salmon, Arctic Apples, bread made from RR wheat, golden rice etc.

  • Karen Kapnick

    “One thing that surprised us is that U.S. regulators rely almost exclusively on information provided
    by the biotech crop developer, and those data are not published in
    journals or subjected to peer review,” Schubert said. “The picture that
    emerges from our study of U.S. regulation of GM foods is a rubber-stamp
    ‘approval process’ designed to increase public confidence in, but not
    ensure the safety of, genetically engineered foods.”
    http://rrvsga.com/nature-vs-gmo-sides-face-off-over-genetically-modified-food/

    http://unclematts.com/dev/why-im-pro-no-gmo-an-open-letter-from-uncle-matt/

    • ian drever

      whom should the Gov, rely on.. Scientists that don’t know anything about Plant biology? There is no rubber stamp all the GM products go through extensive testing, unlike new Organic products.

      • Karen Kapnick

        Really you’re actually trying to defend that? .And Organics are not made using an herbicide…so its not same thing. Ridiculous.

        • peter

          So, you’re saying that organic farmers don’t use any herbicides?
          https://www.google.com/search?q=organic+herbicides&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS504US504&oq=organic+herbicides&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.2853j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8#es_sm=91&espv=210&q=organic+herbicides&tbm=shop
          Funny that you can buy “organic herbicides” then. Hmm… I wonder if you know what you’re talking about.

        • peter

          Are you sure organic farmers don’t use herbicides? Do a quick google search for “organic herbicide”…

          I don’t think you know what you are talking about Karen. I also think you seem very upset. Why?

        • Loren Eaton

          So you shouldn’t have to prove it is safe? Like every other industry? Sounds like your exemption is a competitive advantage, not to mention a bit self-serving. I can think of half a dozen things that can go dangerously wrong with organic crops. Shouldn’t you have to prove that it will NEVER happen (even though it already has?) Your rules!!

          • Karen Kapnick

            Organics are labeled..so if you don’t think their safe then you can see exactly what they are and not buy it. We want the same option with GMO foods. Its only fair.

          • Loren Eaton

            The organic label DOESN’T tell me if the food is contaminated with bacteria or fungus (as has been known to happen)…therefore I cannot conclude from the label if it is safe.

          • Karen Kapnick

            NO LABEL Tells you that!!!! Terrible analogy.

          • Loren Eaton

            Maybe it should. Your rationale for labeling is safety (or your idea of it.) If you’re basing a labeling requirement on the method of production (ie. GMO) then the same should hold true for organically produced crops, and I’m referring to potential disease issues here. The proteins produced by GMO plants are LEGAL, and therefore you have no basis for labeling. To do so is what our lawyer friends might describe as arbitrary and capricious.

          • Loren Eaton

            ‘you can see exactly what they are’
            Organic tells you nothing about the ingredients…its a production method. Just like GMO.

          • Karen Kapnick

            I don’t sell organics so I don’t need a competitive advantage. Funny how you mention that…also funny how you mention “your rules” since biotechs have been living in a bubble with only their own rules. Bubble is about to POP!

          • Karen Kapnick

            GMOs have never been proven safe. More lies. And as I said before…we want a LABEL not a WARNING. Two very different things. We label everything.. Whole Wheat, Made from Concentrate etc..GMO should be no exception to the rule! Not our rules..the rules EVERYONE ELSE FOLLOWS

          • Loren Eaton

            Neither have organic foods. In fact WAY more people have gotten sick and DIED form tainted organic in the last decade than pretty much anything else. NOTHING can be proven safe. its a statistical impossibility.

          • Karen Kapnick

            You have GOT to be kidding me. Where is your proof that organics have caused people to die. So irresponsible to say something like that. Troll.

          • Loren Eaton

            You mean like the 50 people who died in Germany due to E. coli in organic sprouts? What’s irresponsible and delusional are people like you who equate “organic and natural” with “safe” and have the chutzpah to criticize everyone else.

          • Karen Kapnick

            Oh…I see you deleted your very bad analogy where you said Organics are labeled if they contain bacteria. So silly. Like anything else has that kind of label.

          • Loren Eaton

            I didn’t delete anything. Maybe a glitch.

      • Loren Eaton

        Haven’t you heard Ian? In Karen’s circle of friends, the more knowledge you have, the more biased you are.

    • Loren Eaton

      Karen, the FDA, USDA and EPA always rely on the producers of the products to perform the testing. This is nothing new. Whether its GMO’s, herbicides, medical devices or pharma, the field trials, clinical trials and safety testing are performed by the companies under the supervision of the regulatory agency. If this Schubert person didn’t know this going in, I wouldn’t put too much stock in their opinion on the matter.

      • Karen Kapnick

        We’re not talking about the FDA…we’re making a point that no ind tests were done. Anything credible has peer reviewed/published studies. You should know that.

        • Loren Eaton

          All applications for GM foods go throught the FDA, field release through USDA and pesticides and herbicides through EPA. And these are not scientific papers so they don’t go through a normal academic peer review process. Like it or not, the personnel at the regulatory agencies are AT LEAST as qualified to crunch the data as a group of college professors. This is a red herring.

