Why Vaccine and GMO Denial Should be Treated Equally

By Keith Kloor | August 7, 2014 11:46 am

Earlier this year, two writers at Mother Jones noted:

It’s easy to find bad information about the safety of vaccines on the internet.

True, that. It’s also easy to find bad information about the safety of GMOs on the internet.

What puzzles me is why liberal outlets recognize “bad information” about vaccines but not GMOs. (Grist is now a notable exception, after publishing skewed information on GMOs for years.) For let’s be clear: the science on GMOs is as solid and authoritative as it is on vaccines. So why are liberal outlets like the Huffington Post accepting of the scientific consensus on vaccines, but not GMOs?

I’m going to lay out an illustrative example of this contradiction in a minute. It has to do with an article on vaccines the Huffington Post rejected several weeks ago and one on GMOs that was recently published. But first, as a refresher, let’s review what prominent scientific bodies and institutions have concluded about the safety of GMOs. Here’s a handy overview from the Pacific Standard:

Within the scientific community, the debate over the safety of GM foods is over. The overwhelming conclusion is, in the words of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, that “consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.” Major scientific and governmental organizations agree. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences found that “no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population,” and a report issued by the European Commission made the same claim. The World Health Organization has concluded that GM foods “are not likely, nor have been shown, to present risks for human health.”

The judgement of the scientific community is just as crystal clear on the importance and overall safety of vaccines. The same scientific bodies and institutions that proclaim GMO foods safe to eat also advise children to be fully immunized according to the standard pediatric schedule. Why do some people accept the consensus judgement of expert medical panels and scientific institutions on vaccines but not GMOs? That is the question I wish many of my friends and colleagues in media would grapple with.

So how is this discrepancy  handled at places like the Huffington Post? Well, I have learned that the person I recently profiled in the Washington Post magazine, Robert Kennedy Jr., had submitted an article to the Huffington Post several weeks ago. It was abundantly annotated (803 footnotes). That, in of itself, doesn’t mean anything. What matters is the quality of the studies and scholarship cited. So anyone reviewing the piece would have to be familiar with the medical literature to pass judgement on the merits of the sourcing.

Kennedy’s piece was rejected by HuffPost after a week of editorial back and forth.

I don’t find that surprising, since HuffPost has moved away from its anti-vaccine history. And Kennedy’s attempts to reignite a debate over thimerosal (a vaccine preservative no longer used in pediatric vaccines in the U.S.) are met with hostility and perceived (for good reason) as giving oxygen to an anti-vaccine movement that is blamed for a resurgence in preventable childhood diseases. Moreover, Kennedy’s anti-thimerosal campaign has too often been been waged in a blustery, inflammatory manner, as I chronicled in my Washington Post story. If he would have stuck to a pure debate on the science, as he intones for others, and not peppered his outspoken views with ugly accusations and characterizations of respected scientists and government agencies, he might have been on somewhat friendlier ground with his new book.

But this is another story, perhaps to be taken up at a later time.

What’s interesting to me is the double standard at the Huffington Post. Around the time that Kennedy’s piece was being rejected, an article by Carole Bartolotto appeared in HuffPost’s Living Well section. It was headlined, “Genetically-Modified Organisisms (GMOs) Have NOT Been Proven Safe.”

Like Kennedy, Bartolotto is a semi-regular Huffpost “contributor.” She is identified as a registered dietitian. Many of her articles for HuffPost have an anti-GMO bent. On twitter, when I said to Bartolotto that her latest piece was an example of denialism, she suggested I was not qualified to judge it, because I wasn’t a scientist or health professional.

So I asked two scientists who receive no funding from the biotech industry and who work in the field of plant biotechnology to review her article for accuracy. They are Kevin Folta, Professor and Chairman, Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida, and Karl Haro von Mogel, a postdoc at  the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and Chair and co-Director of Biology Fortified, Inc. Their comments appear under their initials in the review, after Bartolotto’s italicized sections. Please do read their commentary. A short excerpt:

In science, we know that nothing is ever “proven,” so to demand that science “prove” something safe is a standard that can never be met. It cannot even be met for conventional foods.

It is curious that Kennedy’s opinion piece on thimerosal, which argues that thimerosal “is a potent neurotoxin that has never been proven safe,” would be rejected, while Bartolotto’s article, which argues that “no one can make the claim that GMOs are proven safe,” would be published. Both pieces are contrary to scientific consensus. Bartolotto’s article is a classic study in Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. It is a fallacious construct that is at odds “with the fundamental concept that science is based on empirical evidence, not fear of our wildest suppositions,” Folta says.

Kennedy’s rejected article, which was published yesterday at Alternet, has a similar logic, although he is arguing that there is a body of scientific studies that actually indicts thimerosal “as a threat to human health.” But this is a general statement. It is also misleading, because many substances pose a threat to human health. The question of whether a particular substance is a threat to human health often hinges on what level of concentration we are talking about, and what level of exposure. In the case of the mercury-based thimerosal preservative, it has been determined, after much study, that “there is no convincing evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines,” as the CDC states. Nor is there scientific evidence that thimerosal is linked to autism.

Kennedy’s thesis is that the scientific community is wrong about thimerosal being a safe vaccine ingredient and unduly confident about the lack of evidence for a link between thimerosal and autism. He feels so strongly about this that he wrote a book about it. The article he sought to publish at the Huffington Post (ultimately accepted by Alternet) is about the book and early reaction to it. Was HuffPost right to reject his op-ed while publishing another article on GMOs that similarly rejects scientific consensus? Why does one piece meet HuffPo standards and the other does not?

I put that question to Stuart Whatley, HuffPost’s executive blog editor. His response via email:

The Huffington Post passed on Robert Kennedy Jr.’s recent post because it failed to meet our medical review requirement that all bloggers provide adequate sourcing for their claims.

The other piece you mention, “”Genetically Modified Organisms Have NOT Been Proven Safe,” did include adequate sourcing and passed our medical review board, so it was featured on HuffPost.

It would be fascinating to see the sourcing for the GMO article. I wonder if the HuffPost author would share it.

As it happens, Mark Hyman is a “medical editor for the Huffington Post” and on its medical review board. He also worked closely with Kennedy on his thimerosal book. He approved of the article that Kennedy submitted. Evidently, he was overruled by the other members, who are listed below:

Medical Review Board: Julie Cooper, M.D.; Margaret I. Cuomo, M.D.; Mark Hyman, M.D.; David Katz, M.D.; Sandeep Kishore, Ph.D.; Shireen Khoury, M.D.; Christopher Lillis, M.D., FACP; Prabhjot Singh, M.D., Ph.D.

So what’s the point I’m trying to make? Well, it’s really more a question: Why is denial of scientific consensus on one issue (such as the safety of GMOs) given a forum so frequently at Huffington Post and elsewhere, while similar denial of scientific consensus on another issue (such as as the safety of vaccines) is considered verboten?

Is it that one form of denial is more socially acceptable than the other? 

  • mem_somerville

    That’s a fascinating parallel. But I’ll bet nobody gives you an answer on why one is tolerated and the other isn’t that doesn’t involve either the word “Monsanto” or includes a list of fringy scientists.

    • Tom

      Maybe Monsanto could buy into the vaccine market. Now that would be interesting…

      • mem_somerville

        I have actually already seen that rumor on the Ebola thing. And anti-vaxxers have run a number of campaigns on GMO-vaccine fears. https://twitter.com/HealthyNews2day/status/296772469824577536

        • kittura

          What is curious about the EBOLA thing is why are victims of the disease being transported to the USA with so much media attention and wearing HAZ MAT suits????

          On one hand here’s one quote:
          “First, while Ebola is an extremely virulent disease, its impact pales in comparison to other global killers like measles, AIDS, or even the flu.

          Related

          Few preparations in event of Ebola in US

          Second, the likelihood of Ebola spreading across the US is vanishingly small. It isn’t a particularly contagious disease, and in a developed country with strong health infrastructure, it probably wouldn’t spread much at all.

          What is Ebola?

          Ebola is a virus, like the flu or the common cold. In fact, the official name is Ebola Virus Disease. It was first identified in the 1970s, and since that time, there have been dozens of Ebola outbreaks, most of them in Central and East Africa.”

          http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/08/04/what-are-your-chances-getting-ebola/dsF58FxG8P3AlSKexoeQOL/story.html

          But that kind of suit was not needed to deal with HIV/AIDS patients… and HIV/AIDS patients are walking around all over the USA with no HazMat suits on everyday. HIV/AIDS patients are invisible in society today.

          So who is marketing this disease to us? and why the suits? It’s either airborne or it isn’t.

          • Michael Phillips

            I think it’s because unlike with HIV, ebola viral particles are highly concentrated in any bodily fluid, including sweat. Also, the onset time is very fast compared to HIV and death may occur in a week or less. The symptoms involve internal and external bleeding, vomiting, and diarrhea, all of which are vectors for transmission that require protective gear. Whereas HIV generally requires sexual contact or IV drug use, you can get ebola simply by coming into casual contact with an infected person. So it’s potential for spreading exponentially is higher than other dangerous diseases, and the death rate is quite high as well. I am not an expert in infectious diseases, but this is my understanding. The WHO has claimed it is not airborne, but if an infected person sneezes near you, that could be enough. I don’t know if that helps, but the hazmat suit precautions seem reasonable to me. I don’t see this as marketing but prudent preventitive measures. I expect your perspective on this is different.

          • kittura

            Thanks for your thoughtful answer on this. I think however that they need to stop saying that it isn’t easily spread. Most of the articles I’ve read are comparing it to HIV/AIDS with commentary that it isn’t so easily spread.

            This is why the Haz Mat suits seem incongruent.

          • Chris Preston

            Ebola is not that easily spread. You would have to come into contact with infected bodily fluids to get it. However, it has a very high and very rapid kill rate.

            The hazmat suits, etc. are to stop those who have to handle the patient from catching the virus. The risk to those not in direct contact is very small.

        • Michael Phillips

          Mary, I wonder if anti-GMO activists will change their attitude towards plant biotech if it turns out that transgenic tobacco is a good system for producing effective vaccines for ebola. Or am I kidding myself?

      • Boris Ogon

        It’s not farfetched:

        When Dr. Whaley and Dr. Zeitlin were both researchers at Johns Hopkins University in 1998, they published a paper with Monsanto scientists about a soybean genetically engineered to produce an antibody against genital herpes.

        • Tom

          I’m guessing this paper:

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9853620

          • Boris Ogon

            Yup. I don’t think this should be confused with an edible delivery system, though; ERV has touched on the subject here and there.

            Go MucoRice!

          • Tom

            That Monsanto name-drop was obviously part of Pollack’s pro-herpes agenda.

      • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

        Did you know that Monsanto and Phizer are basically partners? Same parent company. Google it. They share properties and parking lots in St. Louis.

        • JH

          Monsanto (MON) and Pfizer (PFE) are separate publicly traded companies. They share no corporate officers or board members. PFE is based in NYC. MON is based in St Louis. See google finance.

          They may share some parking lots and may even have some partnerships going on, but 99% of their businesses are entirely different.

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            Oh, I am sure. Kind of like when my 7 year old says he brushed his teeth even though his toothbrush is dry. Sure. Coincidence that they share property. And that they share information, which they admit. Cause and effect is what comes to mind.

          • rebeccagavin

            Another interesting coincidence. The same Kathleen Kelly Hallal who is foaming at the mouth over GMOs expressed significant butthurt when Fox News attacked Neil degrasse Tyson…before he spoke some facts about GMOs….

          • rebeccagavin

            So, tell us, Kathleen Kelly Hallal, is he still your hero? Who’s the luddite now?

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            I am doubly disappointed by his comments. My family were big fans of his. We enjoyed his programs on space. But when I heard him backing the pesticide industry, that was the end. We do appreciate Bill Nye, who readily admits that GMOs need further health study. Your longest test is for 90 days- well, we live longer than 90 days. You could test cigarettes for 90 days and show no health damage, but we all know that they cause cancer. In fact, the short-term tests you all claim prove there will never be any harm actually show the beginnings of harm. For example, Puzstai’s industry-funded study showing damage to the gut lining. Funny that that is just what farmers are finding today in the animals fed GMOs. And what a coincidence that Seralini found damage to internal organs as well. I was truly sorry to hear Neil was misinformed, and that he ignored the pesticide issue. Sorry, but we were NOT raising crops with incorporated pesticides before 1996. Lab created GMOs are NOT the same as traditional hybrids. End of story.

          • Michael Phillips

            He didn’t show support for the pesticide industry. That is flat out false. He pointed out some basic facts of biology.

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            Really? Promoting GMOs is not promoting pesticides? Tell me, who are the top makers of GMOs? Which companies?

          • JoeFarmer

            Define “top makers of GMOs”.

            If you go by patents registered, it’s the University of California system and the U.S. government.

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            Syngenta, Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, Bayer Crop Science and BASF. Top six producers. All chemical companies. Thanks!

          • rebeccagavin

            Monsanto, as it exists today, has no relationship to the former company bearing that name and is an Ag company, not a chemical company. You just repeat things that a little bit of digging would tell you is not true. How fickle you are with your heros. If your science hero says something contrary to your personal beliefs, even though his statements are scientifically accurate, he’s gone, crossed off your list. You only like scientists who tell you what you want to hear.

          • hyperzombie

            Well Land O lakes is bigger than 3 of them and Stein seed is bigger as well (in seed sales)

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            No, actual sellers.

          • JoeFarmer

            The top 4 GM seed producers are Monsanto, DuPont-Pioneer, Syngenta and Land O Lakes.

            You’re trying to make a connection between GM seed and pesticides, but Monsanto doesn’t make any insecticides or fungicides, just a few herbicides.

            Syngenta makes a lot of different crop protection chemicals, but they only have about 10% of the U.S. seed market.

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            OMG. I cannot even reply to this. So, the top six sellers of GMOs are NOT chemical companies? Get real.

          • Michael Phillips

            I make transgenics as a public researcher and I do not work for a company.

          • hyperzombie

            Monsanto would love to design a GMO that didn’t need any herbicides, farmers would love that and they would make zillions. Monsanto is not wedded to chemicals

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            So, GMO crops do not incorporate pesticides? Explain how Roundup Ready, Bt, and Liberty Link work then, please?

          • JoeFarmer

            Bt crops express one or more cry proteins – that’s an insecticide.

            RR crops have an alternate synthase pathway. But they don’t have any herbicide built in.

            Liberty link is similar to RR.

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            So, the Bt is built in. Check. And the Roundup and Liberty link absorb the systemic pesticide and keep growing? Got it. Thanks!

          • JoeFarmer

            In RR crops, the very small amount of glyphosate applies gets translocated through the plant and into the ground where it decomposes.

            Funny how you resist talking about actual residue levels. Why is that?

          • Olga Grobut

            The science deniers would rather squeal about farmers DRENCHING their crops with RIDICULOUS amounts of pesticides than hold an informed discussion about how much residue is present in the food and whether that level is of concern or not. This follows from their world view of “I don’t care about the facts, my mind is made up and I know I’m right.”

          • JoeFarmer

            That pretty much sums it up!

          • Michael Phillips

            True. So the question is what is the point in responding to them? Are we just providing a contrast so those on the fence might be persuaded by science supporters who seem rational by comparison? Or is there actually any hope of reaching the green version of creationists with logic and evidence? KK’s original post made a comparison between anti-GMOers and vaccine denialists. An apt comparison indeed.

          • Olga Grobut

            The papaya ringspot virus crippled the industry in Hawaii by killing off the trees. A genetically modified papaya that was created specifically to resist the virus has brought it back.

            Nothing to do with pesticides.

            So, yes: GMO crops do not incorporate pesticides. Well. some do but your blanket condemnation looks pretty silly in light of the facts.

            http://hawaiitribune-herald.com/sections/news/local-news/papaya-gmo-success-story.html

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            Tell me about the non- GMO papaya in the Philippines that is enormously successful and it resists the virus.or, maybe you don’t know about them. University of Hawaii does, and they are bringing their own version to market- non- GMO. Secondly, tell me about how happy those farmers are trying to sell their GMO papayas while the market crashed for them because no one wants to eat them.

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            Sure- 95% of GMO foods in our markets are not raised with and/or patented as pesticides. Get real.

          • rebeccagavin

            Hubris much?

          • FrenchKissed

            And vacuuming your floors isn’t the same thing as sweeping your floors, but they both accomplish the same thing.

          • FrenchKissed

            If you tested cigarettes for 90 day you would definitely see some damage if you were testing them on mice.

            Honestly, I don’t see how you can not know this stuff. What percentage of dogs do you think would get cancer by the age of 15 if something else didn’t kill them first? What percentage of humans do you think get cancer by the time they turn 15? Which group do you think has a higher prevalence of cancer by age 15- dogs, or humans?

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            Dear Rebecca, I think we were raised in different sorts of households. In our house, we don’t use words like “butt hurt”. Do you think you could please refrain from using rude language? I don’t allow my family to talk like that. It is disrespectful and takes away from your credibility. I believe there are some well-intentioned people in these conversations. At least I hope that they are not all paid by industry- but they don’t see what I see from a mother’s point of view. How could there not be consequences from adding pesticides to our food in ever increasing levels? This is not rocket science. Our children are not doing well on GMOs- perhaps largely because of the pesticides, but possibly due to additional reasons. If no one was getting better when they removed GMOs from their diets, I would not be so sure. But the fact is that both animals and children, and even adults, do better when they clean out their diet. I am sorry that you do not care about that. I really am. But you don’t have to use bad language to get your point across. Thanks!

          • JoeFarmer

            You’re about the last person that should be lecturing about credibility, given that your group has yet to retract its fraudulent “stunning corn comparison”/

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            Hi Kathleen
            How nice to see you talking sense on this string of comments! Greetings from Australia

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            Thanks Madge!

          • Olga Grobut

            Funny coincidence: the United States and Australia are the main countries in the world that sport significant minorities of believers in creationism: universe poofed into existance in 4004 BC, magic talking snakes, worldwide flood that laid down the fossils, that sort of disreputable nonsense.

            And now, who should pop up to support the anti science Jibberwocky but Madge from Australia!

            Sorry, but we have enough loons to deal with on our own – we don’t need yours as well.

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            Insulting me doesn’t make your stance evidence based. Until you show me scientific proof that each GM event has been fully tested including long term and multi-generational feeding trials as well as for toxicology, allergenicity, novel ds RNA, unexpected proteins, viral gene promoter effects etc then I reserve my right to object to these foods on scientific grounds.

          • Michael Phillips

            Why? You still wouldn’t accept them as safe even if all that was done. You’d just raise the bar further.

            And why don’t you ask for the same “proof” from organics made through mutagenesis?

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            The testing on GM foods has not been done therefore they have not been shown to be either safe or ‘substantially equivalent’ to non-GM food. These patented substances should not be in our food but since they are they in our food they should be labelled.

          • Michael Phillips

            How about labeling organics with stats about food poisoning deaths? Don’t consumers have a right to know this information?

          • hyperzombie

            If it was really about food safety the first thing that they would advocate for is a “Grown in Animal Feces” label. E Coli and Salmonella kill real people every year.

          • Michael Phillips

            Also, you are wrong about testing not being done. National Academy of Sciences, Royal Society, WHO, AAAS, many other scientific organizations dispute your statement. Lots of testing been done, you’d have to purposely ignore a lot of peer reviewed literature to say what you just said.

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            The bodies you mention have not done testing on GM. They have made unreferenced and therefore unscientific comments on GM that often equate to saying no harm from GM food has been proved. A bit like saying in the 1970s that no harm from smoking has been proved.

          • Michael Phillips

            Those bodies are composed of scientists who have done such testing. There are thousands of peer reviewed pubs you would have to go out of your way to ignore, all showing no additional risks of GM foods compared to conventional agriculture. If you want examples of real harm from organics, consider the 30+ people who dies from organic sprouts in Germany in 2011 plus hundreds sickened. Consider the numer of deaths every year from peanut allergies, according to the CDC. That is real harm. No such harm has ever been documented from GM foods. Sorry, but the evidence is massively against your claim. And who do you think demonstrated that smoking is harmful? Public scientists of course, the same kind of folks who demonstrate GM foods have no additional risks compared to conventionally modified foods. You accept the science that shows tobacco is harmful but you reject the same scientific method that shows GM foods present no danger.

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            Those bodies have done no such testing. There are not thousands of independent studies showing safety – as you should know. GM companies wanting to release a GM food undergo a voluntary exchange of documents with the FDA that results in the FDA saying that there appears to be nothing that requires a pre-market assessment. The documents used are usually non-peer-reviewed studies done by the companies themselves. How you can call this science is a mystery.

          • Michael Phillips

            You’re correct these studies do not show safety. Rather, they fail to show harm under controlled conditions that would if they were in fact dangerous. That is how the scientific process works. It is not a mystery. “Proof” as you require exists only in math and philosophy, not empirical science. Here are two lists of peer reviewed studies:

            http://www.argenbio.org/index.php?action=notas&note=6496
            http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/

            Based on your comments, I doubt you will read a single one, so allow me to ask you the following questions:
            Do you think all GM plants are necessarily dangerous or only the ones currently marketed by corporations?
            If yes, what possible mechanism could convert any harmless DNA sequence encoding a protein with known properties into something dangerous simply because it was cloned in a lab?
            If no, why do labeling initiatives supported by those of your mindset never include actual information regarding the transgene? That is, why add a label that does not include any useful information? It seems designed as a scare tactic to manipulate consumers and give “organic” producers an unfair advantage. A scarlet letter, if you will.
            Do you also fear organic produce genetically manipulated by mutagenic chemicals or ionizing radiation? If no, why not?

            Using RoundUp Ready as an example, why would EPSP synthase from Agrobacterium cause us any harm when plants are also loaded with EPSP synthase? Even the bacteria in your gut make lots of EPSP synthase, and you are exposed to it constantly from multiple sources.

            I ask you to put aside your obvious ideological POV for a moment and consider, in purely biochemical terms, how a transgene could really cause harm to your system simply because it was cloned in a lab. A few discredited activist pieces notwithstanding, the scientific consensus is clearly with me on this. How do you know more than the Natl Acad of Sciences, Am Assoc for the Advancement of Sciences, Am Medical Assoc, WHO, etc, etc.? Do you really feel qualified to say you are more of an expert than all the members of the world’s most prestigious scientific bodies?

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            The argenbio list was in Spanish but the biofortified one has been debunked in the latest report from Earth Open Source entitled “GM myths and truths”. Even one study showing GM foods cause harm should not be ignored (the Black Swan problem) however there are many peer-reviewed studies showing this. They are listed in the ENSSER statement that there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GM foods and in AAEM’s position paper on GM foods.

            In regard to your other questions:
            1) Yes I regard all current GM crops as potentially dangerous due to the imprecise method of transformation and our limited knowledge of the intricacies of genetics and cell and plant behaviour. Therefore regardless of who is doing the GM it should not be released commercially at present and probably not for decades. There is no need for GM breeding as conventional breeding is able to do what we want and marker assisted selection can help. The most important thing for agriculture is to stop any more of our biodiversity in crops (and wild plants) being lost.
            2) The cloning in a lab – by which I think you mean the tissue culture to transform the GM cell into a plant – is not the only issue. Have a look at Latham’s paper “The mutational consequences of plant transformation” to see some of the issues. Then there is also the likely production of proteins that have never existed before, the potential production of RNA sequences that could cause harm (see Heinemann and Carman’s work on this) the use of viral DNA that could be active (see Podevin and du Jardin and Latham and Wilson’s comment on this). Also have a look at GM myths and truths report for more details.
            3) Regarding labelling – why do you oppose it? If GM is so safe and wonderful it should be labelled and then you could show that no one has been harmed by eating it. Why does the GM industry want to hide its products? Could it be it doesn’t trust them?
            4) I would like the produce from chemical mutagenesis and radiation to be labelled. There may, or may not, be some of the same issues as with GM.
            5) EPSP synthase is an enzyme that participates in the biosynthesis of the aromatic amino acids. Glyphosate targets this enzyme to disrupt the shikimate pathway that exists in plants and micro-organisms. Therefore it is not the EPSP synthase that is the issue it is that glyphosate (Roundup) damages this pathway. We were told we had nothing to worry about as it does not affect humans. This ignores the fact that humans are only 10% human cells and 90% microbial cells most of which live in our gut and help us digest food, make nutrients and create our immune system (70% of which lives in our gut). Therefore damage to the EPSP synthase can have far reaching effects on plant, animal and human health.
            6) For how GM crops and their associated pesticides harm us see GM myths and truths by Earth Open Source and comments made above.
            7) The august bodies that you cite have made general and unreferenced statements on GM foods that cannot be substantiated. The claim that no one has been harmed by GM food is made in the absence of any epidemiological studies. No one knows what effect GM foods has had on the population as no one has looked. It is like saying smoking is fine when there have been no studies to investigate. Unless and until these bodies actually reference their statements and have peer-reviewed evidence to contradict the mounting body of peer-reviewed studies showing harm they cannot be taken as scientific evidence that we should be eating these foods.

          • Michael Phillips

            Even a non-spanish speaker can click on the link to the PDF and see the list of peer-reviewed articles. I guess you are not that curious. And those articles on the biofortified list are real. Activist websites are poor sources of info. Better to look at them yourself. Black Swan argument—it’s a new one for me, and makes no sense. Any activist can stick a piece of garbage paper in a low level pay-to-play internet only journal. That does not make it comparable to 1000s of pubs in high impact journals. Even legitimate scientific controversies often see conflicting literature, but eventually a consensus comes out when enough independent groups get involved. It doesn’t vindicate the minority view, it means the censorship conspiracy notion is also bunk. So a couple of papers with no controls from ideologically motivated, biased individuals mean nothing next to a strong consensus of professional scientists who actually did the work correctly.

            1&2-If you are willing to accept food genetically modified by crosses, inbreeding, introgression, and mutagenesis via EMS and ionizing radiation, then your statement about ” the imprecise method of transformation and our limited knowledge of the intricacies of genetics and cell and plant behaviour.” simply makes no sense. Transformation is far more precise than any of the techniques you accept. Involves a single or a few genes and its position of insertion can be determined by sequencing. When have you asked for this kind of information from the modified produce on your organic shelf? And what is the evidence transformation as a technique can convert any DNA sequence into something deadly? That must be true for your statement to be invalid. However, the truth or safety of a trait is determined by that trait, not but the technique used to introduce it. All genetics and biology are behind me on this point. Please consider transposon action and horizontal gene transger. Natural processes that do not cause catastrophes. How can you explain that is your idead about any modification to DNA being deadly?

            3-Labeling is simply a marketing ploy that contains no useful information. It is an attempt to capitalize on activists’ efforts to demonize the notion of genetic modification while giving a pass to techniques that are truly dangerous based on real data on food poisoning and allergic reactions. They would never have actual information related to the modification, would only serve to scare and manipulate consumer choices based on zero evidence, and would require the government to effectively sanction a science-free position that legitimizes superstitious beliefs. Would you support labels for all organic produce that describe food poisoning deaths with a big scary skill and crossbones? At least there is real data behind that assertion. No evidence any GMO has ever caused harm.

            4-If you agree all food genetically modified by mutagenesis or other techniques should also be labeled, then all food must be so labeled. So what again is the point of singling out modification by transformation except to appease the paranoias of the victims of scare mongering campaigns?

            6-I’m afriad you’re arguing against yourself here. It sounds like you are against glyphosate but not necessarily GM foods just by virtue of them being GM. But your answer to (1) says the opposite. Are you against them all on principle or not? Also, the plant homolog of EPSP synthase is inhibited by glyphosate. The microbial form is much less so. That’s why they used a microbial form of that enzyme for resistance. So I diagree with your assertion that our microflora is affected by the trace amounts we ingest. Please note, you’re assuming the amount of glyphosate that winds up in your system is comparable to that which is sprayed on the plant, but you’re wrong by several orders of magnitudes here. Sub-attamole quantities vs. nanomoles. That massive difference in dose makes a world of difference. If you’re going to invoke the science, it is better to know what you are talking about. Don’t just repeat nonsense you pulled off a activist website. Their knowledge of the actual science if famously bad. There is lots of literature on the toxicity

            7-Your claim again makes no sense. There are epidemiological and toxicology studies, but I see you are not interested in them. Instead, you reference vague, possible, might-happen type situations that are convincing to one except the already convinced activists. So again I ask you: how do your qualifications, whatever they are, place you personally in a position to more about the relevant than the world’s experts? Please explain how you personally can know more than all those professional scientists. And how do your imagined harms from GM foods compare to mercury in tuna fish? Food poisoning from organic produce? Lack of nutrients in underdeveloped nations where food is scarce? Is anything in your argument NOT a first world, middle class, hysteria based preocupation with imagined harms whose end result (i.e. banning technology you don’t understand) would be the increased suffering of vulnerable populations who stand the most to gain from this technology?

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            GM breeding is not precise. I wanted labelling of mutagensis by ionising radiation and chemical mutation. This does not include all food despite your silly comments. Your comments show you have simply not read what I previously wrote on the imprecision of GM and its hazards. I will not repeat it. If you do not understand that a plant defending itself from horizontal gene transfer is different from cross and selective breeding and GM then I will not waste further time on the issue.
            Labelling really gets under your skin, why? If GM is so great they should proudly defend their product. Labelling would also allow for epidemiological studies to be done. That the GM companies are spending millions and millions of dollars fighting labelling sends a clear message that they are frightened to stand behind their product. Why should we eat it?

            Most food has not been produced by mutagenesis.

            There is clear evidence that glyphosate Roundup affects bacteria and the health of animals and plants. Google GMO Evidence and look at their Roundup page for a full list.

            There are no epidemiological studies on GM foods.

            Im tired of people promoting GM shouting rubbish and brushing aside the scientific, medical and field evidence showing harm from GM. Watch Argentina;s Bad Seeds for the massive harm these pesticide crops are causing.

            Shout at me all you like but GM is a failure and this is becoming more and more visible. IF you really are interested in the science have a look at GM myths and truths and also the Independent Science News site. They are not activists but scientists.

          • Michael Phillips

            GM is much more precise than recombination or mutagenesis. One gene is affected, as opposed to hundreds or thousands. Transformation is an indispensable tool in plant research precisely because of its precision. I work on transgenic plants and we analyze insert numbers, metabolomic affects, promoter strength, transcriptome effects, and other effects of genetic manipulation. There is no other way to manipulate a single trait except for transformation. We never see harmless DNA becoming deadly poisoning by virtue of the fact that we manipulated it. That would need to be true for your statements to have merit.

            If you accept that hybridization, mutagenesis, inbreeding, and introgression as genetic modifications, than everything in the store should carry the GMO label. All food has been genetically modified in by one technique or another, and if labels will not contain relevant information, than they are merely tools for manipulation and scare mongering if they are only applied to transgenics. That is why I oppose them. The scarlet letter approach to banning GM foods is based on ideologly, and governments should not endorse pseudoscientific ideas like GMO hysteria. That is another reason I oppose them. I am a plant researcher and do not like seeing lies and misinformation spread about my research area. This makes it hard or impossible to finance research projects aimed at the public good to help people in difficult situations of poor nutrition. That is a third reason I oppose labels. You seem to care nothing for those who would benefit from plant biotechnology. Yours are first world problems.

            I am not shouting rubbish at you. I have been in research my entire professional life and feel as scientists we must confront pseudoscientific nonsense like homeopathy, vaccine hyteria, climate change denialism, and creationist attacks on science education. GMO hysteria is just another form of that nonsense, and while I do not expect to convince you, I am happy to refute the activist propaganda you consider to be solid science for the benefit of readers of this site (and this thread).

            GM is a failure? It has been adopted in records numbers by a record number of farmers and reduced pesticide use more than any other agricultural technology. Your continued opposition means that only corporations have the money to push them to market while public-minded research projects will never be approved. Saying it is a “failure” demonstrates your disconnection from the actual science. You’re simply wrong on that fact. Citing activist websites and propaganda films impresses no one with a scientific background. And I am happy to use my background to continue engaging you on this issue for as long as you like.

            I have scientific evidence on my side while you have palm readers, reiki-practioners, and conspiracy theorists. Please explain Mike Adams the HealthRanger if you disagree with that statement. Please explain why Greenpeace and other ideologically motivated groups are your source of scientific information if you disagree with that statement. I very much enjoy taking about the evidence and assure you I will never become rude towards you or tire from promoting good science.

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            I find it hard to believe you are a scientist. You of all people should know that GM is not a simple matter of moving one gene. It is disgraceful that you should say this. The GT 73 Roundup Ready canola has:

            – 2 genes from soil bacteria to make proteins so the canola plant can survive being sprayed with Roundup.

            -To ‘start’ and ‘stop’ these bacterial
            GM genes being transcribed into proteins
            2 sections of DNA from a disease causing plant virus and 2 sections from a pea
            plant were used.

            – To transport the proteins from the GM genes to a particular place in the cell 2 chloroplast
            transit peptides from a cress plant were
            used

            – DNA from soil bacteria border
            each end of the gene cassette.

            To say this is more precise that selective or cross-breeding is ridiculous. To futhermore say it has no effects other than the ones you want is also entirely disingenuous.

            Furthermore you seem to dismiss everyone that you disagree with as ‘activists’. This appears to include the doctors and mothers who are finding health improves when GM is removed from the diet, farmers who find their animal health is better on a GM-free diet and who are also finding less crop disease, pests and weed pressure with non-GM and the scientists who find harm from GM crops and their associated pesticides.

            You also ignore the farmers in the third world who have been actively campaigning against GM. GM cotton has caused indebtedness and suicide in India. In the Philippines GM corn has caused debt and illness. Watch the MASIPAG “10 years of failure – farmers deceived by GM corn.”

            If you really care about science and feeding the world you would support agroecology.

          • Michael Phillips

            I am indeed a plant scientist and post under my real name. Feel free to look up my LinkedIn profile, pubs on Google Scholar, or my personal page at my home institute. I operate on a level of transparency you don’t even attempt. The level of detail I used was appropriate based on what I perceived as your level of understanding of biology. If I oversimplified, apologies. What you are describing are promoters and terminators. Nothing scary about that. That fact they come from a plant virus is irrelevant to their function. A promoter drives expression of the gene and the terminator is a molecular signal indicating where the transcription of the mRNA transcript should stop. They do not wind up being translated into the final protein. More importantly, they do not confer infectiousness, as your comment implies. That was the kind of disingenuous scare mongering that lowered my opinion of your intentions. The fact DNA sequences come from different organisms is irrelevant. Only their useful properties are relevant, and these are normal tools we use in metabolic engineering. A 20 bp sequence of DNA from the so called “border” sequences of Agrobacterium do not confer the properties of the whole, intact organism, whose genome is about 5.7 million bp. Such misconceptions from you are what led me to oversimplify my explanation, but I will give you more detail from now on if our conversation continues. I sincerely hope it does.

            The chloroplast transit peptides are normal targeting sequences added when we want to direct a protein to a specific subcellular compartment, like the chlorplast or mitochondria. Since bacterial proteins do not contain these compartments, their proteins do not have such transit peptides. Therefore, we must add them to the bacterial protein so that they find their way correctly to the compartment where we want them to be active. This transit peptide affects where the protein winds up, not its enzymatic activity. The fact they are from a different species has no impact whatsoever on safety or function (I suspect it’s Arabidopsis in your example since no one uses its common name ‘thale cress’).

            I was not familiar with GT 73 RR canola so I looked it up. You are correct that this trait consists of two proteins. It is a polygenic trait. One protein is the microbial EPSP synthase. The other protein degrades glyphosate, which I would think would nullify your fears of you being exposed to it. It would have been more accurate for me to say that transformation usually consists of insertion of a single trait. It is not easy summarizing a complex technology in a comment thread. The point is the precision involved: directing proteins to a specific compartment in the cell based on foreknowledge of their biochemical properties in order for them to serve a specific celluar function in a specific location. Breeding by mutagenesis and selective breeding may also produce useful phenotypes, but we do not see what genes have been modified to produce it. They are less precise. We can figure it out by working backwards in a process called “genetic mapping” but it is a laborous process and we have no control over which genes were tweaked to produce the outcome. Saying that transformation is not acceptable while those other techques are is like we saying it is only acceptable when we have no idea which genes we are modifying. This is the reason we need pesticides in the first place: selective breeding is an imprecise method which inadvertently eliminated many natural resistance genes from natural populations. I hope this explanation helps you to understand why transformation is a precise process with an irreplaceable role in agricultural biotechnology.

            I cannot address your comments on Indian cotton suicides or the Philippines as they are unfounded notions that have been roundly debunked elsewhere. It is a shame you do not apply the same critical thinking to such stories that you apply to transgenics. I have given you solid, scientific arguments and lists of peer reviewed publications. You gave me conspiracy webpages and propaganda films. That is why I compared your thinking to fringe groups. You don’t have to remain stuck there, however.

            We need all these different techniques to affront the problems of world hunger in the coming generation. Science will provide us with these solutions. Wishing thinking about science-free agriculture and organic produce feeding the world would only lead us to food riots.

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            I’m not sure which Michael Philips you are. If you want to know who I am you can always ask or have a look at my website.

            “What you are describing are promoters and terminators. Nothing scary about that. That fact they come from a plant virus is irrelevant to their function.” This is an assumption. In fact in the Podevin and du Jardin paper of 2012 shows your comment is not supported by the science. As Latham and Wilson write:

            “What Podevin and du Jardin discovered is that of the 86 different transgenic events (unique insertions of foreign DNA) commercialized to-date in the United States 54 contain portions of Gene VI within them. They include any with a widely used gene regulatory sequence called the CaMV 35S promoter (from the cauliflower mosaic virus; CaMV). Among the affected transgenic events are some of the most widely grown GMOs, including Roundup Ready soybeans (40-3-2) and MON810 maize. They include the controversial NK603 maize recently reported as causing tumors in rats (Seralini et al. 2012).

            The researchers themselves concluded that the presence of segments of Gene VI “might result in unintended phenotypic changes”. They reached this conclusion because similar fragments of Gene VI have already been shown to be active on their own (e.g. De Tapia et al. 1993). In other words, the EFSA researchers were unable to rule out a hazard to public health or the environment.

            In general, viral genes expressed in plants raise both agronomic and human health concerns (reviewed in Latham and Wilson 2008). This is because many viral genes function to disable their host in order to facilitate pathogen invasion. Often, this is achieved by incapacitating specific anti-pathogen defenses. Incorporating such genes could clearly lead to undesirable and unexpected outcomes in agriculture. Furthermore, viruses that infect plants are often not that different from viruses that infect humans. For example, sometimes the genes of human and plant viruses are interchangeable, while on other occasions inserting plant viral fragments as transgenes has caused the genetically altered plant to become susceptible to an animal virus (Dasgupta et al. 2001). Thus, in various ways, inserting viral genes accidentally into crop plants and the food supply confers a significant potential for harm.”

            Read the whole article entitled “Regulators discover hidden viral gene in commercial GMO crops.” The regulators dismissed this and Latham and Wilson wrote a follow up article entitled: “Is the hidden viral gene safe? Regulators fail to convince.”

            If you dismiss this, as no doubt you will, you show that what you are supporting is assumptions that are contradicted by evidence. To really convince you have to provide evidence that there is no effect from using viral promoters.

            You say “A 20 bp sequence of DNA from the so called “border” sequences of Agrobacterium do not confer the properties of the whole, intact organism, whose genome is about 5.7 million bp. Such misconceptions from you are what led me to oversimplify my explanation, but I will give you more detail from now on if our conversation continues. I sincerely hope it does.” Once again no evidence from you to support this. This is again an assumption and should be treated as such. Assuming that little bits of DNA have no effects is entirely unscientific. You should know about point mutations and that they can cause effects on an organism.

            The ENCODE report published in 2012
            found that around 80% of the non-protein-coding DNA in the human genome is in
            some way functional and that more than half of it is transcribed into one or
            another class of RNA. What has been discovered in the case of plants,
            especially the species that have been modified via genetic engineering? On
            average, what percentage of their genome is functional and how much of it is
            transcribed? See answering these questions is scientific, ignoring the fact they need to be asked is blinkered and ideological.

            Thank you for confirming I was correct in my description of GM canola GT 73.

            “One protein is the microbial EPSP synthase. The other protein degrades glyphosate, which I would think would nullify your fears of you being exposed to it.” Have a look at the increase in MRL in GM RR crops:

            “The legally acceptable level of glyphosate contamination in food and feed, i.e. the maximum residue level (MRL) has been increased by authorities in countries where Roundup-Ready GM crops are produced, or where such commodities are imported. In Brazil, the MRL in soybean was increased from 0.2 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg in 2004: a 50-fold increase, but only for GM-soy. The MRL for glyphosate in soybeans has been increased also in the US and Europe. In Europe, it was raised from 0.1 mg/kg to 20 mg/kg (a 200-fold increase) in 1999, and the same MRL of 20 mg/kg was adopted by the US. In all of these cases, MRL values appear to have been adjusted, not based on new scientific evidence, but pragmatically in response to actual observed increases in the content of residues in glyphosate-tolerant GM soybeans.” For full article see “How extreme levels of Roundup in food became the industry norm.”

            “It is not easy summarizing a complex technology in a comment thread. The point is the precision involved: directing proteins to a specific compartment in the cell based on foreknowledge of their biochemical properties in order for them to serve a specific celluar function in a specific location.” Sorry but this comment is hubris and delusion.

            One of the MADGE’s spent 18 months reading into the raw data supplied by Monsanto to FSANZ on the approval of GM canola GT 73. We found numerous holes in the documents and wrote a report entitled “Roundup Ready canola animal studies for Tony Burke.” Monsanto was not able to characterise one of its intended GM proteins in the GM canola. Instead they supplied FSANZ with information about a protein that was not expected to be present in the crop. This is an example of the precision and omnipotence you claim for this technology.

            The Latham paper “The mutational consequences of plant transformation” goes into detail about the mess that GM makes of genomes. You must have read this paper.

            “selective breeding is an imprecise method which inadvertently eliminated many natural resistance genes from natural populations.” Oh, the arrogance of that statement! Can you see it?

            “I cannot address your comments on Indian cotton suicides or the Philippines as they are unfounded notions that have been roundly debunked elsewhere.” Really? There are loads of films made by news organisations as well as farmer organisations that show what is going on. Google the following: “Argentina’s Bad Seeds”, “10 years of failure- Farmers Deceived by GM corn” “Superweed that can’t be killed.”

            For written reports read the Indian Parliamentary Standing Committee’s report, “Cultivation of Genetically Modified Food Crops — Prospects and Effects.” It decided that GM crops were ‘no panacea’ for food security and that bt Brinjal should not go ahead. “We wanted to make an objective report. We invited those in favour of GM crops including Monsanto and those who were not. We visited five States including Maharashtra, Goa, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. We examined 18,000 documents 1,000 memoranda and 56 witnesses. The panel members met 100 farmers’ widows and heard from lakhs of farmers their plight in each State. The arguments of those against were stronger. That is why the entire committee is unanimous. There was not a single amendment or dissent.”

            For an in depth look at what GM cotton seeds have done and continue to do to Indian farmers read “Seeds of Truth – A response to the New Yorker” by Vandana Shiva which was released yesterday.

            “We need all these different techniques to affront the problems of world hunger in the coming generation. Science will provide us with these solutions. Wishing thinking about science-free agriculture and organic produce feeding the world would only lead us to food riots.”

            If you read the Vandana Shiva article you will see how the opposite is the case. If you want to know what causes hunger and famine read “Late Victorian Holocausts” by Mike Davis. Also read “The Grapes of Wrath” by John Steinbeck. The manipulation of markets and the impoverishment of people, especially farmers, is what causes hunger.

          • Michael Phillips

            You’re generalizing drastically to support your anti-GM bias. A 20 bp fragment of DNA simply does not confer the properties of the 5.7 Mbp organism from which it comes. If you need a peer reviewed paper to understand that, I cannot help you, nor can anyone. You are willfully ignorant of basic biology. I noticed you mentioned the Seralini 2012 retracted article. That is the worst example of activist-garbage masquerading as science anyone could think of. If that is the best example of GM harm you can think of, that says all anyone needs to know about your views on science.

            It is not arrogant to observe that the loss of plant resistance genes from natural populations is an unexpected consequence of conventional breeding. It is true. It has been well documented. Conventional breeding and its unintended consequences is what necessitates the use of pesticides in modern agriculture.

            Those propaganda movies you cited are totally worthless. If you believe cotton causes farmers to committ suicide, you are credulous, easily manipulated, and unaware of the actual statistics that show nothing of the sort. Bt cotton helps them climb out of poverty, but your fantasy of organic farms would keep them there.

            35S is the most commonly used viral promoter in plant research. It drives expression of the gene under its control, a process you claim “makes a mess of the plant genome.” A sad mischaracterization again. Transposons must really freak you out, and I can’t imagine what you think of polyploidy. The plant genome is a dynamic entity that changes frequently, but you have a mistaken vision of it as pure and unchanging, a perfect thing that cannot be touched by humans without total corruption. Another deep scientific misconception. Plant genomes undergo drastic changes on their own. Transformation is a tiny modification by comparison. Again, your knowledge of biology is simply wrong.

            35S does not, however, cause infectiousness, and you are sadly wrong on that too. If it made the plant produce viral particles, we would know by now. And where in the 35S promoter do you see coding sequence to make a virus? You are simply wrong on all the basic biology. A promoter from the Cauliflorwer mosaic virus works like other promoters but is especially strong in plants. Detecting viral in DNA in GM plants does not mean they are infected with viruses or can produce viruses, so again you desperately mischaracterize the science to fit your beliefs. Plant viruses also do not infect humans because of “GMOS” as you implied, and that is a very irresponsible and nutty belief to advocate. Shame on you for that unscientific bit of scare mongering.

            The main fallacy you are committing is that of essentialism. You think that a DNA fragment from something scary-sounding like a plant virus will automatically convey all its properties, but that is just ridiculous. You understand just enough science to reinforce what you already thought but not enough curiosity to actually learn anything new. Sad. Most of your life has been improved by scientific research, and so you are a hypocrite for mischaracterizing and intentionally spreading misinformation as I have described above. The food you eat is all genetically modified and living organisms contains bits of DNA from all over the kingdom of life. You incorrect views on the inviolability of genomes is disconnected from reality. I would like to continue this conversation, but I prefer you to learn some science first.

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            Hi Michael,
            I’m not sure if you can spot the irony of me citing peer-reviewed studies in support of my case and you are being rude to me in response.

            “A 20 bp fragment of DNA simply does not confer the properties of the 5.7 Mbp organism from which it comes.” A change in one nucleotide causes sickle cell anemia. It is simply wrong to say that the amount of bp alteration in a genome is directly related to the magnitude of the effects of this change.

            “I noticed you mentioned the Seralini 2012 retracted article. That is the
            worst example of activist-garbage masquerading as science anyone could
            think of.”

            You appear to know nothing about the Seralini study. In 2004 Monsanto published the results of a 90 day study of GM Roundup Ready corn NK603 done by Hammond. It used 400 Sprague Dawley rats divided into 10 groups of 20 rats of each sex. 6 groups received various control corns. This is not scientific – the control corns should be near isolines not a mishmash of random corns. This is one way the GM feeding trials are muddied. The remaining 4 groups were fed varying levels of RR GM corn. Although there were 20 rats of each sex blood and urine samples were collected from only 10 rats from each group.

            Greenpeace sued for the raw data of 3 Monsanto GM crops and the German courts granted it to them. Seralini looked at this data, which included the Hammond study. He noted that although the study was only 90 days there appeared to be early signs of liver and kidney toxicity in the rats. This had been dismissed in the Hammond study by the use of irrelevant controls.

            Therefore Seralini performed the same study – same rats, same number of rats tested ie he fed 10 rats per group and tested 10 rats per group. He used only one control – not 6 – of a near isoline. The trial went for 2 years not 90 days. The result was increased death and illness in the GM/Roundup fed rats and the striking tumours. Seralini did a toxicological study not a carcinogenicity study. His research shows we urgently need one done.

            The paper was published after an intense peer-review. It was scandalously withdrawn on spurious grounds over a year later and has since been republished in a peer-reviewed journal.

            “It is not arrogant to observe that the loss of plant resistance genes
            from natural populations is an unexpected consequence of conventional
            breeding. It is true. It has been well documented. Conventional breeding
            and its unintended consequences is what necessitates the use of
            pesticides in modern agriculture.” What I was saying is pure arrogance is your claim that GM is precise and that you can predict the exact results of your actions. You seem to forget that ‘conventional breeding’ has had thousands of years of success. The best plant breeders are the myriad of small farmers and gardeners who have developed and preserved the millions of seeds over the years. See Gary Nablan “Where our food comes from ” and Vavilov’s work.

            “35S does not, however, cause infectiousness, and you are sadly wrong on
            that too. If it made the plant produce viral particles, we would know by
            now.” I was quoting studies done by scientists who are crop experts, virologists, molecular biologists etc. You however are just assuming. You also appear never to even look at what is happening in the fields. See Don Huber’s work on plant pathology and the massive harm that previous mild diseases like Goss’s Wilt are doing to US crops.

            Finally you claim that farmer suicides etc are all invented. It is pretty clear you do not even want to investigate the issue. The Indian Parliament’s report on farmer suicide caused by GM appears to be put in the same “activist’ basket that you place everything you do not like and are unable to address.

            Watch Al Jazeera’s report “Argentina’s Bad Seeds” it is 20 minutes long and shows the broad overview of the ruination GM is bringing. Pay special attention to the work done by Proff Andres Carrasco on the link between Roundup and birth defects. This is playing out in reality in the GM soy areas in Argentina where there is a huge increase in birth defects and cancer.

            Sit in a lab and play with genes if you wish but do not forget it has consequences.

          • Michael Phillips

            I have not been rude to you. I have pointed out your ignorance of biology to explain why your arguments are wrong.

            I am aware a point mutation can change an amino acid in the protein. I said a 20 bp fragment of DNA cannot confer the properties of the entire organism, which in this case has a 5.7 Mbp genome. You were wrong about that, then you lied by misconstruing my comment. Care to admit it so we can continue our conversation?

            Also, I never said Indian suicides were invented. You lied there too. I said statistics show they were not due to GM cotton. This is why you, Vandana Shiva, and Mike Adams are all on the same side of the issue. You are all untruthful.

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            My arguments are based on peer-reviewed science. Your arguments must be presumed to be based on assumptions as you do not reference them.

            Genetics is a rapidly changing and poorly understood field, therefore your claims that everything is known and nothing untoward ever happens appears to be wishful thinking.

            Since I have been reading into this field I have seen the end of the central dogma (one gene=one protein), the end of ‘junk DNA’ is does something after all, the rise of epigenetics – that includes changes in gene expression 3 generations after exposure to a substance and now the rise of issues around RNA and its many roles.

            I have been looking at the GM issue long enough to see what people predicted 20 years ago coming true ie superpests and superweeds and increased disease in plants, animals and humans as well as increased pesticide use.

            I’m sorry but your claims that nothing is wrong is contradicted by the science and by the experience in the fields and the hospitals.

            If you believe the Indian suicides are nothing to do with GM bt cotton then you are at odds with the Indian Parliamentary Committee specifically set up to deal with the issue. I would like to know the basis for your claim they are wrong.

            I don’t think you have much of worth to add to the discussion if it is all based on your personal opinion.

            Best wishes
            Fran

          • Michael Phillips

            Dear Fran,

            Here is an article I recently published showing an example of the precision of transgenics for understanding plant metabolism. We used both transgenics and a mutant in this analysis, so it is pertinent to our discussion. It was published in Plant Physiology, one of the highest impact plant journals. Please read this article and get back to me if you still think transgenics are imprecise:

            Wright, L ,Rohwer, J, Ghirardo, A, Hammerbacher, A, Ortiz, M, Raguschke, B, Schnitzler, JP, Gershenzon, J, Phillips, MA “1-Deoxyxylulose 5-phosphate synthase
            controls flux through the 2-C-methylerythritol 4-phosphate pathway in Arabidopsis” Plant Physiology 165:1488-1504 (doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1104/pp.114.245191)

            Here is another article I recently published that discusses gene duplication. This is a widespread phenomenon in plants, and frequently results in massive changes to the genome. It doesn’t “mess up the genome” as you say, it happens all around us. The articles I reference provide an excellent background on the subject, if you are truly interested. By comparison, humans inserting a single gene (or cassette, if you prefer) does not cause the world to end as you have implied:

            Saladié, M., Wright, L.P., Garcia Mas, J., Rodriguez
            Concepción, M., Phillips, M. A. “Small gene families encode the main rate-determining enzymes for plastidial isoprenoid biosynthesis in melon”
            Journal of Experimental Botany 2014;doi:
            10.1093/jxb/eru275

            Your example of sickle cell anemia is telling. Your argument suggests every single glu-val mutation in nature must cause something at least as bad as sickle cell anemia. But it doesn’t. It is the biological context that is important, so it is wrong to suggest every glu-val change anywhere will always result in disaster, as you implied, or extrapolate that to any 20 bp from Agrobacterium to scare people. Now, I realize you’re not an idiot. You just think like a lawyer, not a scientist, so your objective is to discredit and misconstrue, not understand, no matter how willfully ignorant you are of your opponent’s argument. Who ever criticized a lawyer for being willfully ignorant of their opponents argument? It’s their job! And that seems to be your job as an activist. You do not attempt to understand the science, you just want to play “gotcha”.

            So I repeat: a 20 base pair DNA sequence from a bacterium does not confer the properties of the entire organism with a genome of 5.7 million base pairs. Those 20 bp have no memory of where they came from, no tiny devil horns encoding pure evil just because. In fact, allow me to make a prediction based on your thinking on DNA memory: I bet you believe homeopathy works as advertised, i.e. water memory. Am I correct?

            Finally, King Midas syndrome. That drives your thinking. You think if anything is touched by humans hands, it must be corrupt. We use Agrobacterium to modify plant genomes because it works. The fact that Agrobacterium already modifies plant genomes in nature without our intervention is apparently irrelevant to you.

            Thank you for this insight into how activists think. I will use our discussion to improve my communication with those who have been misled about basic science and who harbor the errors in critical thinking you have displayed (essentialism, out-of -context thinking, advocacy thinking vs. critical thinking, naturalistic fallacy and its inverse-humans can only do wrong). I don’t mean that to sound rude. The way you think has helped me understand why people who know nothing about a subject can still have very strong opinions about it. Given the volume of our exchanges, I would like to at least take that away as something positive. Cheers, Mike

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            Firstly the link was broken and so I couldn’t read the article. However you seem to ignore the ‘black swan’ issue. That all swans are white until you arrive in Australia and find they are not. This is the whole point of the articles I have been citing, that assumptions can be totally wrong and if you find evidence of this you should investigate and not pretend that a black swan is white. This is why I listed the huge changes in the understandings of genetics over the past few decades.

            In simple terms, just because you can accurately track some things does not mean you can track them all.

            “so it is wrong to suggest every glu-val change anywhere will always result in disaster, as you implied, or extrapolate that to any 20 bp from Agrobacterium to scare people.”

            I did not suggest every glu-val change always results in disater. However to assume that all changes are benign is an assumption not science. I used the sickle cell example to show that the smallest change possible can have catastrophic effects.

            Regarding gene VI in the cauliflower mosaic virus, I was not inventing things I was reporting on the Podevin and du Jardin paper and the commentary on it by Latham and Wilson. You cannot just brush away this issue because you do not like it. Interestingly it does not stand alone – there are farmer reports of increased disease with GM crops. Could this be partly due to the viral promoter? Unless you do research you cannot know but refusing to look is ideology not science.

            “Here is another article I recently published that discusses gene duplication. This is a widespread phenomenon in plants, and frequently results in massive changes to the genome. It doesn’t “mess up the genome” as you say, it happens all around us.” Genes do all sorts of amazing things that we are only just beginning to learn. To say therefore scientists can do anything and it will be OK is not logical.

            The example of this can be seen in the testing done of a pea that was GM with a gene from a bean.:

            “….. immunologists at the Australian National University’s John Curtin School of Medical Research, have shown that the transgenic protein causes mild inflammation in the lungs of laboratory mice fed on the transgenic peas.

            Working with Higgins’ team, the JCSMR researchers, led by Dr Simon Hogan and Prof Paul Foster, showed that the inflammation was probably a result of subtle differences in the way beans and peas glycosylate the transgenic protein.

            In the pea genome, glycosylation — a process that modifies the structure of the protein by adding sugar molecules after the protein is synthesised — appears to make the protein allergenic when fed to the mice. Immune cells in the gastric mucosa monitor food passing down the digestive track, and in rare cases, can trigger a systemic immune reaction.”

            Claiming that using parts of bacterial and viral DNA plus synthetic and chimeric genes and then inserting the resulting gene cassettes into a plant only produces knowable results is a wish not a scientific statement. For confirmation of this read the discovery of documents in the case of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity vs Shalala.

            “C. Permitting FDA Administrators To Ignore the Warnings of Their Own Experts — and Then To Misrepresent the Facts

            Before the FDA issued its policy statement, it had been repeatedly informed by its own experts that GE foods are inherently risky and cannot be presumed safe. This was revealed when, as an aspect of the lawsuit, the FDA was required to divulge its internal files. These records clearly show (1) that the predominant opinion of the agency’s own scientific experts was that GE foods pose unique health risks and (2) that they repeatedly cautioned their superiors about these risks. The uniformity of opinion within the FDA’s scientific staff is attested by the official responsible for monitoring their input, who reported: “The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks.” (FDA Document #1 at http://www.biointegrity.org ) Further, during the lawsuit the FDA never cited even one document from any of its scientists supporting its claim that GE foods do not pose additional risks and therefore do not need to be tested.”

            You are a plant scientist yet you appear to claim GM foods are safe without presenting any evidence for the claim and ignoring the evidence that they are unsafe. This evidence comes from suitably qualified scientists. It would be nice if you could at least acknowledge that there is a wealth of scientific evidence contradicting the claim of GM safety.

            “Now, I realize you’re not an idiot. You just think like a lawyer, not a scientist, so your objective is to discredit and misconstrue, not understand, no matter how willfully ignorant you are of your opponent’s argument.”

            I have spent 20 years of my life trying to understand GM. I first learnt about it when my daughter was one and I was very enthusiastic as I thought it would massively reduce pesticide use. I wanted to learn more and went to every event I could to learn.

            I do this work on an entirely voluntary basis. I keep doing this as the lies and untruths and blinkered, arrogant refusal to be held accountable of people associated with this technology is not only breathtaking but extremely ecologically dangerous.

            You are a scientist and no doubt feel happy and secure that what you are doing is right and useful. However I have seen this before in scientists. They only look at their piece of the puzzle and do not examine any of the evidence that may disrupt their cosy view of what they are doing. This is called confirmation bias.

            “Finally, King Midas syndrome. That drives your thinking. You think if anything is touched by humans hands, it must be corrupt.” You know nothing about what I think about technology and the role of humans.

            “The fact that Agrobacterium already modifies plant genomes in nature without our intervention is apparently irrelevant to you.” I understand that agrobacterium already modifies plants. It causes disease. Having scientists using agrobacterium does not automatically make what they do safe or sensible.

            “Thank you for this insight into how activists think. I will use our discussion to improve my communication with those who have been misled about basic science and who harbor the errors in critical thinking you have displayed (essentialism, out-of -context thinking, advocacy thinking vs. critical thinking, naturalistic fallacy and its inverse-humans can only do wrong). I don’t mean that to sound rude. The way you think has helped me understand why people who know nothing about a subject can still have very strong opinions about it.”

            Sadly my take away from this discussion is that plant scientists can be so blinded to their enjoyment of their experiments that they are entirely incapable of exploring anything outside of their bubble, even other branches of science.

          • obsss

            I also don’t believe you to be a scientist. Can you link to your alleged identity?

          • Michael Phillips

            Look me up on google scholar, research gate, or at my home institute (Centre for Research in Agricultural Genomics). If you are looking for ignorance, look no further than several posts by Madge, who seems to think a 20 bp piece of DNA has the same properties of a 5.7 Mbp bacterial genome. Ignorance is claiming all suicides among Indian farmers is due to GM cotton. Ignorance is claiming a plant virus will infect humans because it fits a fear driven narrative. Ignorance is claiming transgenics are destroying the environment but modification of plant genomes through all other techniques is harmless. Ignorance is claiming transformation “makes a mess” of plant genomes without considering polypoidy, transposon action, endosymbiosis, or any other ways in which radical changes happen to plant genomes. Ignorance is supporting Seralini’s papers when they are just activist garbage which don’t show negative controls. I have used scientific arguments to refute these claims by Madge. What about my comments do you find ignorant?

          • Michael Phillips

            And what, may I ask, is your alleged identity, obsss? And why should your opinion on scientific matters count if you don’t post under your real name?

          • Michael Phillips

            Let me know if you are having trouble finding those publications. I would be happy to paste a list of recent ones into this thread if necessary. It would be helpful if you identify yourself and demonstrate why you are scientifically qualified in this area. Now please explain where you consider my arguments to be wrong and I will gladly respond.

          • rebeccagavin

            I am not your family, and this is the internet. If you want to talk with the grownfolks, get used to some adult language and try to refrain from getting butthurt over it (which is not an obscenity, BTW, it alludes to spanking.)

            There is no evidence that children aren’t doing well on GMOS – absolutely none. Pesticides have been widely used since the 1940s – the only difference is that the newer synthetics, such as glyphosate are less toxic than the older ones. Listen to your hero, NdT – he is not some corporate stooge. He would not offer an opinion unless he was sure that the science backed him up. So try to grasp that you are making unproven claims as though they are fact and that is not how science works.

          • Mike Stevens

            No, Rebecca’s point is made very well without needing any embellishing, I agree.

      • brynfire

        Monsanto has developed a strain of wheat I believe it was that, similar to their pesticide producing corn, produces pharmaceuticals.

  • teegem

    For every technology, tool and innovation, you can use it for bad or for good. Clearly, there are issues with GMOs, but there’s LOTS of potential, especially for poorer countries to obtain necessary nutrients. Or even to prevent/cure diseases.

    GMOs is also fairly new to humanity. More work, research and tests will be needed, but we, as a species, shouldn’t have a knee-jerk reaction and believe it’s wrong, because GMOs can be safe and I do see it as being part of everyday life for future humans… Just like a smartphone, internet, electricity, TV, etc.

    However, it should be a choice for humans to decide what they want to eat/put in their bodies. If you don’t want GM-food, then don’t eat it. But why the push to ban it? Why prevent others from benefiting from it?

    • kittura

      They should however label it so consumers have the right to make informed decisions. This is the 21st century and transparency is the rule for any progressive companies out here — except it seems in the food industry. Why?

      • kellymbray

        You can label them GMO free if you wish. The labeling fad is just a Big Organic marketing tool.

        • kittura

          Because you apparently enjoy just trusting corporations to sell you things without you knowing exactly what has been done to it or what chemicals may be in your food.

          You are unique. :)

          Most people would not consider an informed choice a “fad”.

    • Caroline Yunker

      GMOs are different from smartphone, internet, electricity, TV….because we EAT them. Even if I don’t eat them why should I want mothers to unknowingly feed her baby GMO soy infant formula? Just label them and let the FREE market decide.

      • kellymbray

        Label them GMO free. Problem solved without the anti GMO cult passing restrictive laws at Big Organics behest.

        • patzagame

          So it must have been Big Organic who got all those other countries to label?

        • Caroline Yunker

          Are you working for Big Chem? Big Agri? Big Junk Food? Just wondering why people think I would be working for Big Organics if I don’t want to eat chemical saturated, pest-producing food.

  • bobito

    Why treat GMO and Vacinnes differently? Perhaps it’s a vast left wing conspiracy: http://eagnews.org/1000-member-secretive-progressive-journalist-group-uncovered/

  • lbhajdu1 .

    No one knows anything about the safety of vaccines because no researcher will publish adverse effects out of fear of getting wakefielded or shaking public confidence.

    • J. Fischer

      Wakefield LIED. He wanted to market his own vaccine, and the only way he could think of to break in was to lie about existing vaccines.

      Vaccines are as safe as it’s possible for them to be. The number of people with adverse reactions is incredibly small. Some may have one-in-a-million allergies or sensitivities; some may have had undetected medical issues that were triggered by the vaccines, or other reasons.

      • lbhajdu1 .

        Remember that out of the 150,000,000 mindlessly opting to get the flu vaccine this year 1 in 500,000 will be injured by glina barre syndrome leaving them paralyzed or dead (that’s the CDC’s own numbers). So this year alone that will be 300 people. I should imagine if even a few of them can still speak it throws a wrench into the well-oiled, benefits outweigh the risks propaganda machine.

        • Verna Lang

          It is Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and the CDC gives no numbers anywhere for vaccine associated risk because they cannot determine any difference from background numbers. There is a recent paper that compares the hospital admissions for GBS and the risk associated with the flu vaccine and exposure to the flu virus. There is 17 times the risk of GBS associated with natural infection by the flu compared to getting the vaccine.
          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23810252

          • lbhajdu1 .

            You say “CDC gives no numbers anywhere” then go on to give numbers?

            That’s also wrong the CDC says: 1 in 500,000 here: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-statements/flu.html

          • Verna Lang

            No, the CDC does not say 1 in 500,000 will be affected by GBS there. It says that there is a small possibility that the vaccine could be associated, and if it was associated, it could be 1 to 2 per million. “Small possibility” and “could be” do not translate into a vaccine associated risk number. Unless you are deliberately trying to sensationalize the information, no one would read that statement and pull out a hard number of 1 in 500,000 getting a flu shot developing GBS and becoming paralyzed or dying. Most patients recover fully from GBS, but a few patients have permanent nerve damage and very rarely some die. If you look at their expanded information on GBS, you will see that they cannot find any difference in the background rate of GBS whether patients are vaccinated or not. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/guillainbarre.htm
            The link I gave shows that you stand a much greater risk of developing GBS from the flu.

          • lbhajdu1 .

            Yes I am sensationalizing the claim of “2 per million” using MATH, specifically reduction of fractions to 1 per 500,000. The reason they don’t simplify the fractions is saying x in a million just sounds much less likely.
            The CDC is one of the most hardcore advocacy websites online they have to begrudgingly give out this information so they try to soften it as much as possible for you pro-vaxers to run with. Just as they inflate flu deaths to unrealistically unbelievable numbers through more hardcore statistical trickery (they were once rebuked for that already last year). Than again what do you expect when you have a revolving door between the CDC and big pharma?

          • Verna Lang

            Doing that math still does not equate with 1 in 500,000 people getting the flu vaccine dying or being paralyzed by GBS as you stated. GBS is not a fatal or crippling disease for most patients. You are entitled to your opinion of the CDC, but not the creation of your own facts!

          • lbhajdu1 .

            Well the key feature is paralysis. There are some interesting pictures on the internet of people with GBS, most have a tube down there throat. I certainly hope they recover and any way you look at it the side effects are not pretty no need to split hairs on exactly how bad.

        • Wil Post

          How many people die from flu each year in America?
          >300
          Your point is not only invalid, it is incredibly stupid.

          • lbhajdu1 .

            But that is only one side effect there are others like anaphylactic shock and narcolepsie. More over you happen to be in that group your self it may seem tangible. As especially if you were not even given the option to decline, for example healthcare workers.

          • Wil Post

            Personally, I would rather be alive than dead. Most people probably feel the same way as I do. Un-vaccinated people are taking a terrible, unnecessary risk.

            And yes, I know there are always exceptions. They don’t need to be mentioned at all.

            Being anti-vaccine is being anti-science.

            Being anti-vaccine is also being anti-history.

            Maybe you should take a minute to talk to and especially listen to an elder, considering many of them lived through an era when deadly and debilitating diseases were more common.
            ___________
            And this is just my own opinion but if someone is anti-vaccine I believe they shouldn’t be a healthcare worker at all. It shows they haven’t accepted the science of medicine. It makes me wonder what other possibly harmful beliefs they may harbor.

          • lbhajdu1 .

            Rebecca Prohaska would rather be alive than dead but she died a few hours after getting her HPV shot yesterday.

          • lilady R.N.

            How about you wait for the autopsy report before you post that story?

          • lbhajdu1 .

            “How about you wait for the autopsy” – that would make a good pro-vaxer motto. You should copy-write that.

          • lilady R.N.

            You shouldn’t be posting on a science blog…if you post the death of a young woman who happened to have a HPV vaccine before her death of unknown causes.

            That’s why autopsies are done to determine the cause of death.

          • lbhajdu1 .

            As a note modern medicine has not been effective at increasing quantity of life. Socrates took his life at 71 in the year 399 BC. If that’s a data point under a distribution of life expectancy I don’t think you will find even a doubling in the last 2,413 years.

            I was injured by a vaccine I had when I was two. It still affects me today at 34. On the whole I judge modern medicine has degraded my quality of life, plus there was nothing wrong with me to start out with. Your statistical simplifications are no consolation. Sorry.

          • Benjamin Edge

            “As a note modern medicine has not been effective at increasing quantity of life.”

            Most people I know get only 1 life. I’m unaware of any research or attempts by medicine to give more than one life.

          • lbhajdu1 .

            word play

          • lilady R.N.

            I am a health care provider and I am distressed that some of my colleagues have opted out of flu vaccines…for non-medical reasons.

            (Valid medical reasons are extremely rare for seasonal influenza vaccines and other vaccines).

          • J. Fischer

            So, to avoid a vanishingly small risk of allergic reaction or narcolepsy, you’ll risk dying from the flu.

            I bet you avoid flying because of airplane crashes, then drive on the roads (which is far more dangerous).

          • lbhajdu1 .

            yep to the first. I have actually been injured by a vaccine and I am never going through that again.

            Not sure why you say “vanishingly” it’s still the same ingredients.

          • Boris Ogon

            As especially if you were not even given the option to decline, for example healthcare workers.

            I seem to have missed the part in the Declaration of Human Rights or something where anyone is entitled to work in health care despite being more interested in nonsense clanging around in their heads than the well-being of the patients they’re supposed to be helping to care for.

          • lilady R.N.

            There has never been a case of narcolepsy attributed to the influenza vaccine which is used exclusively in the United States.

            You were already told about the cases of narcolepsy, which occurred in Europe attributed to a different ingredient that was used in those European vaccines….when you posted that same nonsensical comment on another blog.

          • lbhajdu1 .

            The European vaccine is Pandemrix. Oh guess what:

            “The FDA approved the vaccine for use in people over the age of 18 who are at increased risk of exposure to the virus. It would be distributed by public health officials if needed.” – http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/22/us-glaxosmithkline-vaccine-pandemic-idUSBRE9AL14Q20131122

          • lilady R.N.

            The cases of narcolepsy occurred in European countries with the Pandemrix made by GSK for the European market, not the United States.

            The adjuvant ASO was used in that vaccine which has never been used as a adjuvant in any vaccine in the United States:

            You are wrong…again:

            http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/h1n1_narcolepsy_pandemrix.html

          • lbhajdu1 .

            They can’t even say that the adjuvant is the part that causes narcolepsy (the paper was withdrawn from publication, as you well know). They do have an idea for shaking off the bad press. They’re going to change the name. Maybe it’s the dog liver cells or something (just kidding), there statement is also that the adjuvants are new and have never been tested in the US before.

          • ccdaddy

            The GAO’s office, scolded the CDC for misleading the public. On the 36,000 people, that the CDC claims die every year from flu.

            You see, they reminded the CDC, that adding everybody that died that year from respiratory complications involving Pneumonia. Was not
            an accurate way, to calculate Flu deaths. That included,all the elderly,that died from respiratory failure due to Pneumonia. Why would they lie,to the public? Answer, to push the sales of flu vaccines

          • Boris Ogon

            Do you know what the fascinating implication of this is, Joe? People don’t die from cancer. They die from complications of cancer.

          • kellymbray

            Pneumonia they would not have if they did not have the flu. Twisting words to justify your cult views Joe?

        • drloko

          I certainly hope you use this knowledge to avoid and vaccines for you and any children you might have. Please let Darwin guide you to the light.

      • ccdaddy

        I love that, “safe as possible” That’s why, the supreme court ruled. That. “since vaccines, are so unavoidably
        unsafe, we cannot allow, the vaccine injured, to sue the vaccine manufacturers” That’s protectionism, for sick Corporations,that has harmed children. And then,held
        our representatives hostage. In other words, protect us,and we might keep you in office. Besides,all of your (Senators and Congressman’s) industry gifts, of GSK
        and Merck stocks. They will, plummet.

        • Boris Ogon

          That’s why, the supreme court ruled. That. “since vaccines, are so unavoidablyunsafe, we cannot allow, the vaccine injured, to sue the vaccine manufacturers”

          Joe, go figure out what quotation marks are for. Justice Scalia doesn’t write in your mangled version of your Mother Tongue, and you’ve already been informed that the Supreme Court rejected the “unavoidably unsafe” argument in Bruesewitz, as well, but you just keep repeating it. Stick to what you’re competent at.

        • drloko

          The Supreme Court said nothing like this. Please take the time to read the case and cite it accurately.

          • ccdaddy

            Maybe you, would like to tell the parents, what would be the reason (other than fraud) For those, in attendance of the Simpson wood meeting. To strip out, all the bad findings?

            That was revealed, at that historic (evaluation of the verstreaten studies, on the over exposure of thimerosal in US. children, possibly causing autism ) meeting.

            Maybe this kind of info. from the chief scientist. ” Dr Brent: Page 161: “Wasn’t true that if you looked at the population that had 25 micro-grams you had a certain risk and when you got to 75 micro-grams you had a higher risk.”

            Or maybe the fact,that he was informing them, that the current scientific studies,in their present form. They would bury them, in a real court of law. Thus the need, for the Supreme Court,to rule. No more, real lawsuit’s against vaccine manufacturers.

            Example of my belief,from the chief science officer, there that day.

            Dr. Brent: Page 229: “The medical legal findings in this study, causal or not, are horrendous and therefore, it is important that the suggested epidemiological, pharmacokinetic, and animal studies be performed. If an allegation was made that a child’s neurobehavioral findings were caused by Thimerosal containing vaccines, you could readily find a junk scientist who would support the claim with “a reasonable degree of certainty”. But you will not find a scientist with any integrity who would say the reverse with the data that is available. And that is true. So we are in a bad position from the standpoint of defending any lawsuits if they were initiated and I am concerned.

            ” Where is his concern,for this Nations children???? Who’s parents, trusted him to do what was right, for the health of this Nations children” There was none! for the children. That their program, had ruined.
            -0- concern!

            Except,for the very feared, soon coming, and very much expected litigation.

            And like he said ” So we are in a bad position from the standpoint of defending any lawsuits if they were initiated and I am concerned”

            This scientist, admitting that their in a bad position to defend against the lawsuit’s of vaccine injured US. children. Is proof,that the science they were showing the public,was not the science that they had.

            And why would the CDC, want to tell those in attendance,that they were not supposed to divulge anything. That they had seen, or heard?

            Dr. Bernier: Page 113: “We have asked you to keep this information confidential. We do have a plan for discussing these data at the upcoming meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on June 21 and June 22. At that time CDC plans to make a public release of this information, so I think it would serve all of our interests best if we could continue to consider these data. The ACIP work group will be considering also. If we could consider these data in a certain protected environment. So we are asking people who have a great job protecting this information up until now, to continue to do that until the time of the ACIP meeting. So too basically consider this embargoed information. That would help all of us to use the machinery that we have in place for considering these data and for arriving at policy recommendations.”

            Dr Bernier, had left out that they had plans to strip all of the negative causative findings. Before sending it, on to their own Advisory Committee.

            Here’s proof,that they had intended on deceiving their own committee. That is until,someone got a copy of the Simpson wood meeting minutes. Here’s my proof,it to came from a verifiable source.

            Immunization Safety Review National Academy of Sciences

            Institute of Medicine, FO 3031

            2101 Constitution Ave., NW

            Washington, DC 20418

            Dear Committee members,

            SAFE MIND’s recently obtained the transcribed minutes to the Simpsonwood meeting held June 7-8, 2000 in Norcross, Georgia where the finding of the Vaccine Safety Data link analysis of Thimerosal containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes were reviewed by a panel of experts. There were a number of additional findings not previously reported that were contained in this document that I would like to share with the committee.

            The additional findings,(that they were hiding from their own committee) were all of the bad findings. That according to Dr. Brent, would have buried them, in a real court. Again,thus the need to have the Supreme Court step in.

            More truth to come.

  • Guest

    GMO is horrible, unlike this awesome pro-organic shirt on ETSY!
    https://www.etsy.com/shop/antiestablishmentLLC

    • Brenda Diederich

      Sorry. Not impressed. There are equally cool pro-farming and pro-gmo shirts to buy. Plus, organics DO use pesticides–even the same ones as gmo and conventional…so I will say ‘yes’ to science over irrational fear.

      • ccdaddy

        Tell me that,when your skin on your lips, are falling off.

        From, an allergic reaction.

        • Tom

          Punctuation is something that just happens to other people, right?

          • notation

            Yeah, Joe isn’t big on the basics of the English language. He has yet to figure out the “you’re”/”your” thing, but expects people to believe him when it comes to science and medicine.

  • http://anti-esablishment.com anti-establishment

    GMO is horrible, unlike this awesome pro-organic shirt on ETSY
    https://www.etsy.com/shop/antiestablishmentLLC

    • mem_somerville

      Antiestablishment LLC? Bwaaa-haa-haa.

  • Loren Eaton

    “Genetically-Modified Organisisms (GMOs) Have NOT Been Proven Safe.”
    ‘On twitter, when I said to Bartolotto that her latest piece was an example of denialism, she suggested I was not qualified to judge it, because I wasn’t a scientist or health professional.’
    If Bartolotto AND the ‘medical board’ both insist on being so aggressively obtuse on such basic statistical principles, I would propose that the lack of qualification ends right there.
    I saw this guy Hyman on PBS doing an infomercial about his miracle weight loss plan. ‘Woo-woo!!’

    • drloko

      Unfortunately, med school doesn’t spend much time in the area of statistical significance and power.

    • Kevin Folta

      Lauren, that’s Carole’s usual course. If I ask her a question, a legitimate one, she tells me that I’m attacking her. Then she calls me an unqualified idiot. There’s a great twitter feed on this I’ll post sometime. Just amazing how this innocent victim is the one throwing the most flames.

      • StopGMO

        There is much truth to what Carole has said about you. I agree with her.

  • Dorit Reiss

    I think the difference is that the harms of not vaccinating are clearer and directly affect developed countries. A NIMBY problem for the GMOs?

    • RobertWager

      Look up how many children in the developing world have died because the anti-GMO industry has blocked the giving away for free of GRII.

      • Donna Peplum

        Suggest you do some homework on Golden Rice. Your favorite red herring. Golden rice failed in field trials, and after millions of dollars invested, the biotech industry has nothing to show for their efforts. Now if only they hadn’t wasted all that money, but instead sent good wholesome foods rich in vitamin A to those poor people – all those children could have been saved. What a shame all those children died unnecessarily because of the money wasted on the failure of golden rice.

        http://www.gmwatch.eu/index.php/news/archive/2014/15431-golden-rice-falls-at-first-hurdle

        https://www.google.com/search?q=golden+rice+fails+field+trials&oq=golden+rice+fails+field+trials&aqs=chrome..69i57.5495j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8

        • kellymbray

          Typical racist first world privilege talking. Golden Rice is a success. They can grow it themselves and not have to worry about your *generous* handouts. The latest generation provides a full days RDA with just five ounces of rice. If the best you can offer is a biased blog and a Google search without parsing or understanding the results you have no business commenting here

          • aloha1010

            OMG!!! Racist???are you for REAL?the Chem cartel has proven to be absolutely racist by using their poison in third world countries and in places where there is mostly brown people. Case in point DOW, who sold their poison Nemagon to be used in poor areas of Central America knowing it caused sterility and cancer. Dow is now a GMO cartel member.Also responsible for causing the poisoning of the World with dioxines.To this day, children in Vietnam are being affected by their horrible poisons. And now this producers of the worlst poison are allowed to put them in our food? How is this not stupid and criminal? (along with Monsanto) http://links.org.au/node/3636

            .http://www.bananasthemovie.com/nemagon

          • patzagame

            http://irri.org/blogs/item/clarifying-recent-news-about-golden-rice However, it has not yet been determined whether daily consumption of Golden Rice does improve the vitamin A status of people who are vitamin A deficient and could therefore reduce related conditions such as night blindness. If Golden Rice is approved by national regulators, Helen Keller International and university partners will conduct a controlled community study to ascertain if eating Golden Rice every day improves vitamin A status.

      • Caroline Yunker

        How about YOU starting a foundation to provide children in developing countries wholesome, healthy and safe food to eat! These developing countries don’t want our toxic GMO food.

        • drloko

          Sure, people would rather starve to death right now rather than eat a GMO that might cause some injury 30 years from now.

          • Ted Miner

            So you say…. but most people are surprised when they get hit with what they don’t know, but only if they survive. Some people have a wide vision and the smarts to pay attention and look out for the health of their families. After all we’ve watched the track record for all the companies that spend huge amounts of money to convince us they are not like they were then.

          • drloko

            So you’d prefer to see people in Africa starve to death now rather than give them GMO crops that might kill then 30 years from now?

          • Ted Miner

            No drloko, that is not the only choice for the future. You really seem to have a disturbing kind of tunnel vision.

          • drloko

            So you are both for and against giving GMO crops to starving people in Africa? Which is it?

          • Ted Miner

            None of your business, tool.

          • drloko

            You don’t want to enter into a debate and you don’t want to discuss the science. So why are you here?
            Do you really just want to make snarky comments?
            Why don’t you try actually doing some research? I’ve pointed you to some great journals where you can learn a lot about this topic.

          • Ted Miner

            I posted this earlier, but since you didn’t seem to get it I’ll post it for you here again.
            ……

            To be blunt, this piece by Kieth Kloor
            is just another GMO pesticide industry PR attack job.

            First it starts with a totally false
            premise tossed out with no collaborating evidence that somehow the
            separate issues about vaccines and GMOs are related to the same
            “science denial”.

            He claims that there is an overwhelming
            scientific consensus on GMO safety and he uses some one sentence out
            of context quotes to try to support his bogus point. Here are some
            links that show the truth that there is NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENCUS THAT
            GMOS ARE SAFE.

            http://naturalsociety.com/800-scientists-global-gmo-experiment-stop/

            http://higherperspective.com/2014/07/scientific-fraud-dupont-study-deliberately-hid-toxic-effects-gmos-fed-rats.html

            http://sustainablepulse.com/2014/08/06/scientists-challenge-makeup-of-us-gmo-risks-panel/#.U-ZkVWOTL6_

            http://youtu.be/ShJTcIlTna0

            Then he attacks Carole Bartolotto for
            truthfully stating that “Genetically-Modified Organisisms (GMOs)
            Have NOT Been Proven Safe”. To support his hit on Bartolotto he
            cites Monsanto GMO pesticide industry controlled web sites and known
            Monsanto GMO pesticide industry spokespersons like biofortifed and
            Kevin Folda for his independent expertise.

            Recently the nations largest health
            care organization sent a newsletter to their patients. In that
            newsletter was An article by one of their nutritionists who explained
            GMOs and then told the patients to avoid them so as to not degrade
            their health. The health care organization had no “official”
            policy on GMOs because of the politics, but it cared enough about the
            concerns of it’s medical staff, it’s patients, and it’s bottom line
            to send out the warning.

            http://www.willamettelive.com/2012/news/corporate-giant-comes-out-against-gmos/

            There have been no long term
            independent studies of the health effects of GMOs on human health.
            Many health care organizations are recognizing that severe
            unexplainable symptoms that are being reported by their patients get
            better when GMOs are removed from their diet.

            It’s pretty obvious that this piece of
            PR trash shows that Biotech’s Assault On Balanced Journalism is real.

            See:
            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ken-roseboro/biotechs-assault-on-balan_b_5432699.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

            Then to cap it all off we have the same
            group of Monsanto/Koch Brother GMO pesticide industry operative
            commenters that we see posting everywhere these days here to spin the
            narrative and intimidate any commenter that doesn’t support the GMO
            pesticide industry cherry picked agenda driven pseudo-science agenda.
            These tools get up every day to spin the GMO pesticide industry
            talking points, lies, disinformation and agenda driven pseudo-science
            so as to promote the ongoing conspiracy to keep poisonous pesticide
            laden GMOs hidden in the food we feed our children.

            http://www.activistpost.com/2014/06/monsanto-trolling-anti-gmo-articles.html?tru=bzYt00#ooB6zGBBrldMCAhx.01

            Apparently Discover has joined the many
            other corporate owned media is supporting the Monsanto /Koch Brother
            GMO pesticide industry disinformation.

            The FACT is that Carole Bartolotto was
            right when she wrote Genetically-Modified Organisms (GMOs) Have NOT
            Been Proven Safe.

            All Kloors sleazy screed does is show
            the deep fear the GMO pesticide industry has that the truth will
            eventually derail their undisclosed science experiment being imposed
            on American families with out their consent.

      • StopGMO

        That’s not why Robert and you know it! It is an unethical trial on so many innocent lives! Stop the lies already. GR does not work and is not needed. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-24515938

  • Vito Alexander Pavlovic

    They are both dangerous and protected, and defended by special interest organizations, everyone involved in the matter knows this.

    • Cassandra

      If “everyone knows” something, why do you even need to mention it? Maybe you don’t know what “everyone” knows. Maybe you don’t even know what the worldwide scientific community knows or thinks. Did you know that the National Academy of Science, nearly all the world’s Scientific Academies, the EU Commission, the European Food Safety Authority, the food safety authorities of New Zealand and Australia, etc. etc. all have investigated and found that the current GM crops are not dangerous, and that GM technology is not inherently dangerous? Do you have a science background? If not, then anyone who claims to be a scientist, or uses deceitful statistical analyses is capable of fooling you, especially if he has a degree. Fortunately, dishonest anti-GMO people like Seralini who try to promote books and movies using people’s gullibility, are exposed by other scientists and regulatory agencies.

      • ccdaddy

        No science background,but it appears, that you have either a PR back ground. Or your just flat ignorant.

        • Cassandra

          Name one thing I wrote that is untrue or shows ignorance. I guess your point is that the things I wrote sound convincing (good PR) but you don’t want to find out if they’re true. Please vet what I said. If I was wrong about something, I need to know. It will be good for you to check it out. I’m too wordy and boring to be good at PR, but I thank you for the compliment, anyway:-)

          • lilady R.N.

            Just ignore ccdaddy who posts under a number of ‘nyms and his own name.

            He made a claim on behalf of his child for supposed “vaccine-induced-autism” in the United States Court of Federal Claims (Vaccine Court). The claim was dismissed for lack of plausibility, lack of evidence and lack of any “expert witnesses” who would back up his claim.

            Joe is anti-vaccine to the core and angry because his child has autism and he thought that the Vaccine Court is a social welfare agency. It is not.

          • Cassandra

            Thanks.

          • ccdaddy

            You, are one sick individual,that has decided to make her living. Off of the backs,of the vaccine injured. Is this, you?

            He also described an orchestrated campaign on behalf of the CDC and vaccine industry: “people who do all the blogging and shredding anyone who dares question the unaccountable bureaucrats.” He spoke of “their little media network [that will] twist the truth to disparage, to malign, to vilify, to denigrate anybody who wants any kind of accountability….”

            Shame on you, who have decided to sold your soul. And,to throw little children,head first under the bus.There is a court,that cannot be bought.

            In that court,justice prevails. Child poisoners,
            they lose, in that court.

            Coleen Boyle,flat out lied, straight faced without flinching to Congress. She said,that Thorsen was involved,in only two studies.That’s how,that they have gotten away. With poisoning, a generation, of American children for decades.

            Telling half truths, to out and out lies.

            The Florida legislator, known as “Mr. Accountabililty,” did not mince words when criticizing current and past CDC officials including indicted fraudster Dr. Poul Thorsen; CDC director turned Merck Vaccine President Dr. Julie Gerberding; and the agency’s current spokesperson regarding autism and vaccines, Dr. Coleen Boyle.

            On Thorsen, Posey said “If you read through the emails and learned about the meetings and the financial arrangement this crook had with the CDC, it will make you absolutely sick to your stomach. This was no casual researcher way down the line. This is the CDC’s key man in Denmark. He was closely tied to the CDC’s top vaccine safety researchers… as long as Thorsen was cooking the books to produce the results they wanted, they didn’t care whether the studies were valid or how much money was being siphoned off the top…It’s like the Security and Exchange Commission and Bernie Madoff. But it’s worse because we’re talking about someone who basically stole money that was supposed to be used to improve the health and safety of our most vulnerable in our society – our young babies.”

            Dr. Hooker remarked that Thorsen had collaborated with the CDC on 36 papers, not just one paper as claimed by Dr. Boyle, and that the agency refused to investigate studies exonerating vaccines’ role in causing autism following his indictment on wire fraud and money laundering. Posey described Boyle as “intentionally evasive,” in his questioning of her at a Congressional hearing. “I asked her a very direct question. ‘Have you done a study comparing autism rates in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children?…’ She started telling us about everything she’s done …After she wasted three minutes, I cut her off and I demanded that she answer the question. And then, only then, did she admit that the federal government has never done that very simple, fundamental, basic study.”

            About Boyle’s denial of a true increase in autism, Posey said, “I know we have an autism epidemic. You know it. She knows it. She knows we know it. But for some reason they refuse to acknowledge it publicly.” Regarding Boyle’s assertion that the increase is due to better diagnosing, Posey said, “I don’t think anybody that’s intellectually honest with this issue can begin to fathom that lame excuse that she uses.” He also described an orchestrated campaign on behalf of the CDC and vaccine industry: “people who do all the blogging and shredding anyone who dares question the unaccountable bureaucrats.” He spoke of “their little media network [that will] twist the truth to disparage, to malign, to vilify, to denigrate anybody who wants any kind of accountability….”

          • Buddy199
          • kellymbray

            You are the one trying to make a buck off your kid. In doing so your constant lies put other children at risk. You don’t care about anyone else but yourself.

      • ccdaddy

        Cassandra, here’s what the corrupt scientific community,

        knew.

        Dr. Brent: Page 229: “The medical legal findings in this study, causal or not, are horrendous and therefore, it is important that the suggested epidemiological, pharmacokinetic, and animal studies be performed. If an allegation was made that a child’s neurobehavioral findings were caused by Thimerosal containing vaccines, you could readily find a junk scientist who would support the claim with “a reasonable degree of certainty”. But you will not find a scientist with any integrity who would say the reverse with the data that is available. And that is true. So we are in a bad position from the standpoint of defending any lawsuits if they were initiated and I am concerned.”

        Cassandra,please read that part again, keep in mind, he was saying, that the science would bury them a real court of law.

        Yet look what they did, they emerged from that meeting willing to deceive the American public. Note, that the only person there that day that had any integrity. Was Dr. Weil, the rest were there that day to discuss how to make this all go away.

        If an allegation was made that a child’s neurobehavioral findings were caused by Thimerosal containing vaccines, you could readily find a junk scientist who would support the claim with “a reasonable degree of certainty”. But you will not find a scientist with any integrity who would say the reverse with the data that is available. And that is true. So we are in a bad position from the standpoint of defending any lawsuits if they were initiated and I am concerned.”

        Again,he is convinced, that the science. It is not! on their side! And he was right,but again,they decided among themselves. That they, should not tell the truth.

        You see,they knew that, that kind of news. It wouldn’t, be good for business. Cassandra,were was his concern for the children? That were, way over taxed, with AAP CDC sanctioned. Vaccine delivered, injected ethyl – form of mercury. In the 10’s of thousands, of ppb of injected, ethyl – mercury. Cassandra, Dr Oz..he was worried about 30 ppb, of ingested arsenic. Being found, in our children’s apple juice. FYI,Arsenic is 500 times less toxic, than the vaccine delivered. Injected form, of mercury. Oh, I left out the best part. The first dose, of
        this injected form, of mercury. Was injected,within hours of the first breath, of life. Here’s where, the stupidity,it hits an all time high. On the MSDS, of the CDC and AAP sanctioned vaccine preservative (thimerosal) It states this warning, of the products ability to make one susceptible with any future exposures.

        ” if you are exposed to thimerosal,any future exposures may cause mercury poisoning ” So,it does appear, that the idiots. Have themselves, unknowingly set the stage, for the perfect storm. Of vaccineal delivered, very severe Neurological damage, in our children.

        Again Cassandra, shortly after that foolishly given, birth dose.They the (AAP / CDC) give up to 9 vaccines, with 7 that contained the mercury. That amount added up, ends up to be a whopping,10 of thousands of ppb of the injected form of mercury.

        Dr Oz said “for we do not know, the long or even the short term health effects,for our children. I guess,since injected thimerosal is 500 times more toxic. Than the, ingested arsenic. Then they, have really screwed up!

        • kellymbray

          You lied, you lost, get over it.

  • JH

    The anti-GMO crowd is nothing at all like the anti-vax crowd.

    There isn’t even a plausible mechanism by which GMO can be harmful to humans to consume. None. It’s not like vaccines, where the thimerosol argument was plausible until testing proved it false. It’s not like climate change, where the error on climate sensitivity is so high that there is no reasonable chance of delivering an accurate prediction of global average temperature 20 years hence.

    No: being anti-GMO is more akin to believing the Earth is flat or that ferries cause gravity.

    • ccdaddy

      JH, you are absolutely wrong!!!!!!! why are you hoing for the industry????? I have a personal account, of getting a GMO
      ( yellow corn ) tortilla chip stabbed into my gum. A blister, came up on my upper Gum. Within a week, I had no skin, left on my lips! I informed the restaurant,they said that they knew of the problem. They said,that the yellow corn fields, had an unusual
      cross migration of the GMO corn from across the road. So, they said that I needed to contact the FDA. So I did, the FDA informed me, that I was one of a dozen to have that reaction.

      So you think, frankinfood is safe. No it isn’t, and I am proof,with the FDA acknowledging it.

      JH, shilling for the industry? Or, just ignorant? When you have put pesticides, in your food, at the molecular level. Your going to get out comes. We are all Genetically different,you are playing with fire,basically you are playing. [ Russian Roulette ]

      • Boris Ogon

        By all means, Joe, provide your proof that the FDA told you that a dozen people had all the skin fall off of their lips by virtue of an “an unusual cross migration of the GMO corn from across the road.” (Did they turn into Triffids?)

      • Loren Eaton

        You present an ‘experiment’ where N=1, you can’t prove that there were any GM proteins in the corn chip you ate, and even if there were, you’re assuming that because it was there, it caused your lips to fall off. That’s just ignorant. The FDA would commit to that kind of a statement.

        • ccdaddy

          You are an idiot,I got stuck deep in my gum. Within the week, a big blister formed right at the puncture point of my Gum,within days the skin on my lips began to melt off. Like dissolving something,with acid.

          Within 3 weeks, they began to heal up. The FDA, that I contacted, (BTW again) on the advice from the restaurant district supervisor. Again, the FDA had told me, that I was one of 12 people.That had a reaction, to the GMO yellow corn.

          In fact the restaurant,had stopped using yellow corn tortillas. Because of the cross migration, of the GMO, in the yellow corn. So from that point forward, for almost a year they used only white corn. You really think,that I made that up? For
          what reason? I’m not a crusader,to stop GMO’s!

          I had, a very bad reaction, to the yellow GMO corn. Probably, because I got stuck with the chip. And, that’s how it,may have entered my bloodstream. But the fact remains,if it can do that to you, what else can it do? You don’t genetically change, what God made perfect!

          • Benjamin Edge

            I suppose your doctor completely ruled out a staph infection? You know how many germs there are in the average human mouth? But you are sure it was the yellow endosperm from a mixture of GM corn from a specific road/field?

          • Boris Ogon

            within days the skin on my lips began to melt off. Like dissolving something,with acid.

            Within 3 weeks, they began to heal up.

            Joe, if all the skin on your lips “melted off,” you would have been in a hospital.

            The FDA, that I contacted, (BTW again) on the advice from the restaurant district supervisor. Again, the FDA had told me, that I was one of 12 people.That had a reaction, to the GMO yellow corn.

            From “across the road.” But now it’s apparently a chain restaurant. Where the franchisees harvest their own corn, grind it into meal, and manufacture their own tortillas.

            In fact the restaurant,had stopped using yellow corn tortillas. Because of the cross migration, of the GMO, in the yellow corn. So from that point forward, for almost a year they used only white corn.

            Joe, do you know where “white corn” tortillas come from? Yellow corn. It’s slaked with lime, just like hominy.

          • Boris Ogon

            You don’t genetically change, what [G-d] made perfect!

            Joe, I hate to tell you this, but G-d didn’t make sweet corn, human breeding did.

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            Human breeding did not make sweet pesticide filled corn. Bt, Liberty Link, and Roundup Ready are laboratory creations.

          • Loren Eaton

            Have you ever heard of an INFECTION?

          • ccdaddy

            since when does an infection,dissolve skin?
            It appeared, to be melting my skin.

            And do, keep in mind,were not talking about a virus. I am aware, of the flesh eating virus, It continues to destroy. This ran it’s course,in three weeks, my skin was back on my lips.

            The FDA said, that I was 1 of 12 that have reacted to the cross migration mistake.

          • Boris Ogon

            The FDA said, that I was 1 of 12 that have reacted to the cross migration mistake.

            Joe, enough of this nonsense. The FDA doesn’t confirm a dozen reports of lip-dissolving GMO chip-attack disease without issuing a report of some kind.

            What was the restaurant? I’ll go search for you.

          • ccdaddy

            I do not believe,that I said they all had the skin dissolve from their lips. I said, I believe, that the FDA confirmed that 12 people reacted to the GMO corn!

          • Boris Ogon

            Well, Joe, it must have been localized. Again, what was the restaurant?

          • notation

            Why can’t you identify the restaurant, you phony? Hurry it up, Joe, before your fingers “fall off.”

          • Boris Ogon

            And do, keep in mind,were not talking about a virus. I am aware, of the flesh eating virus, It continues to destroy.

            You are “aware” wrong, Joe, as the term doesn’t refer to a virus, but that’s neither here nor there.

          • JH

            Like the Wicked Witch of the West on the Wizard of Oz! Maybe your skin melted because you’re an evil witch!

          • notation

            You just said that no infection dissolves skin. You claim that your skin was dissolving.

            You are nothing but a lying sack, Joe. You simply don’t know how to tell the truth. The FDA never said anything to you remotely resembling what you claim, you fraud.

          • Kangaface

            This person isn’t unusual in reacting to GMO corn. All over the US there are doctors advising patients with allergic and auto-immune problems to follow a non-GMO and organic diet, with good results. This is a trend that ain’t gonna go away, no matter what people’s ideological or financial attachment to GM technology.

          • lilady R.N.

            The DNA from the tortilla chip is now incorporated into your DNA, Joe?

            Jeez, I must have a bunch of pizza DNA incorporated into my DNA…for all the times I burned the my palate.

            Thanks for the laughs, Joe.

        • ccdaddy

          At that time,the GMO corn was considered only safe for animals. I believe,it may have been a little experiment.To see,if their corn, could be tolerated by humans.

          • Loren Eaton

            Which company manufactured the corn?

          • ccdaddy

            Heck,I don’t know, the FDA did not pursue it further. Fact! the restaurant changed the type of corn, to white corn for almost a full year.

          • Boris Ogon

            Fact! the restaurant changed the type of corn, to white corn for almost a full year.

            I’ve already explained to you where white-corn tortillas come from, Joe. It isn’t the “white corn plant.”

          • ccdaddy

            The restaurant,explained that they where now using the white corn,because of the GMO mix up

          • Boris Ogon

            What was the restaurant, Joe? I’ve had enough of explaining to you that “white corn” is simply lye-treated yellow corn.

          • Kevin Folta

            Who at the FDA have you been talking to? The people I know there don’t know anything about this. If 12 people claim that it is the GMO corn, then it is an interesting story. Give me a few names please and I’ll follow up. Also the restaurant. Thanks.

          • Kyle Hayes

            I love it when Kevin Folta joins these conversations. It’s like the grown up just walked in the room and the anti-GMO kids have that “pooped in their pants” look of shame.

          • notation

            What restaurant, Joe? Why can’t you answer?

      • FosterBoondoggle

        I call Poe’s law.

        • Boris Ogon

          Believe it not, he’s really like this.

        • lilady R.N.

          He’s not a Poe…he actually believes the nonsense he posts.

      • notation

        This is comedy gold! Your skin fell off your lips because you got stabbed by a tortilla chip??

        Hahahahaha!

        What crock of poo.

      • http://www.nukingpolitics.com Keln

        So you wounded yourself, it got infected, and you blame this on genetic modification of the corn in the chip you wounded yourself with. Could it be that bacteria on the chip, in the salsa, in your mouth, on your fork, etc could have contributed to this infection and not GMO, which you clearly do not understand?

        • notation

          So many things Joe does not understand….

        • Boris Ogon

          The untold story here is what kind of restaurant manages to attract a full dozen customers who are unable to consume tortilla chips without experiencing grievous self-induced injuries.

          • http://www.nukingpolitics.com Keln

            I know right? I also glossed over the whole idea that a restaurant would even know where the corn in their tortilla chips comes from. Or care.

      • drloko

        This is just silly. Either (1) this is a completely fabricated account in which case it’s frightening that people might actually believe this or (2) this actually happen to you in winch case you incurred a serious injury but took the work of some restaurant manager that it wasn’t their fault, it was those GMO guys. Either case is sad.

      • JH

        OMG! The Lipless Human! Like Kafka’s fly! :)

      • Michael Phillips

        I don’t understand your anecdote. If we stick toothpicks into a lab rat and it dies, we don’t decide to ban toothpicks. How is stabbing yourself in the gums with a corn chip proof GMOs are dangerous?

        • lilady R.N.

          Joe posts nonsense in his rather unique mangling of the English language.

          IMO, you’d better start worrying if you start to understand his gibberish. :-)

    • kittura

      LABEL IT….

      • kellymbray

        No reason to. Why waste money catering to the wishes of Big Organic?

        • kittura

          The only reason is that consumers are demanding it.

          “What’s the takeway for companies selling products with GMOs? Pay attention to consumers’ questions. They’re your customers. They’re also your potential adversaries in litigation, if you don’t disclose arguably material facts. If appropriate, consider addressing issues about which your customers might be concerned in your advertising or labeling.”

          And this from the same article:

          “Food companies using GMOs or genetically engineered ingredients in their products might want to think again.

          Attorneys are now saying, “If you’re using GMOs and making “all-natural” claims, there’s a good chance you’ll get sued.”

          Why? Consumers are concerned.

          A global market research company conducted a random, national telephone survey of over 1,000 Americans, asking how they felt about these ingredients in their products and if they had concern. Their top question: Do GMOs cause cancer?

          The answer? We just don’t know. The industry will say there is no evidence of harm, and to a certain extent they are right. There is no evidence. The FDA does not require mandatory premarket safety testing of these products and no long term human health studies have been conducted.”

          http://organicconnectmag.com/risky-business-big-food-companies-lawsuits-gmo-labeling/

          • Boris Ogon

            The only reason is that consumers are demanding it….
            “Attorneys are now saying, “If you’re using GMOs and making “all-natural” claims, there’s a good chance you’ll get sued.”

            I’d say Banafsheha shoots herself in the foot quite well with ¶ 18 of her complaint. Something tells me Ahdoot & Wolfson’s game plan may not scale well.

            But of course, that’s the whole idea: it’s not “consumers” demanding much of anything, it’s a handful of firms profiting off of California class actions. What have there been, six actual plaintiffs all told?

        • StopGMO

          Irrelevant! How would this cater to “big organic”? People are demanding this, not them. They already have their own label and people know how to spot organic foods, not GMO derived foods.

          • Michael Phillips

            Organic foods are also genetically modified organisms. Mutagenesis, introgression, hybridization, inbreeding…all techniques used to modify the genomes of plants that wind up on the organic shelf, often with far more unintended consequences than inserting a single gene with known properties.

          • StopGMO

            GM or GE is not the same as hybrid breeding or inbreeding, you clearly have no clue. Genetic modification (GM) is recombinant DNA technology, also called genetic engineering or GE. With genetic
            engineering scientists can change plants or animals at the molecular level by
            inserting genes or DNA segments from other organisms. Unlike conventional
            breeding and hybridization, the process of genetic engineering enables the
            direct transfer of genes between different species or kingdoms that would not
            breed in nature.

            GM insect resistant (Bt) crops produce their
            own toxin and do not reduce or eliminate insecticides, but simply change the way that pesticides are used, from sprayed on, to built in. US and Latin American data show that GM herbicide tolerant crops have increased overall pesticide use, and have dramatically accelerated the emergence and spread of resistant weeds.

            “Invoking the risk of “famine” as an alternative to GMOs is a deceitful strategy, no different from urging people to play Russian roulette in order to get out of poverty.”

          • Michael Phillips

            “…you clearly have no clue”

            Your ad hominem speaks poorly of you. I am a professional plant biochemist with 20 years of experience. Feel free to look up my pubs on LinkedIn. Your characterization of molecular biology would not pass freshman biology. I am criticizing your poor description of the science, not you.

            You failed to explain why direct transfer is harmful to human health or the environment. The safety or danger of a trait depends on the trait, not on the technique used to introduce it.

            “”Invoking the risk of “famine” as an alternative to GMOs is a deceitful strategy,”

            I never said this. Who are you talking to?

            Bt crops have dramatically reduced pesticide use. Even activists on your side admit this. Your rejection is emotional, not scientific.

          • StopGMO

            Bt crops are supposed to express cry proteins 100% of the time whether there is a pest or not. ( http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-94-007-4497-4_10). What farmer do you know who is up 24 hours a day applying pesticides? LOL, this isn’t emotional it is logical!

          • Michael Phillips

            It’s a protein. One with no effect on humans. One of thousands present in the plant at trace concentrations. You can digest it down to amino acids like any other. A vast improvement over spraying organophosphate pesticides. If Bt were around when you were born, you’d have no problem with it. Radios caused huge paranoia as well when they first came out. This is no different.

            I am genuinely curious though: do you consider all GM plants dangerous regardless of the transgene or only the ones currently commercialized by large corps? In other words, would you also freak out over a GM plant that improves nutritional quality or allows plants to grow in harsh environments? Or is the act of genetic transformation itself enough to always convert a harmless DNA sequence into something dangerous in your mind?

            If your family members had Ebola and the only treatment was an antibody made in transgenic tobacco, would you change your tune to save their lives or would you let them die because all GM plants are bad?

          • Ted Miner

            Please spare us the need to expose your comments as the disingenuous fraud they are.

            Please cite you reputable sources.

          • Michael Phillips

            Such anger. And I thought this was a civil exchange of ideas. I am a published scientist in this field. Look up any pubs from my institute (Centre for Research in Agricultural Genomics, Barcelona, Spain) or my pubs on LinkedIn, Google Scholar, or ResearchGate. We use mutagenesis all the time to make new strains of melon, strawberry, peach, and more. And inbreeding, hybridization etc. You have threatened to “expose” me as a “disingenuous fraud” after I provided you with scientific facts. Why do facts make you so angry? Why don’t you just respond with an argument of your own that doesn’t involve threats? Is this what your movement is all about? Intimidation and threats when confronted by information? In any case, I hope you have a nice day despite your tone.

    • Connie Kuramoto

      You mean Fairies?

      • http://krysztov.x10.mx/wp/ Chris

        Nope. Sink the ferries, float off to space.

    • barbarajanov

      thimerosal has not been tested on humans since 1929 according to the FDA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF-5RKnlsp8

      • Caroline Yunker

        And the flu vaccine has thimerosal.

      • Boris Ogon

        Oh, wow, YouTube says so? I guess that takes care of that. (And yes, I know what you’re trying to regurgitate; you could have skipped the video that nobody’s going to watch if you could even summarize it on your own.)

        • barbarajanov

          it’s a well spent minute, however, of course you can ignore, however, ignoring information doesn’t make it go away.

          • Boris Ogon

            Is your assertion that there have been no in vivo toxicological studies of thimerosal since ~1930? Haven’t I asked this already?

            Anyway, it fails.

      • kittura

        Thank you for supplying video evidence of an actual person questioning the efficacy of thimerosal.

        You tube is an excellent tool for sharing information!

    • aloha1010

      This is baby Arrow,from Kauai, the GMO Capital of the US, In his mother’s words,”He has ten fingers, and ten toes, a perfect little smile and beautiful blue eyes. He brought us pure joy and happiness and is our saving grace. But Arrow did not have an easy start to life. He was born with a birth defect called Gastroschisis. He was born inside out, all of his intestines and his left testicle were outside of his body through a hole in the abdominal wall. Arrow spent his first three months in the NICU having six surgeries and multiple procedures. We didn’t get to hold him in our arms until he was three weeks old and he did not get to eat until he was three months old. He was given nutrition through an IV for the first 3 months and developed an oral aversion from being traumatized by multiple tubes down his throat. He was poked by needles multiple times a day and was opiate dependent for several weeks. After three long months he was sent home with a G-Tube where he is given nutrition strait to his stomach through a feeding tube. We are beyond blessed to be home as a family and couldn’t be happier that our son is doing well but we can’t help but to think of the future generation of Kauai so I am hoping to share our story so that the island can know that if change isn’t made, if we don’t bring into office someone who cares about the ‘aina, our families, our future generation, then we as a community are putting our families at risk. The birth defect my son was born with, Gastroschisis, is a birth defect has been directly linked by several scientist to PESTICIDE SPRAYING. Atrazine is a chemical sprayed by Syngenta, a company who sprays GMO crops on Kauai. THIS NEEDS TO STOP!” Now if you have a heart and and open mind to see that Monsanto and Co,the Chem Cartel is so obviously trying to twist the truth and hide it to preserve their profits, that would be real great. Aloha.

      • patzagame

        Thank you for sharing baby Arrow’s story.

      • Kevin Folta

        I’m always touched by the stories in Kauai, and thank you for sharing here. What this tells us is how important it is to find the causes that underlie such defects so future children (and their dear parents) do not have to endure such life-altering complications.

        That said, these problems are destined to continue, most likely because of the companies, but because the rabid anti-GMO sentiment is taking our eye off the ball. While blaming crops that cannot possibly do this, we let the real reasons go undiscovered.

        When I was in Kauai I spoke to a number of people that had affected children. It was so difficult because they blamed the GMO plants, pollen, etc. Others blamed glyphosate, Others atrazine, as you mention above.

        Atrazine is not some GMO-specific chemical. It is well understood and we know safe exposure limits. The companies there have to log everything, spray when the weather is appropriate and limit applications. Even when atrazine has been detected, the levels have been far below those able to induce biological consequence.

        Could these things be the cause? Maybe, but it is unlikely, and while they should be on the table for analysis, they should not be the focus IMHO.

        From my investigations there are two main points. First, birth defects and cancers are not higher than they are anywhere else in the country. If you have sources that claim otherwise please send them to me.

        Second, how much could be related to historical practices? On my trip many islanders (not company people) spoke of the way things were done back in the sugar cane days and that residues from that time (where none of the practices now exist) affected people then and perhaps have carried forward. Back then different insecticides, herbicides, etc were used, all long banned. Could they be a legacy? Again, just anecdotes, but more plausible than GM corn.

        Thanks again for sharing. I found Kauai to be a beautiful place with warm people, and made friends in red shirts and blue shirts. My biggest fear is that you’ll drive the companies off of the island(s) with bad science, and the problems will still be there. These are serious issues that demand serious consideration of actual likely causes.

    • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

      Glyphosate causes LOTS of harm. Get educated. Bt has been linked to Leukemia. Both accumulate in our bodies. Proven. You eat the pesticide food. Piglets deformed when mothers fed GM feed. Thanks! Krüger et al., J Environ Anal Toxicol 2014, 4:5
      http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2161-0525.1000230

  • Michael Ruxton

    GMOs may generally be safe for human consumption, but GMOs include e.g. seeds with neonicotinoids applied, and GMO manufacturers insist that farmers buy seed every year, rather than use viable seed from their current crop. So GMOs are conjoined with technologies that have other consequences

    • Verna Lang

      Many conventional seeds that farmers use are hybrid seeds. If a farmer saves part of his crop for seed, he will be growing a mixture of both parent strains and the hybrid the next year. Buying seed each year for consistency and/or convenience is normal for many farmers.

    • Loren Eaton

      Seeds with neonics applied?? Explain.

      • Kevin Folta

        Neonics and fungicides are applied to seeds on storage. It keeps the critters to a minimum during storage and establishment. There are milligrams per seed, no easy way to explain the claimed consequences.

  • fun

    There’s absolutely is not scientific consensus that GMO’s are safe. Thus them being ban throughout europe and in other continents. First off vaccines are put through the highest rigorous standards of testing by the government. GMO’s are only tested for a short time, by the companies that make them and then a report is sent to the FDA. Do you understand that? The FDA does NO independent testing of GMO’s. Our buddy Monsanto for instance only does 3 month testing on rats fed round up ready corn. Independent testing (that Monsanto tried to repress) shows tumors show up at 4 months along. The rate of systemic destruction just increases over a 2 year period.
    Before selling seeds, Monsanto makes each farmer sign a contract stating that they will use the seed only for Monsanto approved growing and will not themselves, or supply to laboratories, the seeds for testing. Farmers also are not allowed to discuss problems from farming with Monsanto seeds in the contracts they sign, or they will be sued. Monsanto does not want any lengthly and independent testing done on their patents.
    While some GMO’s can be benificial, roundup ready seed is not. It’s specific purpose is to destroy the gastrointestinal tract of biologicals. And though it is designed for insects; other Biological life uses the same type of cells in Gastrointestinal organs. This isnt a virus where we at least have species jumping help. This I a genome specificly designed to destroy particluar organ cell types, regardless of species.
    This article is a perf3ct example of why journalists with no genetic science background shouldnt write wcience based articles

    • Loren Eaton

      ‘There’s absolutely is not scientific consensus that GMO’s are safe.’ We can quibble over the word consensus, but the fact remains that the VAST majority of scientists who have hands on knowledge believe that it is as safe as any other food. No food is totally safe.

      ‘The FDA does NO independent testing of GMO’s.’ It is not the job of the FDA, EPA or USDA to this sort of testing…on any product. Clinical and field trials are the responsibility of the manufacturers. It is that way for chemical, pharma, medical devices…whatever.

      • Tom

        I wonder if people would complain less if FDA did the actual testing but the manufacturer would have to pay for it. My guess would be only slightly less…

        • Loren Eaton

          The current system works if the agencies pay close attention and scrutinize the design and results of the testing. The idea that industry in general is ‘in bed’ with these agencies is downright stupid.

          • Ted Miner

            It works great for the GMO pesticide industry, but it sucks for the people the system was supposed to be working for.

            The industry is not just in bed, it practically controls the entire apparatus. If that wasn’t the case we might see some real science before these toxic products were unleashed on the people.

        • Sterling Ericsson

          It still takes 16 years on average to bring a new GM crop to market. The amount of scrutiny from the various agencies is huge.

      • Caroline Yunker

        The FDA, EPA and USDA are here to PROTECT Americans. THEY should be testing GMOs. Otherwise, why do we need them? To just rubber stamp every new invention? How many drugs have been recalled? How many medical devices have been recalled? How many automobiles have been recalled? If the FDA won’t protect us then let independent scientists test GMOs.

        • kellymbray

          The fact that drugs and devices have been recalled shows the FDA, EPA and USDA are doing their job and protecting us. Independent scientists all around the world do test GMO’s but your cult beliefs will not be changed by facts. You are no different from a creationist.

          • patzagame

            Just curious,perhaps you might have some links to the health studies of consuming 2,4-d crops?

          • Caroline Yunker

            The FDA, EPA and USDA should have found those faulty devices BEFORE they were “approved” for public use. Sheesh.

          • barbarajanov

            I don’t believe I’ve ever noted a government recall of a vaccine, pharmaceuticals voluntarily recall . In 2008 the hib possibly contaminated with bacillus cerius was recalled by Merck then deemed unlikely to have caused harm after their viewing vaers for a pattern to evolve .. Because pharmaceuticals are protected from all liability, they are self policing and the public is not made aware of the problem by the normal fda recall route.

          • Caroline Yunker

            What a joke. Self-regulating. Why should pharma companies be above the law? Japan stopped vaccinating their girls with Gardasil. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/10/fda-drug-recalls_n_821094.html#s236257&title=Contrave

          • lilady R.N.

            That’s b.s. and you know it. The recall of the Rotashield vaccine was published by the CDC and the FDA and press releases were issued to all major media outlets.

            http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/106/1/123.extract

      • fun

        Do you realize that while trying to debate my statement; you actually validated it.
        That ‘Hands on knowledge’ you are talking about? Yeah… That’s because the companies won’t allow other scientists to study it. And, for those whom they contract out with who disprove their products; they will try to bribe them to change results, try to discredit them, harass and stalk them, etc.
        Let me give you an example… connect the dots here:
        1. Interview with Dr Tyrone Hays. Watch the whole thing.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOddaKUZfh0
        From the horses mouth.

        2. Now – if you do a google search for ‘Dr Tyrone Hayes’… the very first thing that comes up is this paid for add by agsense.org that discredits Dr. Hayes.
        http://agsense.org/atrazine-alarmists/tyrone-hayes/?gclid=CP6gypa1tMECFQsvaQodCm4ACw
        Read how they say that he was sending bizarre emails… He had just talked about trying to confuse them with emails because they were stalking him and hacked into his professional email account.

        3. Now, do a google seach for who owns agsense.org. It’s Valmont – a gmo engineering company. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/valmont-acquires-majority-stake-agsense-213000149.html

        4. Now do a google search for ‘Valmont and Syngenta’
        Boom…. Valmont and Syngenta are partners through the Lindsey Corp.
        http://www.valuewalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/178423488-Lindsay-Corp.pdf
        Go to the bottom of page 3 – 2nd paragraph:

        Lindsay announced a partnership with Syngenta, a $40bn global crop input business.
        This partnership will combine Lindsay’s technologically advanced pivots with Syngenta’s soil additives and modified seeds to help farmers grow more corn with less water. Valmont has no comparable partnership, speaking to the level of innovation at Lindsay Corporation.

        !!!!!!!!
        Do you get it now? You are spreading complete misinfo. And those of us in the medical/bio/chem science field are tired of people who have opinions, but, no idea what they are talking about.

      • fun

        You do realize that while trying to debate my comment; you actually supported it, right?
        ‘Scientist who have hands on knowledge’…
        I just explained to you that the ag companies won’t allow for independent study. And, their own study times stop just short of when symptoms appear. Tumors start at 4months in rats. So, they turn in studies that only go to 3 months. Then, they sue any scientists who does their own testing.
        They also bribe and threaten the scientists who work for them and whom they contract to work for them.
        I’m gonna show you a fun little collection of info… follow along and connect the dots.

        1. Well respected scientist, Dr Tyrone Hayes.. He’s being harassed by Syngenta for work he did for Syngenta.
        Watch the whole interview as it will lead into every other point I’m listing:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOddaKUZfh0

        2. Now, do a google search for ‘Dr Tyrone Hayes’. The very first thing that pops up is a paid for ad by AgSense.Org, which tries to discredit him. Notice how they talk about bizarre emails from him. In the interview he talked about how they had hacked is professional email and he was sending out false ones to mislead them.
        http://agsense.org/atrazine-alarmists/tyrone-hayes/?gclid=CP6gypa1tMECFQsvaQodCm4ACw

        3 Now, do a google search for ‘Who owns AgSense.org/net
        It’s Valmont GMO enginnering company.
        http://finance.yahoo.com/news/valmont-acquires-majority-stake-agsense-213000149.html

        4. Now, do a google search for ‘Valmont and Syngenta’
        Surprise, Surprise… Valmont is partners with Syngenta through Lindsey Corp (LNN).
        Go down to page 3, paragraph 2.
        http://www.valuewalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/178423488-Lindsay-Corp.pdf

        “Lindsay announced a partnership with Syngenta, a $40bn global crop input business. This partnership will combine Lindsay’s technologically advanced pivots with Syngenta’s soil additives and modified seeds to help farmers grow more corn with less water. Valmont has no comparable partnership, speaking to the level of innovation at Lindsay Corporation.”

        Need I say more? Please don’t make opinion comments and act as they are fact. Learn to research.

        • Loren Eaton

          Tyrone Hayes is a profane, psychotic loon. Read his emails if you want some facts.
          Rats in general don’t form tumors at 4 months. Only the ones Seralini chose for his study. If you had ANY experience in the lab you’d realize that this invalidates his study, not corporate pressure.
          And by the way Seralini’s ‘institute’ has accepted money from Carrefour and Auchen, both companies with skin in the game.

          • fun

            Profane,psychotic loon?… Projecting much?
            I’ve actually spent over a decade working in the lab and have degrees in Bio/Chem/MLT/Crop&TreeFruitResearch/Renewable Energies.
            Therefore, with your lack of any facts, links, hyperbole, and slander/defimation against Dr Hayes; I’m just gonna call a spade a spade here. You are nothing more than a patsy mole troll. And, therefore not worth wasting anymore time on. If you can’t have a civilized discussion with urls/studies and facts to support your myopic claims; then, please don’t bother the rest of us whom are having adult discussions.
            Go back to your cave, troll.

          • Loren Eaton

            I’m absolutely crushed. Buh-bye!

    • Kevin Folta

      You are completely wrong on the “gastrointestinal tract” stuff. Sorry. The Bt protein mechanism is well understood, and it doesn’t work on you— or any other non-target.

      • patzagame

        Well maybe the rats should be told that in the Kilic study,Kevin…In conclusion, although the results obtained from this
        study showed minor histopathological and biochemical
        effects in rats fed with Bt corn, long-term consumption of
        transgenic Bt corn throughout three generation did not
        cause severe health concerns on rats. Therefore, long-term
        feeding studies with GM crops should be performed on
        other species collaboration with new improving technologies
        in order to assure their safety. So,I guess since its not “severe” it must be OK? Oh, and where are those further long term feeding studies on other species with NEW IMPROVING TECHNOLOGIES? Changes in liver and kidney histopathology does not equate to it doesn’t work on you or any other non target!

        • Kevin Folta

          I’d believe it if the data came from isogenic controls and transgenic lines. Every one of these claimed breakthrough reports describing effects are not repeated and never break into decent journals. Plus, the results are typically significant only statistically (meaning you can define separate means) but not biologically.

          There are many long-term studies done in multiple systems. None of them document effects, so it calls to question those rare, non-reproducible examples where they do. Plus, no paper ever showing effects ever identifies a mechanism, which is the critical element.

          So scientifically, I’m not convinced. I remain open to new data, but as it stands, right now it is just not there.

          • patzagame

            As it stands right now,non industry,multi-generational,multi-species,long term chronic toxicology studies are lacking.I’m not convinced in the so called safety studies spoon feed to our regulators.GE crops should never have been allowed to enter the food supply.2,4-d and dicambra crops will soon be deregulated and allowed to enter the food supply,Where are the feeding studies???I remain open to new data,but as it stands,right now it is just not there.You can say that again!

      • StopGMO
        • StopGMO
          • Tom

            DNA is DNA whether it happens to contain the exact DNA sequence used to make a GMO. Life does not make a distinction. All DNA will behave the same way in your gut. And all food you eat contains DNA.

        • Tom

          Um, have you read the paper? The authors show that two bacteria belonging to the same species (Bacillus thuringensis) can transfer plasmids to each other. Which is what bacteria do all the time in nature. The novelty of this study was that it was shown for B. thuringensis in the human intestinal tract. It has nothing to do with the action of the Bt toxin. Don’t cite papers you do not understand.

  • GaelanClark

    As hugely ignorant as the statement “denial of scientific consensus” is, the argument from consensus is even more so.
    First, no one is arguing that there is not a “consensus”…the argument revolves around whether to comport with the “consensus” or to disagree with such. And, because I disagree with the evidence that you use to determine your position means I am a “denialist” is twisted logic and certainly does not follow the scientific method…which is to say….question everything.
    Second…what about those of us who do not believe in global warming,the efficacy of limited time studies for gmo’s or in the unquestioned safety of vaccines?
    You have limited your idea path to those who may be hypocrites while all at once defining yourself as such. WOW

  • http://www.nukingpolitics.com Keln

    Why? Easy. Liberal outlets are agenda-driven, not fact-oriented. They use whatever “facts” suits their ideological bent. The same is true of many conservative outlets as well. The bottom line is, don’t get your facts from any publication with a political agenda.

  • Sterling Ericsson

    I still find it weird that all these anti-GMO groups on Facebook and such, which are predominantly liberal in composition, share articles from places like Natural News. Which, in addition to being one of the most anti-science websites on the internet, is run by Mike Adams, an extreme far right conspiracy theorist. Sure, he’s anti-GMO, but he is also anti-vaccine, anti-germ theory, and an HIV denialist.

    Oh, and he also thinks that all the school shootings were false flag operations committed by the US government, as was 9/11. He is also an Obama birther, chemtrailer, and one of his main heroes is Alex Jones of Infowars fame.

    Yeeeeah…this is who these liberal anti-GMO groups are linking to and supporting, an extreme conservative ideologue conspiracy theorist of the highest order.

    • Donna Peplum

      There is no need to link to sources such as Natural News – there is plenty of peer reviewed independent science that backs up Carole Bartolotto’s claim that GMOs have not been proven safe. As cited above, there are plenty of credible medical and healthcare professionals who are concerned about safety. Carole is spot on in everything she says. Anyone who says GMOs are safe is spouting nonsense. No human health trials. Without labels, there is no traceability, no accountability and no liability. And that’s the way the agrochemical industry likes it.

      • Sterling Ericsson

        So you’re saying every major scientific organization in the world that says that GMOs are safe after 25 years of study and hundreds of safety studies is wrong? Every major scientific organization in the world has released a statement in support of the science showing GMOs are safe.

        • ccdaddy

          You do,what your ordered to do!
          Or your threatened, with being Wakefielded

    • Lakin Elizabeth B

      So you wish to continue to keep people separated and bashing each other? I’m glad this is a bipartisan issue.

  • Pamm Larry

    Given your other articles, it’s no surprise that you would certainly have chosen two incredibly slanted “scientists” to consult….knowing that the usual rude mouthpieces that accompany them wherever they go would show up to spew in comments here. Science has become predicated on trust. I’d trust a R.D. who had done her work over anything you or they had to say. I love how anyone who doesn’t agree with the rude commenters is considered “fringe.” Galileo and Semmelweis were originally considered fringe, and yet today not so, eh? The SCIENTISTS and MDs on the committee felt the degreed, Registered Dietician’s article passed muster. Your pointing out that they rejected the other article only says to me that her points and data are on track… as if not, they would not have published it. Thanks for reinforcing her premise even though you tried to diss it.

    • drloko

      You trust a registered dietitian over a Ph.D. credentialed scientist with decades of research experience? You make the global arming deniers look sane,

      • Sienna Rosachi

        What does a PhD in plant genetics know about human health? In a word: nothing.

        • Kevin Folta

          Hello Sienna. I regularly am asked to review papers on human health, especially as it applied to genomics and cancers. The journals recognize that my training (Ph.D. in molecular biology which had extensive lab/coursework in systems ranging from E.coli, to yeast, to mouse, to human) is sufficient to provide critical review. My background in statistics and experimental design also allows me to approach any published work with appropriate scrutiny.

          Tell me a little about your record… here’s mine. http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=kIh3BRwAAAAJ&hl=en

          You may want to be careful when criticizing someone with a solid record and extensive training. Such comments do show that someone knows, in a word, nothing.

    • Kevin Folta

      Good day, Pamm. Slanted? I guess if you consider that I strictly follow evidence, then yes, that is my slant.

      Galileo was certainly fringe in society, but not among scientists. Copernicus published his findings decades before Galileo, and Galileo read and expanded on Copernicus’ work. In scientific circles the ideas of heliocentricism were gaining traction. While the ideas were “fringe” in a religious world, they were found on evidence.

      Evidence is the key word. In Galileo’s time, who was in denial?

      That’s the big difference here. Bartolotto’s arguments are from ignorance– “we just don’t know”. They are not arguments from evidence. She and HuffPo are not the innocent fringe Galieo- they are the fact-denying Inquisition.

      The Huffington Post’s Inquisition followed the Galilean analogy. They let belief rule over evidence, emotion rule over science. No scientific editor worth a damn would ever allow “proven safe” to be in the title of a scientific piece. That’s how you know this is fluff, not fact.

      I’m always glad to discuss these issues, and please always expect me to be slanted– in strict agreement with peer-reviewed evidence and scientifically credible analysis.

  • Rob Bright

    It’s interesting that this article bases it’s argument on “right” versus “left” politics, when the two subjects (GMOs and vaccines) have nothing to do with left or right/ republican or democrat. There are plenty of people on both sides of the political spectrum who believe both are safe or both are unsafe. I can only assume from the anti-liberal sentiment of the author that he is at least to the right of centre, and probably more likely to be of the Tea Party variety of Republicanism. So not only does he confuse (intentionally or otherwise) the issue of GMOs and vaccines, but he also then attempts to confuse his readers with issues of left versus right political leanings on the two issues.

    The fact that Genetically Engineered crops have never been independently assessed for safety (indeed, Monsanto does not even allow its products to be tested independently without their approval and supervision) should send up enough red flags for any reasonable individual concerned with proper safety research. The fact the biotechs are so afraid of labeling their GMOs that they would spend tens of millions of dollars fighting labeling initiatives also send a clear message to reasonable people that they have something to hide.

    The fact that former employees of biotech corporations now work for the FDA, USDA, on the Supreme Court, and with the EPA should REALLY send up red flags for reasonable people who expect third-party, independent reviews of these new products and technologies. While most other countries demand GMOs be labeled for consumers (and some even ban many products associated with GMO production) here in North America we seem to expect everyone to simply accept whatever scant, unreliable testing the biotechs conduct on their own products for market approvals. Clearly this is a case of letting the fox guard the henhouse.

    • kittura

      AMEN!! What is the fear of labeling???? One that they spend MILLIONS to keep from happening?

      • Boris Ogon

        Is anyone preventing anyone from labeling products as “GMO free”?

        No, I didn’t think so.

        • StopGMO

          Have you forgotten how many millions Monsanto spent to defeat Prop 37 and 522? They could have saved millions of starving people with the amount of money they wasted.

          • Boris Ogon

            And this would be apropos of what?

            Seriously, you make Claire Robinson look like a genius.

          • StopGMO

            And you’re an idiot! Scroll up a bit and you’ll find it or are you to lazy to? I am responding to your comment above.

          • Boris Ogon

            I am responding to your comment above.

            No, you were doing something that you somehow thought was a response. Hence the unfavorable comparison.

            I would help if you could clarify the reason that this required whomping up a brand new Disqustink account at UTC 19:08:30 August 9, though.

          • StopGMO

            And you need your head examined. Have a nice evening.

          • Boris Ogon

            And you need your head examined.

            I’m not the one whomping up Disqustink accounts in order to shoot myself in the foot.

            Have a nice evening.

            It won’t involve staring at myself in a full-length mirror wearing nothing but a Guy Fawkes mask, but you too.

          • StopGMO

            Whomping? lol I have only 1 acct. not sure what you are talking about. You should really get off the funny stuff. Enjoy your mirror.

          • Boris Ogon

            lol I have only 1 acct. not sure what you are talking about.

            Again, the creation date of the account is there for all to see. So, what exactly drove you to create it all of a sudden today? Never set foot in Disqustink before, but “lol,” here you are.

          • StopGMO

            Because I was never a member of Disquis before until today, duh!!!

          • Boris Ogon

            Because I was never a member of Disquis before until today, duh!!!

            How did you suddenly happen upon it?

          • Ted Miner

            What business is it of your’s?

          • Boris Ogon

            What business is it of your’s [sic]?

            Why wouldn’t this little, ah, happenstance be?

          • StopGMO

            Why are you so concerned, paranoid? I do not need to explain myself to you and it’s non of your business either. You joined when you joined and I joined today, so what!

          • Boris Ogon

            You joined when you joined and I joined today, so what!

            You seem awfully excited for somebody who has already taken pain to bid me goodnight.

            It’s mildly interesting that your comment tally is precisely the same as your upvote tally. But if the question is whether I think your naivete is feigned, the answer is yes.

          • StopGMO

            Stop making up stories, you are sounding crazy. Get a life!

          • Boris Ogon

            Stop making up stories, you are sounding crazy. Get a life!

            Again, you’re the one who seems all exercised after pretending to abandon the topic three hours ago. It’s not as though you’re being forced into making up incredibly dumb insults to avoid responding to these simple observations.

    • Sterling Ericsson

      “Monsanto does not even allow its products to be tested independently without their approval and supervision”

      Completely and utterly incorrect.

      http://grist.org/food/genetically-modified-seed-research-whats-locked-and-what-isnt/

      • Caroline Yunker

        Monsanto is not STUPID. Every business wants to CONTROL any studies that might have the possibility of proving their products inferior. Sheesh.

        • Sterling Ericsson

          If they were seriously controlling any studies done, then how did the crap studies done by Seralihi and Carmen ever get done? Seriously, there is no control over the studies, scientists are free to do them whenever and however they want.

          • patzagame

            You forgot the word fringe,oops.

          • Caroline Yunker

            Scientists are ordinary people just like you and me. They are working for a paycheck and pension. Most of them will toe the line like good little corporate minions.

          • barbarajanov

            But as this article suggests, there are panels that limit publication at all levels.

        • Kevin Folta

          They don’t control anyone. They can’t. Go buy a bag of corn and do the experiments. Publish them. If there’s legit evidence of harm they’d be the first to want to know, and if it is all public, do you think they are going to go after you for doing good science? No way.

          Let me guess Caroline, you are not a scientist?

          Nobody tells me what to do or study, especially companies.

  • No Gmo

    LOL! AAAS started off as a bunch of geologists, I don’t listen to geologists when it comes to health. Folta is a fringe scientist who wants less safety regulation for GE food, when the majority of the health community recognizes that GE foods need more thoroughly safety regulations in the U.S. I’ve been asking von Mogel to remove the over 40 duplicates on his list for like year or more, but he hasn’t even attempted to do so and he doesn’t even know what is on his own list. The overwhelming majority of the medical community agree with Carole, you can quote all the geologists and plant scientists you want.
    By the way, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) co-sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO), The World Bank, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and the United Nations Educational and Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) involving 900 participants and 110 countries from all regions of the world:

    “The safety of GMO foods and feed is controversial due to limited available data, particularly for long-term nutritional consumption and chronic exposure. Food safety is a major issue in the GMO debate. Potential concerns include alteration in nutritional quality of foods, toxicity, antibiotic resistance, and allergenicity from consuming GM foods. The concepts and techniques used for evaluating food and feed safety have been outlined (WHO, 2005b), but the approval process of GM crops is considered inadequate (Spök et al., 2004). Under current practice, data are provided by the companies owning the genetic materials, making independent verification difficult or impossible. Recently, the data for regulatory approval of a new Bt-maize variety (Mon863) was challenged. Significant effects have been found on a number of measured parameters and a call has been made for more research to establish their safety” “There is little consensus among the findings from the assessments of economic and environmental impacts of GMOs.” – Global Report http://www.unep.org/dewa/Assessments/Ecosystems/IAASTD/tabid/105853/Default.aspx/

    “In regions or countries that choose to produce GMOs, regulation should be based on the precautionary principle and the right of consumers to have an informed choice, for example through labeling” – Translation from Spanish: “En regiones o países, que elijan producir GMO, la regulación debería basarse en el principio de precaución y el derecho de los consumidores a tener una elección informada, por ejemplo a traves del etiquetado.” – LAC SDM (Latin America and Caribbean) http://www.unep.org/dewa/Assessments/Ecosystems/IAASTD/tabid/105853/Default.aspx/

    • Sterling Ericsson

      And which of the PDFs on that page are these supposed quotes from? Since they are all available in English, your translated from Spanish is highly suspicious.

      • No Gmo

        You have serious reading comprehension issues since I provided exactly which reports they are from.

      • Boris Ogon

        Since “No Gmo” has a loose definition of “exactly,” this is the official English version (PDF).

        • No Gmo

          Loose definition? LOL! Did you get dropped on your head as a child? Here is what I posted, “Global Report” here is what the report at the link is called, “Global Report”. Here is what I posted for the other report, “LAC SDM (Latin America and Caribbean)” here is what the report at the link is called, “LAC SDM (Latin America and Caribbean)” Careful you might fall off the earth you anti-science flat-earther! Here is the link so everyone can check for themselves and laugh at you! Haha! http://www.unep.org/dewa/assessments/ecosystems/iaastd/tabid/105853/default.aspx

          • Boris Ogon

            Here is the link so everyone can check for themselves and laugh at you! Haha!

            I just provided the specific link that was requested, halfwit. Your grab-bag page doesn’t do this.

            Now, who was squealing about “reading comprehension,” again?

          • No Gmo

            You claimed, “loose definition” when I gave exact quotes of the title of the reports, so your reading comprehension needs some serious attention, you anti-science flat-earther. So everyone reading this is laughing at you! Haha!

          • Boris Ogon

            You claimed, “loose definition” when I gave exact quotes of the title of the reports

            You think that “LAC SDM (Latin America and Caribbean)” is an “exact quote of the title” Summary for Decision Makers of the Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) Report?

          • No Gmo

            Are you brain dead? If you click on the link it says, “LAC SDM (Latin America and Caribbean)” Click on the link and see for yourself… http://www.unep.org/dewa/assessments/ecosystems/iaastd/tabid/105853/default.aspx I had a good laugh, but everyone can see you are an anti-science flat-earther too lazy or stupid to even bother clicking the link I provided. Good luck with the not falling off the earth thing.. LOL!

    • Boris Ogon

      LOL! AAAS started off as a bunch of geologists, I don’t listen to geologists when it comes to health.

      Apparently, you don’t understand what “naturalists” means. In any event, it’s cute that you manage to text-speak your way to the assumption that an organization that doesn’t seem to have been mentioned at all is somehow the AGU over a century later.

      • No Gmo

        Does naturalist mean health professional? Of course not, you just don’t understand what, “medical community” means. You anti-science flat-earthers are hilarious. You get health advice from geologists and plant scientists! You can’t be serious.

        • Boris Ogon

          You get health advice from geologists and plant scientists!

          I’m not the one robotically trotting out an insanely idiotic line about “geologists” someplace where, again, the AAAS hasn’t been mentioned at all. Is this some sort of brain-dead attempt to go after the journals portfolio? I would hope that you would repudiate anything that you found there that supported your “position,” as well.

          The whole thoughtless cut-and-paste routine, if anything, hammers home the similarity of GMO and vaccine cranks.

          • No Gmo

            The AAAS hasn’t been mentioned at all? Did you ever read this article you anti-science flat-earther. You are embarrassing yourself. Everyone reading this is laughing at you!

          • Boris Ogon

            Mr. Dazinger, I did indeed miss the passing quote from the Pacific Standard. Perhaps you would now elaborate about how your random babbling about geologists is apropos of anything. It certainly wasn’t the focus of the instant piece.

          • No Gmo

            It was the primary focus of this idiotic article, your reading comprehension is just too poor to understand. There is no consensus in the medical community, in fact the majority of the medical community agrees with Carole. Only an idiot would reference the AAAS in a conversation about HEALTH! LOL! Anti-science flat-earthers are funny!

          • Boris Ogon

            Everyone reading this is laughing at you!

            It takes a lot of work to get a sub-1.0 Disqus rep, Mr. Dazinger, and I’m not the one sporting it.

          • Ted Miner

            HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!

            I’m laughing at you “Boris”

            LOL!!!!

          • Boris Ogon

            Another “soft” hit piece on Stephanie Seneff designed to undermine her creditability [sic].

            I do so love the cartoons that she uses for that 1 in 2 by 2025 “prediction.”

        • Boris Ogon

          Hilariously, if predictably, Mr. Daziger luurves him some geologists when they come in handy.

          • No Gmo

            LOL! Hilariously, if predictably you make a fool out of yourself again. My comment shows that even the geologists can’t agree. If you actually read through the list of people who responded to AAAS you will see things like, “Institute of Neurotoxicology & Neurological Disorders”, “Medical School of South Carolina”, “San Francisco Medical Society”, ” University of Cincinnati Medical Center”, “USC School of Medicine”, etc. Are you shocked that the medical community disagrees with the geologists? I’m not, but I wouldn’t be shocked if you were shocked. Anti-science flat-earthers are hilarious! http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2012/yes-labels-on-gm-foods

    • Boris Ogon

      Translation from Spanish: “En regiones o países….

      Oh, wow, this has only been cut and pasted 303 times so far.

      • No Gmo

        LOL! You mean someone can quote fringe scientists who disagree with the overwhelming majority of the health community, but I can’t quote a report by over 400 scientists? You anti-science flat-earthers are good for one thing and one thing only, to laugh at!

        • Boris Ogon

          You mean someone can quote fringe scientists who disagree with the overwhelming majority of the health community….

          Given that you’ve trotted this line out at least twice here, perhaps you could substantiate that “overwhelming majority of the health community” bit. Or define it, whatever.

          • No Gmo

            You mean you responded without even bothering to look at what the medical community has to say? Typical anti-science flat-earther!

      • http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php Skeptical Raptor

        Boris I miss your snark on my blog. :)

        • Boris Ogon

          Is there an infestation? I have such a monstrous typesetting mess on my hands that I’m going to have to get out the loupe.

  • Lakin Elizabeth B

    In one breath, you say, “the science on GMOs is as solid and authoritative as it is on vaccines.” In another, you quote, “In science, we know that nothing is ever “proven,” so to demand that science “prove” something safe is a standard that can never be met.” You contradicted yourself. So which is it?

    The federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, better known as “vaccine court,” has just awarded millions of dollars to two children with autism for “pain and suffering” and lifelong care of their injuries, which together could cost tens of millions of dollars. Why? Further, why is there a Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the first place and why do we have to sign forms to acknowledge the risks and side effects associated with the said vaccine? I’m with the R.D. on this one. Poor attempt to discredit.

    • lilady R.N.

      I am unaware of the two children with autism, who you claim were awarded damages from the Vaccine Court.

      Awards have been made by the Court for encephalitis…never autism.

      • barbarajanov

        yet these children were autistic..go figure

        • kellymbray

          The autism was not caused by the vaccine. And encephalitis is not autism. And autism like behaviors is not autism. Go figure.

        • lilady R.N.

          No child has ever been awarded damages from the vaccine court for autism. Try again?

          • barbarajanov

            Twist it however you like, the result of the vaccine damage was autism. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/family-to-receive-15m-plus-in-first-ever-vaccine-autism-court-award/

          • drloko

            This court has rejected thousands of petitions for damages related to autism. They do not give awards for autism arising from vaccines.
            The court has never awarded a claim for autism induced by a vaccine.

          • Ted Miner

            That doesn’t mean that vaccines don’t cause autism. The legal system is separate from the reality of life many times.

      • Kevin Folta

        One of the cases awarded was a girl with a severe metabolic mitochondrial problem. In her case it was found that the vaccination could have exacterbated the symptoms. Anti-vaxers hold this up as proof of their claims as a proven “judgement”.

        I think it was shameful manipulation of a poor sick girl to satisfy an agenda. They skillfully ran her through the courts first- it was pretty clear that vaccines contributed to her issues, but she was extremely ill to begin with. Sick people making political gains off of her condition.

        • lilady R.N.

          I believe you are referring to the Hannah Poling case, a young girl with a previously undiagnosed mitochondrial disorder.

          Anti vaccine groups point to her case and claim the award from the vaccine court was for “autism”…it was not.

          Here Terry Poling, her mother who is a registered nurse and an attorney, again posted a comment about the use of Hannah’s case (and the award for encephalitis…not autism) by Age of Autism for false information about the nature of Hannah’s award:

          http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/11/rolf-hazlehurst-on-vicp-at-congressional-briefing.html?cid=6a00d8357f3f2969e2019b00f6331e970c#comment-6a00d8357f3f2969e2019b00f6331e970c

          • Kevin Folta

            That’s right, she had a mitochrondiral disorder that was potentially exacerbated by the vaccine. That’s why they USED the poor girl to make a political statement. Just awful

    • Benjamin Edge

      >In one breath, you say, “the science on GMOs is as solid and
      authoritative as it is on vaccines.” In another, you quote, “In science,
      we know that nothing is ever “proven,” so to demand that science
      “prove” something safe is a standard that can never be met.” You
      contradicted yourself. So which is it?<

      It shows your lack of understanding of science that you don't know that this does not represent a contradiction. It is true that science never "proves" anything. There is always a chance, however small, that new information may come along that shows what was considered true is not. However, if the preponderance of evidence is strong enough, we accept something as true until it is shown to be otherwise.

      That is why careful scientists never say GMOs have been "proven" to be safe. We say that GMOs have been shown to be as safe as conventional crops, because nothing has been proven to be completely safe – it can't be done. Even organic food has not been proven safe.

  • kittura

    Wow… Censorship in action!! The thing is there is a growing amount of people who believe that she may be right. I was in classes last year with a policeman who swears that his son became autistic due to vaccines. Search the internet yourself. He’s not some lone person suspecting problems with this — as there are for people questioning the safety of GMO foods.

    Robyn O’Brien is a former food industry analyst who is wondering WHY… Why are children today having so many problems with food — that we didn’t have growing up and what is changing?

    I’d be very disappointed if Huff Post just went for the censorship thing like this. Doctors back in the 1960’s thought cigarettes were OK and a lot of healthy folks STILL don’t seem to know agave syrup is worse than High Fructose Corn Syrup because early reports said it was safe.

    What a shame if we go for the fascist mentality and just shut down free speech.

    • Boris Ogon

      Wow… Censorship in action!!

      Are you referring to the existence of this article? Being disagreed with isn’t “censorship.” The First Amendment has nothing to do with private entities, either.

  • JohnH

    “What puzzles me is why liberal outlets recognize ‘bad information’ about vaccines but not GMOs.”

    What puzzles you is a straw man. You’re correct about HuffPo, but it, not Grist, is the exception. Anti-GMO has been debunked all over the “liberal press”. For example, Mother Jones has run a debunking piece. So has The LA Times, The New Yorker, The New York Times, and so on…

    The better question is, why does the liberal press debunk leftist anti-science bullsh**, but the conservative press doesn’t debunk rightist anti-science bullsh**? Not only are debunks of global warming denialism not forthcoming from such outlets as the WSJ, The Washington Times, Forbes, FoxNews, and talk radio, these outlets are hell-bent on a constant drumbeat of denial.

  • Sterling Ericsson

    It’s interesting that this comment section seems to be drawing more anti-vaccine people than anti-GMO.

  • Robert Burns

    I dont understand why this was written, it goes no-where at all////of couse nothing can be poroven by science, nor can it be disproven…as the universe is in a state of change….expanding faster than the speed of light////the dogmatic stupidity of”proving things” is relegated to the third grader senario……”prove it???” The key is Monsanto lies. they have not ever ever told the truth about their product theirs is a dark history of deception and terror against nature and humanity///do I trust their food????Nope…so I want it labeled to see how this disgusting rotten crap is distributed….I can prove nothing, but I have a right to judge the chartacter of the Monsanto stooges, and their howling salivating running coyotes hot on their heels for the $$$$$ they toss around like rain in April.

    • Sterling Ericsson

      Monsanto is not GM technology. They make up less than 4% of biotechnology research. If you have an issue with Monsanto, that has nothing to do with the science behind GM crops.

      • Robert Burns

        Google and check my statements: Monsanto controls the FDA….Monsanto controlls the USDA…Monsanto controls the White house…Since Geo Bush SR…in his lab coat…giving America to Monsanto….and look at the Supreme court……Where I live here in Mystic Ct is housed Monsanto’s DeKlab facility, which creates the mother seed for GMO corn product…sure Bayer, DuPont, Pfizer,Norvartis, are all creating GMO untested food product, and slippimg it into our food VIA MONSANTO”S FDA…which allows it…..so who cares if they do 1% of the”research”(a joke)….they are allowing toxic materials in our foods…and this is wrong,

        • drloko

          Are there black helicopters circling you?

          • Ted Miner

            Actually he make some very good points.

            You, on the other hand have nothing but unsupported claims and childish one liner attempted put downs that say much more about you that the poster Robert.

          • drloko

            Conspiracy theories are not evidence. This just looks crazy.

          • Ted Miner

            Then show something that PROVES him wrong.

            You like to talk the talk, but you come up short when you are asked to put up the proof. No only that, but you also criticize others for doing the same thing you are doing.

            That does look pretty crazy, and also like you’re just doing your part for the GMO pesticide industry pseudo-science agenda.

          • drloko

            Conspiracy theories cannot be proven wrong, that’s that makes them work to begin with.

            How can you prove that these companies are not ‘slipping’ in GMOs into the food supply? By design it’s not provable.

            Still crazy.

          • Ted Miner

            GMOs are currently in the food supply but they are hidden from food customers.

            Currently there are 64 countries including Europe and most all of the rest of the developed world that require that GMOs in food be labeled. We should have the same rights and freedom as they do to know what is in the food we are feeding our children.

          • EllPenna

            “Then show something that PROVES him wrong.”

            The onus is on the person who make the claims to prove them, not for everyone else to prove them wrong. Pretty simple concept Ted

          • drloko

            What conspiracy theory do you think I’ve promoted?

          • Ted Miner

            Read your own posts. I’m not your research assistant. LOL!

            Tool!

          • rebeccagavin

            What? I guess your definition of unsupported claims (much of what Dr, Loko has said througout here, which I KNOW to be supported by evidence) and my idea of unsupported claims (Monsanto owns the White House) are different. You must be from planet conspiritus theorem where crazy made up paranoid claims are true and things documented by credible evidence are not. Please, don’t take me to your leader.

        • rebeccagavin

          Hello Stockbroker? Increase my shares in Reynolds Aluminium, tin foil sales are exploding!

  • Micha

    Read N.Taleb’s paper ‘Precautionary Principle: Fragility and Black Swans from Policy Actions’. The paper deserves a well-reasoned response as I believe it articulates what many GMO skeptics are feeling but may not have put into words. Responses to the paper I’ve seen thus far seem to fall into one or another category of informal logical/rhetorical fallacies, so I would encourage anyone responding to review a list of these common fallacies prior to writing a response. The paper is not about status quo biology and what we think we know about DNA – it’s about risk and probability. I am not anti-GMO as I believe that’s a futile position, and GMO, properly managed, offers bright possibilities. However, I do think that policy makers need to do a better job of evaluating uncertainties and ensuring that human civilization is anti-fragile if/when those ‘black swans’ come home to roost.

    • Ted Miner

      Popoff has a new profile. How cute. I see the GMO pesticide industry has called out all the tools for this party.

  • Steve Allan

    I cant see how gmo can help anything. We are trying to help a system that is not in need of help. The organisms on earth live in a symbiotic way. One takes another gives and so on. Its wreckless ans short sighted to think altering one organism will help. What it does is cause a ripple effect and cause the rest of the organisms to react. ie. Pesticide resistant plants. If you think there is no negative effect your thinking has become skewed by personal interest. Objectivity is only attained when independant investigation has bee duely noted. Fighting for gmo is like cutting your finger off then getting pissed off because you cant figure out how to generate a new one. The end game is that there will be a never ending interference with the new genetically engeneered organism. This can only end in the distruction of the original organism and a very toxic and unusable creation. You have to ask yourself. What is it you are trying to acheive. Is it about making a better product or is it about control and money. I think in all of our hearts we know the answer. This whole resistance is futile you will assimulate attitude has no place in science. It is my position that we have embarced on a very dangerous slippery slope that can only bring harm. There is no goodness that comes from gmo. There is no evedence to prove it is good but mounting evedence that we are harming all living organisms all for the sake of a buck. Every time truth and light is brought fourth on this subject it gets attacked by rabid scientists. I think carole bartolotto brings truth to the table and the truth always scares capitalists.

    • ccdaddy

      Every time truth and light is brought fourth on this subject it gets attacked by rabid scientists. You left out why, because the rabid

      scientist,they are all on the take.

      • kellymbray

        Prove you are not on the take and being paid by Big Organic.

        • Ted Miner

          Prove you’re not the devil on a mission from hell.

          LOL!

      • notation

        You’re beyond ridiculous.

    • drloko

      GMOs produce a higher yield per acre, require less fertilizers and less pesticides. In short, you can feed more people on the same amount of land with less cost.

      • Donna Peplum

        Where is your
        evidence of that? Show us the independent peer reviewed studies with the statistics that prove your claim.

        • drloko

          Go read any of the numerous articles at the Journel of Sustainable Agriculture or any other peer reviewed Journel. The evidence is overwhelming.

          • Donna Peplum

            I asked you to cite evidence based on an independent study published in a peer reviewed journal and you are apparently unable to do so. Throwing out nonsense about something that does not exist just makes you look foolish and incompetent. Or more accurately, anti science. Nice try but all you have to offer is nonsense.

          • drloko

            No, I’m not your research assistant. There is ample evidence of this is the literature and nothing to the contrary. I’m not going to go pull a bunch if cites to show you this. You can do your own basic research.

            I’m not going to find cites for you that show
            1. GMO products produce higher yields
            2. The planet is warming
            3. Vaccines are safe
            4. The Earth is round
            5. Gravity is a fundamental force
            6. Homosexuality has a genetic component
            7. Evolution is real

            These are all easy to find references. Take your anti-science position elsewhere.

          • Ted Miner

            You claim “science” but won’t cite sources.

            Cute ploy, but it won’t work here. You sound like so many other jerk water GMO pesticide industry operatives who make bogus claims with no citations

            You don’t have a single shred of creditability here.

          • drloko

            I’ve cited an entire journal for you to peruse. Look at the Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. Read any article on the topic. Try to find even a single article supporting your claims.

          • Ted Miner

            Sure man … LOL!

            Why don’t you trot some out and we can discuss them here.

          • Ted Miner

            That’s what all the corrupt GMO pesticide industry operatives say. Trouble is it’s just not true.

      • patzagame

        http://unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?publicationid=666 Developing and developed countries alike need a paradigm shift in agricultural development: from a “green revolution” to a “truly ecological intensification” approach. This implies a rapid and significant shift from conventional, monoculture-based and high external-input-dependent industrial production towards mosaics of sustainable, regenerative production systems that also considerably improve the productivity of small-scale farmers. We need to see a move from a linear to a holistic approach in agricultural management, which recognizes that a farmer is not only a producer of agricultural goods, but also a manager of an agro-ecological system that provides quite a number of public goods and services (e.g. water, soil, landscape, energy, biodiversity, and recreation) UNCTAD’s Trade and Environment Review 2013 (TER13) contends.

        • drloko

          I generally agree, but I think if you really want to transform agriculture in Africa you need to develop new crops that are better suited the the African environment. Many traditional crops are best suited to grow in the Northern hemisphere I. The Midwest US, Europe, and across Russia and the Ukraine. They don’t grow as well in the more equatorial climate of Africa.

          Unfortunately there isn’t a huge market to develop crops suited to this environment so there is less R&D going toward this sector.

          • patzagame

            Traditional crops? Or do you mean commodity crops that more likely to be industrialized across the continent of Africa?

          • drloko

            The crops that are traditionally under research by big agra

      • Ted Miner

        This statement is totally false.

  • Sienna Rosachi

    What a bunch of rubbish Keith, I agree with Carole Bartoloto. I never knew about the lack of evidence in humans and the issues with animal studies. I will be speeding the word. Thanks for the link to her article.

    • Sterling Ericsson

      So you’ll also be telling them that all other food, especially organic food, is just as if not more dangerous, right, since there is a lack of evidence of safety in humans? Heck, in animals, either, there is practically no safety studies in animals that have been done on organic food.

      • Caroline Yunker

        Animals were actually doing fine until they started eating GMO corn and soy. Now piglets are born deformed. Really, organic food is just “regular” food that we ate for thousands of years before Big Agri starting using synthetic fertilizer and pesticide after WWII. And GMOs are nothing more than chemical-saturated, pesticide-producing cheap, industrialized food SUBSIDIZED by taxpayers to the tune of $7 billion each year.

        • ccdaddy

          Good answer.

        • drloko

          There is no credible evidence of this. No study supports your statement.

          • Sienna Rosachi
          • Kevin Folta

            Wow, that is a hoot! I’m going to write a blog on this. First, articles in “Omics” journals are usually pretty lame. They are a well known predatory publisher that will publish anything if paid enough.

            Second, Kruger’s group always seems to find a problem, yet their reports are devoid of experimental methods and clear statistical treatments. This report has some interesting numbers!

            I don’t understand the second paragraph where the authors say that there were no differences in concentrations. Then they say the highest were in the lungs.

            They don’t have a control! There is no positive control (organs spiked with glyphosate) or negative control (pig organ never exposed to glyphosate). Classic sloppy science! Awful!

            And this is evidence to you? Wow.

            Let’s talk about what they found. The authors claim finding 80 ug/ml in lungs, maximum, but in the table it is 80 ug/g. Are they talking about ml of extraction fluid or starting tissue? Unclear. They also need a lesson in use of significant digits.

            Let’s say that’s true. 80 ug/g. That’s the same as 80 mg/kg. When glyphosate is sprayed on the crop it is about 20 mg/square meter which provides about 2 kg of soy. Spraying is done long before the flowers and beans are on the crop. You see the problem.

            The numbers just don’t work out. How can this piglet be holding levels of glyphosate like this? We know the physiological fate of glyphosate, and it is not sequestered in the body anyway.

            In countless evaluations in the MSDS, there is no evidence of teratogenicity.

            Once again, a real dud of a paper becomes part of the evidence base for anti-GM. I would not be proud of accepting this work and claiming it as convincing evidence to you. I’d be embarrassed.

          • StopGMO

            You should be embarrassed anyways Kevin for spreading so much misinformation. Shame on you!

          • Michael Phillips

            Kevin is a department head of a major university in a relevant area. If he is not qualified to comment on this subject, who is? Why are you qualified?

          • StopGMO

            Yes, trained, funded and taught by “Monsanto” science. He may be qualified for biased, pseudo-science, but not the true, unbiased science, which there is plenty of, you people seem to always shoot and unable to read.

          • Michael Phillips

            Can you support your allegations with evidence that Kevin is owned and controlled by Monsanto or are you just spouting off?
            And why do >99% of peer reviewed studies show no additional harm from GM crops? Does Monsanto control the whole scientific endeavor in your mind? Do you think they control my research as well because I disagree with you? Honestly, I would like to take you seriously, but you seem to see conspiracies everywhere.

          • Ted Miner

            Actually I’ll take the word of actual toxicologists not some plant scientist promoting a corrupt cherry picked GMO pesticide industry pseudo-science agenda.

          • Michael Phillips

            But when people with relevant experience point out the errors in your logic, you side usually just calls them “shills for industry”. If they are in a related but different field, you dismiss their experience as irrelevant. Can’t have it both ways. Who exactly is qualified to have an opinion about these subjects? And what exactly qualifies you?

          • drloko

            This concludes that glyphosates may be present in the tissues of some animals.

            It does not present any evidence that this is harmful.

            Furthermore, glyphosates are not part of GMOs so there is no connection here to the GMO product itself. It’s a herbicide, not a GMO.

          • Ted Miner

            Almost all GMOs are modified to live in a toxic glyphosate/Roundup environment and are sprayed multiple times with the toxic pesticide during their life cycle.

            There is so much glyphosate/Roundup contamination that the EPA recently increased the allowable levels of contamination to magnitudes above what has been shown to cause breast cancer and they raised it with out any science to show it was safe.

          • drloko

            You need to separate the GMO question from the herbicide question. Sounds like you are really against herbicides, not GMOs.

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            GMO foods cannot be separated. GMOs are made by the chemical industry to be raised with their pesticides. They go hand in hand. Plus seed treatments containing neonicotinoids and fungicides. No GMOs for us, thanks!

          • Ted Miner

            Please, you are showing your ignorance. GMOs are designed to be used with glyphosate/Roundup pesticides.

            When the crop comes in you get the whole package including high doses of toxic pesticides.

          • Caroline Yunker

            OMG Ted. You’re so right. Drloko is clueless about GMOs and glyphosate. Eating GMOs is eating a sh#tload of chemicals. Has he not heard of ROUNDUP READY SOY or ROUNDUP READY CORN?

          • Boris Ogon

            Eating GMOs is eating a sh#tload of chemicals.

            If one wants to talk about labeling, I’m sure that “chemical free” food will be interesting. Probably a lot of waste in the packaging, but still.

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            Glyphosate in GM feed causes birth defects in piglets. Second experiment, results confirmed. PLUS the deformations contain high levels of glyphosate, which has falsely been said NOT to accumulate in tissues. (Also passes through to human breast milk). Krüger et al., J Environ Anal Toxicol 2014, 4:5

            This is problematic to me, sir.

            http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2161-0525.1000230

          • drloko

            Your link results in an error. Can you just post the DOI number by itself?

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            figured this would get interest. It is new. Second time around, but this one verifies the findings, and they analyzed the body parts for glyphosate content. Gross. http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2161-0525.1000230

          • drloko

            Sorry, still errors for me. You can just pull out the DOI number and post it without the link.

          • Ted Miner

            Some people are just parasitic pains in the a**.

          • drloko

            Sorry the links didn’t work for me, but as you can see I was able to find the references and commented on them. Do you have anything to add?

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            that work? Kruger study. Danish pigs.

          • Boris Ogon

            It’s just the same OMICS item. Apparently, they float fake DOIs as well as fake journals.

          • drloko

            Thanks for letting me know. I was wondering what was going on.

          • Boris Ogon

            Maybe they’re just in arrears or something. I’m old enough to remember when Crossref was supposed to be some sort of brilliant technical innovation. I think PLOS might DOI figures, but it’s mostly been a fiasco, as anybody who has to deal with the sewer of their “title list” can attest.

            But, hey, there’s always Crossmark.

          • drloko

            If your link is to the Kruger article I was able to find that.

            This article examines the presence of glyphosate in urine among groups of 30 cows across 8 different farms where the cows were fed GMO crops. Glyphosate was present in the cow urine at each farm, but the amount was significantly different between the farms.

            It’s an interesting article but I don’t think this amounts to any kind of smoking gun against GMOs.

            First, this isn’t actually about the GMO, it’s about the herbicide they use on them.

            Second, the study lacks a control group. Based on this I cannot tell if the amount of glyphosate is outside of the norm.

            Third, there does not appear to be an examination for the possible sources of the glyphosate. The assumption is that it is coming from the feed. However, it could be that the farmer has not properly secured the herbicide and there is a direct contamination. There are many alternative sources that would need to be ruled out.

            Fourth, there is no examination of the amount of glyphosate that is actually present in the feed. I would like to have seen a continuous sampling of the feed to estimate the overall intake of glyphosate and see that it correlated with the levels in the cow urine.

            Fifth, the sample size is somewhat small. This is fine for an initial assessment, but to draw a broad conclusion you need better statistics, and that means more subjects.

            So overall it’s interesting and I would say merits further investigation, but this isn’t a cause for alarm.

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            no, it is the pig study. Deformed pig fetuses. The pigs fed GM feed that had been treated with Roundup had high levels of deformities, and when analyzed, the tissues had high concentrations of glyphosate. It was just published in Environmental and Analytical Toxicology. “Detection of Glyphosate in Malformed Piglets”. Sorry I cannot give you the PDF. But I am guessing you would just try to find fault with this study, too. I am sure that you will eventually see it. Anyway, I hope that you avoid eating foods with glyphosate. We avoid it.

          • drloko

            This doesn’t really support anything. It’s not really a study, it’s a post mortem on malformed pigs.

            The suggestion is that the levels of glyphosate caused the malformation. But all you really have here is correlation. Since this wasn’t a study and there was no controls around the subjects, it’s impossible to draw any general conclusion.

            In short, correlation is not causation. You either need a controlled study or you need to observe a much larger number of subjects before you can draw any general conclusions.

          • Ted Miner

            More nice cut and paste talking points.

          • drloko

            Sorry, I read the article, those are my thoughts. No cut and paste. The content is mine, you won’t find it anywhere else.
            Do you care to discuss the contents of the article?

          • rebeccagavin

            Without attempting to judge the merits of the paper, which I am not qualified to do, I am wondering if you are aware of the predatory nature of many open access journals (meaning they will publish almost anything for pay)? Jeffrey Beall compiles an annual list of predatory publishers, and the publisher of Environmental and Analytical Toxicology, Omics Publishing Group, is on that list. http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/01/02/list-of-predatory-publishers-2014/

            Beall does not assert that all open access journals are predatory or low in their standards, but his list contains the names of those publishers who are considered predatory and unreliable.

          • Michael Phillips

            I can confirm that the journals you mentioned are widely known to publishing scientists as “junk journals”. I receive spam from them daily. No one published anything decent there.

          • Ted Miner

            Nice cut and past talking points, tool.

          • drloko

            Again, I read these articles and presented my thoughts. Do you care to share your thoughts?

          • Ted Miner

            I just did when I responded to your corrupt GMO pesticide industry operative cut and paste talking points.

          • drloko

            So the totality of your thoughts is ‘nice cut and past talking points, tool’?
            Really? Is this what you think science is about?

          • Ted Miner

            None of your business.

          • rebeccagavin

            Is it my business? I am a reader of this thread, upon which you have made many comments…comments which really contain nothing beyond name calling. You don’t say why you disagree with drloko, you simply repeat the allegation that he is cutting and pasting his remarks…however, his remarks vary more than yours do. How about you provide some links to this evidence? Did you actually mean to say creatable evidence, or do you mean credible evidence? If you don’t know the correct word, are you sure you know the difference between credible evidence and creatable evidence (whatever that is)?

          • Caroline Yunker

            We know glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is a herbicide THAT is sprayed in high levels on a ROUNDUP READY GMO plant. Roundup is soaked up through the roots and leaves. It cannot be washed off. If glyphosate is not part of a GMO plant then how is it that glyphosate have been detected in mother’s breast milk and our urine? So how did it get there??!!

          • Boris Ogon

            If glyphosate is not part of a GMO plant then how is it that glyphosate have been detected in mother’s breast milk and our urine?

            I must say that it’s not often that my credulity is strained this far.

          • Caroline Yunker

            Then rest your poor addled brain. Good night, good grief and be gone.

          • Boris Ogon

            Then rest your poor addled brain. Good night, good grief and be gone.

            Hey, who am I?

            Go play your foolish games Boris with someone else. I’m so done with you.

            I take it that this is some sort of homeopathic dismissal that increases in potency with dilution.

          • aloha1010

            wrong, there are studies actually ,Seralini being the most popular.

          • drloko

            Seralini’s results have proven unrepeatable. His statistical analysis shows too little power to support his conclusions. The animals he used are fairly sensitive to their food intake and his results appear consistent with a typical presentation of illness derived from unrestricted food intake in this strain of rats.

            If this is the best science you have to support your position, then you have no real support.

          • aloha1010
          • aloha1010
          • drloko

            Again, news articles are not studies.

          • drloko

            That’s not a study, it’s a news article. There’s a difference.

          • StopGMO
          • Ted Miner

            There is all sorts of creatable evidence. Just because corrupt GMO pesticide industry operatives are not allowed to see anything that doesn’t support the GMO pesticide industry agenda doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

          • Boris Ogon

            There is all sorts of creatable evidence.

            Heh.

          • Caroline Yunker

            No credible evidence that organic food was regular food for thousands of yeas? You’re kidding me? Do you know what organic food aka regular food is? Or you think we have been using SYNTHETIC fertilizer/pesticide for thousands of years? Like we extracted oil and turned it into synthetic fertilizer when we didn’t even have cars 150 years ago? What evidence do you want exactly?

          • Michael Phillips

            Most organic produce has been genetically modified through mutagenesis or selective breeding, creating strains that were not in existence 100 years ago.

          • Caroline Yunker

            Yes, but not with genes from an unrelated species. It is understood that we are talking about biotechnology that was developed in the 70s or 80s. AND I also believe ANY new form of food including hybrids should be tested for safety.

          • Michael Phillips

            Why are genes from unrelated species bad? If they encode proteins with known properties and accomplish the desired outcome, what difference does it make whether it is the same species or not? Also, how far apart can species be before you become concerned and why? How do you feel about horizontal gene transfer, endosymbiosis, and transposon mobility? Thanks for your consistency towards testing of GMOs produced through conventional techniques. But how much testing is enough?

  • barbarajanov
    • http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php Skeptical Raptor

      You mean an untenured researcher who has published zero papers in biology, biochemistry, immunology, epidemiology, neurobiology. Or anything like that. It’s published in a bogus, paid for journal.

      Try some thinking. Or not. You’re probably too lazy to think.

      • barbarajanov

        and this is what they do.. Dr.Hertz-Picciotto said in a statement on Medscape that researching thimerosal was a “career buster”.. I can’t argue with that, when many a respectable doctor has been taken down by “someone..something” when they dare approach the vaccine issue. Now you suggest we take down Dr. Seneff..http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/ and resort to calling me lazy ..which is kind of silly..

        • drloko

          So it’s a big conspiracy just like global warming, genetic component to homosexuality, and Bigfoot. Don’t overlook the impact of the Bigfoot conspiracy.

          • Ted Miner

            I’ll let you focus on that one as you seem to be the one supporting a pseudo-science agenda here.

          • barbarajanov

            I quoted the comment of a well respected scientist that appeared within a Medscape article, ..conspiracy?

          • drloko

            I’m calling it a conspiracy theory anytime someone claims that the unnamed individuals are somehow controlling these activities.

            So yes, when you claim if a scientist decides to research vaccines and then some unnamed people with undisclosed but clearly powerful connections are going to rise up and destroy that scientists career, I consider that a conspiracy theory.

          • Ted Miner

            Take a look a Tyrone Hayes. Check out what GMO pesticide industry operative Jon Entine had to say about him in Forbes. here’s a link from the Safe Chemical Policy. org. One could ask why they are sponsoring Jon Entine’s PR hit piece.
            http://www.safechemicalpolicy.org/the-new-yorkers-puff-piece-on-tyrone-hayes/

          • drloko

            Hayes’ frog studies have not been reproducible after a decade of attempts. This doesn’t look like sound science at this point.

      • Ted Miner

        All the GMO pesticide industry operatives say that about her. Yet, her work is well respected by most scientists who are allowed to see past the corrupt GMO pesticide industry pseudo-science.

  • Connie Kuramoto

    The science on gmo is NOT solid. It is great to call any science that disagrees with gmos fringy science, but it is hard to find any pro gmo science that is not connected in some way with the bio tech industry and the companies that make money from bio tech. Can anyone show me a World Health Organization Link that says foods were very recently evaluated through current science? Most of the links I can find are quite old, and science moves forward very quickly these days.

    • barbarajanov
    • drloko

      The current confidence levels regarding the safety go GMOs are higher than the confidence level currently presented for Global Warning. Are you just anti-science all around?

      • Ted Miner

        Please cite a creatable source for your claim.

        • drloko

          Go look at any study from the Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. Compare the confidence level of any paper to the 95% level that was recently out on Global Warming.

          • Ted Miner

            Please just cite it or STFU … ok

          • drloko

            I just did. Go look.

          • Ted Miner

            No go geronimo … cite the source or pack it in, I’m not clicking your dubious links.

          • drloko

            I didn’t post a link. I told you to go look at the Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. Alternatively look at IJACS.

          • Ted Miner

            I’ll producing any traffic for your web site. You made claims, others asked for citations, and you refuse to provide the specific proof.

            You’re a joke!

          • drloko

            I’ve given you hundreds of citations. You are just ignoring them. Why not read even one and comment on it?

          • Ted Miner

            Please stop spamming me with your website..

        • Adam Raymond Ravenhurst

          Jeeze, this guy is getting trolled hard. Anyhow, for anyone interested in the facts, the major world science outlets all agree on consensus for a lot of things. It’s odd how people will believe one thing- like GMO safety- is a lie, while something else- like human influenced climate change- is not, given that the same scientific bodies are endorsing them.

          http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/climateGMOconsensus.pdf

          Basically, vaccines are generally fine, ebola is manageable give resources and planning, climate change is both real and influenced by human factors heavily, transgene technology in foods is safe for self and environment in general. Let’s get to work on encouraging critical thought and understanding of the scientific method.

  • barbarajanov

    we could ask that a gmo court be founded to avoid the nuisance when those that are damaged complain..http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/players.html

    • drloko

      What damages?

    • Ted Miner

      They would probably put a Monsanto operative judge on that court, just liked they’ve stacked the FDA, and USDA with Monsanto operatives.

  • Artur Sixto

    The author speaks of denial in two cases that are qualitatively different, implying there is equally sufficient knowledge to support vaccines and GMOs, which is untrue.

    The simple fact that a minority of people reject vaccines while a majority are either skeptical or do not have an opinion on GMOs points to possible underlying differences, and these actually exist. Contrary to the author’s belief, there are objective differences between vaccines and GMOs in terms of scientific and regulatory backgrounds allowing us or not to consider the risks worth taking. The cost/benefit of vaccines in terms of safety and efficacy is acceptably under control. Vaccines have been: 1) used for longer than a century and we have a reasonable understanding of all aspects of them; 2) proved to save millions of lives with very few adverse reactions or accidents. 3) where adverse reactions or accidents happen they can never escape our control ultimately, so any damages will always be limited and stoppable. 4) vaccines only come as preventive treatments of specific diseases, applicable under medical control at certain moments of life. 5) the regulatory framework is basically universal in terms of safety, requiring a set of strict experimental procedures both preclinical (in the lab) and clinical (trials on humans).

    With GMOs the situation is very different. They are recent. They do not address specific health threats. We do not have a clear nor universal picture of experimental procedures and regulatory background to ensure that risks are kept to an acceptable minimum (not only health risks but also, very importantly, environmental risks). Consumers, as opposed to patients, do not really know to what extent they will be exposed to any of the GMOs because different regulations and labelling rules apply over the world, while people as well as products travel. Any DNA sequences introduced into GMOs can be and are indeed transferred by natural means to non genetically modified plants of the same species, therefore contaminating crops gradually until no one really has the chance to avoid the cloned DNA if one so wishes. The cloned DNA sequences can jump as well by natural means to other species, meaning we are in fact injecting lab DNA into the environment at large without any control of where it will end up eventually, with what consequences. On top of that, GMOs being designed to express some profitable or nutritional advantageous trait, they tend to replace hundreds of varieties developped during millennia by farmers, which are lost, this having two serious consequences. The first is that we loose a huge variety of tastes, textures and other properties with the abandoned local varieties (normally more delicious than the mass production commercial varieties used to create GMOs. We loose biodiversity, enormous amounts of biodiversity. Secondly, this loss of botannical biodiversity involves 1) effects on animals’ diversity and relative presence (ecological effects), and 2) serious effects on food security. Until now, the existence of tens or hundreds of thousands of agricultural plant varieties has always ensured that some or many of them would survive the sudden arrival of a pest. When these varieties are lost and replaced by huge extensions of the same GMO (or non-GMO variety but more profitable commercially), the arrival of a pest can mean terrible decreases of production, with enormous economical and social impacts, including collective ruin and hunger.

    In conclusion, it is complete nonsense to equate rejection of vaccines by people ill informed and socially irresponsible, with temporary or outright rejection of GMOs by masses of people demanding better information and assurance, people very often responsible both socially and environmentally.

    • barbarajanov

      No, you stated your case for vaccines, ignoring the fact that the huge increase in the number of vaccines is far newer , The addition of dozens of vaccines since the late eighties may very well have tipped the safe dose of many of the preservatives and adjuvants to a toxic level. You ignored ,as well, that the safety testing is in the hands of the manufacturer. The case against thimerosal is solid, with our FDA admitting to the last human safety test occurring in 1929 , we can see pure neglect. You haven’t addressed the very real fact that our children are becoming victims of chronic diseases that only three decades ago were considered afflictions of the middle aged and elderly. You can’t state your pro vaccine case as factual, it isn’t. I agree with the author both are very similar and demand equal attention . Vaccines stand in a higher place, because many are and were life saving, however injecting thirty or more before the age of two should receive attention outside of one man telling us a child would be just fine with a hundred. The similar setup for gmo, on it’s own it’s probably okay, however we do not know what the repercussions of dousing with increasing amounts of glyphosate is doing.to us, or to our ecology. I agree they are hot button and similar issues.

      • drloko

        I stated that the majority of people reject labeling of GMO food products. Not sure what vaccine comment you are referencing.

      • Artur Sixto

        I am aware that, irrespective of time elapsed since the first vaccines, drugs, etc., each new one involves some (very low) level of risk. In fact, even with old stuff there is always some level of risk, as every single batch of product could go wrong, and old products could interact with new factors that were not around in the past. Yet, the fact that time-tested but regularly improved, updated, manufacturing, storing, and administering methods and standards are enforced, as well as reporting of problems, and given the fact that whatever mishap will only affect treated individuals, the damage potential is always limited enough.

        What you say about the posssibility of adjuvant and preservative cumulative doses getting tipped to toxic levels is purely speculative, and there is absolutely no evidence as far as I know, of significant toxicity. In the hypothesis that some cases of toxicity or other adverse reactions were reported and could be proven to be associated with some combination of vaccines, this would be dealt with immediately. However, in spite of many studies looking into this, designed to find any association, no evidence could be found. So what you say has actually been disproven.

        When you say that children are developping some conditions today, more frequently than in a past where they didn’t receive such and such vacciones, you are not being specific and you are not pointing to any scientific results that would point to an association with vaccines. Claims of autism, etc., being associated to vaccines have never been proven. On the contrary, the studies that have been performed disprove such associations as far as I know.

        It seems to be that you are absolutely naive in terms of the science and regulations behind vaccines, drugs, etc.

        People distrusting medical advice and healthcare directions are unfortunately responsible of serious public health problems. Vaccines is an example but there are other, like antibiotics misuse. Antibiotics misuse and slow development of new ones is raising the specter of good old days’ pandemics wiping out sizeable chunks of population. A old-fashioned pandemic could wipe out half or three quarters of the world population. The risk with emergent viruses is there (again, often due to widespread non application of recommended policies of prevention), where antibiotics are not an option. But many infectious diseases such as tuberculosis etc,, nosocomial infections, etc. are becoming lethal again due to drug-resistance apparition, resulting from large scale antibiotics misuse.

    • drloko

      The majority of people reject labeling foods as GMO. The difference you assert does not exist.

      • Ted Miner

        Please cite a reputable source for your claim.

        • drloko

          Take a look at any election where this was on the ballot.

          • Ted Miner

            It’s the law in the State of Vermont. Passed both houses of the legislature and signed into law by the Governor. On the ballot in Oregon and Colorado.

            Check with me in November.

  • aloha1010

    This is baby Arrow,from Kauai, the GMO Capital of the US, In his mother’s words,”He has ten fingers, and ten toes, a perfect little smile and beautiful blue eyes. He brought us pure joy and happiness and is our saving grace. But Arrow did not have an easy start to life. He was born with a birth defect called Gastroschisis. He was born inside out, all of his intestines and his left testicle were outside of his body through a hole in the abdominal wall. Arrow spent his first three months in the NICU having six surgeries and multiple procedures. We didn’t get to hold him in our arms until he was three weeks old and he did not get to eat until he was three months old. He was given nutrition through an IV for the first 3 months and developed an oral aversion from being traumatized by multiple tubes down his throat. He was poked by needles multiple times a day and was opiate dependent for several weeks. After three long months he was sent home with a G-Tube where he is given nutrition strait to his stomach through a feeding tube. We are beyond blessed to be home as a family and couldn’t be happier that our son is doing well but we can’t help but to think of the future generation of Kauai so I am hoping to share our story so that the island can know that if change isn’t made, if we don’t bring into office someone who cares about the ‘aina, our families, our future generation, then we as a community are putting our families at risk. The birth defect my son was born with, Gastroschisis, is a birth defect has been directly linked by several scientist to PESTICIDE SPRAYING. Atrazine is a chemical sprayed by Syngenta, a company who sprays GMO crops on Kauai. THIS NEEDS TO STOP!” Now if you have a heart and and open mind to see that Monsanto and Co,the Chem Cartel is so obviously trying to twist the truth and hide it to preserve their profits, that would be real great. Aloha.

    • drloko

      Tragic case, sad to hear.

      However, this is not a new disease, there are records of this disease and many similar birth defects going back for hundreds of years. This does not demonstrate any component ion between GMO products and these birth defects.

      • Ted Miner

        So says the corrupt GMO pesticide industry operative.

        • drloko

          You don’t believe that these birth defects have been around for a long time?

          Read Lycosthentes Prodigiorum from 1577. My copy shows page after page.

          • Ted Miner

            Some time when I’m loitering on the beach, I’ll read it then. LOL!!

  • aloha1010

    There is way to much information ,to try to deny the damages caused by the POISONS that are IN THE FOOD, excuse me,substance similar to food. http://www.gmoseralini.org/new-seralini-study-shows-roundup-damages-sperm/

    • drloko

      Maybe you should try actually reading the science literature instead of news articles.

      New articles about science is not a substitute for actual science.

      • Ted Miner

        There is a whole lot of good information presented on science based web sites and news articles.

        You are attempting to discredit anything that doesn’t support the pseudo science agenda you are supporting.

        You feeble attempt to intimidate by claiming scientific superiority is both sickening and transparent in it’s falseness

        • drloko

          News article reviews are not acceptable substitutes for the original work. It is often the case that journalists overstate and sensationalize the contents and/or conclusions of the original author.

          If you are looking for quick information these may be helpful to you.

          If you are looking to draw a scientific conclusion, you must read the original.

          • Ted Miner

            I am respectfully asking you to STUFF IT.

            You are not the one who decides what readers will believe. All I see is a screen name, just like any other screen name. There is nothing in what you have written here that makes me see your stuff as anything more than the similar stuff being posted all over the web by corrupt disingenuous GMO pesticide industry operatives.

          • drloko

            Try reading any scientific article from any peer reviewed journal. Go to the Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. Do a search. Read any paper.

            I invite you to find even a single paper that supports your position.

          • Ted Miner

            LOL!

            You have absolutely no idea what my position is or is not.

            You are looking more and more like a joke!

            LOL!

  • aloha1010

    And by the way, Mr Kevin Folta is a payed minion for the industry. He came to Kauai to try to help the chemical cartel AKA GMO Seed industry fight a law intended to prevent their inescroupulous practices of testing and using poisons,even the ones banned in other countries, right next to populated areas ,schools and hospitals. He even stayed at one of the GMO head honchos home.He is one of the “go to” guys they call for the purpose of character assassination and information manipulation so common with this kind of polluting industries. Horribly unethical person. http://www.stoppoisoningparadise.org/

    • drloko

      Who cares? It’s about science not personal politics. If his science is sound then he’s correct. Doesn’t even matter if he worships satan.

      What science has he presented that is incorrect?

      • Ted Miner

        He doesn’t recognize any science that doesn’t support the GMO pesticide industry. In fact he has bet his career on the GMO pesticide industry agenda. Just another bought and paid for industry tool. nothing else.

        • drloko

          It doesn’t matter what he does or doesn’t support.

          What science has he presented that is invalid?

          • Ted Miner

            He is supporting a pseudo-science agenda that does not recognize any real science that doesn’t support the agenda. Not only that but the GMO pesticide industry supports his travel and costs to go around promoting said pseudo-science agenda.

            He is just another bought and paid for tool of the GMO pesticide industry. I don’t think I’ve every heard him talk about the “science” he is doing.

          • drloko

            Again, hep is personal leanings are irrelevant. It doesn’t matter why he researches on any individual topic. Scientists are not just assigned random research topics. They choose topics that interest them for one reason or another. There is nothing wrong with that.

            Please point to a particular methodology, experimental design, data collection technique, or statistical analysis that he has presented that you believe to be flawed.

            Fundamentally, a researchers motives for conducting an experiment are irrelevant. What matters is the quality of their work.

          • Ted Miner

            I’m not here to convince a disingenuous corrupt GMO pesticide industry operative like you.

            You tools always want to make it about science, until the real science doesn’t support the GMOI pesticide industry pseudo-science agenda.

            The claim that anyone who doesn’t support the corrupt agenda driven pseudo- science is anti science is just another lie turned into a meme and pushed very hard to try and convince a skeptical public.

            I’ll not be wasting my time dancing around your little pseudo-science bush. I’m here to expose your disinformation agenda not play your silly little pseudo-science games.

          • drloko

            I see. You only want to have discussion from the scientists that agree with you. Too bad there aren’t any.

          • Ted Miner

            So you say ….

          • patzagame

            Ted ,there are no scientists who agree with you,lol! Oh and the ones who do, are fringe scientists and they don’t count.Funny thing,I can think of more scientists who speak out against genetic modification then scientists who support it.Sorry,Kevin.

          • Tom

            Ok, name them. Name the scientists that speak out against genetic modification. (And don’t bother with the I-SIS list of random internet people.) I want names of real scientists with publication records in peer-reviewed journals. Preferable within the life sciences (medicine or biology). Then I’ll provide a list of real scientists that support genetic modification. And then we’ll add up the numbers. You start.

  • kittura

    “Given the legal climate, you’d think U.S. companies would dump GMOs and replace them with non genetically engineered ingredients. It’s not like they’re reinventing the wheel here. It’s the way they formulate their products in other countries and it is also the way they formulated their products fifteen years ago, prior to the introduction of GMOs in the 1990s.

    The question now, in light of this legal landscape and the risk that using unlabeled GMOs presents to their shareholders, is: At what point is it the fiduciary responsibility of the food companies to avoid this legal liability, dump GMOs and formulate their products without them?”

    http://organicconnectmag.com/risky-business-big-food-companies-lawsuits-gmo-labeling/

    • drloko

      The article you cite discusses potential for lawsuits against companies that label their product as ‘All-Natural’ when they are based on GMO foods.

      Unlabeled products do not pose any similar potential. There is no cause of action you can bring for an unlabeled product that contains GMO, so there is no risk here.

      However, even in the labeled case, terms such as ‘All-Natural’ are not FDA regulated. Your claim would be false advertising, and it would be difficult to win. That is why the vast majority of these cases have been tossed by the courts,

      • Ted Miner

        Right out of the GMO pesticide industry talking points. Just more disingenuous corrupt GMO pesticide industry operative spin.

        • drloko

          No, right out of the US court system. What cause if action would you suggest bringing and what is the law supporting it?

          • Ted Miner

            So you say ….. ;)

          • drloko

            Again, what cause of action would you suggest and what is the law supporting it?

          • Ted Miner

            If you want to pay me to look into it I might. Until then my opinion is not cast in from of swine. I suspect that like most of the advanced law we have these days that it’s all a moving target.

          • drloko

            So you don’t have a cause of action you could support.

            That’s fine, no worries.

          • Ted Miner

            I didn’t say that. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

          • drloko

            Ok, so what’s your cause of action?

          • Ted Miner

            None of your business.

  • gmomustgeeoh

    Kevin Folta is a paid shill for Biotech. He is employed by the University of Florida. Here is some info from the UF website: UF website states, “Kevin Folta, interim chair of UF’s horticultural sciences department, genetically engineers plants in his research”. Folta and members of his lab have also had previous working relationships with former Monsanto employees.

    • Tom

      Give it a rest already. Who’s paying you – Big Ignorance?

      • gmomustgeeoh

        You can say what you will, but we are going to win in the end. The market will force GMOs to be labeled and eventually banned. Now GFY!!

        • drloko

          It’s already went to ballots, the people have spoken. They don’t want your silly labels. You’ve already lost.

          • barbarajanov

            “and Russia will become the bread basket of the world…Putin has scientists..he’s watching us..he will not have to fire a shot, we will be paying gold for food. ” a friend wrote this to me today..and I agree!

          • drloko

            Um…ok?

          • patzagame
          • drloko

            Sounds like some Russians enjoy farming. What the point of this?

          • patzagame

            The point is they don’t need big agri-chemical companies feeding the Russian population gmos and pesticides,duh.

          • Tom

            I don’t think anyone is worried about Russia being able to feed itself. There is plenty of space to go around. But if you’re Bangladesh with more than a 100-fold higher population density then any means to increase yields without requiring further agricultural land is crucial.

            Russia:

            Land area = 17,098,242 km2
            Population = 143.8 million
            Population density = 8.4/km2

            Bangladesh

            Land area = 147,570 km2
            Population = 150 million
            Population density = 1,033.5/km2

          • Ted Miner

            LOL!! Wait and see. This is a battle that is still getting started.

            The GMO pesticide industry and the junk food manufactures have spend many millions of dollars to support the ongoing conspiracy to keep poisonous pesticide laden GMOs in the food we feed our children.

            They are actually in a fight with the people they want to sell food-like products to, and it isn’t likely to be a winner for them no matter how it turns out.

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            Funny, the article unerringly asserts in plain English that the debate is over. You’re stuck in the past, loser.

        • barbarajanov

          Just assume it is if it doesn’t say otherwise. Some companies will have both products , they will not label one non gmo for fear of tainting the other..I believe cheerios is one, while their original product is gmo free their flavored ones are gmo. at this time there are no gmo oats.

        • Tom

          Yeah, you’re totally winning… http://www.grainnet.com/images/articles/130468a.jpg

          • StopGMO

            That’s a nicely made up graph. lol

          • Tom

            Well at least now I know you lot are delusional.

            And what’s with the constant LOL-ing? How old are you? Twelve? (Or 40+ desperately trying to appear internet savvy?)

          • StopGMO

            LOL!

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            Oh great, another neophyte hate troll. Let us know how that works out for you next year, nimrod.

          • StopGMO

            I think this describes yourself to a T Jim.

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            14,600 comments makes me a neophyte? This is what I was referring to regarding your legitimacy.

          • StopGMO

            The # of comments does not determine whether you are a neophyte or not. It’s the content and misinformation you post. You certainly deserve a double LOL for that! lol

          • susan

            Well well well, I see the HERBICIDES are on a steady rise! ….. GE crops are being rejected, soon the farmers who are still independent will get the message…

          • Tom

            I think you might be holding the chart upside-down.

        • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

          I can hardly wait for those rainbow unicorn farms where the ‘successor’ to modern farming methods will fluorish.

          The GFY earned you a flag, hate troll.

      • drloko

        Lol, I’m going to borrow that

  • gmomustgeeoh

    Biotech shills constantly yap about the science, the science behind GMOs. How safe they are! A recent Gallup poll determined that many people don’t want to eat GMOs because they “sound like something they don’t want to eat” or words to that effect. This is a gut reaction or as I like to call it, an instinctive reaction. I also always say “trust your gut”. Who can argue with that?, so called scientists who only use logic lol tobacco logic that is!!

    • drloko

      Of course, once those same people become educated on what GMOs actually are they turn around and support them. ‘Trust your gut’ is a lack of understanding on the topic. I wouldn’t call that an informed decision.

  • drloko

    The author asks if one form of denial is more socially acceptable than the other?

    I believe it is. Denying scientific consensus on a topic that has immediate and traceable consequences is less acceptable.

    Arguing against vaccines has immediate consequences. If we stop giving vaccines then the infection rate will quickly rise and the consequences of their denial are immediately apparent.

    Arguing against global warming and GMOs is easier because it is difficult to trace any specific event to these causes. This allows a broader support from people who are not familiar with the science, and without an obvious consequence, it becomes more difficult to convince non-scientists of the reality of these issues.

    • barbarajanov

      The science on both issues is in.
      Vaccine antigens may be safe.
      GMO’s may be safe.
      The metals added to vaccines are not safe, many illnesses have been reported in both the journals of neurology and rheumatology documenting the effects of both aluminum and mercury.
      GMO’s are designed to withstand non selective herbicides that have been studied as well and cause myriad damage to the human body.
      The issue lies with Roundup…and the inerts..and with vaccines and the preservatives and adjuvants.
      There is no science denial, it’s allowing all science IN.

      • drloko

        Simply because vaccines may contain base metals doesn’t not in any way make them unsafe. Mercury and aluminum are everywhere, and the human race doesn’t seem to be completely devastated.

        If you want to call vaccines unsafe, you must make a clear connection between the harm and the metals you mention.

        Vaccines are not associated with any significant harm, and there is no evidence that presence of these trace metals cause any harm.

        • patzagame

          Define significant!As a grandparent of a vaccine damaged grandchild,I find your comment unfortunately misinformed.

          • drloko

            Significant is typically 95% confidence with at least 50% power. It’s a science discussion not an English essay.

          • Ted Miner

            Nice deflection. I find your comment to be misinformed too, and your attempt to brace your weak position up with this silly bs is HILARIOUS and a huge FAIL.

          • drloko

            Ok, to me significance is 95% confidence at 50% power.

            What is significance to you?

          • Ted Miner

            Define “significance”.

          • drloko

            I just did.

            For me, significance is 95% confidence at 50% power in rejection of a null hypothesis.

            Your turn.

          • Ted Miner

            Pretty shallow definition. I’m more interested in the deeper game.

            GMOs should be labeled and people should be able to make up their own mind about what they feed feed their families.

          • drloko

            You find a precise mathematical definition shallow? Wow. Is there any science you don’t deny?

            You are entitled to your opinion on GMO labeling. However, most people disagree.

          • patzagame

            Thanks drloko,I’ll remember your definition as I teach my grandson language skills at 4,after losing all communication skills after his mmr vaccine at 18 months.

          • drloko

            Great! It’s never too early to start teaching children proper statistical analysis.

          • susan

            Wow drloko you are such a rotten person. Doesn’t surprise me you are fighting for toxic gmos, you have zero empathy and are probably rooting for us all to die a slow painful death. Typical Monsanto…

          • barbarajanov

            I’m very sorry, and I understand as a parent, we are in the trenches for these kids, and for future generations. A healthy child is becoming a rarity.

        • barbarajanov

          There are volumes of evidence, do your homework instead of repeating the standard retort. You really are taking quite a bit of liberty using the term “trace metals”..I suggest you research them ,as well.

          • drloko

            I haven’t seen any study linking the presence of these trace metals in vaccines to any significant harm. Where are you seeing this?

          • StopGMO
          • drloko

            I give you points for at least citing to an academic source. However, this is an editorial piece, not a scientific study.

    • barbarajanov

      Who would stop giving vaccines? Here’s the deal, thimerosal IS dangerous, injected aluminum is suspect in many autoimmune illnesses, the fight involves product safety. You can’t have product safety if there is no incentive . If we make the vaccine manufacturers hold to a standard, if we make them liable for the morbidity they’ve caused, the neuro damage and autoimmune diseases, ..close down the vaccine court , allow the damaged their day in a court of law protected by the constitution, it would be a win for the next generation . They will be forced to provide a safer product. We, as parents with damaged children do not have rights. This WILL change.

      • drloko

        You already have your day in court. You can likely bring your claim to any Federal court anywhere in the US.

        Everything is dangerous under the right conditions. Oxygen has caused development issues in children in high concentrations.

        Your logic is:
        Item X has been shown to be dangerous under circumstances Y
        Vaccines contain item X
        Therefore vaccines are dangerous

        It’s not sound logic. You haven’t established that vaccines present X under the circumstances where it is dangerous. You haven’t shown that vaccines are significantly linked to a particular harm.

        Until you more firmly establish that link, there is little support to your claims.

    • Ted Miner

      The only way you can claim a scientific consensus on GMO safety is by ignoring all the real science that doesn’t support the cherry picked GMO pesticide industry agenda.

      The FACT is the is NO INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ON GMO SAFETY.

  • Sairah

    I’m a huge anti-gmo activist and my anti-gmo stance has little and/or nothing to do with the potential health risks of gmos. The threat of a global monopoly or at the very least an oligopoly over our food supply is worrisome. Patenting life (seeds) and the threat that these seeds have on biodiversity and heirloom varieties is troubling. While we are nowhere near the day when seedy vairieties no longer exist- that day could very well come if we move in the direction of gmo crops. A seedless future could very well create a total lack of independent food sovereignty. Farmers and gardners will become dependent on purchasing their seeds from a single or few multinational corporations. Giving patenting rights to seeds/life to a very few number of people could result in an even nastier corporate power structure. Food prices could sky rocket at the hands of a molopy/oligopoly. I say no to GMOs because of the politics involved in patenting life, not because of health risks- and y’all should too!

    • Facebook User

      You are decades too late. Virtually all successful farmers have been purchasing their seeds from corporations for decades. Their seeds simply produce more. By your logic, a pharmaceutical company inventing a wonder drug is a danger because they would have a monopoly on that drug. Forget that the drug may cure cancer that is waiting inside you. God forbid if Apple creates a revolutionary device that improves our lives… they would have a monopoly on that tech. Wait… if one company creates something good… soon another company creates something better… it has always happened this way. You can’t point to any innovation that wasn’t soon surpassed.

    • drloko

      You can’t patent life in the US.

    • barbarajanov
  • Facebook User

    Liberals are simply anti-science. They are simply another faith based end of days cult. It makes you feel very special to say that the end is near. They have always existed. That is why they are so aggressive toward other religions.. a problem that has plagued the world forever. It is not the religion that is the problem, it is the one religion saying that the other religion is bad that is the problem. Liberals are very offended by other people’s religion and they are the most vocal in the old “us against them” arguments.

    • drloko

      I hardly think liberals have cornered the market on science ignorance. Plenty to be shared in every political party.

  • Kangaface

    Bartolotto is the one presenting some honest science here. 297 world class scientists says there is no consensus on GMO safety. They also present their evidence. http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/
    Trying to equate opposition to, and skepticism about, GMOs (which originated from scientists and continues to be underpinned with hard independent science) with opposition to vaccines is plain illogical. Every anti-GMO person I’ve ever met has been vaccinated. Duh?

    • drloko

      So what? 297 people are skeptical. Is that it? We should stop everything because these 297 don’t agree?

      Opinion is not evidence. If they want to do something they should stop signing petitions and start analyzing some data.

      • Kangaface

        Who said anything about stopping anything? Read the statement. We are talking about 297 scientists saying they don’t agree GMOs are safe. Many of these scientists are people who actually generated the data or analysed it. Having trouble reading the list of signatories?

        • drloko

          Again, so what? 297 scientists don’t think GMOs are good. So what?

          Do we really need to have every single scientist agree with something in order for it to be ok?

          Hey, Stephen Hawking, one of the foremost living physicists didn’t think the Higgs Boson existed. He was wrong.

          These 297 people are certainly entitled to an opinion. But opinions are not evidence. What does it matter that these 297 people don’t like GMOs?

          • Kangaface

            So get over the opinion aspect of it and start dealing with the data they cite.

          • drloko

            There isn’t a whole lot of substance here. References to news articles and Wikipedia don’t really provide much support.

            The references I reviewed that actually presented studies showed low power results on small sample sizes.

            Most looked like hippidemology. They examine a battery of 100 possible issues, compute statistics, test for 95% significance, then claim they founded something when 5 of 100 of the test show significance.

            That process is statistically invalid, it’s not the proper methodology for conducting a statistical battery (although I see this way too often).

          • Ted Miner

            You might possibly be believable if you were to cite some actual sources so others can verify your claims. Until then your just another GMO pesticide industry operative spinning talking point to support the GMO pesticide industry agenda.

          • drloko

            I don’t need to cite sources, I reviewed the citations and presented my thoughts. What do you want me to cite?

            Or is it that I am not allowed to have an independent opinion? All valid opinions must come from Ted Miner approved reviewers.

          • Ted Miner

            You can review to your GMO pesticide operative hearts content, but until you post the stuff you have claimed to review it is just more GMO pesticide industry spin and disinformation.

          • drloko

            What are you talking about? The poster above asked me to review some citations in a petition. That’s what I did. You are commenting on my opinion of those papers.

            If you really need a citation, then you can find my original words a few comments above. There’s your cite,

          • Ted Miner

            LOL! What makes you think your opinion on GMOs is anymore enlightened than Hawkings thoughts about Higgs Boson?

            Maybe the difference is that he was able to see where he was wrong and you don’t have that ability. It doesn’t take a science genius to support the cherry picked GMO pesticide pseudo-science agenda like you are doing here.

          • drloko

            Ted, it’s not my opinion, the Higgs Boson was discovered in 2012. Hawking even paid up on the bet, so I guess it’s his opinion now too.

            If the data was cherry picked, then how about you show the entire data set and expose this sham?

          • Ted Miner

            Nobody can know anything about a source you haven’t cited. Until you come up with something more than the standard GMO pesticide industry operative swill you’ve been posting I’ll be treating your posts just like I do from any other corrupt disingenous poster.

          • drloko

            Go read any article on GMOs for the Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. Or pick any other standard academic publication in the agricultural field.

            I’m not going to do basic research for you. If you find an article there supporting your opinion, please let me know.

          • Ted Miner

            I’ll keep doing my own research.

            If you have specific topics to discuss I’ll choose to comment or not.

        • barbarajanov

          They are trying to shut down the discussion and they will, about a handful come and go on every forum, some are usually iin the gmo areas, others in the vac areas..we hit the jackpot! they are all here. ..it gets very childish..when they can’t attack your information they will attack you..as example “so what” he says..I’d send my ten year old to his room for that one..

      • Ted Miner

        Your ignorant response to Klagaface places you in ether the slow learner group or the corrupt GMO pesticide industry operative group.

        There is no international scientific consensus on GMO safety. The GMO pesticide industry doesn’t recognize any real honest science that doesn’t support their cherry picked agenda driven pseudo-science agenda.

        • drloko

          Do you have more than this or is your conspiracy theory all you got?

          • Ted Miner

            I’ve go a lot more. I doubt it will support the same GMO pesticide industry agenda you support here,

            I love how you tools always go to the “conspiracy theory” argument when you don’t have anything of value to contribute.

          • drloko

            No offense, but when you start talking about how the ‘GMO industry doesn’t recognize any real honest science’ you sound quite looney.

          • Ted Miner

            That’s what all the corrupt GMO pesticide industry operatives say.

            Fact is they demonize and try and destroy any scientist with the cajoles to publish work that doesn’t support the GMO pesticide industry agenda. There are many prominent examples.

            The very piece we are commenting on is an example of thet kind of sleazy hit piece kind of PR “journalism”

          • drloko

            I’m confused. The corrupt GMO operatives say ‘the GMO industry doesn’t recognize any real honest science’?
            I’ve suggested you go to the Journal of Sustainable Agriculture several times. Have you found anything there to support your claims?

          • Ted Miner

            My mind is not boxed into a Journal of Sustainable Agriculture world.

            I connect patterns where ever I find them and find most institutions, public, private, business, or academic are corrupted by those who would like to sell us their narrative.

            Your attempt to limit the narrative is noted however, and seen for the feeble attempt to manage the conversation.

          • drloko

            Fine, how about the Journal of Agricultural Science? Is that better suited to your broad mindedness?

            Perhaps IJACS?

            Of does your broad mindedness not include scientific literature?

          • Ted Miner

            I have a whole universe of information. I’ll choose the things I want to look at.

            If you have some specific science to look at I’ll comment as I choose or not.

          • drloko

            Ok, so you want to debate science, but you don’t want to read science articles?
            I really do appreciate your interest. Take a look at any of the journals I have suggested. I think you really would find some of their contents interesting.

          • Ted Miner

            I’ll do it next time in Antarctica for a long winter.

            That’s a promise …. ;)

          • ccdaddy

            That’s how they win, they label you as a anti science fanatic. That’s a conspiracy,theorist.

            Job done,you have been neutralized. Your opinion,is now worth nothing,to the public!

            Welcome,to [Pharma,ceutica] AKA, America.

          • ccdaddy

            Playing, the Conspiracy theory card,so early?

      • ccdaddy

        Why, they win by saying,that the best excepted science
        all come to the same conclusion. Vaccines are safe, and do not cause autism.

        Key word’s (the best [excepted] science)

        • drloko

          First, I’ve never said ‘best excepted science’. I think you are confusing me with someone else.

          However, I likely can explain the comment. Science is constantly evolving. New studies are conducted, new evidence is found, and things we once thought were true are proven wrong. Science adapts.

          Scientists often say things like ‘best accepted science’ to communicate that what they are telling you is their belief based on the current evidence, but that is subject to new evidence.

          So currently, the best excepted science is the GMO crops are safe.

          Also, the best accepted science says the Earth is 4 billion years old.

          According to the best accepted science, gravitation is caused by a warping of space-time modeled by the most general rank-2 differential equation that is linear in the second derivative.

          • ccdaddy

            Please explain,if you can.Why Merck, had Elsevier publications,create them 5 fake journals? It’s fact, look it up. Elsevier, admitted it! Do you think,that good quality,sound robust studies. Were going, to be published there? Here’s a hint,anyone creating themselves 5 fake journals,are most likely up to no good!

          • drloko

            What does that have to do with glyphosate or GMOs?

          • Caroline Yunker

            New evidence? The evidence is all around you but you refuse to see it. Our children are sick. Piglets are born deformed (as are our babies). We are the nation of Walking Dead.

          • drloko

            Children were sick prior to the use of glyphosate.
            Piglets were malformed prior to the use of glyphosate.
            You are leaping to a conclusion without any evidence.

    • Michael Phillips

      ENSSER is not a scientific organization. Look up European Plant Science Organization. Those are actual, practicing plant scientists in Europe.

  • Ted Miner

    To be blunt, this piece by Kieth Kloor is just another GMO pesticide industry PR attack job.

    First it starts with a totally false premise tossed out with no collaborating evidence that somehow the separate issues about vaccines and GMOs are related to the same “science denial”.

    He claims that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on GMO safety and he uses some one sentence out of context quotes to try to support his bogus point. Here are some links that show the truth that there is NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENUS THAT GMOS ARE SAFE.

    http://naturalsociety.com/800-scientists-global-gmo-experiment-stop/

    http://higherperspective.com/2014/07/scientific-fraud-dupont-study-deliberately-hid-toxic-effects-gmos-fed-rats.html

    http://sustainablepulse.com/2014/08/06/scientists-challenge-makeup-of-us-gmo-risks-panel/#.U-ZkVWOTL6_

    http://youtu.be/ShJTcIlTna0

    Then he attacks Carole Bartolotto for truthfully stating that “Genetically-Modified Organisisms (GMOs) Have NOT Been Proven Safe”. To support his hit on Bartolotto he cites Monsanto GMO pesticide industry controlled web sites and known Monsanto GMO pesticide industry spokespersons like biofortifed and Kevin Folda for his independent expertise.

    Recently the nations largest health care organization sent a newsletter to their patients. In that newsletter was An article by one of their nutritionists who explained GMOs and then told the patients to avoid them so as to not degrade their health. The health care organization had no “official” policy on GMOs because of the politics, but it cared enough about the concerns of it’s medical staff, it’s patients, and it’s bottom line to send out the warning.

    http://www.willamettelive.com/2012/news/corporate-giant-comes-out-against-gmos/

    There have been no long term independent studies of the health effects of GMOs on human health. Many health care organizations are recognizing that severe unexplainable symptoms that are being reported by their patients get better when GMOs are removed from their diet.

    It’s pretty obvious that this piece of PR trash shows that Biotech’s Assault On Balanced Journalism is real.

    See:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ken-roseboro/biotechs-assault-on-balan_b_5432699.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

    Then to cap it all off we have the same group of Monsanto/Koch Brother GMO pesticide industry operative commenters that we see posting everywhere these days here to spin the narrative and intimidate any commenter that doesn’t support the GMO pesticide industry cherry picked agenda driven pseudo-science agenda.
    These tools get up every day to spin the GMO pesticide industry
    talking points, lies, disinformation and agenda driven pseudo-science
    so as to promote the ongoing conspiracy to keep poisonous pesticide
    laden GMOs hidden in the food we feed our children.

    http://www.activistpost.com/2014/06/monsanto-trolling-anti-gmo-articles.html?tru=bzYt00#ooB6zGBBrldMCAhx.01

    Apparently Discover has joined the many other corporatocracy owned media is supporting the Monsanto /Koch Brother GMO pesticide industry disinformation.

    The FACT is that Carole Bartolotto was right when she wrote Genetically-Modified Organisms (GMOs) Have NOT Been Proven Safe.

    All Kloors sleazy screed does is show the deep fear the GMO pesticide industry has that the truth will eventually derail their undisclosed science experiment being imposed on American families with out their consent.

    • drloko

      There is little scientific support for dangers posed by GMOs. Linking some small online news articles doesn’t create new evidence.

      • Ted Miner

        So you say. ….. ;)

        • drloko

          I haven’t seen any. If you have some, please point me in the right direction.

          • Ted Miner

            HINT: it’s about the mirror…. lol!!

          • drloko

            You aren’t making any sense. Do you have somewhere that I can review?

            I really haven’t seen any articles that claim that GMOs pose a significant hazard. I’ve pointed you to three journals where you can find the opposite. Please direct me to a place where I can review the support for your claims.

          • Ted Miner

            Maybe you are a bot and don’t have proper programing to do what you are being asked to do….

            …. articles are there for anonyone who really wants to know the truth.

            It won’t likely be you.

          • drloko

            You still haven’t said where these articles are. Let’s face it, you don’t have any real evidence. Science is about evidence, not opinion.

          • Ted Miner

            You haven’t showed us one single article to support any of your bogus GMO pesticide industry operative bs.

            It seems pretty hypocritical that you try to get me on that.

            LOL!

            You’re a joke!

          • drloko

            You can find hundreds of articles at the Journal of Sustainable Agriculture’s website.
            Alternatively, you can also find hundreds at IJACS.
            So I’ve provided several hundred. Care to share even one of yours?

          • Ted Miner

            Please stop spamming me with your website.

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            Stop spamming the entire internet with your lying mentally ill agenda.

          • Caroline Yunker

            It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that eating glyphosate-saturated, pest-producing GMO food will make you sick. Once I learned about GMOs and stopped eating them my health improved. Same for my family. That’s evidence enough for me.

          • patzagame

            Caroline,claims such as yours are appearing to rise in frequency.Deregulation of GE crops are based on APHIS approval.If the novel crop doesn’t appear to affect other plants/crops,it gets approved, deregulated and put into the food supply.Where are the health studies? 2,4-D, dicamba and other GE crops are just about to pass through deregulation,even though members of Congress have petition the regulatory agencies.The American people are the long term health studies and the health of our unknowing populace is not looking bright.Labels? Ha! We can’t have labels! Labels provide information and educate the guinea pigs of America. Sorry,pro GMOers,call me whatever you would like..anti-science,fear mongerer,luddite,I’ve looked into the so called safety studies we have currently,they are inadequate!This guinea pig and family is choosing to opt out of the experiment!

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            No, not rising frequency, just stubborn desperation of a few genetic illiterates to hold onto a failed agenda. As the article states, the verdict is in. The debate is over. You lose. Decide if it will be with a whimper or a permanent state of denial. So far you are sticking with the latter.

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            We see the Ted virus still has the masturbatory compulsion of self upvoting.

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            It is true that eating a sort of food you describe woulde make one sick. Fortunately in the real world free of lies and exaggerations spawned by conspiracy agendas that food does not exist anywhere.

            No farmer anywhere would ‘saturate’ crops with chemicals, it’s too expensive and would put him out of business. Resistance is a phenomenon of farming that has existed over 100 years. No “pest producing” is involved with any form of farming, ever. You have to lie to fabricate your non-existent world.
            Your mental health seriously deteriorated when you put on the tin foil hat.

          • Caroline Yunker

            Farmers are using more herbicide as weeds are becoming resistant to Roundup. And the chemical companies are rolling out stronger herbicide like 2,4-D and dicamba. How is eating chemical-saturated food healthy for you? The Bt corn produces its own insecticide and is a registered insecticide with the EPA. How is eating insecticides healthy for you?

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            The new generations of 2,4-d and RNAi GMOS will drop herbicide usage to a new low level never before seen in modern farming as we finally have rotation alternatives to the first generation GMOs. Resistance problems have ALWAYS been present ever since we started using chemicals. That stops with effective rotation. In 10 years you will have zero gripes left to bitch about as GM tech pulls us out of the dark ages of farming.

            Bt is in organic foods as well. Why not rant about how ‘deadly’ organics are with equal obsession?
            By the way – your cat is a GMO.

          • Caroline Yunker

            i don’t have a cat but yes I do believe Grumpy’s mom ate a GMO diet while she was pregnant. Grumpy is inflicted with a “rare” disease and will probably live a short live. So sad. You don’t seem brother by a GMO cat. I guess you’re looking forward to the first human GMO baby?

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            My eyesight and mind is working and clearly to see a population explosion, therefore I vowed 30 years ago to never reproduce. The single most damaging act a human can do is have a child. I can proudly say my family line dies with me.
            Your cat is genetically modified hundreds of times to refine the breed pictured.
            The first ‘GMO baby’ will be gene therapy to prevent a fatal disease. If you had your way the baby would die a horrible death because you fear science. You didn’t think about that, did you?

          • barbarajanov

            We , in my town, are having a rash of dog illnesses, I’ve had three friends lose their pets suddenly with HGE. Most of the dog food available shows corn as the first ingredient. Autopsies are not offering needed clues, there are no foreign objects, ulcers, parasites..yet these dogs are losing their small intestines to something. My nephews healthy English Bull succumbed yesterday. We need to pay attention to the biggest consumers, the animals.

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            Here is why. Same for the farm animals that are fed GMOs. Same for our kids, too. They all have gut problems today. That is the fact. When we take animals or kids off of GMOs, their guts and their general health improves. That is all that I need to know. Some people are a bit slower on the uptake…http://gmojudycarman.org

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            Changing your eating patterns could have removed dozens of specific ingredients from your diet. It also could have resulted in a different nutrition profile balance that made you feel better. Or, most likely of all, it is in your head, like the gluten free craze.

            Correlation does not mean causation.

          • JoeFarmer

            Nothing is “glyphosate-saturated”. Why don’t you try looking at the USDA Pesticide Data Program instead of parroting facebook memes?

          • Ted Miner

            Are you sure? …… ;)

            Jim would likely know better than you. He hangs in the trailer park in North Florida. So you know he has the skills to analyze your health.

            Crazypants seems to be the new way to describe it.

            LOL!

            Best to your health!

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            So you finally dropped the “you FAIL again” demented mantra? That’s progress.

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            Liar. Truth is your kryponite.

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            2,167 lie comments from your mental illness. Seek help.

          • rebeccagavin

            Check out Mr. Miner’s FB page, wacko central. His page also features the Natural News piece where Mike Adams calls science journalists and scientists who speak favorably of GMOs Nazis – coincidence that he is here, trolling Keith Kloor? I think not.

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            Two months ago I confronted that kook on his FB page after seeing the full scope of his demented hate troll campaign. He responded by making his page private(at least to me) and locking his Disqus comment history.
            Then he tried invading Grist threads where I got hom deleted many times. His masturbatory habit of self upvoing his comments under multiple IDs as many as 30 times can be seen on Grist.

            Here is a thread he fouled so badly I wrote the editor and got the comments closed:http://ecowatch.com/2014/06/12/bee-killers-sponsor-national-pollinator-week-3-ways-they-kill/#comment-1439763886

          • rebeccagavin

            Tee Hee, a couple of times, I have accidentally upvoted myself and immediately unvoted because I think voting for yourself is embarrassing. Apparently, Ted has no shame.

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            It’s a true mental illness. I once caught him at 2 AM posting his crap and immediately upvoting it, then he went through the entire thread adding more guest upvotes to his garbage comments.

          • rebeccagavin

            Having worked with people who have mental illness, as annoying as people like Ted can be, it’s also really sad. The mind can get very sick, and cause people to be delusional and paranoid, and it’s awful for them. So let’s have a moment of silence for ted’s poor mind.

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            Alternate monikers for the Ted Miner virus are TZena, T7 and I suspect patzagame as well.

            Here is a thread where Ted upvotes himself 15 times per comment using guest and the two alternate IDs: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-06-13/vermont-sued-by-grocer-group-to-block-gmo-food-label-law#comment-1447258519

          • rebeccagavin

            Good lord. Crazypants.

          • Michael Phillips

            I wonder if he endorses the Natural News piece that recommends staring into the sun as a source of energy.

          • ccdaddy

            What will you do with them, if he offered them to you. Make them disappear? In the same thin air,
            as the pro GMO science, is created out of ?

            You really want,to defend corporations, that’s keeps busy. Stealing, American family farms?

          • drloko

            No, I’d like to read them.
            I’d be interested to understand what they examined and why they found a result that is different than previous experiments.

            That’s what science is all about, learning new things. If there really is some scientific literature supporting the GMO-hazard claim, I’d like to know more about it.

            Where do you think I defended a corporation? I don’t think I’ve mentioned any corporations.

            Frankly, I don’t care about corporations. I’m interested in the science, not corporations.

            Stealing American family farms? Again, not my interest. I’m interested in the science. That sounds more like a legal or political issue.

          • ccdaddy

            “Stealing American family farms? Again, not my interest” It should be, all of our interest. So you think,someone that would steal a family’s farm, wouldn’t create junk science? Wake up and smell the coffee. You are either a pr person,or a fluoridated sheeple,of design.

          • Blabla

            Do you understand that the scientists in these HUNDREDS of studies never stole a farm? Even Monsanto never stole a farm. A farmer may have went out of business because he couldn’t make money off his overly-expensive organic farm, but that’s not stealing, that’s how a free market works. Since GMO products are superior, and people buy them, more often than not, it is natural that it will one day supplant the old methods of farming.

            Also, stealing family farms isn’t really in the public interest anyway, as farmers are a tiny minority (less than 1/3 of a percent http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Preliminary_Report/Highlights.pdf), and are being replaced by something that produces MORE food, not less.

            GMO denialism is junk science.

      • Ted Miner

        That’s what all the corrupt disingenuous GMO pesticide industry operatives say.

        • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

          Denying truth won’t make it go away.

          • StopGMO

            You should really take your own advice more seriously Jim.

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            Do you have anything to add to the thread or are you just another hate troll emulating the Ted virus?
            Why not post another quack lie so that we may disprove it for all to see? Surely the internet’s ignorance cup runneth over. Aren’t you thirsty?

          • StopGMO

            What’s the matter Jim? Did I hit a nerve? You do not like my suggestion or advice to you so you call it “another quack lie”? Too funny.

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            No, you hit no nerve, just failed to be a civil disqus participant.
            We are still waiting for actual participation here on your part. Trolling does not count except for your flag tally. That adds up.

          • StopGMO

            I have done my part in participating here with factual info. Have a scroll through and you realize you are wrong again.

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            One redundant blurb about corn origins. Anything to add?
            What prevents intelligent minds from perceiving you as another tin foil hat geek? That’s the topic of this thread.

        • Michael Phillips

          It isn’t corrupt or disingenuous to point out correctly that there is no reliable evidence of GM harm to human health or the environment. The weight of scientific evidence is very much in favor of transgenics having no additional risks compared to plants genetically modified by other techniques. Why in your mind is mutagenesis acceptable but transgenics not?

    • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

      Kryptonite to your hate agenda lies await you at geneticliteracyproject.org

      Willfully illiterate minds may explode upon viewing the truth.

  • barbarajanov

    I find the literature to be wanting over the last decade. In the late 90’s testing of animals, scientific studies were making their way into the journals, not anymore, the same censorship described in this article is at work in the journals , panels sponsored by the industries are determining what we can know. The ex editor of the NEJM commented on the poor quality of material that’s being accepted, so yes, it’s tainted, and as the scientist mentioned on Medscape it’s being massaged for outcome. This is not acceptable.

    • Ted Miner

      Yes, it is agenda driven pseudo-science. Yet, the GMO pesticide industry sells the meme that anyone who disagrees with this pseudo-science is “anti-science”.

      • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

        You should know. The Ted Miner virus is a core source if disinformation.

  • JH

    Wow. Gotta hand it to you Keith, you really get the ducks quacking.

    • Tom

      Yeah, the levels are unusually high. Maybe there was a anti-vaxx/anti-GMO hybridization event. The proverbial PredAlien of whack.

  • ccdaddy

    What is amazing here,is the very familiar names, of those who are defending the GMO’s. Are eerily, the same names, as those who
    defend the toxic loaded vaccines. So one ponder’s, are you just inherently Evil? Or just, enlarging your pr clients. Fact, the GMO company’s,are stealing family farms. By planting, their GMO frank-en seeds across the road,from organic farmers. When their seeds migrate
    across the road,then they bring in their lawyers. Claiming,you are using their seed,without paying for it. They then, keep you in court,util you are broke. Then they take, your family’s farm. You public relation’s experts, you have chosen again, to represent dirty corrupt thug’s. Night crawlers!

    • JH

      Fact: the familiar names that defend GMOs are the people that can spell and can write coherent sentences.

      The, people whoc ant’ RIGHT and do nut no how to, spell, maybe do nut have too much branes.

      • ccdaddy

        You and your ilk,should be tried for treasonous acts, against this Nation.

        • Boris Ogon

          You and your ilk,should be tried for treasonous acts, against this Nation.

          Please clarify what you mean by “ilk,” Joe.

    • Tom

      As far as I can tell, you appear to be a shill for Big Comma.

  • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

    Silly parallel. Different issues. The issues with GMOs are that they are pesticide plants, manufactured by the chemical industry for farmer’s pest control. They are failing. More pesticide is being applied. More and more. Of course, they are PLANTING the Bt plants, which are patented insecticides in themselves, so they claim the amount of insecticide has decreased. But, not really, because it is inside the plants, and we are eating it. Plus the plants are bathed in Roundup, fungicides, and neonicotinoids. More and more every day. And it is all not working any more, so they are going to ADD 50% of Agent Orange to the mix. Dow’s “Enlist Duo”. Google it. Don’t buy these foods is my advice. We have a right to know if raid contains pesticide, and so we should know if our corn does, too. I know I am being really unreasonable to think I should have a right to know if my food has been raised this way. So call me unreasonable. Labels please.

    • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

      Only lies stacked upon lies from you.
      “Pesticide plants” have evolved for millions of years using above and below ground chemical and bilolgical warfare to protect and expand their territory. We only take advantage of this natural tool in GMOs.
      Bt is used in organic farming as well.
      The quantity and toxicity of chemicals used in GMOs is far less than that required in conventional farming. That’s exactly why farmers willingly line up to buy GM seed – it saves them money in large scale chemical application. No crops anywhere are “soaked” in pesticides, more pointless exaggeration your part.
      Agent Orange is made of multiple ingredients – one of the less toxic parts is 2,4-d which is used in the second generation GMOs. The third generation will be RNAi technology.
      In summary, you are being far more than unreasonable, you are being duped by a loony activist agenda and acting as their puppet.

    • Michael Phillips

      2,4D is not Agent Orange. Enlist Duo does not contain dioxins, the causitive agents behind the problems in Agent Orange. This has been addressed many, many times. Also, Bt is a protein and is hardly comparable to organophosphate pesticides. And all corn is GMO. It is a synthetic organism created by us. Thanks for your passionate concerns, but the facts do matter and I’m afraid you are incorrect on some of the things you said here.

      • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

        Oh, thanks Michael. Then I won’t worry about eating the neonicotinoids, fungicides, Roundup/glyphosate, Liberty Link, highly concentrated systemic Bt, and the added insecticides they are using due to bug resistance, 2,4-D, and four other nasty adjuvants they are going to add with this DOW’s ENLIST DUO sprayed on top. Sure. That is the smart thing to do. No worries, right? Chemicals are good for us. All corn is GMO. That is a lie. Not organic. That is a hybrid. I am talking about the chemical foods being produced in labs by the chemical industry. Call it what you want. In our house we call GMOs poisoned.

        • JoeFarmer

          What’s the first rule of toxicology?

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            Don’t eat poison?

          • JoeFarmer

            The dose makes the poison. That’s tox 101. Since you feign concern about all these supposedly dangerous chemicals, you should know this.

            What can you tell us about the USDA Pesticide Data Program?

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            I can tell you that pesticide use is WAY up. Farmers are applying more than ever. Both herbicide AND the Bt that is inside acres and acres of GM crops. (Did the math-300 million lbs in corn alone)- plus the insecticide they are now applying due to insect resistance. See Benbrook, at a minimum. Tell me why Dow’s new product added to the mix is good for our children’s health! Over one in two children have a chronic health condition. Food allergies are up over 400% since the introduction of GM foods. I want our nations children to be healthy again. Not rocket science to suggest cutting back on pesticide consumption.

          • JoeFarmer

            Benbrook’s paper has widely criticized in the scientific community for bad methodology.

            Here’s one of many: http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2012/10/do-genetically-engineered-crops-really-increase-herbicide-use/

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            Oh, okay. Yeah, there’s no weed resistance and glyphosate use/sales are down. BWAHAHAHAHA! Hilarious!!

          • JoeFarmer

            There has been herbicide resistance since the first herbicides, genius.

            How are you coming along on the retraction of the “stunning corn comparison”.

            Why are you silent on the USDA PDP? Facts got your tongue?

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            Joe, sorry I have to go. But I keep the corn study in a folder right next to the soy study published in Food and Toxicology proving GM soy is higher in pesticides. And lower in nutrition and yield. No time to look up your FDA gig. I will later. If you think glyphosate use has not exploded because of farmers’ desperation to control super weeds in their GM crop fields- then you need to visit some farmers. You can start in Texas.

          • JoeFarmer

            Wow, your lack of ag knowledge never ceases to amaze me.

            If a weed is resistant to a herbicide, you don’t keep putting more of that herbicide on! I’m beginning to wonder if you’re just trolling, since this stuff you’re throwing out is so dumb.

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            Not as dumb as continuing to promote a farming system for which weed and insect resistance is inevitable.

          • JoeFarmer

            What about the USDA PDP? You are awfully quiet about that.

            Why?

          • JoeFarmer

            You just explained every farming system ever.

            Go talk some rich dork into buying a painting, genius.

          • JoeFarmer

            When are you going to retract the fraudulent “stunning corn comparison”?

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            Never. We will just add more to the pile. Starting with the soy study, and moving forward.

          • JoeFarmer

            That soy study is junk, too – I wasted about 20 minutes reading it that I’ll never get back.

          • Michael Phillips

            If you think glyphosate is so dangerous, why are you concerned about glyphosate resistance in weeds? If it means glyphosate isn’t useful any longer, I would think that would make people with your perspective happy.

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            I am partially thrilled. Except that that has meant an increase in concentration AND an increase in application as the desperate farmers try to save their farms. And then there is the problem of the next level. The Dow Enlist Duo that is on its way. We are going in the WRONG DIRECTION. There will again be weed resistance, and we will be feeding even more and stronger chemicals to our kids, IN ADDITION to the glyphosate. How on earth is this good? Do you all have any common sense at all??? Tell me how this is good for our diet.

          • JoeFarmer

            Tell me what ag chemical residues you think you are exposed to and at what concentrations.

          • rebeccagavin

            Weed and insect resistance is inevitable in all methods of farming. It’s called evolution.

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            Oh yes, I am sure the drastic increase has nothing to do with the introduction of GMOs. Sure. Right.

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            You would have to ask the farmers why they are applying more glyphosate- and while you are at it- ask them why they continue to buy any GM seed at all. I think it is finally dawning on them that they are caught in a trap-

          • JoeFarmer

            Ummm…being a farmer I know about applying glyphosate, genius.

          • JoeFarmer

            Again, when can we expect a retraction of your fraudulent “stunning corn comparison”?

            What you and your compadre Zen Honeycutt posted is actionable. Hope Moms Against America has liability insurance!

            Here’s to happy and healthy kids with moronic moms!

          • JoeFarmer

            Caught in a trap? Nonsense.

            You think you know more about farming than the hundreds of thousands of farmers that buy GM seeds – hilarious!

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal
          • JoeFarmer

            What are you trying to say?

            Every farmer knows that palmer pigweed is hard to control, it always has been.

            Yeah, there’s some glyphosate-resistant palmer out there. This is not news.

            So did you read the USDA PDP yet?

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            SOME????

          • JoeFarmer

            Yes, some. TYou have trouble with reading besides trouble understanding science?

            What about the PDP? I think you’re avoiding it because it will burst the little anti-science bubble you live in.

          • Michael Phillips

            Farmers continue to buy GM seeds because they perform better, require less pesticides, and produce higher yields.

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            MALARKY. I have to wonder whether Monsanto came to your house and wrote that for you. GM crops use more water to keep those genes going. See the Zobiole study proving it. Of course, you could just talk to the farmers in Iowa who suffered a horrible dought a couple of years back. You know, then the non-GM crops outperformed the GM when they did not have rain. And, here is what farmers are REALLY finding: http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/april2011/organicnongmocornoutperformsgmo.php All of the ones I know anyway. Without exception, if farmers plant both types of crops side by side, the non-GM varieties do better. It is a question of good hybrids, not GMOs or patents or anything else. Sorry. Require less pesticides? Oh, really? Well, not according to any farmers I know. Again: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/12/us/invader-storms-rural-america-shrugging-off-herbicides.html?_r=1 Using more and more, in complete desperation.

          • JoeFarmer

            Bullshit. I farm in Iowa – I was there in 2011 & 2012. Even though it was dry, there was plenty of pest pressure and biotech hybrids outperformed non-GM varieties.

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            Not only did it outperform in the drought, it outperforms in Europe, too. Want to meet my Iowa farmer friends and you can talk bushels? http://stopmakingsense.org/2013/06/30/non-gm-farming-in-europe-outperforms-gm-farming-in-us-pse/ And in the US http://www.dsorganic.com/2012/01/30/organic-vs-conventional/

          • JoeFarmer

            OK, now I’m sure you’re a troll.

          • Michael Phillips

            When you hear facts you don’t like, thrown in Monsanto.

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            So?

          • Michael Phillips

            So it hurts your credibility when your response to facts is always “But Monsanto!”

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            Wow! All of these farmers must not be educated either? Want to take back that statement insulting them? Time to stop pretending increased glyphosate use is going on, and get real about the chemical arms race going on out there, created by GMOs. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/12/us/invader-storms-rural-america-shrugging-off-herbicides.html?_r=1

          • JoeFarmer

            Glyphosate use increased as RR trait use increased, duh.

            You’re really slow when it comes to farming and science in general.

            Once again, when a weed becomes resistant to a herbicide, you don’t keep applying more of that herbicide!

            Have you read the USDA PDP yet?

          • Michael Phillips

            Glyphosate use has gone up because the use of truly damaging pesticides like atrazine has gone down.

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            And, 2,4-D? Tell me how good that is for us. On top of the Roundup. And, in actuality, Roundup is an endocrine disruptor and a patented antibiotic that chelates necessary minerals out of every living thing it touches, as well as killing off our gut flora. You know, the stuff we need for a healthy immune system. Yes, Roundup is really good for us. I am sure.

          • JoeFarmer

            Where do you come up with this nonsense?

          • Michael Phillips

            Toxicology basics. Dose matters. I don’t know what studies you are referring to here, but glyphosate has the lowest toxicity of any known herbicide. Lower than caffeine, lower than table salt.

        • Michael Phillips

          Yes, all corn is genetically modified. It is a synthetic organism. Your snark is not necessary. If you want to talk to someone who understands plant biology and is willing to explain the science to non-experts, please change your tone. I assure you plants make far more dangerous poisons on their own that are more harmful to you than the trace quantities of pesticides you are exposed to. Please look up the toxicity of basil for an example. And don’t forget organic produce is also treated with pesticides (i.e. chemicals). In your house, you can say whatever you want of course but that doesn’t make it true. The science is pretty clear. Any substance at low enough concentrations will not harm you. Please consider JoeFarmer’s comment.

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            Tell me how I can wash the Bt off the GM foods like I can the organics. Organics: used as needed, can be washed off, Bt dies when UV rays hit it. GM: UV rays never hit it, it is far more concentrated, used 24/7, colonizes in our systems. Really? No harm from glyphosate? (Not even taking into account the others, which obviously do cause harm.) Hmmm… okay, try this one. I have a bunch more if you need them. http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/1765

          • JoeFarmer

            What’s the issue with consuming a couple of micrograms of Bt protein?

            Unless your stomach pH is above 9 and you have the receptor to bind the protein to your stomach, there’s no harm. We eat dozens, maybe even hundreds of different proteins every day, and they all get denatured in our digestive systems.

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            Rally? Then why was it found in pregnant women and their fetuses in the Canadian study? Hmm… seems to be thriving. And, did you know it was found to lead to Leukemia in mice? Google Brazil study. Good luck learning about this? Are both of these studies junk science, too? How many studies have to come out before you admit that there is a lot of science questioning the safety of GMOs? 100? 1.000? 10,000? Or will you just continue to deny and deny?

          • JoeFarmer

            Because they used an assay method that wasn’t appropriate, that’s why.

          • Michael Phillips

            Bt is a protein that does not harm humans. You can digest it down to amino acids like any other protein.

      • StopGMO

        Corn was developed from it’s grassy ancestor, a wild grain called teosinte by using selective breeding methods, not genetic engineering. Big difference!

        • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

          All manner of genetic alterations, ALL of them without exception, give the same result – a new code. The resulting new code supports life, or it does not. Zero difference in the end result. DNA is DNA. There are no microscopic devil horns or swastikas on lab altered DNA strands. There is only the binary expression of the four letters AGTC. Not a single atom more.

          • Lucy7

            Transgenic techniques using the gene gun or the Agrobacterium method (most used to create GE foods currently consumed) have a greater relative likelihood of potential unintended changes and relative degree of genetic disruption compared to selective breeding, pollen based hybridization, etc. So there is a difference.

          • Lucy7

            Transgenic techniques using the gene gun or the Agrobacterium method(most used to create GE foods currently consumed) have a greater relative likelihood of potential unintended changes and relative degree of genetic disruption compared to selective breeding, pollen based hybridization, etc. So there is a difference.

          • Michael Phillips

            Sorry but that’s not true. Hydridization involves the recombination of 1000s of genes. Transformation involves one. The chance of unintended consequences is much higher through hybridization. That’s why children die every year from allergic reactions to peanuts and many other conventional GM foods. No one has ever died from GE food.

          • Lucy7

            Posting this for the 3rd time now and I have taken a screen shot. Why does it keep disappearing??

            Transgenic techniques using the gene gun or the Agrobacterium method(most used to create GE foods currently consumed) have a greater relative likelihood of potential unintended changes and relative degree of genetic disruption compared to selective breeding, pollen based hybridization, etc. So there is a difference.

          • Lucy7

            Posting this for the 4th time now and I have taken a screen shot. Why does it keep disappearing??

            Transgenic techniques using the gene gun or the Agrobacterium method(most used to create GE foods currently consumed) have a greater relative likelihood of potential unintended changes and relative degree of genetic disruption compared to selective breeding, pollen based hybridization, etc. So there is a difference.

          • http://cumulativemodel.blogspot.com/ aaron

            Probably because it is not true.

          • rebeccagavin

            Quit spamming. Your comment is here multiple times.

          • Lucy7

            Transgenic techniques using the gene gun or the Agrobacterium method (most used to create GE foods currently consumed) have a greater relative likelihood of potential unintended changes and relative degree of genetic disruption compared to selective breeding, pollen based hybridization, etc. So there is a difference.

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            Again, the method means nothing, only the outcome.
            The gene gun method you wish to condemn
            provides thousands of results – only the best is accepted while all the rest are destroyed in the lab on the spot.
            How odd that you assume the results are simply immediately put into service or patented without sorting, verification and testing.
            Nature does the same thing on a global scale. Random mutations mostly just die. ONLY the useful and successful ones survive. It’s called natural selection. Perhaps you have heard of it? 4.3 billion years of it made you possible. Our lab generated mutations are subject to natural selection as well, the moment they leave a farmer’s field.

          • Lucy7

            LOL! Corn as it is today, is not really a benefit to the planet, it is beneficial to man. So natural selection isn’t really involved here, artificial selection is. You really don’t know the difference between natural and artificial selection! You ignorant trolls always crack me up! I don’t have time for idiotic comments. Good luck with whatever you seem to want to believe.

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            The method means nothing, only the outcome is of significance.
            The method means nothing, only the outcome is of significance
            The method means nothing, only the outcome is of significance

          • rebeccagavin

            I know, you have multiple accounts to juggle so you don’t have time to do anything but call names and dismiss, Ted.

          • StopGMO

            It’s absurd and ridiculous that you assume I am Ted. Get a life!

          • rebeccagavin

            You are getting your accounts mixed up Ted. I was replying to Lucy7 – but it’s all you. Everybody knows it. “I am not Ted!.” Ha ha ha ha – get your personas straight, Ted.

          • StopGMO

            That’s complete and utter nonsense, you don’t even know the difference between natural and artificial selection.

          • Ted Miner

            Complete and utter nonsense is Jim’s stock in trade.

            The more he posts his cut and paste GMO pesticide industry talking points. The dumber he looks.

            He is here to disrupt and intimidate, and change the subject.

            Most of the stuff he says about other people is just a look in the mirror, and he’s to dumb to see it.

          • JoeFarmer

            Terd mining is your stock in trade.

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            Good one!

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            The method means nothing, only the outcome is relevant.
            EXAMPLE: I typed this comment letter by letter. However I could have cut and pasted two or three words at a time. The final comment would be identical in every way, down to the smallest nibble.

            This is true of DNA as well. It makes no difference how a code is altered, only that the final code produced will give the desired result.
            We could station 5 million genetic scientists around the world, each with a gene lab in their pockets, to look at natural plant mutations every day for thousands of years until the precise mutation was observed and captured for cultivation. What idiocy that would be when we can do it in a day in a lab!

          • StopGMO

            Ted? I think you are referring to the wrong person here, I am not Ted. The DNA sequences are not the same as what would occur by the mutations that would occur in a plant that is simply selected, and they could not replicate it by copy and paste, in fact you admit it in an earlier post when you say the genetic engineers pick out the plants that properly transformed (though there is no such thing) and they discard the rest. They are talking about transformations with synthetic DNA never occurring in nature. So they wouldn’t look for thousands of years, they would look for millions of years and never find synthetic DNA sequences. More gibberish and completely irrational. You are such a waste of my time.

          • rebeccagavin

            What he is saying is quite factual ad if you were a tenth as knowledgeable as you would like to make us think, instead of dismissing him, you would have some kind of on point response. Your lack of knowledge is much more apparent than you seem to be aware.

          • Parableman

            Such a distinction would only matter if evolution is teleology-based in every case (and we know that in every case that goal is for our survival and health). If evolution is blind and unguided, we should assume no such thing. If it’s guided by God, why assume it’s all happening for our consumption? And why should we assume something is better simply because it happens to be the result of natural processes? Arsenic is natural. It is naturally selected. I’m not about to eat it. Other stuff that’s artificially selected is certainly safe to eat, regardless of how it came about. Real distinction but with no importance to this debate. You’re assuming every metaphysical distinction has a particular ethical significance that it just doesn’t have.

          • Michael Phillips

            Why? Transformation usually involves a single gene. Mutagenesis (used to make “organic” produce”) modifies 1000s at a time. Which has a higher likelihood of unintended consequences? In 2011, 31 people died in Germany and hundreds more were poisoned as a result of eating organic produce. That is real harm. Those people died for real. How can you speculate on the imaginary unintended consequences of GE foods when there are actual dead people as a result of eating organic “non-GMO” food? What would you say to their families about food safety?

        • Michael Phillips

          Again, the safety or danger of a trait depends on the trait, not the technique used to introduce it. GE presents no additional risks compared to plants genetically modified through conventional GM techniques, or so says the National Academy of Sciences USA, American Assoc. for the Advancement of Sciences, American Medical Assoc., European Plant Science Organization, etc. Do you think you understand the science better than them with a name like “StopGMO”?

    • JoeFarmer

      I guess if you don’t have facts, just sprinkle in hyperbole.

      That’s a real cheap shot with the Agent Orange meme. Saying that just makes it clear you have zero knowledge of agriculture.

      • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

        More than you- I am sure! I do research with everyone from school nurses to neurologists to farmers, vets, and EPA scientists. Stop pushing pesticides, please. Everyone knows GM crops are failing due to the weed and pest resistance you have created. It’s hurting our kids’ health. Stupid to imagine it wouldn’t. Why should we allow them to add more with Dow’s new wonder product.

        • JoeFarmer

          “Everyone knows GM crops are failing due to the weed and pest resistance you have created.”

          Thanks for proving my point: You know bupkis about agriculture. You’re a bored housewife with no science background proselytzing.

          If GM crops were actually failing, farmers would quit buying GM seed, genius. Wanna take a look at GM acreage planted by year? Why is it increasing?

          “It’s hurting our kids’ health.”
          Show us some science to support that claim!

          You do realize that the Enlist herbicide system includes glyphosate, which we’ve used in ag since about 1975, along with 2,4d, which we’ve used in ag since the 1950s, right?

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            Ha! You are funny! Well, you can pretend all day long that weed and insect resistance is not a problem- but you are deluding yourself. Farmers are clamouring for that high premium GMOs. There’s not even enough supply for the demand. I know Monsantos corn sales have been down. More and more studies are coming out showing harm to both animals and humans from glyphosate- keep your finger in that dam! I hope you have some Dutch blood in you :) Also, you are missing the point about the 2,4-D. Never been a part of our diet before. And as far as my being bored… Nope. I find helping kids get better to be enormously rewarding :)

          • JoeFarmer

            I never said anything about resistance not being an issue.

            Gee, do you think Monsanto’s (and Pioneer’s and every company’s) corn seed sales are down because farmers planted more acres to soybeans this year? That’s what intelligent people think. You, on the other hand…

            Let’s see these supposed studies about the dangers of glyphosate. Seralini, I suppose?

            2,4-D has been used in agriculture since the 1950s. Check the USDA PDP for residue levels – we’re not eating it!

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            Really??? Dow’s Enlist Duo has not been developed for food crops?? Check again dude.

          • JoeFarmer

            Take a look at the residues in the PDP, genius.

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            Are they healthy residues?

          • JoeFarmer

            What’s the first rule of toxicology, again?

          • rebeccagavin

            Why do you continually change the subject when he pins you down on something that you are either completely wrong about, or can’t provide any evidence for? You are awfully arrogant for such an artless dodger,

  • Jessica Chasko Denning

    I don’t eat vaccines… neither did the pigs in farmer Ib Pederson’s study which was reported last week at the Beijing GMO conference. Listen to the words of this scientist-farmer yourself on the results of his studies of his 3000 sows.
    Farmer Ib Pedersen’s and Monika Kruger’s paper on the deformities of piglets whose mother’s were fed GMO soy sprayed with Glyphosate,
    are at this link, followed by links to his interview. The photos of the piglets are graphic, so be prepared.
    http://www.gmoevidence.com/dr-krüger-glyphosate-increases-birth-defects-in-pigs/

    Here are two important links of Ib Pedersen discussing his work and his government’s reaction. For anyone ever interested in becoming pregnant, or your children being able to reproduce, this information is essential. You can listen to the interviews yourself:

    Part 1 of 2
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyuOTKkqZ9M&feature=youtu.be

    Part 2 of 2
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG2LkGKaT
    Thanks to Carole Bartolotto. For her great work and article.
    As … a science teacher… I know that the word ‘science’ means ‘to know.’
    I appreciate your work to spread knowledge about unlabeled GE food which was branded ‘substantially equivalent’ to conventional food by the FDA in 1992, with Michael Taylor setting that policy (his previous title was lead lawyer for Monsanto), and yet GMOs, are at the same time, are patented as distinctly different than conventional food, because they are either a pesticide delivery system and/or not killed by herbicide.
    You are uncovering the paradox. The emperor has no clothes.
    GMOs are different and consumers deserve a simple label, such as salt and sugar also receive.
    Could it be that Michael Taylor, who is in charge of GE food at the Food and Drug Administration, is biased, because he was promoted t…o Vice-President of Monsanto Corporation after putting the ‘substantially equivalent’ status of GMOs into place at the FDA?
    The next generation of GE crops are 2,4 D -resistant. That means that these corn and soy plants will not die when they are sprayed with the chemical which was 60% of Agent Orange. We were told by Monsanto Corporation, about how safe Agent Orange was too. But one million Vietnamese and countless American soldiers will testify that Agent Orange is not safe. Could it be that Monsanto has a credibility gap?
    Do we trust Monsanto’s own public relation firms and its staff scientists to tell us the truth? We do wonder why their patented seeds are not available for independent testing.
    I wonder what Monsanto is hiding, with these stealth GMO ingredients, as it spends millions to fight a simple label on these GE foods?
    I personally get a rotten headache and my joints ache for days if I eat GE corn. Organic corn leaves me healthy and feeling great. I need a label to avoid becoming ill, as not all food is available as organic and GMOs are in a hidden form in many processed foods.
    Sign me not as ‘anti-science’ – that would be the label for those fighting a label. But for science, for letting consumers be ‘In the Know if it’s GMO.’ A Label for your Table is the right, honest, true thing to do

  • M.Kelly Sutton MD

    The European Network of Scientists points out there is NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ON GMO SAFETY: http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/.
    The American Medical Association has stated there should be pre-market safety testing on GMO foods — that doesn’t sound like an American scientific consensus on GMO food safety, but a call for research.

    The lack of evidence of harm from GMO foods is primarily a LACK OF EVIDENCE, PERIOD.

    The studies on humans of any substance are done in other countries, and show that Roundup and Bt both accumulate in human tissue, and use of glyphsate (Roundup) has a link to higher incidence of lymphoma and glyphosate in cell cultures increases the multiplication of breast cancer cells which are estrogen receptor positive.

    Individuals have a right to decide about both vaccines and what foods they (and their families) are exposed to.

    Name-calling (‘argumentium ad ignorantium’) is a form of bullying, which is more based in emotion than reason. Since we’re talking about science, I’m sure we want to have our pro- and con- arguments on a topic based on reason.

    • Michael Phillips

      ENSSER is not a scientific organization. It is an anti-GMO activist group. The real organization you are looking for is the European Plant Science Organization.

      • M.Kelly Sutton MD

        Mainstream
        science has become in general a pro-GMO activist network. This
        is evidenced, for example, by the fact that original Monsanto
        scientific safety studies are undisclosed (“proprietary”).
        Science is no longer science if it is not open to examination and
        discussion. Proprietary and Scientific are opposites.

        The European Network of Scientists
        represents scientists who are concerned, and out of their
        professional training are speaking out. This is scientific. As
        Einstein said: “The right to search for truth implies also a
        duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be
        true.” The
        scientists who signed the “No scientific consensus on GMO
        safety” statement
        (http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/)
        did so out of a sense of that duty. The basis of their concerns are
        examinable. If this is termed ‘Activism’ then it is to be
        respected. Their actions became necessary when the basic
        cultural institution of ‘Science’ appeared to be concealing parts of
        what those scientists recognized to be true and was therefore Science is no
        longer fully objective.

        • Michael Phillips

          I have worked in plant biology for 20 years and I have never met a single scientist who supports what ENSSER apparently supports. I estimate I have interacted with maybe 1000 plant scientists at this point, over 100 closely. If the members of ENSSER really are scientists, they are a vanishingly small fringe minority and don’t go to professional meetings. At least they are proof there is no censorship in this field. You can also find a few MDs who are HIV/AIDS denialists, but we don’t take health advice from them. Would you agree with me so far on this?

          As for science becoming a pro-GMO activist movement, your characterization is unfair and unfounded. Please explain this apparent hypocrisy among your movement: if someone who is not a professional plant biologist makes a logical statement in favor of plant biotech, your side shouts them down as not being qualified (not you personally; your tone is quite civil compared to others in your camp). But if someone IS a professional plant biologist, they are immediately called a “shill for industry”. Who exactly is qualified to have an opinion on plant biotech? Only Greenpeace?

          Thanks again for not using profanity or threats. Your side has a lot of unbalanced, crazy people that make your camp look bad. Real bad. But I’m hopeful meaningful dialog is possible.

    • Blabla

      First of all, pointing out logical fallacies is not namecalling. He’s using the widely-used and accepted debate tactic of pointing out flaws in the opponent’s reasoning. Argumentium ad ignorantium is argument from ignorance. Namecalling itself is a fallacy (argumentium ad hominem).

      Here are some sites providing independent, scientific evidence of GMO safety.

      European Union funded, decade long study:
      http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1688_en.htm

      A group of mostly French scientists doing a literature review of the subject, thereby encompassing many more studies.
      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399

      A compilation of studies.
      http://genera.biofortified.org/viewall.php

      If you can refute any of it, let me know. I also checked to see if there was any conflict of interest. None were funded by Monsanto, none were promoting their own book, none were tied to any politicians.

  • Susan Elaine

    You’re trying to parallel Two major topics vaccines & GMO, but I’ll respond to the GMO issues.

    Dr, Pamela Ronald’s laboratory at UC Davis, whom is funded by Monsanto and also is a key person with Biology Fortified, Inc. is a major mouth piece for GMO science. She had 2 GMO related scientific papers retracted, Lee et al.2009 & Han el al.2011 based on her research. http://tinyurl.com/n97lgcz

    This Open Letter from over 800 World Scientists to All Governments Concerning Genetically Modified Organisms GMOs because these scientists are extremely concerned about the hazards of GMOs to biodiversity, food safety, human and animal health. http://tinyurl.com/2ehbhx8

    In 2009, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called for a moratorium on genetically modified foods, and said that long-term independent studies were needed,
    2012 AMA called for mandatory pre-market safety studies of GMOs.
    http://tinyurl.com/nvsktc3

    Monsanto and Syngenta do not allow independent researchers access to their patented seeds, citing the legal protection these seeds have under patent laws.
    When there are GMO questions of Risks & Safety these Agrichemical companies DENY independent scientists the ability to test GMO or report their results
    http://tinyurl.com/qameujp

    The 90 day study that Monsanto submits to the FDA for approval of GMO crops is so underwhelming especially when you have Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini’s team showing multitude of health issues developing after 120 days.

    GMO lies about ‘being substantially equivalent’was crafted by Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto lawyer
    http://tinyurl.com/nvsktc3

    Biotech’s ‘Sound Science’ has become Orwellian double-speak for various forms of pro-business spin.
    it’s pretty much like tobacco science or breast implants science that hides the devastating effects until you are backed into a corner.

    Healthy without GMO thank you!

    • Tom

      Yeah, about that I-SIS list of “scientists” (anyone with an internet connection?)…

      Here are some of my favorite “scientists” on that list (and some of them are double-dipping their signatures btw):

      24 Stephen Glanville PDC ECOS Design Australia

      26 Vince Halpin B.Sc Acupuncturist Herbalist Pharmacist Australia

      34 Michelle Mclaren Bach Nutrition and Dietetics Australia

      39 Tim Osborn Web Development Australia

      43 Sandra Russo Principal of College As a Homoeopath I lecture have a private clinic and mentor students of Homoeopathy Adelaide Training College of Complementary Medicin Australia

      85 John A Brown watchdog on growing power of corporacy in our world and the world s governments lack of will stop it Education Canada

      91 Una Coghlan nterested in securing a healthy food chain Voice of Women Canada

      104 Virginia Jacobsen organic growers Canada

      120 Anna D. Noikov B.A.B.Ed. B.A.B.Ed. Wholistic Practitioner Edmonton Canada

      121 Lise Norgren Concerned Consumer Canada

      124 Leslirae Rotor Economist consultant Ottawa Canada

      142 Werner Zimmermann interested informed and concerned citizen Canada

      146 Dr. Ye Hua over 20 000 pieces hand painted oil painting and picture frames in stock for sale at lowest prices http www art98 com China

      194 Dr. Du Bus De Warnaffe Ga Tan sustainable management of temperate forests INRA France

      195 Dr. Du Bus De Warnaffe Gaetan Ph.D Sustainable forest management INRA France [DOUBLE-DIP!]

      220 Lotz Frank Wolfgang Expert in The Vedic Health System Bestselling Author Germany

      232 Frank Wolfgang Research on Vedic Health Food and Bestselling Author Germany [DOUBLE-DIP!]

      236 Yannis Coconis translation Greece

      290 Sharad Shah Director of Ace natural foods Vadodara India

      318 Iris Atzmon represent the public opinion we are not lab animals Israel

      384 Maheswar Ghimire Organic Agriculture Promotion and Inspection Ecoscentre Nepal

      410 Katharine White I am an experienced artist and G E Free H B N Z campaigner I am and have been in the position to put my graphic expertise to use in the cause of the planet T L C Wellington and E I T Hawke s Bay New Zealand

      436 GEONATHAN BARRO Doing Anti GMO campaigns coordinates with other NGOs on our Anti GMO GE stand KALITAWHAN WORKING GROUP ON BIODIVERSITY Philippines

      437 GEONATHAN BARRO Coordinator Coordinates with NGOs POs and other Organizations on Anti GMO campaigns and other related issues and concerns KALITAWHAN WORKING GROUP ON BIODIVERSITY Philippines [DOUBLE-DIP!]

      524 Lianchamroon Witoon Sustainable agriculture Biothai Thailand

      548 Paul Breslaw Computer Scientist Consultant Financial Research Forest Row UK

      562 Tom Fox Amateur neurology biochemistry psychology sociology and philosophy enthusiast UK

      566 Edward Goldsmith Editor The Ecologist London UK

      567 Zac Goldsmith Editor The Ecologist London UK

      569 Lale Gurel Bec. Manager Nature – Macmillan Publishers London UK

      578 Patrick Holden Director Soil Association UK

      585 Magnus L. Johnson School of Science & Management U.C. Scarborough UK

      596 Jan Martinez social visionary holistic entrepreneur Just Rural Development Trust S W E N UK

      614 Michael Pooler A Level Biology Student human relations People Of The Earth UK

      617 Bala Puspa UK

      639 Martyn Wells Astronomer UK Astronomy Technology Centre Edinburg UK

      640 Barbara Wood-Kaczmar M.Sc. Science writer UK

      641 Julian Wootton Conservationist London UK

      643 Linda Yeodal B.Sc MNIMH Medical Herbalist UK

      651 Biff Appia autism USA

      656 Andrew Bigler Infrared Systems USA

      667 Vijaykumar V.C. Chalasani MS Consultant East Brunswick USA

      672 BARBARA CRAWFORD SURVIVAL INDEPENDENT USA

      674 Jill Davies Stream Ecologist Organic Farmer Montana USA

      676 Tricia Deane Certified Organic and nonGMO Food Supplier USA

      
677 Burgess Dillard Natural Scientist Self USA

      685 Sanek Erem USA
686 Sanekus Erem USA [DOUBLE-DIP?]

      697 Panatey Great Company inc USA


      705 Gosha Hello Company inc USA

      
710 Dale Hoover Organic food eater USA

      
711 Heidi Horn interested in what i eat sebastian USA

      717 Panatey I Like Your Site Company inc USA

      719 Soraya Jacob student USA

      728 Rev Thomas Klein Orthodox Priest USA

      739 David Lindley USA

      741 A J Maimbourg Keen desire to see GM foods banned due to potential health problems USA

      754 Najeeba Naja Ph.D THE QURAN IS TRUE MANKIND ARE U DEAF DUMB BIND WERE U OR WERE U NOT A DROP OF SPERN ISNT THE ONE WHO GIV E LIFE able to GIVE LIFE TO THE dead THE HUMAN RACE I ISLAM IS TRUE USA

      
755 Elaine Needham illustrator researcher writer speaker none USA

      758 Panatey Nice To See Your Site Is Being Updated Company inc USA

      762 Trina Paulus food issues sculpture writing Hope For the Flowers USA
763 Marial Peelle Biol./Anthropologist Undergrad. Swarthmors College USA

      762 Trina Paulus food issues sculpture writing Hope For the Flowers USA

      
763 Marial Peelle Biol./Anthropologist Undergrad. Swarthmors College USA

      767 John Pierne B.Sc Concerned Citizen USA
768 William Pizer Many years as an organic farmer Schoharie Certified Organic Hydroponic Greenhouses USA

      772 Linda Prout M.Sc nutrition writer speaker consultant Lifehift USA

      777 Claudia Riumallo Mother concerned about her children future health Mother USA


      778 John Robb permaculture USA

      780 Annika Rockwell Certified Nutritionist Consultant RockwellNutrition com USA


      781 James Rose Ceptual Institute USA

      788 Thomas J. Saunders Student Environmental Science Humboldt State Univ. Arcata USA

      797 Colleen Sheppard Wholistic Energy Therapist USA

      803 Kim Smith I consume only organic food and desire to see a ban put on GM as soon as possible USA

      807 Irl Stalcup Corporate Training LA County Dept of Parks and Recreation USA

      
808 Emma Steen Dietician (retired) Portland USA


      812 Dr. Patricia Patterson Tursi Ph.D My Dissertation concerned Mind Body Interactions I have studied health for 40a years I am a master gardener and former organic farmer SW Missouri Organic Association USA

      • Susan Elaine

        Clarification for Tom
        800 scientist & professionals

        The Institute of Science in Society I-SiS writes an open letter from world scientist to all governments about GMO’s. I hope you invested as much time reading what the scientist wrote to familiarize yourself with non-propaganda but real issues that concern our humanity & environment,

        • Tom

          I’m one of those real scientists actually working on GMOs so I know that what they write is utter nonsense. I went into science precisely because of my concern about humanity and the environment. Sadly fear mongering by people like you is needlessly delaying the deployment of public sector (non-Monsanto) GM crops that could (and ultimately will) benefit the poorest and most vulnerable farmers in the world. Nevertheless they will eventually have access to this technology because GM crops are not inherently dangerous or harmful. Science always wins in the end. Always.

      • Mike Stevens

        Parallels with the list of denialist AIDS-is-not-caused-by-HIV “scientists”, and the list of Vaccines-cause-autism “scientists”.

    • Adam Raymond Ravenhurst
  • barbarajanov

    Dr. Sennef describes the synergy at work when GMO’s and vaccines are in the body. It’s very interesting, a one minute ad followed by an hour or so, She makes a good case. Link to her page scroll to May 24th video presentation. http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/

    • Boris Ogon

      Oh, L-rd, this is almost too good. C’mon, Barbara, tell me the functional form that “Dr. Sennef” uses to get to “1 in 2 by 2025″ for ASD diagnoses.

      • barbarajanov

        we have kept count every two years..one in a hundred and ten..to one in 88, to one in 68, ..don’t forget this last number is birth year 2002..continue on to birth year 2025 will give us twenty three more birth years..looks about right..

        • Boris Ogon

          looks about right..

          Seneff’s canonical glyphosate graph is not based on CDC numbers (which I’ve done as well), but “looks about right” only cuts it if you’re innumerate.

          (In fact, her “prediction” is “based” on a cartoon slide with no data whatever underlying it; yes, I’ve suffered through these embarrassments.)

          • barbarajanov

            you are correct I just ran the guess..I will wait til my son comes in and let him do the math.. if you don’t trust a senior reseacher at MIT..I doubted you would accept my guess.

          • Boris Ogon

            if you don’t trust a senior reseacher at MIT

            Well, I know what the term actually means, if that helps.

          • barbarajanov

            means my r is sticking

          • Caroline Yunker

            CDC has flip-flopped on their numbers from time to time. In early 2013 CDC reported that 1 in 50 kids has autism. Previously it was 1 in 88. Then several months later it reverted back to 1 in 88. I guess they were told that 1 in 50 was too high and scary for us to handle. Regardless if you agree with Dr. Seneff or not – diseases like autism and Alzheimer’s should be in 1 in 100,000-500,000. Autism was virtually unheard of in the early 1900’s.

          • Boris Ogon

            CDC has flip-flopped on their numbers from time to time. In early 2013 CDC reported that 1 in 50 kids has autism. Previously it was 1 in 88.

            Congratulations, you can’t tell the difference between heterogeneous data sets even when they’re spelled out in excruciating detail by the people providing them.

          • Caroline Yunker

            Congratulations back to you. You are missing my point entirely or you’re just obtuse? Regardless, the bottom line is our children are SICK and no one really wants to know why and no one really wants to do anything about it. Instead they play this game “we need more studies,” or “thousands of studies show GMOs are safe” but they offer no explanations or solutions for the “Walking Sick/Dead.” Go play your foolish games Boris with someone else. I’m so done with you.

          • Boris Ogon

            You are missing my point entirely or you’re just obtuse?

            I pointed out that you made an extremely (and trivially) foolish statement.

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            Just obtuse.

          • barbarajanov

            You are so ,so .very right! Our children are suffering while the money game continues at their expense . I’ve learned so much from these kinds of conversations. While it’s easy to say that Fox News wins the award for “taste testing”, then offering their news wrapped in manipulative gold. “This word from our corporate sponsors”,is not the way of the 21rst century, the “word” is now weaved into the information, with far more impact than the advertisements of yesterday or the tired subliminal inserts. We are all manipulated, and we lost our basic humanity when we became cheerleaders for industry.

          • John

            What’s even worse, is when people go from “our children are sick” to “its probably the GMO’s fault”

            That’s terrible. Think of the children!!

            Direct your energy to line of investigation that might actually help the children, instead of wasting yours and everyone’s time on fantasies.

          • Caroline Yunker

            I’m helping the children. Get the glyphosate-saturated, insecticide-producing genetically engineered foods off their plates. Do you honestly think eating GMOs found in 80% of our packaged food is good for our children? We don’t have a food system. We have a chemical system that’s feeding us.

          • John

            > Do you honestly think eating GMOs found in 80% of our packaged food is good for our children?

            Absolutely. You have no legitimate reason to think otherwise, just a massive collection of fallacies woven together to give the appearance of validity to your fears.

            There are many ‘packaged foods’ which are harmful to our health for various reasons, but being GMO is not one of them.

          • Caroline Yunker

            Well, enjoy your GMOs.

          • John

            I definitely will. But will you please, please stop spreading lies in support of your agenda?

            I’ll grant you that Monsanto is a terrible company that is working against humanity’s best interest, and honestly I’ve love to see many of their business practices made illegal… but when you believe in falsehoods about GMOs as a category, you undermine the legitimacy of anything else you might contribute to the public discourse.

          • Caroline Yunker

            John, please open your eyes and look around. We’re sick. Many from birth. Never had we have so many children on drugs. why? It’s not just the food we eat but the chemicals in the air we breath, clothes we wear and water we drink.

            http://www.localssupportinglocals.ca/news/real-reason-why-those-psyche-drugs-are-committing-suicide-and-homicide

          • John

            Caroline, if you want to make the world a better place, you really ought to educate yourself first. And NOT from these horrible websites. Its really easy to read some random BS thrown together by conspiracy theorists, and much harder to actually educate yourself on the real science behind those claims.

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            Another bitter lie from you is disproved.

            “The CDC’s 1 in 88 estimate of autism prevalence is based on medical and school records of 8-year-old children at monitoring sites across the country. As such, it misses children who are not receiving medical or special education services related to autism. The new 1 in 50 estimate comes from a 2011-2012 telephone survey that asked nearly 100,000 parents across the country a range of health-related questions about children ages 6 to 17.”
            This number does not replace the official 1 in 88 estimate, but does suggest that it may be a significant underestimate of autism prevalence in the U.S.”

            http://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/national-survey-pegs-autism-prevalence-1-50-school-age-children
            We don’t know the cause of the disease, it’s equally possibly caused by radio signals, ozone depletion, food preservatives etc. no reason to arbitrarily blame it on your GMO boogeyman.

          • Chris Preston
          • barbarajanov

            I’m not sure what I’m seeing. It seems the “dachel” data is showing the year reported..admittedly confused on my end..I expected birth year, which is a full 12 years before reporting..which would be reporting birthyear 2025 in 2037..not reported year 2025 which would be reflecting birthyear 2013…lack of understanding on my part I’m sure..

          • barbarajanov

            Is this your graph? I DO appreciate the attention you gave to this issue. Since you have a skill, that not many have, I would LOVE for you to read the study out of Denmark “proving” autism rates went up after the removal of thimerosal. I believe I would respect your opinion.

          • Boris Ogon

            Is this your graph?

            Yes.

            Since you have a skill, that not many have, I would LOVE for you to read the study out of Denmark “proving” autism rates went up after the removal of thimerosal.

            I fail to see how the two are in any way connected. Offering pirated journal PDFs is also considered generally uncool by magazine publishers, BTW.

          • barbarajanov

            ah..didn’t know that…
            connected..yes..the numbers..the included groups..the stats seem off..I don’t want an opinion on the outcome..or the research..oh btw son said..1 in 16..for reported year 2025..

          • Boris Ogon

            oh btw son said..1 in 16..for reported year 2025..

            Please inform him that fitting an exponential is fanciful to start with; reading numbers off the curves isn’t the point. One runs into certain problems, such as ASD diagnoses going from “1 in 2″ to “1 in 1″ in a space of months, and then “2 in 1″ shortly thereafter.

            The graph is merely to illustrate that the absurdity, as it has already been trotted out by both Wakefraud and the Dachelbot, doesn’t even hold up under its own terms.

          • barbarajanov

            hmm..I tell my son, who has a pretty high opinion of his intelligence..never think you are so smart to not try to understand the input of others..they may think differently but that does not mean they are inferior in that thinking..you may often be right, but you can be wrong.

      • ccdaddy

        Dr. Eisenstein and his practice have cared for more than 50,000 children who were minimally or not vaccinated at all.

        There is virtually no autism, asthma, allergies, respiratory illness, or diabetes in his unvaccinated children, an impressive statistic when compared to national rates.

        And that’s why,you will never see a real vaccinated vs non-vaccinated study that not tainted.

        Because,it’s already been done! None in his HMO,
        1 in 50 US vaccinated children.

        What a freaking scandal!

        • Boris Ogon

          Dr. Eisenstein and his practice have cared for more than 50,000 children who were minimally or not vaccinated at all.

          There is virtually no autism, asthma, allergies, respiratory illness, or diabetes in his un-vaccinated children, an impressive statistic when compared to national rates.

          Says who? The guy who recently got fired by his latest bankruptcy lawyer for nonpayment?

          And that’s why,you will never see a real vaccinated vs non-vaccinated study. That’s not, tainted.

          Joe, you get the same question as everybody else: What degree of similarity between the two populations would convince you to say, “No, that’s it for the vaccine thing”?

          Because if you can’t say this, then blabbering about “a study” just means that it’s not worth the time of anybody “not, tainted” in the first place.

        • Mike Stevens

          Where has Eisenstein published this astounding medical revelation?

          • ccdaddy

            Dr. Eisenstein and his practice have cared for more than 50,000 children who were minimally

            or not vaccinated at all.

            There is virtually no autism, asthma, allergies, respiratory illness, or diabetes in his un-vaccinated children, an impressive statistic when compared to national rates.

            I believe,the fact that in his non vaccinated (that BTW is most of the 50,000) there is [virtually none] !!!!! of the chronic diseases that the US. are inundated with.

            inundated defined; flood, deluge, overrun, swamp, drown, submerge, engulf. That pretty
            much, defines this trillion dollar epidemic – pandemic of autism.

            Vaccines, are weakening our own children’s immune systems and changing their genetics.

            The people who run vaccine safety,they are corrupt and rotten with greed. To the very core of their being. Incestuous relationships
            with drug Company’s, make it highly unlikely
            vaccine will ever be safe!

            Until that revolving door, (from our FDA CDC) into the industry, is slammed shut. You will never see, US. health care affordable.Never!

          • Mike Stevens

            What you “believe” is immaterial.

            Again, where has Eisenstein published this astounding medical revelation?
            Please provide a link to the peer-reviewed publications.
            He owes it to children everywhere to broadcast his discoveries, so where are they?

            How exactly are vaccines “weakening our own children’s immune systems, and changing their genetics”? Please be specific, and cite references to medical peer-reviewed publications.

        • notation
  • drloko

    I’m not sure why you feel so strongly about this. There is no evidence here that glyphosate caused this. Sure, it was present in the post mortem, but so were a whole host of other things (water, salts, vitamins, etc.). It’s just a correlation, not causation.

    The other article was at least a study and as I said earlier it was interesting and worth further investigation.

    I read lots of studies like these. These are very preliminary findings, small sample sizes, low power statistics. That’s not t say that the study is in some way wrong, it’s just at a stage of research where you examine small populations. From here you would look for larger sample sizes under more controlled conditions to limit the number of variables and increase the power of the statistics.

    Nothing here is really all that extraordinary. There is still a long way to go before you would conclude that there exists a risk to human health.

    • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

      I feel strongly because when I combine this with what I know from many farmers, plus Seralini and many other studies, it makes me think we need to examine all human cancerous tissues to see what we find. Is glyphosate causing cancer? It is likely to me. Let’s find out. Let’s label them so we can trace it all.

      • drloko

        Neither of the items you cited connect glyphosate to cancer.
        The FDA and the EU have independently concluded there is no potential for glyphosate to harm humans.

        What makes you feel that glyphosate is linked to cancer?
        As far as ‘let’s find out’, there have already been multiple studies on this issue.
        What evidence would convince you that glyphosate is safe?

        • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

          Those very FDA assertions were just proven grossly flawed by these studies. You see, the FDA said that glyphosate does not accumulate in body tissues. Very very wrong. Not only that, but the deformed parts contain higher concentrations of glyphosate. I would call on every cancer tumor removed from humans I the next year to be tested for glyphosate concentrations. That would satisfy me.

          • rebeccagavin

            So, to review, you are easily satisfied by weak standards if they support your view, but your standards for anything that does not support your view are impossibly high. Seems legit.

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            No, to review, I listen to the hundreds of scientists who are questioning this because both people and animals with health conditions. It is you who ignores those who have questions. That, combined with testimonials from hundreds of parents and farmers who are finding that both animals and children with health conditions, from skin problems to asthma, autism, allergies, and autoimmune. almost without exception, get better when we drop the GMOs from their diet. You are like the people who doubted Galileo during his time. You will see that you are wrong. This is not about just science, this is about the chemical industry’s domination of food production. It is unhealthy, and that is NOT rocket science. Go ahead and keep ignoring, and go ahead and keep promoting chemical farming. I hope that you sleep well at night. I sleep well knowing I am fighting for the health and protection of infants and children from excess pesticides in food. How does it make you feel to be promoting pesticide-farming? Did you know that the seeds are so toxic that the farmers cannot even touch them? Does that really sound like a good idea to you, and do you really need X number of scientists to decide? You are not a mother. I can tell that right now.

          • JoeFarmer

            It’s disingenuous to play the mommy card.

            You’re part of an organization called out for falsification of data – your “stunning corn comparison”.

            Why don’t you leave the science to the real scientists and go find something else to do?

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            Nope.

          • JoeFarmer

            When will your group be publishing a retraction of the fraudulent “stunning corn comparison”?

          • Ted Miner

            She never said she was part of a “group”.

          • Michael Phillips

            If you really want to protect infants and children from pesticide exposure, transgenics are our best bet to do that. Not all transgenics are roundup ready. My institute makes many transgenics aimed at improving disease resistance in rice (look up Blanca San Segundo and Marc Valls), but they cannot be approved due to hyperparanoia and scare mongering . I think you are working against your own stated goal.

            Here’s a good example from Rothamsted, UK: beta farnese emitting wheat that repels insects pests with volatile terpenes (my research area). The scientists there can’t do field trials because protesters threaten to burn them (improving somewhat lately). How can public scientists apply this technology to reducing pesticide use when your kind threaten us with violence and destruction of experimental crops?

          • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

            Well right now, Mr. Phillips. the only thing in our grocery stores are chemical industry creations. What is more, in the Phillipines they are selling a lot of Papaya that is naturally bred to be resistant to the virus they complained about in Hawaii. What happened in Hawaii? GMO Papaya farmers are suffering because no one wants to buy their products. That is why the University of Hawaii is developing their own version of the Phillipine Papaya. We don’t want chemicals, thanks. Keep working, that is great. But don’t force those chemical GM “foods” on my table. Thanks.

          • Michael Phillips

            You sound like a chemophobe. You are made of chemicals. Now what?

  • MADGE Australia Inc

    There is no body of scientific evidence showing that GM food is safe for us to eat or that it is as safe as non-GM food. Many scientists have signed a statement to that effect. The FDA in the US exchange letters between the company wanting to release a GM food. This ends with the FDA saying that since the company have decided its GM food is safe there is no need for a pre-market assessment. This exchange is voluntary. If you call that scientific rigour I would question your commitment to science.

    The august bodies supposedly supporting the safety of GM food have no secret stash of peer-reviewed studies showing safety. They often hedge their statements by saying that a pre-market assessment is done (see above for the value of this) or that there have been no illnesses attributed to GM in the years since it has been released.

    One reason for this could be that since it is not labelled no one knows how much GM food they are consuming. Also no epidemiological studies have been done to see if the massive increase in the ill-health of those in the US and elsewhere is linked to GM food. If you don’t look, you can’t find.

    I am utterly disappointed by so-called defenders of science being unable to produce anything vaguely resembling a coherent scientific inquiry into what these crops are actually producing (all the proteins, dsRNA, potential products of the partial viral gene VI from cauliflower mosaic virus commonly used as a promoter in the gene cassette etc etc) let alone how it affects animals fed GM long term or how it affects their offspring.

    Then there is zero information on how it affect us – apart from the Netherwood study that showed GM dna transferred into gut bacteria after one meal of GM soy.

    In fact the huge study being unscientifically carried out is being done on us and our kids. Isn’t experimenting on people without their consent in breach of the Nuremberg Code?

    • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

      There is also no body of evidence showing that GM food is NOT safe to eat. You have no point.

      Your inconvenient truth is 20 years of consumption by 300 million Americans with no documented ill effects, trillions of meals served.

      Where are the bodies? Where are the piles of corpses?

      • MADGE Australia Inc

        Yes there is. It has been complied into the “GM myths and truths” report by Earth Open Source.

        Fundamentally changing food and selling it without full toxicological testing, multi-generational and long term animal feeding trials is scandalous. To not label this food is also shocking.

        You cannot say whether the enormous increase in ill-health in the US over the past 18 years is due to GM food just as you cannot say it isn’t. The US population is the sickest in the developed world and it eats the most GM food. Anyone interested in science and evidence would be calling for GM labelling, testing and a moratorium on GM while the research that should have been done years ago is carried out.

        • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

          Earth open source is a foil hatter site.
          Pushing to prove a negative is the modus operandi of the antiGMO agenda. It can’t be done, has never been done with any food in existence.
          20 years of our eating GMOs, trillions of meals served, no documented negative outcomes.

          There is, however, a rich legacy of conspiracy theories and tin foil hatter attacks like yours.

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            Superpests, superweeds, new round of GM crops being tolerant to 2,4-D as well as glyphosate and glufosinate. Black root rot in GM soy in Louisiana, fusarium wilt, damage to soil organisms by glyphosate. Algae from industrial farming making it impossible for residents of Toledo to drink the water of Lake Erie. Birth defects and cancers in South America at epidemic proportions in GM soy growing areas. Farmers reporting illnesses, birth defects and fertility problems in animals fed GM.

            All this is demonstrable and yet we still have people saying “trillions of meals served, no documented negative outcomes.” It’s like saying “trillions of cigarettes smoked, no documented negative outcomes.”

            In fact many people are finding their health, that of their families, their farms and their bank balances improved when GM is removed.

            The GM promoters live in a rarified world where real life is not allowed to penetrate. Instead the same meaningless, baseless memes are endlessly recirculated.

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            Monocropping always has developed resistance issues ever since medevil times. It’s considerably less now with GMO tech and will soon reach unprescedented low levels as 2,4-d and RNAi versions of GMOs permit full rotation options neve before available to farmers.

            There is zero proof of any of the blight you lamely atempt to pin on GMOs. Where are the bodies? Where are the piles of corpses? Where is the proof?

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            Quaint. I’d be interested in the discussion of monocropping in mediaeval times. My understanding was there were small fields of many different crops owned by a multitude of farmers. Perhaps you are thinking of the big slave plantations of the later Roman Empire that led to collapse due to monocropping and exhausting the soil?

            I don’t think farmers need GM 2,4-D crops or RNAi to decide to plant rotations of oats, rye, wheat, corn, soy etc.

            2-4,D can drift for large distances and so the new GM crops will potentially kill neighbouring crops. How will this help anybody – unless the GM farmers corner the market and the GM companies charge the GM farmers for the benefit of killing their competitors crops? Agriculture as warfare?

            RNAi is not at all well understood and has the potential to be extremely dangerous. Look at Heinemann’s and Carman’s work on this subject.

            Regarding the bodies. Chat to the citizens and doctors of South America who are calling GM soy a form of genocide.

            You may also ask US doctors about the increase in illnesses over the past 20 years. Children are the ones who are suffering most.

          • Chris Preston

            Heinemann’s and Carman’s work on RNAi? That would be the same work where Heinemann used the wrong piece of sequence to check against and came up with an entirely spurious result, that he eventually had to publish a correction over?

            His work showed nothing, because he based it on a hypothesis that turned out to be wrong, didn’t use the correct piece of sequence, compared it with matches that were too small and even then found no match to any transcribed sequence.

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            First quote:
            “A new peer-reviewed paper in the journal Bioscience draws attention to potential hazards on nontarget species of pesticides and GMOs made with RNA-interference (RNAi) gene-silencing techniques. These hazards could include off-target gene silencing or immune stimulation.

            The paper, authored by two employees of the US Dept of Agriculture (USDA)’s Agricultural Research Service, notes that the nature of these new pesticides and GMOs makes the prediction of toxic effects “challenging” and suggests the development of a special testing and regulatory framework to assess their safety.

            The paper confirms the conclusions of another recently published paper by researchers Jack Heinemann, Sarah Agapito-Tenfen and Judy Carman:

            The Science Media Centre New Zealand and the GMO “regulator” FSANZ dismissed the Heinemann et al study and claimed no special risks were posed by these RNAi type products Let’s see how they respond to this new paper. It will be politically difficult for them to dismiss the findings of USDA researchers in such a dishonest way.”

            Second quote:
            “Standard toxicity testing is inadequate to assess the safety of a new technology with potential for creating pesticides and genetically modifying crops, according to a Forum article published in the August issue of BioScience. The authors of the article, Jonathan G. Lundgren and Jian J. Duan of the USDA Agricultural Research Service, argue that pesticides and insect-resistant crops based on RNA interference, now in exploratory development, may have to be tested under elaborate procedures that assess effects on animals’ whole life cycles, rather than by methods that look for short-term toxicity.”

            The GM booster approach to science is to deny it exists. The genome and cells are far, far more complex than previously realised and this expanding knowledge reveals GM agriculture to be even more dangerous and ignorant than it first appeared.

          • Chris Preston

            The paper by Lundgren and Duan does not confirm the conclusions of Heinemann at all. That is because Heinemann’s conclusions were wrong.

            What Lundgren and Duan discuss are some possible risks of
            insecticidal RNAi technology in the environment that would need to be
            considered by regulators.

            Because RNAis do not act like chemicals, testing them as one
            would do chemicals would be inappropriate. The testing would have a
            significantly greater in silico component.

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            “These hazards could include off-target gene silencing or immune stimulation.” So it has been discovered twice that RNAi could silence genes or stimulate the immune system. This points to a huge issue.

            RNAi needs full scientific investigation not a ‘let’s put these new types of GM crops out there and by the time anyone can point to them causing harm we’ll have made billions” approach.

            No one, anywhere, needs to eat GM food. Millions of different types of crops have been developed to deal with all sorts of situations. What we need now is to conserve this biodiversity and allow it to feed us in these changing times.

          • Chris Preston

            I suppose there is no arguing with ignorance.

            Firstly, Heinemann did not discover that RNAi could silence off-target genes or stimulate the immune system. In fact the only bits of sequence Heinemann identified were in untranscribed parts of the genome, so there would be no mRNA for the RNAi to bind to. The rest is just idle speculation.

            Secondly, Lundgren and Duan also did not discover that RNAi could silence off-target genes or stimulate the immune system. They point to some potential risks of insecticidal RNAi on non-target organisms in the environment that would need to be addressed during the regulatory process.

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            Hi Chris, Are you Chris Preston, Australian weed scientist? Would you like to chat about superweeds and the new GM 2,4-D and dicamba crops to deal with them? Why did you not warn against these crops as others did? It was totally obvious that continual use of Roundup/glyphosate would force the rapid evolution of resistant weeds.

            Now you want to discuss the work of Heinemann, a geneticist with expertise in genetic engineering, bacterial genetics and biosafety. He produced a paper with Carman who has a BSc, Honours degree in Organic Chemistry , PhD in Medicine in the field of nutritional biochemistry and metabolic regulation and a Master of Public Health specialising in epidemiology and biostatistics. It was co-authored by Agapito who has a degree in Plant Genetic Resources.

            This is the ENSSER summary of their findings:

            “In a new peer-reviewed paper published by an international team from New Zealand, Brazil and Australia in the prestigious journal Environment International, the researchers Jack A. Heinemann, Sarah Z. Agapito-Tenfen and Judy A. Carman have found that government safety regulators are failing to consider important risks of new kinds of genetically modified (GM) plants and some emerging co-technologies.

            These plants are designed to make a form of genetic information called double-stranded RNA (dsRNA). While most existing GM plants are designed to make new proteins, these new GM plants make dsRNA in order to alter the way genes are expressed. Recent research has shown that dsRNAs can transfer from plants to humans and other animals through food. Potentially, they could also be transferred into people by inhaling dust from the plant (e.g., breathing-in flour from GM wheat while baking with it), or by absorption through the skin.

            The same technology is being developed for spraying directly onto plants as a type of pesticide spray. Another proposed use is to feed dsRNAs to insects such as bees to try to control bee viruses.

            While RNA is a normal component of all cells, in dsRNA form it can have effects that depend on the species and tissues exposed to it. According to Adjunct Associate Professor Judy Carman of Flinders University and a co-author of the paper: “The dsRNA molecules in GM plants may work exactly as intended and have no other effects. On the other hand, they may have effects that were not predicted, both on their target organisms and other organisms such as people and wildlife. We won’t know until we do thorough assessments, and these assessments have not yet been done.”

            The authors collectively reviewed three food or environment safety regulators with jurisdiction in three countries, Australia, Brazil and New Zealand. The regulatory decisions were on three different kinds of GM plants that do or may produce new dsRNA molecules and were intended for use as food or animal feed. The authors recorded their advice to the regulators and the responses from the regulators.

            “Each regulator found reasons not to ask the product developers to specifically test for effects from dsRNA, and thus relied on assumptions rather than testing to determine safety” said co-author Sarah Agapito-Tenfen, a doctoral student at the Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina in Brazil.

            “To our surprise, we found that there are no internationally agreed protocols or even guidelines for how to conduct a thorough and proper risk assessment on products with new dsRNA molecules in them” said Prof. Jack Heinemann of Canterbury University in New Zealand, member of ENSSER and the study’s lead author. To fill this gap, the authors have developed the first formal assessment procedure for dsRNA-based products, whether they are living genetically modified organisms or agents that are sprayed onto plants.”

            I find it extraordinary that, as a weed specialist, you are dismissing work outside of your field, where is your evidence for your dismissal? It is also extremely alarming that you are accepting the assumptions of the regulators that ds RNA is safe and so doesn’t need to be tested. What lunacy is this? It is certainly not science.

          • Chris Preston

            Thank you for your concern; however, I am confident that I have sufficient expertise to critique Heinemann and Carman’s work. It is not too hard, Heinemann used the wrong piece of sequence and when that was pointed out, he posted a correction. As the correction found no links to any transcribed piece of DNA, all of Carman’s speculations about harm were irrelevant.

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            You are missing the wood for the trees. I am also not convinced of your expertise in this area. “Heinemann used the wrong piece of sequence and when that was pointed out he posted a correction.” I assume you are referring here to Heinemann’s work on CSIRO’s GM wheat. He made assumptions about the DNA as it was not available. He found matches that indicate that human genes could be affected by the ds RNA.

            Interestingly the Nunes etc al study “Non-target effects of green fluorescent protein derived dsRNA used in honeybee RNAi assays” 2013 found that the expression of 1400 of the bees’ genes were altered in response to a certain type of dsRNA administered in their food. This was a shock as this particular dsRNA had been used as a control in honeybee experiments as its gene sequence does not exist in honeybees and so was not expected to trigger RNAi responses in the bees. In short you do not need to have matching sequences to create an effect.

            Hanning et al “lack of correlation between predicted and actual off-target effects of short-interfering RNAs targeting the human papillomavirus type 16 E7 oncogene” 2013. They attempted to predict which genes would be silenced in human cells based on full knowedlge ot the seuence of the dsRNAs there were using and failed. They concluded bioinformatics are inadequate to predict the effects of dsRNAs without specific biological testing. In other words you don’t know what they do unless you test them. Why are you assuming safety and therefore advocating no testing?

            Heinemann’s and Carman’s views were endorsed by Michael Antoniou:

            “It is clear from the up-to-date, comprehensive, and scientifically sound evidence provided by Assoc Prof Carman and Prof Heinemann in their statements that there are genuine, significant safety issues connected with the consumption of the CSIRO SEI/SEII shRNA GM wheat that
            need to be evaluated comprehensively and generically as they suggest. Most worryingly from what Prof Carman has discovered is that the regulatory bodies overseeing the risk assessment and approval of GM crops in Australia seem to be out of step with the latest developments in the field of RNAi biology and technology and therefore not taking the necessary steps to properly evaluate the safety of the SEI/SEII shRNA GM wheat.”

            Dr Michael Antoniou is head of the Nuclear Biology Group at Kings College. “The main focus of research within the NBG is the characterisation of genetic regulatory elements with dominant chromatin remodelling (opening) capability and their exploitation in the development of efficient expression vectors for efficacious and safe biotechnological and especially gene therapy applications.

            During the first 10 years of its inception, the NBG has characterised the first muscle-specific LCR associated with the human desmin gene locus and has discovered a completely novel class of genetic regulatory element designated as a “ubiquitously-acting chromatin opening element (UCOE)” linked to the human HNRPA2B1-CBX3 housekeeping genes. The NBG’s current main focus is to exploit the basic molecular biology discoveries it has made within the field of human gene and cell therapy.”

            I suggest he knows more about the effects of genes on human health than you, a weed scientist.

            Finally Heinemann, Agapito-Tenfen and Carman wrote a peer-reviewed paper on how the assessment of RNA could be assessed by regulators.

            A comparative evaluation of the regulation of GM crops or products containing dsRNA and suggested improvements to risk assessments. 2013.

            You are dangerous in promoting yourself as a weed scientists pronouncing on barely understood RNA and human health.

        • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

          Carried to it’s conclusion, here’s what the demands of the science illiterate will result in on our packaging:
          This product contains heritage strains.
          This product is influenced by the use of grafting methods.
          This product contains plants enhanced by seed selection.
          May contain ingredients stored in a facility near a GOP headquarters.
          Produced in a facility exposed to wifi signals.
          This plant is the result of natural selection.
          This plant was cultivated in a field once planted with heritage strains.
          This plant is the result of 4.3 billion years of evolution.
          This product contains remnants of DNA that were once alive.
          This plant evolved with the aid of mitosis errors.
          On and on ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
          Get a grip, people!

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            GM derived ingredients are labelled on food in the EU. This means it can be done. The EU also labels GM stockfeed so farmers know if they are feeding their animals GM feed. The labelling system would be improved if products from GM fed animals were labelled. A simple change.

            If you are so proud of GM, why do you want it hidden in our food? You should proudly label it GM.

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            Europe got so carried away with the witch hunt the WTO had to pass a law prohibiting arbitrary import bans of GMOs world wide.

            Ther is nothing to hide because there is nothing there. GMO is a process, not an ingredient. How many microwaves remain in your food after you warm it?

            The debate is over.

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            Hmm people not wanting to eat patented, inadequately tested, unnecessary food is a ‘witch hunt.” The WTO is a bastion of freedom and sanity (ha ha).

            GM is a process not an ingredient! This is a new argument. GM is a method of damaging the DNA of a plant cell in order to get it to take up a gene cassette of DNA from bacteria, viruses and synthetic/chimeric genes. The insertion of this cassette can cause system wide disruption of the organism, none of which is adequately tested for – the FDA scientists actually said they didn’t know how they could test for these changes.

            The GM crop is usually sprayed with a weedkiller so there are these additional pesticide residues in the GM crop. Alternatively it will create its own toxin that cannot be washed off. Therefore the GM process creates all sorts of new products in the plant itself and therefore this transfers into the food itself.

            You misunderstanding of what GM is is spectacular. Try reading Latham’s paper “The mutational consequences of plant transformation” for an introduction. There are other papers you can read too especially interesting is the stuff on dsRNA.

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            The fact GMO is a process is a relatively old and widely established argument in the states.

            Any pesticide used in patented crops is less toxic and 1/10th the pounds per acre required on conventional crops. This is why farmers line up to buy patented seed – increased profits due to less chemicals required.

            The debate is over. The verdict is in. GMOs are the future of food for feeding the uncontrolled masses.

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            My post showed that GM is both a process and an ingredient. Therefore your claim that it is not an ingredient is wrong.

            Your claim regarding the lower toxicity of pesticides used on patented crops needs substantiation.

            As previously mentioned GM crops have created superpests and superweeds and that is why the latest round are resistant to 2,4-D as well as glyphosate and glufosinate. How you can consider this progress or even food is amazing to me.

            Read the Ken Roseboro article “Can non-GM supply keep up with demand?” about the increasing demand for non-GM ingredients in US food.

            “Feeding the uncontrolled masses” that would be your family, friends and neighbours? Your compatriots and the myriad of mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, grandmothers, grandfathers, children and babies who we are lucky enough to share our world with?

            All the research shows that the way to feed us, while reducing poverty and cooling the climate, is to use agroecology.

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            Your post showed nothing. DNA is DNA regardless of source. It is destroyed in our stomachs.

            There are no microscopic devil horns or swastikas on DNA altered in a lab vs. DNA altered by any other evolutionary or hunam influenced selection process.

            There are no DNA demons hiding behind a rock waiting to spring out and suddenly kill you after 20 years of daily consumption. Humans have always known about toxic or indigestible plants or animals, we simply avoid them. End of story.
            The debate is over.

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            “The argument advanced… for the safety of GM food is false….Yes, the DNA of all living organisms is made up of four nucleotides, and yes, virtually all proteins are made up from just 20 amino acids. But this does not imply that everything containing these basic building blocks is without risk to human beings. The same units, arranged in different ways, are contained in the smallpox virus, bubonic plague and influenza, deadly nightshade and other poisonous plants, creatures such as poisonous jellyfish, scorpions, deadly snakes, sharks – and people who talk absolute nonsense.”

            G.D.W. Smith, Fellow of the Royal Society, professor of materials, Oxford Uni.

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            One man’s opinion. I need only defer to the article above to rebut you.

            And of course the scientific community at large finds no issue with GMO foods. Kudos for your persistence but the ship has sailed.

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            Debates aren’t over because you do not like what is being revealed. The change in the understanding of the science around genetics since the lauch of the first GM crop is enormous. King Canute could not hold back the tide, and neither can the GM industry hold back either failures on the ground or scientific discoveries that show their technology to be ridiculous and dangerous.

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            Where are the bodies? Where are the piles of corpses?
            Feeding quack sites by increasing their visitor tally(and ad revenue) only feeds ignorance.

            Better to heed the real emergency of our population explosion and develop ways to feed the thronging hordes before the piles of starved corpses becomes reality

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            From Science Daily

            Dramatic increase in hospitalization of US children with inflammatory bowel disease
            Date: June 25, 2013
            Source:University Hospitals Case Medical Center
            Summary:
            The largest investigation to date has found a dramatic increase in hospitalizations
            for children with inflammatory bowel disease during the past decade in the US. The study found a 65 percent increase in IBD hospital discharges from 2000 – 2009.
            “(T)his increasing trend was present in each age category and across all geographic regions.”

            We should not have to look for ‘bodies’. GMO’s should have undergone proper toxicological, carcinogenic, multi-generational, long-term animal feeding trials BEFORE being fed to people.

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            You might as well blame it on vaccines, fluoride, rap music, nature deficit syndrome or bleached flour.
            No connection to GMOs.

            Also no connection to hive collapse disorder or kidney failure or Indian farmer suicides so don’t bother with citing those conspiracies.

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            No. It is quite clear that many people in the US find their health improves when they remove GM from the diet. Some doctors are recommending a GM-free diet.

            You cannot possibly dismiss the potential/probable link with GM food unless you have proper toxicological and other studies. They do not exist.

            You also need epidmiological studies showing the massive increase in ill-health has nothing to do with GM. Not one such study has been done. They can’t be done as GM food is not labelled.

            As you can read in the “GMO myths and truths” report the animal studies show harm from GM foods and their associated chemicals. This is mirrored in the ill-health of farm animals fed GM feed. It is also reflected in the ill-health of people living near GM soy fields in South America and also as said above in the US population.

            GM promoters are a bunch of shills without a shred of evidence to promote their position. Why are you doing this? You eat too.

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            The scientific community’s verdict is in.
            Why are you doing this?

            I’ll answer that question for you – you have no discrimination or BS filter to block biased tin foil hat quacksters and their agenda driven web sites. You can’t produce any unbiased data that shows anything but a placebo effect from ‘avoiding GMOs’. same mechanism is feeding the silly gluten free craze.

            I’ll be happy to do this with you until the thread is closed, I’ll never concede one millimeter on the veracity of scientific fact.

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            No the ‘scientific community’s’ verdict is not in. There are plenty of scientists who signed the statement “No Scientific Consensus on GMO safety.”

            Where is your ‘scientific fact?’ GM approval in the US is a voluntary exchange of letters between the FDA and the company wanting to release the GM food. The final letter states that since the GM company says the food is safe there is no need for the FDA to do a pre-market assessment. I don’t consider that to be scientific.

            Insulting me does not make your arguments any stronger.

            Have a look at the 300 page report “GMO myths and truths” by Earth Open Source that lists the peer-reviewed studies showing harm.

            Why am I doing this? Because I eat and feed my family and the takeover of food and farming by stealth is a crime.

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            FROM THE ABOVE ARTICLE:

            Within the scientific community, the debate over the safety of GM foods is over. The overwhelming conclusion is, in the words of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, that “consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.” Major scientific and governmental organizations agree. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences found that “no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population,” and a report issued by the European Commission made the same claim. The World Health Organization has concluded that GM foods “are not likely, nor have been shown, to present risks for human health.”
            If you do not like it why are you posting in this thread? The tone of the above article sets the tone of the thread. Deal with it of bug off. From now on I will be pasting this paragraph into every single reply you make until it soaks in.

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            The National Academy of Sciences notes there are sizeable gaps in the knowledge of how GM crops function and how they may affect health. (Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of GE Foods on Human Health, 2004).

            THe WHO notes that there has been no post-market surveillance of GM foods (WHO 2013).

            “No adverse health effects ATTRIBUTED to GE have been DOCUMENTED”. This merely reveals the lack of formal epidemiological studies. This does not show the GM foods that have been launched on the public untested and unlabelled have been scientifically proven safe to eat.

            People are finding their health improves when GM is removed from their diets and doctors are advising people to remove these foods. See the American Academy of Environmental Medicine statement on GM foods:

            “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill’s Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility.5 The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.2,6,7,8,9,10,11

            Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported. Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation, including upregulation of cytokines associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation. 6,11 Animal studies also show altered structure and function of the liver, including altered lipid and carbohydrate metabolism as well as cellular changes that could lead to accelerated aging and possibly lead to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). 7,8,10 Changes in the kidney, pancreas and spleen have also been documented. 6,8,10 A recent 2008 study links GM corn with infertility, showing a significant decrease in offspring over time and significantly lower litter weight in mice fed GM corn.8 This study also found that over 400 genes were found to be expressed differently in the mice fed GM corn. These are genes known to control protein synthesis and modification, cell signaling, cholesterol synthesis, and insulin regulation. Studies also show intestinal damage in animals fed GM foods, including proliferative cell growth9 and disruption of the intestinal immune system.6

            Regarding biological gradient, one study, done by Kroghsbo, et al., has shown that rats fed transgenic Bt rice trended to a dose related response for Bt specific IgA. 11

            Also, because of the mounting data, it is biologically plausible for Genetically Modified Foods to cause adverse health effects in humans.”

            Note that the numbers in this statement refer to peer-reviewed scientific papers. They do not say “are not likely”.

            If you cannot see the difference between assumptions and evidence then no wonder you support GM crops.

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            This is the only reply you will get from me from now on:

            Within the scientific community, the debate over the safety of GM foods is over. The overwhelming conclusion is, in the words of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, that “consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.” Major scientific and governmental organizations agree. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences found that “no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population,” and a report issued by the European Commission made the same claim. The World Health Organization has concluded that GM foods “are not likely, nor have been shown, to present risks for human health.”

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            Yes, GM proponents always end up repeating mantras because they can’t produce the evidence for their statements. You are saying to me “believe GM is fine because these eminent groups says nothing negative has yet been definitely attributed to GM.” Firstly this is not an evidence based argument but an appeal to authority. Secondly there is no body of science to back up even their equivocal statements. Instead, as i have listed in previous post, there is mounting evidence of harm from GM crops and food from scientists, farmers, doctors and eaters.

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            Within the scientific community, the debate over the safety of GM foods is over. The overwhelming conclusion is, in the words of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, that “consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.” Major scientific and governmental organizations agree. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences found that “no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population,” and a report issued by the European Commission made the same claim. The World Health Organization has concluded that GM foods “are not likely, nor have been shown, to present risks for human health.”

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            Well I’m glad that’s over and anyone who wants to know anything about GM and how its (not) been tested has plenty of clues how to do so.

            Goodbye and sweet dreams!

    • Mike Stevens

      “There is no body of scientific evidence showing that GM food is safe for us to eat or that it is as safe as non-GM food.”

      There is also is no body of scientific evidence showing that non-GM food is safe for us to eat or that it is as safe as GM food.

      • John

        I’m very worried about non-GM food. non-GM should be banned, until we have done adequate studies on it.

      • MADGE Australia Inc

        You may not have spotted this but people have been eating and breeding crops for thousands of years.

        Introducing DNA from bacteria and viruses via an agrobacterium designed to allow the plant to either create insecticide or be sprayed with weedkiller is a massive divergence from our previous food.

        This is acknowledged as such by the patents granted. At the very least this GM ‘food’ should have undergone rigorous independent testing but this has not been the case.

        Making silly statements does not disguise the danger that this technology presents to us and the living world.

        • Mike Stevens

          “You may not have spotted this but people have been eating and breeding crops for thousands of years”
          You mean genetic modification has been going on for that long?
          Gosh, I never realised it.

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            You may not have spotted the difference between using cross-breeding or selective breeding and using agrobacterium to insert DNA from bacteria and viruses, synthetic or chimeric genes into plants before using tissue culture to grow the affected cells into GM plants, but the patent office has.

  • Bob_Phelps

    We’d have a much better idea about GM food safety if government regulators of genetically manipulated crops and foods, and the laws and regulations under which they operate, were more scientific and inclusive. They should set in advance the benchmarks and standards for the scope, scale and replicabilty of the evidence applicants are required to submit. The onus of proof should thus be on the applicants to show GM food is safe – not with the regulators or the public to show they are unsafe.
    Instead of such a rational, scientific system, in Australia at least we have an ad hoc, case by case, ‘science-based’ system operated by the OGTR http://www.ogtr.gov.au/ and FSANZ http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx that allows applicants to submit unpublished, non-peer-reviewed data and references, much of it irrelevant to safety – such as chicken breast meat weight. Neither regulator has ever rejected a GM application.
    FSANZ’s primary sources of toxicological data, for its invariable decisions that GM foods are just as safe as their conventional counterparts, are company-generated. Its judgements on safety apply a policy that a chemical analysis of end products is the sole basis for safety decisions – that the process of food production is irrelevant. While they critique animal feeding studies, the data from this source is excluded from consideration.
    Our GM regulatory system requires a fundamental overhaul. It would improve the evidence and discussion on GM food safety.

  • Bob_Phelps

    Another key health issue not discussed here is that when industrial
    farming hits the wall, with its key inputs of oil and phosphates depleted,
    agro-ecological systems that nurture seed, soil and water resources will be essential to feed future generations. We should transition to these systems asap to minimize the negative impacts of climate change and input loss. Two possible models for the needed changes are: the UN’s IAASTD report http://www.unep.org/dewa/assessments/ecosystems/iaastd/tabid/105853/default.aspx and the UNCTAD Trade and Environment Review 2013 http://unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?publicationid=666
    These reports see no place for GM crops which are designed to prop up the present ailing industrial system.

  • Bob_Phelps

    Questions about the safety of GM crops, by Hector Valenzuela, a professor and crop specialist at the University of Hawaii-Manoa also makes some useful points: http://thegardenisland.com/news/opinion/guest/questions-about-the-safety-of-gm-crops/article_a070ae88-1f80-11e4-bd61-001a4bcf887a.html

    • Tom

      How to rate your crop scientists:

      Hits on PubMed for Hector R Valenzuela = 0 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Valenzuela+HR%5Bau%5D )

      Hits on PubMed for Kevin M Folta = 41 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Folta+KM%5Bau%5D )

      • Bob_Phelps

        Being prolific on the publication treadmill is only one measure of the worth of scientific opinions, especially when the subject is about matters close to home. Consider also http://agroeco.org/publications/ for instance.

        • Tom

          There is no greater joy for a research scientist (such as myself) to get lectures from non-scientists (such as yourself) on what makes good science. Let me spell it out for you: Hector Valenzuela is a scientific lightweight desperate for attention. He is no different from the pathetic has-beens employed by the Koch brothers to try and disprove that global warming isn’t happening (and failing miserably at it). If prof Valenzuela has scientifically grounded concerns about GMOs then he should design the appropriate experiments to test that hypothesis and publish the results in a reputable journal. And HuffPost ain’t it, baby.

          • susan

            Perhaps you would share a link to one [JUST ONE] long term (1 year+) INDEPENDENT, published, peer reviewed long term study on the health effects of gmo consumption that shows it is safe, no health or environmental problems? Not ‘reviews’ of studies… one study.

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            FIRST – show us the bodies. Where are the piles of corpses due to our 20 years of eating GMOs, trillions of meals served??

            Life has way too many actual existing issues to waste effort chasing ghosts and witches.

          • susan

            Without labeling, there is no traceability, no accountability and no liability… but perhaps you can connect some dots?

            Disease epidemiology correlations. Be sure to study the charts..
            http://gmofreewashington.com/wordpress/our-experts/nancy-swanson/

            End Stage Renal Disease Deaths plotted against %GE corn & soy planted.
            http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/pofs1.png

            New Study Links GMOs To Cancer, Liver/Kidney Damage & Severe Hormonal Disruption –
            http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/07/15/new-study-links-gmos-to-cancer-liverkidney-damage-severe-hormonal-disruption/

            U.S. Health in International Perspective – Shorter Lives, Poorer Health
            http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2013/US-Health-International-Perspective/USHealth_Intl_PerspectiveRB.pdf
            http://obssr.od.nih.gov/pdf/IOM%20Report.pdf

            U.S. Top of List for First-Day Deaths in Rich Nations
            “In the United States, babies are 50 percent more likely to die on the same day they were born than in all of the other industrialized countries combined..”
            http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130508-united-states-babies-newborn-mothers-infant-mortality-save-the-children/

            TIME.COM Why Organic Is the Right Choice for Parents
            http://time.com/2914155/organic-food-children-health/

            We’re No. 26! US below average on most health measures
            http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/were-no-26-us-below-average-most-health-measures-f2D11635080

            U.S. Ranks Below 16 Other Rich Countries
            http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/01/09/168976602/u-s-ranks-below-16-other-rich-countries-in-health-report

          • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

            All those links to quack sites and yet there is no death epidemic. Where are the corpses?
            Where are the piles of bodies?

          • hyperzombie

            Susan, correlation does not equal cause causation.

            Or this would be true:

            Margarine causes divorces in Maine

          • susan

            lol Hi zombieboy! How ya doing? Have any Roundup Ready kids yet? :)

          • Mike Stevens

            I am reminded by this exchange between susan and tom of Monty Python’s black knight.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikssfUhAlgg
            No prizes for guessing which is which.

          • hyperzombie

            Still working on some little zombies, thanks for asking. I will tell you when when I know..

          • lilady R.N.

            Love you comment.

          • John

            > Susan, correlation does not equal cause causation.

            It does when it fits my agenda!!

          • hyperzombie

            I noticed that she never mentions that the overall cancer rate started going down at the same time GMOs were introduced. Weird how that works.

          • John

            This is why I eat LOTS of gmos. Because the evidence of their danger is equally as strong as the evidence that GMO CURES CANCER!!!

          • Loren Eaton

            Wasn’t it Jeffrey Smith who said we’d need body bags? Glad I didn’t invest in THAT venture.

          • John

            The GMO foods we have been eating are obviously ‘safe’ in general terms. Fearing GMO foods is a form of insanity.

          • JoeFarmer

            Perhaps you would share a link to one [JUST ONE] long term (1 year+) INDEPENDENT, published, peer reviewed long term study on the health effects of gmo consumption grown in space under zero gravity conditions.

            !Zomg! Oh U can’t? That must mean teh gomz are bad!

          • susan

            lol I didn’t think you could….

          • Tom

            I think your post perfectly illustrates your lack of understanding about how science works and above all how this technology works. You are asking me for a single study that demonstrates that all GMOs in existence and that will ever exist will all be safe to eat and have no harmful impact on the environment. Obviously there is no such study and there will never be one because it is impossible (which perfectly meets your impossible standards). The reason is twofold. First, “safety” or “no environmental harm” is simply the absence of negative impacts on either health or the environment. In other words, you want me to prove a negative, which by definition is impossible. It’s like trying to prove that we’re the only living things in the universe. Until we’re capable of interstellar travel we can’t even begin to address the question and if we could and then fail to find any other life in the entire universe, how can we be sure we didn’t miss a spot? So when we say that GMOs are safe we mean that currently there is no evidence the GMOs are inherently less safe to eat than there non-GM equivalents. I might add that we cannot prove that regular food is safe to eat either. (We can make a long detour about at what level we draw the line for “safety” as well.) Fruit and vegetables contain plenty of toxins in minute amounts but whether or not they affect our health in a negative way is very difficult to determine.

            The second reason why it’s impossible to show that all GMOs that can ever exist will be safe to eat is that one could easily make GMOs that are lethal. Two of most potent toxins known, botulinum toxin and ricin, are both proteins meaning that they encoded by genes (the botulinum toxin gene is found in the soil bacterium Clostridium botulinum, ricin is found in the castor bean). If you were to insert either gene into a food crop it would make a deadly meal. Or say you were to insert either gene into a common grass species in the Serengeti. There would be a massive ecological disaster when all the grazers would die out. So basically GMOs are neither inherently safe nor inherently dangerous. It depends on what the actual modification is. Each GMO must be judged on its own merits.

          • susan

            1. I did not ask for a study that covered all GE food crops.

            2. You just successfully argued my point very well, thank you! May I quote you?

          • Tom

            “I did not ask for a study that covered all GE food crops.” You didn’t? This is what you asked: “Perhaps you would share a link to one [JUST ONE] long term (1 year+) INDEPENDENT, published, peer reviewed long term study on the health effects of gmo consumption that shows it is safe, no health or environmental problems? Not ‘reviews’ of studies… one study.”

            So when you say “GMO consumption”, did you have a particular GMO in mind or did you want me to provide an example of a safety study on a particular event? There is a wide range of different kinds of GMOs ranging from bacteria to yeasts, plants and even animals. So obviously there will be a difference in terms of their properties. Or as I put it in my previous post – each and every GMO must be judged on its own merits. And judging from the second part of your reply, you obviously did not understand it: “Your post presents a vivid picture of why we should never consume these GE frankenfoods. Let’s ban them shall we? They fail on every promise of yield, bug killing, weed killing, feeding the world etc.”

            It’s unclear if you’re making a distinction between GE food crops and other kinds of GMOs (microbes or animals). Transgenic GloFish (http://www.glofish.com/ ) will obviously never feed the world – but AquaAdvantage salmon might. Also you seem to make no distinction between traits. Herbicide resistance does not help against insect pests or plant diseases. Herbicide resistant crops were never developed to save the world or even increase yields. They were developed because they are a very attractive product to farmers and makes their lives a lot easier – so much in fact that they are willing to pay a higher price for the seeds (and in the case of soy and canola, agree not to save the seed). The fact that it also allows the ag companies to sell their own brand herbicide in tandem with the seed makes perfect sense form a business point of view. But even so there have been additional benefits from industry-developed GE crops to the environment (an increase in no-till farming practices which decreases soil erosion, increases water retention and increases soil carbon), the consumer (lower levels of mycotoxins in insect-resistant corn) and the farmer (increased yields in RR sugarbeets, see this post by Andrew Kniss http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2014/02/gmo-failure-to-yield/ ). Insect-resistant crops (Bt) are not expected to increase yields if all they do is replace chemical insecticides, which again makes it an attractive product for farmers who are the ones that would otherwise be exposed to high levels of insecticides during spraying. But if you’re a subsistence farmer in Bangladesh, chances are that you can’t afford insecticides and therefore lose a part of your harvest to pests. But if you have access to the newly released (public sector) Bt eggplant, you are likely to see your yields increase if you were not using insecticides before. Virus-resistant papaya does exactly what it promised i.e. it is resistant to ringspot virus and so your yields will be substantially higher in an infected area than if you were growing the non-engineered (susceptible) version. The ringspot virus is spread by insects so if you’re growing a non-GE papaya variety, you will have to spray heavily to avoid your crop getting infected. Therefore virus-resistant papayas actually reduce the application of insecticides.

          • susan

            Pick one of the most prevalent GE food crops… easy. Just ONE.. lol

          • Tom
          • RobertWager

            How about 24:

            }a
            b s t r a c t

            }The
            aim of this systematic review was to collect data concerning the effects of
            diets containing GM maize,

            }potato,
            soybean, rice, or triticale on animal health. We
            examined 12
            long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration) and 12 multigenerational studies
            (from 2 to 5 generations). We referenced
            the 90-day studies on GM feed for which
            long-term or multigenerational study data were available.
            Many parameters have been examined using
            biochemical analyses, histological examination of specific
            organs, hematology and the detection of
            transgenic DNA. The statistical findings and methods have been
            considered from each study. Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards
            and, in general,
            there were no statistically significant
            differences within parameters observed.
            However, some small
            differences were observed, though these fell within
            the normal variation range of the considered parameter
            and thus had no biological or toxicological
            significance. If required, a 90-day feeding study performed
            in rodents, according to the OECD Test
            Guideline, is generally considered sufficient in order to evaluate
            the health effects of GM feed. The studies reviewed present evidence to
            show that GM
            plants are nutritionally
            equivalent to
            their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and
            feed.

            }

            }Food
            and Chemical Toxicology 50 (2012) 1134–1148

          • John

            The GMO crazies do not like facts.

          • Sienna Rosachi

            My experience with research scientists is that they know their research well, but are often not well rounded in their understanding of the literature overall.

          • Tom

            What? What does that even mean? “Literature overall.” If a research scientist is not familiar with the literature within his or her own field, then the scientist per definition does not know his or her own field. My research field is fairly small yet I still have to read 20-30 research articles per week. Researchers in bigger fields like cancer, epigenetics, HIV etc have to skim through hundreds of articles every week. So that begs the question – what kind of researchers have you actually met? How many? I personally know hundreds of researchers and their understanding of the literature overall in their respective fields is excellent. If not they would soon be out of a job.

          • Chris Preston

            I was bemused by this comment as well. It suggested to me that you do not know many research scientists.

      • susan

        Ask who funded Folta’s research…

        • Tom

          I’m sure it was an unholy cabal of the Freemasons, the Illumunati and the Lizard People.

          • Loren Eaton

            Tom,
            You forgot the Pentavirate: The Queen, The
            Vatican, The Gettys, The Rothschilds, and Colonel Sanders before he went t^%$ up.

          • Tom

            Also George Soros and possibly ManBearPig.

          • susan

            ok you are a complete wacko! Thanks for exposing yourself..

          • Tom

            Despite your constant LOL-ing, you lot really do not have a sense of humor. Or fail to get the joke. Or most likely both.

  • Sarah Abrams

    I would put anti vax, gun control advocates and global warming deniers int eh same basket. Pew found that of the 1/3 of Americans who want more gun control over 97% think gun murder is up, when US gun murder has plunged 50% in 20 years.

    It is interesting you mention Mother Jones since hey endless write on gun issues without mention that core fact, which is an identical core data reversal issue the climate change deniers use

  • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

    The last question in the article is a good one. The top comment in the article is off the mark. I see no liberal tilt towards genetic ignorance. As an ultra liberal, Darwinist and genetically literate person I have over 1000 comments in support of truth at the Grist site and Nathaniel Johnson has built a name for himself including endorsement by NPR.

  • Michael Larkin

    “Why is denial of scientific consensus on one issue (such as the safety of GMOs) given a forum so frequently at Huffington Post and elsewhere, while similar denial of scientific consensus on another issue (such as as the safety of vaccines) is considered verboten?

    “Is it that one form of denial is more socially acceptable than the other?”

    I note the use of the pejorative word “denial”. This implies that the consensus view is right, and it is therefore wrong to challenge it. IOW, the scientific result is in: GMOs have been proven to be perfectly safe, as has vaccination.

    My point isn’t that I disagree with consensus on these two issues; actually, I agree with it on both. But what I don’t do is categorise those who disagree with me as deniers of established fact. They are simply people who disagree
    with me, and thank God that there are such, on these and many other issues, because without disagreement, making progress, scientific or otherwise, becomes difficult.

    Historically, sometimes consensus views have prevailed, and at other times, they have not. With the benefit of hindsight, we may pronounce dissenters as having been ill-informed or even idiots, or exactly the opposite, proclaim them as heroes.

    Having dissension is good because it forces the questioning of orthodoxies. If the dissension turns out to be justified, then we stand to make progress. If it turns out to be unjustified, then we end up with something that is all the
    stronger because it has survived the criticism.

    In a situation where dissension is stigmatised by the use of pejorative terms like “denialism”, we run the risk of preventing either of the possible outcomes just mentioned. That is, we may prevent valuable new ideas becoming accepted and applied, as well as preventing healthy open debate that in the end may end up strengthening a particular orthodoxy.

    I want to speak up for the value of dissension even where I disagree with it, and not wield pejoratives against those in disagreement. The real danger in many of these types of controversies (there are many others: AGW, HIV-AIDS
    link, LENR research, Electric Universe theory, psi research, etc.) is that increasingly we are becoming less tolerant of dissent and less sensitive to its benefits.

    However, dissent is the life-blood of the evolution of human societies. If we don’t welcome and respect it, we risk devolving into societal stasis or even regressing. This could be the fate of Western society if the trend to stifle
    dissent continues. I don’t worry that some other society might not become more prominent, for surely it would, and progress would thereby continue; but in the interim, it would slow down aforesaid evolution.

    So in answer to your question, Keith, I would say that it’s misguided, and is based on what seems to be your perception that you know the truth about both GMOs and vaccination. Hence you are mystified why anyone could support the one and not the other, when your opinions on both are plainly right. Ergo, denialism must be in play: people are either stupid or misinformed, and there is in some sense a form of conscious culpability in their denial.

    Implicit in this attitude is hubris and intolerance of dissent. It says more about that and the kind of society that breeds it than it does about substantive issues concerning GMOs/vaccinations or any other area of controversy.

    • http://OrganicTransit.com/ Jim Gordon

      Too much of a head trip. Too long and boring. Give us the Cliff Notes version please.

    • patzagame

      Thank you,Micheal Larkin from the “denial”
      side.

      • John

        He’s not one of those idiots. He says himself:

        “My point isn’t that I disagree with consensus on these two issues; actually, I agree with it on both.”

    • barbarajanov

      Yes ,thanks, I deny the CDC’s science, which states thimerosal is ” probably safe”. They provided this link on the CDC page..to help build the “consensus”..http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/104/3/568.long

      come on in..get your “science” here..http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism/

      • lilady R.N.

        Your first link is to a statement issued in 1999 in support of the ban of Thimerosal in multi dose vials of vaccines, out of an abundance of caution…because there were not studies on the inorganic mercury compound. The only studies available in 1999 were studies about elemental Hg and organic mercury which are products of heavy industry and the burning of fossil fuels. Hg and organic mercury pollute are waterways and our food fish.

        Since 1999, hundreds of studies have been completed by viewing millions of children’s vaccine records, comparing those records to their medical records. No association has been found linking Thimerosal (or any other ingredient) in vaccines and the onset of autism…or any other developmental disability/disorder.

        The AAP now supports the use of Thimerosal in multi dose vials of vaccines. This statement in support of the AAP’s statement in support of Thimerosal, published in the AAP Journal “Pediatrics”, December, 2012…is self explanatory:

        http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/1/152.full.pdf

        • John

          Vaccine deniers do not like facts.

          • barbarajanov

            vaccine deniers? I thought it was science deniers. No, vaccines have proven very useful in stopping epidemics, they have failed however in preventing them. While herd immunity doesn’t exist beyond the age of six, and in the case of whooping cough it doesn’t exist at all, it’s only a real concept in the setting of natural disease. To maintain a level of “herd” immunity would require boosters given every five years or so to everyone. The unfortunate position we find ourselves in with vaccinating for anything parents will buy, is the very dangerous shift caused by vaccinating and boosting only the very young. Children experiencing shingles at nineteen months of age, adolescent and young adult males , fully vaccinated, experiencing mumps epidemics, adults with measles, in the current outbreaks of measles , more than fifty percent of the cases are in adults. Yes, we’ve created a very dangerous shift in ages for childhood diseases and the only cure is to keep on taking that shot, put everyone on the schedule over and over again. It’s not that we deny science, we actually read it. It’s not the group thinking many suggest, everyone I know, including myself, vaccinated their children and their children are suffering the consequences. We took a great scientific method to thwart certain dangerous diseases and abused it.

          • lilady R.N.

            Have you got any, um, links to your sources for each of those outrageous statements about vaccinated people being more likely to be infected during outbreaks?

          • barbarajanov

            do your own research..I will not do it for you…twisting my words is quite enough for tonight..

          • lilady R.N.

            I provided links to the sources for the research I have done…and you have not.

            Are you ashamed of your sources?

          • John

            > It’s not the group thinking many suggest,

            You may or may not be participating in the subculture which I shamelessly mock, but the subculture is still very real. And foolish, and fact allergic, and socially harmful.

            In what way are your children suffering the consequences of their vaccination?

            Regarding the rest of your post: I don’t doubt that we could bring a more intelligent approach to vaccinations than our current approach, but the anti-vaxxers are not going to be the people who bring us there. To develop an intelligent approach, we have to start by working with reality, not ideology-born fantasies.

        • barbarajanov

          My “first” linked statement was from the list on the MOST current CDC page, which was my second link. Everyone should get their shots, it’s for the common good …if you believe that vaccines provide herd immunity. I’m sure you can “dig up” some “real good” science on that concept.

          • lilady R.N.

            “My “first” linked statement was from the list on the MOST current CDC
            page, which was my second link.”

            Your second link from the CDC provided a chronological perspective which led up to the ban…which included your first link (the 1999 statement from the AAP). You obviously didn’t read any further…or, if you did you have some reading comprehension problems. If you had scrolled down, you would have seen links to some of the many Thimerosal safety studies, which I described in my comment above.

            Look here. The AAP has published an easy-to-read and easy-to-comprehend list of those studies’ results for the layperson to comprehend:

            http://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/vaccinestudies.pdf

            “Everyone should get their shots, it’s
            for the common good …if you believe that vaccines provide herd
            immunity. I’m sure you can “dig up” some “real good” science on that
            concept.”

            Sure. You bet. To keep it simple, here’s a link to an article with diagrams detailing how herd/community immunity works.

            http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/pages/communityimmunity.aspx

          • barbarajanov

            ubetcha…however, those little cartoon people would need to be boosted every five years . I suppose they weren’t aware of that detail in 2010? catch-up on some literature concerning titers after four..five..six years…

          • lilady R.N.

            Huh? For a variety of reasons, which include secondary vaccine failure (waning immunity against pertussis), which are too complicated for you to understand, the CDC recommends a booster vaccine (Tdap) for Tetanus, Diphtheria and Pertussis, for all children entering 7th grade, for every pregnant woman and for adults (close family and caregivers) who expect to have close contact with an infant under age one.

            Every epidemiological study of pertussis outbreaks, reveal that unvaccinated children have far greater risk of contracting pertussis….than those who have been vaccinated:

            http://www.news-medical.net/news/2009/05/26/Unvaccinated-children-23-times-more-likely-to-get-infected-with-whooping-cough.aspx

            We are still waiting for your links to your sources which you base all your outrageous, ill-informed, pseudo-scientific statements on.

            Are you ashamed of your sources?

          • barbarajanov

            I will not do your research..and I’m tiring of your game ….bullying behaviors don’t belong in this discussion..or do they? are they effective at getting your point across..do they draw in others as a cheer team of a kind..I’m at a loss to understand the name calling or the put downs those that hold to your position on this issue so often offer..

          • lilady R.N.

            I’ve done the research and I provided links to those research papers.

            You, OTH, “claim” to have done research…yet you post your outrageous ignorant-of-science “opinions”, which you cannot (or will not), provide the links to your “research” which you base your anti-vaccine “opinions” on.

            That’s the nature of science blogs. When you post on a topic, you should have no problem linking to your sources.

            Are you ashamed of your sources?

    • Sienna Rosachi

      Thanks for the thoughtful comment, what a breathe of fresh air. You truly understand science.

    • Mike Stevens

      The problem is that antivaccine activists don’t just “disagree” with the prevailing science, many of them actively campaign against vaccines, trying to persuade parents that their antivaccine view is correct, that science is corrupt and morally bankrupt, and will basically use any mechanism they know to force their negative perspective down the throats of others and to harass and threaten anyone who presents the consensus view.

      • John

        ^^ This, emphatically.

    • lilady R.N.

      The problem is that anti-vaxxers infest every part of the internet with their conspiracy theories and their pseudoscience. They actively try to dissuade young parents from getting their infants and children fully immunized.

      This…from the founder of “Generation Rescue” and a frequent columnist on Age of Autism:

      http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/03/tinderbox-us-vaccine-fears-up-700-in-7-years.html

      Tinderbox: U.S. Vaccine Fears up 700% in 7 years

      By J.B. Handley

      With
      less than a half-dozen full-time activists, annual budgets of six
      figures or less, and umpteen thousand courageous, undaunted, and
      selfless volunteer parents, our community, held together with duct tape
      and bailing wire, is in the early to middle stages of bringing the U.S.
      vaccine program to its knees….”

      • John

        TLDR, and I’m sure I’m not alone.

        I did get this far:

        ” But what I don’t do is categorise those who disagree with me as deniers of established fact.”

        Have you spent much time with these people???

        This is not about ‘categorising someone because they disagree with me’, these really are thriving communities of ignorant, irrational people promoting, seeding, spreading, nurturing complete insanity. They are many of the same people who believe in chemtrails.

    • FrenchKissed

      A lot of the anti-vax, anti-GMO posters on Huffington Post are also AIDS denialists. I’ve had it out with several of them before, and they’re insidious in spreading their tripe. They believe that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. They think HIV is a harmless little bug that the body can fight off naturally. They believe AIDS is caused by the pharmaceuticals prescribed to fight HIV combined with the emotional stress of thinking you have a deadly disease. In doing so they not only discourage HIV+ people from getting proper treatment but they also discourage people from informing partners of their sero-positive status.

      Did losing adherents to the geo-centric & flat earth theories slow scientific progress? Do you credit creationists for the cancer screening tests at our disposal? Disagreement isn’t useful when there’s nothing to back it, and this is doubly so when real lives are at stake. No one should be dying of vaccine preventable diseases or vitamin A deficiency in this day and age.

      Until the anti-GMO crusade comes up with evidence of the harm they purport (and they’ve invested many millions research without being able to do so) then all they’re doing is spreading harmful lies.

      • Sienna Rosachi

        You are spreading misinformation….again. I have seen your posts before. I believe in AIDS, vaccines, etc and have zero tolerance for conspiracy theories and yet I am not convinced that GMOs are safe or necessary. This is a technology that cannot be easily removed from the food supply. We must proceed with caution.

        • FrenchKissed

          I am glad to hear you are neither an anti-vaxxer nor an AIDS denialist, but that doesn’t mean I’m spreading misinformation.

          Mike Adams, one of the champion crusaders against GM food has written about it extensively on his Natural News website

          http://www.naturalnews com/028707_AIDS_epidemic.html#

          Note: I put a space instead of a dot before “com” because I didn’t want to link to his site from here. Feel free to copy/paste

          Why do you think it would be difficult to remove from the food system? That’s silly. Even Seralini’s study showed that GM corn was as safe to eat as conventionally grown corn, but if the claims he made were supported by the data he collected and GMO really did cause organ damage, cancer and premature death, they would be virtually eliminated from the next crop cycle and totally gone after that.

          No point in bringing up the RR wheat growing in Oregon. Even if they could explain how it suddenly sprang up out of nowhere, six years after the last test crop was destroyed, it hasn’t been found growing anywhere since.

  • Tom

    Keith, this comment thread needs a warning label for readers with nut allergies.

  • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

    This is the REAL problem with GMOs. After you dump x+y+z chemicals on the crops, the weeds (and the bugs) still come back. And we (and the farm animals) continue to eat increasing levels of these pesticides. The only ones winning are the chemical companies, and big pharma- because on the other end, we are not so well.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/12/us/invader-storms-rural-america-shrugging-off-herbicides.html?_r=1

    • hyperzombie

      How much does Big Tillage pay you to post these lies, Tillage Troll. Or do you work for the insecticide companies, that want to sell more Organophosphates? How much do these industries pay you? Or do you own stock in John Deere and Bayer Chemicals?

  • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

    Glyphosate use up. What is more, as we have gone along, concentrations have been greatly increased, as the product has failed to work. http://farmwars.info/?p=11515

    • Loren Eaton

      Kathleen, why is it that the people who complain the loudest about this would never be caught dead using Round-up in the first place?

    • hyperzombie

      Failed to work…..LOL. It is the worlds most popular herbicide. Even in countries that ban the cultivation of GMOs it is still the number one herbicide by far.

      • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

        Maybe that is why we have so much weed resistance to it. Over 50% of US farmland. Mull that over for a minute. Good idea?

        • FrenchKissed

          We know exactly why there are roundup resistant weeds- it’s basic evolution. The problem was never that they used too much roundup. Using too much roundup doesn’t cause weed resistance. The problem was that they were relying too heavily on roundup and not using different types of herbicide with different modes of action in conjunction with their roundup.

          Roundup resistance was a developing problem long before GMOs came to be. All weeds, by their very nature, are superweeds that have evolved and with continue to evolve to survive poor growing conditions and herbicide application. Your best bet at controlling them is to use several classes of herbicide with different types of application and different modes of action. The short life cycle and prolific breeding of weeds allows them to evolve in a short period of time. An advantageous mutation that protects them from a single class of herbicide can happen fairly easily. For a weed to spontaneously mutate to withstand three different classes of herbicide or forms of weed control is improbable if not impossible.

        • Chris Preston

          Resistance to glyphosate has occurred because the product has worked too well. As it has been so successful it has been extremely widely used. Where weed control relies heavily on a single tactic, whether that is a herbicide or tillage, resistance can be expected.

          Glyphosate resistance is a problem, but it is not the end of the world. Australian farmers have been managing glyphosate resistant weeds since 1996.

          I find it somewhat amusing that your evidence for glyphosate failing to works is that it worked too well.

  • Kathleen Kelly Hallal

    Weed resistance is OUT OF CONTROL- the GM industry’s answer? More chemicals, of course! http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/weeds/herbicide-resistance-files/hr-map-2006-2013

    • hyperzombie

      not more chemicals just different ones. It has always been this way with herbicides.

      • JoeFarmer

        Yeah, the suburban chica knows way more about herbicides than you. And me.

        Kathleen Kelly Hallal is Dunning Kruger.

        • Sienna Rosachi

          Maybe she does?

          • JoeFarmer

            There’s zero chance of that – just read her posts!

          • hyperzombie

            LOL,,,,funny.

    • JoeFarmer

      Ask your hubby how stupid you are.

      • Sienna Rosachi

        There is no need to be rude JoeFamer. Stick to the evidence.

    • Loren Eaton

      And your solution would be? Like…organic groovy stuff? Yeah, let’s just increase tillage, and with it lose topsoil and increase our carbon footprint. Of course we could let the weeds and crops ‘live in harmony’ and lose most of the yield. Leave this to the grownups, Kathleen.

  • Kathleen Kelly Hallal
    • hyperzombie

      I you and your ilk are so smart and know how to farm way better than real farmers. Put up or shut up. Go buy a farm and do it your way, hey if it works you could be a zillionaire.

  • John

    I’m totally comfortable with anti-GMO insanity being treated totally differently than ant-vaccine insanity.

    If you try to avoid GM foods and products, all you’ve done is restricted your diet. You aren’t hurting yourself, except maybe spending extra money for no reason, and slightly reducing your enjoyment of life. You aren’t hurting anyone else.

    If you don’t take vaccines, nor vaccinate your child, you are undermining our collective effort to protect the innocent and the weak. You are actually hurting other people, for stupid, selfish reasons.

    Also, vaccines are created for our collective health, while GMO foods are generally designed to maximize the profits of the company making them. I’ll not shed any tears that some company lost some money simply because people are idiots and won’t eat GM foods. Lots of company’s succeed or fail based on the peculiarities of the idiocies of the people.

    • hyperzombie

      I can almost understand the Anti-vaxx folks, there is a real yet very tiny risk of harm with them. The anti-GMO folks are just crazy, there is not even a mechanism that could cause harm, trillions of meal served and not even a sniffle.

      • lilady R.N.

        I disagree. If you insist on feeding your child non-GMO food, you don’t put your child at risk…and you don’t put other individuals (infants too young to have received the primary series of childhood vaccines and children and adults who have valid medical contraindications for not receiving certain vaccines).

        • barbarajanov

          what put these infants at risk in the first place? Could it be there are no maternal antibodies that were part of the natural process for thousands of years which kept infants from catching the diseases their mothers had been exposed to over a lifetime? It’s okay, not to panic, because now we are trying cocooning , where we will give boosters to mom, dad, grandparents ,sibs, and all. Can’t hurt anything can it? stay out of malls..not everyone is following the new rules..

          • Chris Preston

            Vaccination has been a very effective public health intervention for infectious diseases. It has been largely responsible for eliminating smallpox and almost eliminated polio. These are serious diseases that no-one should want to see a resurgence of.

            The duration of protection by maternal antibodies is short, in the order of a few months. After that the children typically caught the disease and took their chances with the outcomes.

          • barbarajanov

            vaccinations continue to be a wonderful tool for stopping epidemics..however when we got greedy and offered a vaccine for everything under the sun without concern for the future impact on health and well being we went too far..now we have to clean it up

          • Chris Preston

            There isn’t a vaccination for everything under the sun. There is always a risk assessment done before a new vaccine is added to the schedule that considers whether the benefit from the vaccination program is sufficiently large.
            Some vaccines get put on the schedule (HPV for example) others do not – yellow fever only if you will be travelling to where it is prevalent.

          • lilady R.N.

            Wrong, wrong….and wrong.

            Have you ever cared for a child who contracted invasive HiB disease?

            http://www.immunize.org/photos/hib-photos.asp

            Have you ever cared for a child who contracted meningococcal meningitis or meningococcal bacteremia?

            http://www.immunize.org/photos/meningococcal-photos.asp

          • barbarajanov

            I do believe I mentioned they were a wonderful tool for stopping epidemics..as you may have taken note in the case of Princeton’s meningitis b outbreak..however while meningitis b is prevalent we don’t have an fda approved vaccine in this country…unless it’s very ,very new…
            but in the same vein, do you and your friends have fourteen year old sons that can’t speak? Do you change diapers on your teenage sons while they kick you in the stomach. keep denying the truth! Maybe you think a little mercury made them cute and quirky..

          • lilady R.N.

            The meningitis vaccine, protective against serotype B meningococcal disease was approved for containment during two recent outbreaks under an IND (Investigational New Drug) protocol.

            http://www.cdc.gov/meningococcal/outbreaks/vaccine-serogroupb.html

            I had a son, born in 1976 with a rare genetic disorder which caused multiple and profound intellectual, physical and medical impairments along with “autistic-like behaviors”…not autism (DSM II Diagnostic Criteria). He died peacefully in his sleep at age 28, ten years ago.

            I have my “other” son whose parents are my closest friends and I have substitute legal guardianship for him. He is similarly disabled with “autistic-like behaviors”…not autism. (DSM II Diagnostic Criteria). I can guarantee you that I have changed more diapers for both of these disabled children, than you have for your child.

            You need to stop blaming vaccines for your child’s disability.

            Autism is genetic…you are born with it.

          • notation

            What “future impact on health and well being”?

            Your comments make no sense.

          • barbarajanov

            No, the natural antibodies in the breast milk continued to provide the antibodies. If this dtap shot is effective, I guess it will be the entire schedule soon, for every pregnancy. This isn’t nuts?

          • notation

            No, they don’t. As Chris said, those antibodies last only a short time.

          • lilady R.N.

            Passive IGG maternal immunity transfer to a newborn, from actually having contracted pertussis…or from receiving pertussis-containing vaccines in early childhood wanes. It does not protect newborns.

            That’s the reason why Tdap boosters are recommended ~ 37 weeks gestation for pregnant women during every pregnancy to boost that passive IGG maternal immunity transfer.

          • barbarajanov

            yes..and they’ve been proven safe in pregnancy? what have I not already said? yes..keep on boosting..but do it often enough to prevent disease..which titer studies have proven to be a much shorter time that our science promised. Every pregnancy!!

          • lilady R.N.

            Where are the links to your sources?

            Are you ashamed of your sources.

          • barbarajanov

            No, they took down my sources last week, after someone suggested they were pirated.. I don’t know what that means..they can be linked in various ways through googlescholar..I was only providing a link that was available without charge. Much of the actual science is not available for “free”..only if it produces fodder for those who believe vaccines are as safe as candy..most often they ARE free. But no one is trying to sway our opinions by tweaking the availability of information..of course that can’t be. Now run to the CDC site, I was interested in the links they provided, and very interested in the primate study, however, it was not a link like the others I had to find it myself and I believe it was 39 dollars.

          • Chris Preston

            “they took down my sources last week, after someone suggested they were pirated.”

            You are joking surely?

          • barbarajanov

            no..I’m not..

          • lilady R.N.

            Yes Tdap vaccine ~ 37 weeks during every pregnancy to boost passive IGG maternal immunity transfer to newborns.

            http://shotofprevention.com/2012/04/25/bradys-battle-with-pertussis/

          • barbarajanov

            Oh lord, this is going to bring about more tragedy , there’s nothing to describe this new program without using the terms “insane”, “criminal”..”genocide”..

          • lilady R.N.

            Us “people” who have actually studied vaccines and court cases, know that cases presented as alleged vaccine eccephalopathy following vaccination with the whole cell pertussis vaccine, to the Vaccine Court, were later diagnosed with Dravet Syndrome…a genetic disorder:

            http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/08/11/peds.2010-0887.full.pdf

            Us “people” know that you are neuron-deficient and anti-vaccine to the core of your being.

            You’ve just confirmed for us that you are heartless, as well.

          • lielady, R.N. BS

            Us “people” also realize that 5 cases of Dravet syndrome seems to constitute all of the cases of vaccine encepalopathy following vaccination with the whole cell pertussis vaccine. As a nurse and epidemiologist (I’m also working on both my law degree and my doctorate, though I’m retired, and with my limited grasp of grammar and vocabulary), so I understand that 5 cases, is equal to all cases. I’ve also just confirmed that I’m heartless as well, because I have no compassion at all for these people who have children damaged by vaccines. I’m allowed to insult and belittle others who I don’t agree with, but others can’t insult me, because I’m a nurse, and people who disagree with me are scurrilous, libelous liars.

        • hyperzombie

          If you insist on feeding your child non-GMO food, you don’t put your child at risk

          Well not quite true, there is a much higher risk of foodborne illness with Organic foods, dozens killed every year and 10000 sickened from these preventable diseases.

      • Sienna Rosachi

        What a bunch of baloney, What about the woman in Elle Magazine?

        • hyperzombie

          What woman? There is not one case of illness associated with GMOs.

          • Paul M
          • Paul M
          • Paul M

            Before you weigh in you should get the data

          • hyperzombie

            I read the story and just because a woman is allergic to corn, doesn’t mean that it has anything to do with GMOs. They didn’t try to isolate it to GMO corn so there is no way to determine if it had anything to do with it.
            For instance, is she allergic to the RR trait or the Bt trait, both total different. Or is she allergic to Dent corn or Sweet corn, both very different corn species. So many unanswered questions.

          • Paul M

            Regardless, she ate a form of GMOs and if one person is having this problem there are more out there with the very same.

          • John

            Wait, what do you mean ‘regardless’ ?

            You are basically saying: “Regardless of whether or not GMOs had ANYTHING to do with it…”

            Well what? What then? We should all hate and fear GMOs anyway? Regardless of whether the poster child for GMO fear was NOT actually harmed by GMOs ?

            We already know that corn allergies exist, and that they are rare. Allergies for many, many NON-gmo foods exist. We don’t need to mix GMO scare mongering in with the basic fact that allergies exist.

            Edit: Also, thanks for the link.

        • John

          Hmmm. the mysterious un-named woman in Elle magazine, whose relevance is unstated. Not even a issue date given.

          ( Oh yeah?! What about the guy on the discover channel the other night!!! )

          One can hope that this mystery woman had a PhD in physiology along with her MD, and she presenting a convincing case that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risk of harm.

    • barbarajanov

      It’s neither stupid nor selfish to want to protect a child. We are told the side effects are rare, what is rare. I currently know two young men that are suffering the effects of hepb vaccine. I do not know a million young men, one is the son of my close friend, the other is a nephew. What is rare is the recognition and reporting system of the very real numbers. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2656344/

      • John

        > It’s neither stupid nor selfish to want to protect a child.

        I absolutely agree. It’s what you *do* with that wanting that matters.

        I don’t know you personally, and I don’t know what you’ve experienced or what really motivates you. My comments here are in response to the majority of antivaxxers in the anti-vaxx movement, and I’m sorry if anything sounds like a personal attack or as if I’m dismissing your position entirely. I do know that we can spend, literally, thousands of hours ‘researching’ vaccines through online sources and end up with ours heads full of complete BS – and not even realize it.

        Denying a child vaccines, in 2014, because one falls for the anti-vaxx fear mongering is foolish and selfish. Scaring other people into doing the same is also also foolish and selfish. That’s what I’m saying.

        I realize there is some nuance in the issues involved, and that the medical establishment isn’t perfect. I’m motivated by concern for the harms caused by the anti-vaxxer community as a whole. On the whole, they are wrong, they are spreading lies and false lines or reasoning, and they are hurting people. The anti-vaxxers harm far, far more people than the medical establishment does.

        • barbarajanov

          That is true if you assume everyone is a weak minded idiot that depends on celebrities for their science. You are going to have a tough go of it, trying to convince educated mothers who had front row seats to their child’s regression following vaccines.

          • John

            > That is true if you assume everyone is a weak minded idiot that depends on celebrities for their science.

            It sounds like you may recognize that these people exist in the anti-vaxxer movement, which is nice.

            > You are going to have a tough go of it, trying to convince educated mothers who had front row seats to their child’s regression following
            vaccines.

            If my child was harmed by circumstances beyond my control, I’d be livid. Hell, I became temporarily quite irrational last month over the loss of a mere $100.

            If I sat down to discuss vaccination with someone, and they started by telling me that this had happened to them, I hope I’d have the compassion and sense to tread carefully, or even to shut myself up. Sometimes its better to let people process their emotions, however they are inclined, than to show them they are wrong.

            Again, I’m not sure if I’ve been rude or horrible towards you personally at any point in these comments… if so I apologize. The anti-vaxxer movement, as a whole, is dominated by irrational, paranoid, science-denying fools; and its them that I have a problem with; I may be too eager to vent about them.

          • barbarajanov

            I remember Offit describing those scary vaccine refusers…. it seems they aren’t the stupid celeb followers these current magazines believe they are targeting.. “They’re communities which have large concentrations of Caucasian, upper middle-class residents who are college-educated, often graduate school-educated,” Offit said. “Who believe by simply Googling the term ‘vaccine’ on the internet, they can know as much, if not more, than anyone who’s giving them advice.”

          • John

            Oh, yeah I know that the worst of the anti-vaxxers are white middle class people with college degrees. I’ve spent years in the ‘alternative health’ world and I’ve met hundreds of them. Their intelligence causes them to overestimate their ability to reach a correct assessment of something. I still dismiss them as ‘morons’, though. Some may be more successful than I financially, and they may have certain cognitive skills in greater proportion than I, but they are not respectable due to their absolute insistence on clinging to fallacies to sustain a collection of false beliefs. Many of the people into the anti-vaxx bs also believe in homeopathy and chemtrails, and they use the same styles of fallacious argument to sustain those baseless beliefs as well.

            Less intelligent people are more likely to have some humility, and to follow the advice of their doctors.

            This is a lot of me talking smack about other people…hmm.. yeah I’m frustrated and I’m responding to your observation about anti-vaxxers being educated. They are. But their education did not give them the tools to reason through these topics very well.

          • barbarajanov

            maybe the term anti vax is the problem..I have never met anyone that I would call anti vax, I know many who have personal experiences with the side effects in their children. I read the literature and find that science needs to catch up, we haven’t come a long way from the scientific proof offered just a generation ago, one that incriminated mothers . Yes, just a few decades ago it was a scientific FACT that refrigerator moms were the cause of autism. Sometimes science needs to be denied.

          • Chris Preston

            It was never fact that refrigerator moms were the cause of autism. It was an observation that some parents of autistic children lacked “warmth”. It was never seriously proposed as a cause.

            As ASDs are known to have a high heritability, the parents lacking warmth probably suffered from ASD themselves.

            I will take your claim to “read the literature” with a significant pinch of salt, given you have been unable to point to sources in the literature when challenged to do so. It is my suspicion that you read ant-vax literature.

            I have met several people in real life who are anti-vax (or as I like to describe them vaccine science deniers). It is indeed remarkable that they use many of the same arguments you have used here: denying herd immunity; exaggerating vaccine harms; suggesting vaccines cause autism; and so on. Over the years, I have found it easier just to mentally pigeonhole anyone making these arguments as a vaccine science denier.

          • barbarajanov

            It’s a choice to take something from a conversation with some consideration. No one is forcing you to do so, I just don’t believe there is an anti vax movement, I think it’s

          • John

            > I just don’t believe there is an anti vax movement, I think people are just trying to share their experiences,

            This may be exactly who you are, and everyone that you know, and it may be an important part of the vaccine dialog, but there is so much more happening.

            Hmmm… I don’t know how to convince you that the movement is there. I recognize the movement because I’ve listened to speeches given by the movements nominal leaders, I’ve read the books written by the same, and I’ve had such a large number of conversations with so many people over so many years. When a smaller group of people are successful at convincing a larger group of people to believe things using false logic, lies, and propaganda techniques…and when that newly indoctrinated group of people goes on to indoctrinate more people, I see that as a movement.

            But if you have only experience ‘people sharing their experiences’, how can I show you the movement is real?

          • barbarajanov

            The “consensus” of the time, promoted by psychiatrists, who at that time “owned” the disease, was that it was caused by these mothers. These were court ready facts with experts on board.
            In my opinion, vaccines are a product that lies within the control of a small group of manufacturers and government programs which haven’t been so very honest with the release of their science. As Bush fumbled, “you can fool me once ….” parents who experienced so many “rare” side effects in their children, should be able to share this information. Shared information can and has brought changes in many areas of product safety. Yet sometimes, as with GM and the ignition keys, it can go on for years hidden behind hush memos. Parents want a product that works, with minimal side effects. If they can’t have this, they should have the information on the table to decide what is best for them. Putting vaccines, such as HepB on a schedule that starts at birth and wanes after three doses

          • John

            > I have found it easier just to mentally pigeonhole anyone making these arguments as a vaccine science denier.

            For better or worse, I’ve started doing the same thing.

            Rationally, I think we are wrong to do so. Its another form of prejudice, and look what happens when people get somewhat influenced by the anti-vaxxer BS. We pigeon hole them and assume to know their thought process, and we discount them… they may take this personally and see us as arrogant, narrow minded or intolerant, and so it becomes more comfortable for them emotionally to discount our arguments and for them to identify with these mis-informed radicals in the anti-vaxxer movement. Then our society loses another thinking mind to a meme-reproduction-machine that has much in common with a cult.

            Emotionally, I’m just exhausted by them, and I’m fed up with them and their lies.

          • John

            > maybe the term anti vax is the problem..I have never met anyone that I
            would call anti vax, I know many who have personal experiences with the
            side effects in their children.

            Maybe, as is often the case, it might be a matter of the dumbest voices being the loudest.

            These people exist, they are a significant cultural movement, they have built dozens and dozens of websites and have hundreds (or thousands) of bloggers spreading lies in opposition to vaccination. They are harming people.

            Being reasonably skeptical of science and medicine is good, but these people mask a completely insane anti-vaccine agenda within the clothes of ‘reasonable skepticism’.

            You may be reasonable and intelligent, and you may be honestly moved by love for a child or for children, but if you are making arguments against vaccination online, you will be associated with these people, their religiosity and their allergy to truth.

            If I was in your position I would quickly denounce their foolishness at every opportunity, just like an intelligent animal rights activist will denounce the insanity of the animal rights extremists, and just like a good Christian ought to denounce the Westboro crazies.

            Except the Westboro crazies are clearly a tiny, tiny slice of ‘Christians’, while – judging from online commentary – it looks like the anti-vaxxer crazies make up a significant portion of the ‘vaccine skeptics’.

            > Sometimes science needs to
            be denied.

            Science needs to be questioned and investigated. Science deniers are just sticking their heads in the sand, they aren’t investigating.

            You gave an example from psychology – psychology is a much weaker ‘science’ than chemistry, physiology, and medicine. There is much from psychology that I do take seriously.

        • barbarajanov

          I don’t see the impact . I’ve read that Wakefield put us all at risk for contracting measles…yet the numbers show a higher rate of coverage in the years since his paper. I do see the reality of teens and adults, fully vaccinated, experiencing the disease, that is vaccine failure, not a failure to follow the schedule. Is this herd coverage working, of course it isn’t, the only actual herd immunity is brought about by natural disease, it is a lie to promise something that doesn’t exist in vaccine derived immunity. table of coverage http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/coverage/nis/child/figures/2012-map.html

          • Chris Preston

            “I’ve read that Wakefield put us all at risk for contracting measles…yet the numbers show a higher rate of coverage in the years since his paper.”

            No they don’t. In the US coverage was 91% in 1996 and is now 91%. In 1998 coverage declined to 86%. The effect was much more marked in the UK where Wakefield worked http://www.hpa.org.uk/hpr/archives/2013/news1713.htm There coverage has only increased following major measles outbreaks in the last few years.

            You obviously don’t understand how herd immunity works. You need to have a sufficiently high number of people who will not be transmitters of the disease to stop an epidemic taking hold. For measles the estimate is up to 94%.

          • barbarajanov

            You obviously believe in an unproven concept. Herd immunity with vaccines can not work . The factors aren’t in place, all members of the herd would need to be vaccinated within the five years of proven efficacy. Vaccines always worked best when used to stop an epidemic. From ground zero working out, it’s a proven method and a wonderful tool. A population with waning immunity can not prevent an epidemic,it’s clearly impossible.
            I was present in the early nineties, and most of us at that time with new families paid close attention when Japan banned the MMR. Stop blaming Wakefield ,his information came a few years later, when he brought an inferior product to light, and the consequence was a bit of tweaking and a new acceptance. People aren’t really as stupid as you would like to believe.The UK was experiencing severe side effects during those years, and memory may not serve, but I believe they were using the urabe strain of mumps and it WAS dangerous.

          • barbarajanov

            yes…it was Urabe..and THAT was the driving force behind mmr refusal and a loss of confidence in the mmr vaccine. It’s important that we aren’t “sucked into” the industry propaganda when the facts are available.
            http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/165/6/704.full

          • notation

            Yes, it can and does. Prove otherwise.

          • notation
  • rachelweidinger

    Keith, I’m extremely disappointed that you convey the AAAS letter as an “overwhelming conclusion.” It’s very much not. See Doug Gurian-Sherman’s post at the Union of Concerned Scientists http://blog.ucsusa.org/a-contrary-perspective-on-the-aaas-board-statement-against-labeling-of-engineered-foods

    Further, it’s easy to find many statements from scientists that are in direct conflict with your post. Many of those easily findable sources are linked here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies#cite_note-BMA-7

    Even if, after proper longitudinal studies, we do learn that there are no human health impacts of eating GMO foods (hooray!), there are certainly substantial ecosystem and economic impacts. Your conflating the anti vaccine movement with the anti GMO movement is irresponsible. My choice to not ‘vaccinate’ my children with GMO soy almost certainly lacks the significant negative impact of not vaccinating my children for tuberculosis.

    • JoeFarmer

      Sorry, but Gurian-Sherman silently left UCS. Now he’s at Center for Food Safety, a fringe activist group. So, let’s not put too much faith in what he has to say.

      Have you ever used Google Scholar? It cuts through the nonsense.

      • Paul M

        He is not a fringe scientist, sheesh!

        • JoeFarmer

          Show me a list of his professional publications (not hit pieces for activist groups) and then we can talk.

          • Paul M

            You have got to be kidding! This article is a hit piece, Kloor does this all the time. Just becasue Gurian-Sherman doe not agree with you does not mean he is an activist. Lame argument farmer.

          • JoeFarmer

            I guess that means you can’t find a list of his professional publications, either.

          • Paul M
          • Chris Preston

            Ha ha. I counted a total of 17 publications by Gurian-Sherman in that list. Most of those are self published as well.

            You might compare with this http://scholar.google.com.au/citations?user=TOSF7R4AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao

          • Sienna Rosachi

            So what there are those that do research and those that review research.

          • Chris Preston

            I review research as well. I publish the results in places where my peers have an opportunity to check whether my ideas are sound and based on the research and not in self-published pieces on the web.

            The point is that Gurian-Sherman is not active in science. He is active in activism. His total scientific output is also meager, so a characterisation as a fringe scientist would be entirely accurate.

          • Sienna Rosachi

            You seem to be active at self promotion.

          • Paul M

            Show me a Kloor article that is not a hit piece.

          • Paul M

            Kloor has no science backround and yet he feels he can write hit pieces about everyone.
            In this piece by Joe Romm, Kloor is described as a trash blogger and not aligned with science:
            “In Kloor’s brand of trash blogging, misrepresentation is standard operating procedure.”
            He also says:
            “Kloor is a run-of-the-mill blogger who often flaks for delayers like Breakthrough Institute Senior Fellow — and University of Colorado at Boulder professor — Roger Pielke, Jr. He is not an arbiter of good journalism. Quite the reverse. He is a model of what not to do.”

            http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/11/01/204856/keith-kloor-trash-journalist/

            And yet you lap up his BS like it was your last meal.

          • JoeFarmer

            You can wipe your chin now.

          • Paul M

            Stop projecting and wipe your own chin dude

          • JoeFarmer

            Stop upvoting your own posts, chumpalicious!

          • Keith Kloor

            Tsk, tsk. Nobody does hit jobs like Joe Romm. Anybody who’s been reading him for years should know that.

            In any case, here’s some context related to that post you refer. Even better, scroll down into the comments When Romm shows up in the thread and is in for a rude surprise.

            http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/11/02/oh-no-more-snarking/

          • Sienna Rosachi

            I don’t know about that Keith. You’re hit jobs are pretty harsh and attacking and not even based on fact. That kind of behavior makes you look weak and well, like a miserable online bully.

      • Sienna Rosachi

        Joe, Did you look him up on google scholar? Joe Farmer is not telling the truth.

        • Chris Preston

          JoeFarmer is correct. Doug Gurian-Sherman is working for the Center for Food Safety http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/staff

          The Center for Food Safety is indeed a fringe activist group run by Andrew Kimbrell. They are most notable for their failed court cases against the USDA.

          • Paul M

            Who cares? Just because he works for the Center for Food Safety does not mean he does not have valid points. And I would call the Center for Food safety a consumer advocate org. You are just trying to spin things but you arguments are weak.

          • Sienna Rosachi

            Yes, I know that but it is not a fringe group.

          • Sienna Rosachi

            I think Keith Kloor is an activist. Dictionary.com describes him to a T. It says an activist is someone who is:
            1.
            an especially active, vigorous advocate of a cause, especially a political cause.

        • JoeFarmer

          So tell us where he works, genius.

          • Sienna Rosachi

            The point is, the Center for Food Safety is not a fringe activist org, duh

          • JoeFarmer

            CFS absolutely is a fringe activist group. You’re not too bright, are you?

    • barbarajanov

      Maybe we need a new definition of science? Let’s continue on with vaccine studies that are head counts of children who received less than half of the USA doses of thimerosal , from a country that never experienced a similar rate of autism. It’s gold! And let’s blackball scientists that call for the god awful long term exposure studies for gmo’s..who needs them when we have many willing to pump out “science”.