          • Karen Kapnick

            You mean like Tom Vilsack is qualified?

          • Loren Eaton

            Vilsack is an adminstrator, so data interpretation is probably not in his job description. Obama is the commander in chief….but he probably doesn’t do helicoter repair.

  • jh

    Ah, Keith, looks like you touched a sensitive nerve. 290 comments! The hacks are out in force.

  • Karen Kapnick

    WHY
    IS BIOTECH NOT HELD TO THIS SAME HIGH STANDARD OF RESEARCH INTEGRITY?
    The parallels between Big Tobacco and Biotech are stunning. Scientific
    journals must adopt this same ethical position when it comes to research
    which has been funded by Biotech. “In a strongly-worded critique of the
    tobacco industry, published in BMJ Open, they argue that cigarette
    manufacturers have ‘used research to deliberately produce ignorance and
    to advance its ultimate goal of selling its deadly products, while
    shoring up its damaged legitimacy.’ Leading journals including the
    US-based Public Library of Science publications PLoS Medicine, PLoS One,
    PLoS Biology already refuse to publish studies paid for by tobacco
    companies. The decision will come as a blow to the tobacco industry.
    Publication of a study in the BMJ or an associated journal is an
    internationally-recognised rubber stamp of legitimacy, but editors said
    there was ‘a growing body of evidence’ that sources of funding were
    influencing research outcomes.”

  • Cairenn Day

    This is what a farmer has to say about the MAM movement

    It is past time that the anti GMO folks stopped listening to FB memes and the echo chamber of their own sites. Many of which will ban and delete any comments that are not from ‘true believers’. Most of the antis are urban and suburban folks with little connection to farms other than may be a visit to a ‘pick your own’ farm. They need to start talking to farmers and find out why they chose GMO crops.

    “Do farmers have a choice to plant GMO crops?

    Quite simply, yes they do have a choice
    whether or not to plant GMO crops. No one is railroading these farmers
    or forcing them to plant only GMO seeds. Farmers take into consideration
    several factors and spend time studying on which seeds they want to
    plant. Thanks to biotechnology, there are many varieties of seeds out
    there that help farmers produce a better crop despite harsh conditions
    from drought, pest invasion, and weed competition.

    Jenny Dewey, South Dakota, takes a look at several of the factors
    farmers take into account when choosing the seed varieties for their
    next crop. Read more in Do Farmers Have Choices?

    Brian Scott, Indiana, has actually taken time to share his Monsanto
    cropping agreement with readers and explains how it impacts his farming
    decisions. Read more in I Occupy Our Food Supply Everyday.

    Suzie Wilde, Texas, walks us through some of the decisions and
    choices her husband makes when selecting the next year’s cotton seed
    varieties. Read more in Hybrid & GMO Cottonseed Varieties leading the polls.”

    http://agricultureproud.com/2013/05/25/food-activists-march-against-monsanto-farmers-perspective/

  • Karen Kapnick

    this week a group of international scientists (the real kind, not the
    ones paid by the biotech industry), physicians and academics signed a
    statement to set the record straight. No, they wrote. Despite the many
    claims to the contrary, there is no consensus that GMOs are safe.

    Learn more
    http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_28589.cfm

    Read the statement
    http://sustainablepulse.com/wp-content/uploads/ENSSER_Statement_no_scientific_consensus_on_GMO_safety_ENG_LV.pdf

    Read the list of scientists, physicians and academics
    http://sustainablepulse.com/wp-content/uploads/First_signatories_to_the_statement_no_scientific_consensus_on_GMO_safety_lv.pdf

  • Ddanimal

    Mr kloor you are wrong. See this position statement from the american academy of environmental medicine.

    http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html

  • Ddanimal

    There is a huge body of evidence supporting anthopogenic climate change. There is no comparable body of evidence supporting the alleged safety of gmo foods. Almost all the gmo food safety research is tobacco science, done by the companies selling the stuff. As a journalist, surely you must understand the conflict of interest inherent in this situation.

  • Guest

    I wanted to point out that all of the profiles who were arguing in favor of GMO are now defunct. Obviously they were paid to attack objectors of GMO foods. Or else why would they all after the election they were attacking is over close their accounts at the same time? So do we trust companies that pay people to cause arguments, pay magazines to run false articles, companies that pay millions to politicians for preferential treatment? Or do we think for ourselves and act with caution to protect our health and the environment?

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collide-a-Scape

Collide-a-Scape is a wide-ranging blog forum that explores issues at the nexus of science, culture and society.

About Keith Kloor

Keith Kloor is a NYC-based journalist, and an adjunct professor of journalism at New York University. His work has appeared in Slate, Science, Discover, and the Washington Post magazine, among other outlets. From 2000 to 2008, he was a senior editor at Audubon Magazine. In 2008-2009, he was a Fellow at the University of Colorado’s Center for Environmental Journalism, in Boulder, where he studied how a changing environment (including climate change) influenced prehistoric societies in the U.S. Southwest. He covers a wide range of topics, from conservation biology and biotechnology to urban planning and archaeology.

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »