Bill Nye Explains Why he is a GMO Skeptic

By Keith Kloor | November 6, 2014 4:54 am

Bill Nye, stalwart defender of evolution and climate science, has a new book out called, Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation. Nye, for those unfamiliar with him, is a popular science communicator. He also relishes verbal debate. In recent years, he’s become known for taking on creationists and climate skeptics.

Nye’s reputation as a soldier of science has led some to wonder where he stands on GMOs. Specifically, folks are curious if he’s changed his position since 2005, when his television show featured an episode that has since been criticized for mischaracterizing the science of biotechnology in a way that reinforces unwarranted fears, as one observer writes. Others have been more forgiving of that segment:

Most of the questions and fears he raises are the questions and fears of 2005 and, to a disappointing extent, the same fears we need to address today.

So now it’s nearly a a decade later and GMOs are still saddled with a fear factor that activists have worked hard to promote, much to the dismay of the plant science community. Where is Nye in this battle between scientists and those that frequently contest (and muddy) the science of agricultural biotechnology?

He’s MIA.

You don’t see him stepping into the fray to communicate the known facts about genetically modified crops, much less advising people to “chill out” about GMOs, as Neil deGrasse Tyson did earlier this year. This reluctance appears to stem from Nye’s discomfit with GMO technology, which he expresses in his new book. Appearing on reddit yesterday, Nye had a revealing exchange with one questioner, who poses this question:

Hi! I’ve been a long time fan, and I’d like to ask about something a bit old. I work in plant science, and we have this controversy that is every bit as unscientific, damaging, and irrational as the controversies surrounding evolution, vaccines, and climate change, so I was thrilled to see there was an Eyes of Nye episode on GMOs…right up until I watched it, and saw you talking about fantastical ecological disasters, advocating mandatory fear mongering labels, and spouting loaded platitudes with false implication. You can see my complete response here, if you are interested, and I hope you are, but it was a little disheartening.

When I look up GMOs in the news, I don’t see new innovations or exciting developments being brought to the world. I see hate, and fear, and ignorance, and I’m tired of seeing advances in agricultural science held back, sometimes at the cost of environmental or even human health, over this manufactured controversy. Scientists are called called corporate pawns, accused of poisoning people and the earth, research vandalized or banned, all over complete nonsense. This is science denialism, plain and simple. That Eyes of Nye episode aired 9 years ago, and a lot can change in nearly a decade, so I want to ask, in light of the wealth of evidence demonstrating the safety and utility of agricultural genetic engineering, could you clarify your current stance on the subject, and have you changed the views you expressed then? Because if so, while you work with public education, please don’t forget about us. We could use some help.

Nye’s response:

We clearly disagree.

I stand by my assertions that although you can know what happens to any individual species that you modify, you cannot be certain what will happen to the ecosystem.

Also, we have a strange situation where we have malnourished fat people. It’s not that we need more food. It’s that we need to manage our food system better.

So when corporations seek government funding for genetic modification of food sources, I stroke my chin.

Hmm. It’s interesting that Nye doesn’t bother to express disapproval at the incessant fear-mongering and misinformation that has polluted the public discourse on GMOs–a main point raised by the questioner. Nye could have acknowledged this unfortunate state of affairs and even perhaps mentioned that all the world’s major science bodies and institutions have looked carefully at the technology and not found it harmful to human health or the environment. That alone would have meant a lot coming from someone with his stature.

Instead, he avoids the main thrust of the questioner’s comment, invokes an absolutist version of the precautionary principle (rebutted effectively here in the case of GMOs) and closes with some odd remarks about malnourished fat people and an image of him stroking his chin.

If all this leaves you scratching your head, you probably are not alone.

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Kevin Folta

    If Ken Hamm would have said in line one of his debate with Nye, “We clearly disagree, I stand by my assertions…” Nye would have asked for evidence for those claims. Nye’s whole argument against transgenic crops is not evidence based, not even fact based.

    What is he thinking? Here’s a guy that applied the gold standards of science to defend climate and evolution science, that here is using climate/evolution denier tricks to present his opinion on transgenic crops.

    • DRoell

      Wouldn’t sell with his target audience?

    • JLBuck

      What I think is most surprising is that the main “argument” he used (If you could call it that) is something that is not unique to GMOs. He’s worried about possible effects on the ecosystem when we start to modify food ourselves.

      But we’ve been doing this for forever. If broad ecological impact is a concern with GMOs, it’s a concern with all forms of food modification, genetic or otherwise. Why single out GMOs, Bill Nye?

      • http://twitter.com/Zombiehero Justin P

        Nye is using Nassin Taleb’s argument but without the math jargon.

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

          I included a link in my post to a nicely argued counter to Taleb’s GMO paper: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/nassim-taleb-the-precautionary-principle-and-gmos/

          • http://twitter.com/Zombiehero Justin P

            That’s dealing with his first paper. I haven’t seen many published criticism of his new paper, even though they try to say the same thing.
            http://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.5787.pdf

          • http://twitter.com/Zombiehero Justin P

            NVM…I was wrong..

          • jonathan gibbs

            get with it keith… your a journalist….that’s it, right?

          • Ted Miner

            $$$$ HILARIOUS $$$$

          • TZ

            THIS IS DIRECTED AT FOLTA not Ted….he keeps Deleting or flagging any comments in response to his erroneous comment with a manufactured 108 likes. … Folta, so you are the authority and have all the answers? That is laughable! You are a paid crony for Biotech… their lap dog that begs for his supper….one day you WILL all pay for your crimes! I will be eating my popcorn with my organic butter watching the downfall of a tyrannical corporation and its many spawn… Now that would be my idea of heaven on earth….

          • Nathan Williams

            Your just a journalist, you don’t get to weigh in on science

          • jonathan gibbs

            zip ability or education in science

          • Kevin Folta

            Are you a scientist Nathan? I am. Keith’s right, Nye is wrong. His argument from ignorance is the same logic used by creationists and climate deniers. Keith may be “just a journalist” but he’s a good one that actually does the homework, unlike the mindless comments here that reflect silly beliefs.

          • Rob Bright

            YOU’RE A SCIENTIST!?!?! You’ve got to be kidding, right? Why do you only quote and reference your points from trade association publications funded by Monsanto et al? Seems to me your understanding of science was severely clouded at some point…

          • Kevin Folta

            I have 77 peer-reviewed publications over the last 14 years and not one was sponsored by Monsanto or any company. You can read it right in the acknowledgements and my funding has always been 100% public. Perhaps you are referencing points made by the multi-billion dollar industries that profit from trashing good technology?

          • Cameron

            I always laugh when these anti-GMO people accuse someone of being a shill for a “greedy” corporation. Meanwhile their precious “safe” organic food industry made 42 billion in profits in 2014, because, you know, they’re the good guys! not in it for the money at all! They’re trashing their direct market competitors reputation because it’s wrong! Not to scare people into buying more of their products! Nooooooo! That can’t be their motivation at all! they’re trying to save everyone! Really!

          • http://annieorganie.com/ Anne Roshkind Temple

            What floors me is that the people that are bragging about being scientists seem to be completely ignoring the most basic science while spouting off the benefits of GMOs. You hold absolutely no credibility with me. I am not a scientist, but I work in a lab and have done my own research.

          • kurzweilfreak

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

            You’re probably right though, a molecular biologist like Kevin Folta is just ignoring basic science…

          • Kevin Folta

            Hi Anne, like what “basic science” am I missing? The benefits are quite clear as are the limitations. If I have no credibility with you then let’s explore that. What research have you done that brings you to a conclusion different than mine? Mine, for the record, is the same as the AAAS and NAS and AMA. Please illuminate us with your knowledge on the subject. Thank you.

          • Cameron

            You work in a lab and have done your own research? Right. I really believe that lol

          • Sally

            Like she cares if you believe her. lol.

          • http://annieorganie.com/ Anne Roshkind Temple

            Unfortunately, so many scientists have been bought off by big ag that you can’t believe them either. You can get great scientific arguments from both sides of the issue, so I really wish people would stop using it as a crutch. The FDA and EPA have also been so massively compromised by biotech, we can no longer have any assurance that they have our best interests in mind. The fact that Michael Taylor is the head of the FDA says it all. I choose to do my own research and have studied both sides of the issue for several years now, and while I don’t have a PhD or MD after my name, I feel pretty well informed on the issue, and I think that GMOs are a bad idea, period.

          • Kevin Folta

            Okay Anne, do me two favors. First, show where I have been “bought out”. You can demonstrate this in one of two ways. First, my funding record is public. Second, show me where my research is contradicted by others. Third, show me where the points I make above are not supported by the scientific consensus.

            Finally, what is your evidence that transgenic crop technology is a “bad idea”? Thanks. Maybe you know something the rest of us don’t, so I hope you take the time to help us here. Thank you.

          • Amelia Jordan

            Do you think GMO insulin, vaccines, antibiotics, and other medications are a bad idea? If not, then you need to be explicit with what GMOs you don’t like and how the same exact techniques used to create life saving medications that are injected directly into bodies is somehow different from crop breeding. I eagerly await your answer.

          • GoingtoMars

            Wow

          • JuHoansi

            And who are you?

          • Nathan Williams

            nicely argued for a lame journalist

          • JH

            Yes as I think this over I think the appropriate response to Taleb applying “fragility” to ecosystems is to question how it applies at all.
            The black swan concept applies to a set of events for which they frequency is statistically controlled – that is, there is a range of possible outcomes for a process that is repeated over and over, and the black swan is a highly unlikely outcome in that range of possibilities.
            One obvious – perhaps too obvious – corollary is there must be a real possibility of the event occurring for their to be a possibility of a black swan – and thus for the system to be “fragile”.
            We don’t take measures to prevent ourselves from falling off the earth just in case gravity stops working. We don’t do this because there isn’t a range of outcomes with gravity that’s described by a statistical distribution. Gravity is determinative. There is no practical possibility that gravity will fail and send us all flying into space.
            IMO, there’s no possibility of a gene “escaping” into the natural environment and causing an ecosystem collapse or even serious damage. The more I think about it, the more ludicrous it seems. I mean, just try to imagine the details of a mechanism by which that can happen. So many things would have to go fortuitously right that the whole concept is ridiculous.
            I mean, I see a possibility of a single gene generating some problems with a particular crop or insect. But major damage? Nope. No way.
            Thus, in my mind, ends all possibility of ecosystem collapse or serious damage caused by GMOs, and Talebs claim of “fragility” goes with it.

          • drloko

            Fragile systems rarely occur in nature as unstable equilibrium have extremely short half-lives.

            When they do occur, they are short lived with or without human intervention.

        • JH

          The “fragile” argument for ecosystems is the supposed “scientific” basis of the entire green movement. Gaia, dude. Taleb and Nye aren’t offering anything new.

          (Yes there are specific issues championed by the green movement where real science bears on the issue, but the overall thrust of it’s pseudo scientific marketing and belief system is the idea that the earth is in a “delicate” (fragile) balance, that irreparable harm can spring out of the smallest perturbation.)

          • http://twitter.com/Zombiehero Justin P

            Exactly. Ask an ecologist and they will tell you that the ecosystem is a dynamic system. There is no optimum, there is no equilibrium. Species come and go while the ecosystem adapts.
            Implicitly arguing for an equilibrium/static model of the ecosystem, people like Taleb and Nye are actually going against the science and denying evolution.

          • JH

            If you look at geologic history, you see that “irreparable harm” comes only from extraordinary events – major asteroid impacts and possibly some extreme volcanic events.

            One might reasonably argue that human society in general is one such “irreparable harm” event (certainly it is from the perspective of the majority of species on the planet). But GMOs are at best a minute part of that event and at any rate there’s no going back at this point. The only way out is forward.

          • nightgaunt

            Mixing other species traits into plants is a great risk yet it is treated as not a problem. Regardless of turning our ecosystem into an open air laboratory as it is without any safe guards or better knowledge of how the GMO insertions behave outside the laboratory.

          • GoingtoMars

            Attitudes like these are incredibly irresponsible, but unfortunately I think make up the vast majority of the myopic “scientific” community. The way out is NOT to continue in the same vein, but to look at ways of minimizing the harmful effects of human intervention on our ecosystem. Unfortunately, many of these solutions do not involve generating huge amounts of money for one corporation or another, so change must come in a much slower grass roots way.

        • Nathan Williams

          Fail

      • John Green

        What’s wrong with a broad answer? If you asked me how I felt about gun control in schools, and I gave a broad answer about weapons in general, you probably wouldn’t be dissatisfied.

        • JLBuck

          In your analogy, I would be able to infer your feelings about gun control in schools based on your answer about weapons in general, so I would be satisfied. Usually if you’re not a big fan of guns or want to tighten up gun control generally, this would apply to all situations, including (especially) schools.

          However, here, the argument that messing with a species of plant or animal could have broader impacts on the environment would lead me to believe that, by the same logic, he’d be opposed to any other form of food/animal modification, including hybridization and selective breeding.

          If he agrees that all forms of modification should proceed with caution, this would make sense. I wish he would clarify.

          It’s like you saying that you are for tighter restrictions on guns in schools, but not in general. You’d better explain yourself.

      • cken

        You are right we have very little knowledge about the long term effect of all forms of food modification or even pharmaceuticals for that matter. But we use the stuff anyway. Maybe we shouldn’t.

        • JLBuck

          Maybe we shouldn’t? This seems like the most drastic and unreasonable response, if you’re serious. We can’t be sure what the long-term effects of pharmaceuticals are. We do the best with the knowledge that we have, and sometimes it may take a generation or two to realize we were wrong.

          But this is a tradeoff I am willing to make. So many lives have been saved, extended, and enhanced with the pharmaceuticals (and foods) that we have, though we can never be 100% sure off all the effects, let alone many of the long-term effects.

          This is a completely different argument, though. If Bill Nye is going to jump on board with “quit modifying stuff, ever,” then he should be on board. I’m confused as to why he’s singling out GMOs.

        • SusanStop

          You have a point… “Scientists” were concerned about dropping the first Atomic Bomb, thinking it might start a chain reaction that would destroy the World… THEY DROPPED IT, ANYWAY !!!

          duh…. :(

          • drloko

            That is incorrect.

            The point you are referencing came about because the scientist in question forgot to divide by a factor of c^2.

            It is common in physics to set the speed of light c equal to 1 for calculations, then put it back when actually computing values.

            The mistake was immediately pointed out. There was never any doubt.

          • SusanStop
          • drloko

            Sorry, but science fiction is just that: fiction.

        • drloko

          We’ve been conducting studies for 30 years involving 100 billion animals. Just how much evidence do you require?

        • disqus_zXLbNfw1Yi

          You need to click on the link he provided in the article about the Precautionary Principle. The PP is IMHO logically flawed. It leads to a “frozen” position on any policy. If you need 100% proof that using GMOs is safe, then you also need 100% proof that NOT using GMOs is safe, i.e., it has to be applied to the alternatives, too! http://blog.everydayscientist.com/?p=2882

      • Kevin Folta

        Exactly. If you look at the centers of origins of every major crop species, NONE of them (except maybe sunflowers) belong in North America. There’s not soybeans growing in forests and corn everywhere. It is just such a bogus argument, and an argument from ignorance.

        • Matt

          Actually that supports Nye’s argument that GMOs may have an effect on the ecosystem, as no doubt massive scale monoculture has had massive effects on the ecosystems. (Also, Corn was not developed in the Americas?)

          • Randall

            If that is the argument, then Nye should be for GMO’s if Nye knows anything about agriculture.

          • Matt

            So the answer is to muck around willy-nilly in the ecosystem even more?

          • Randall

            The answer is to use proven science to do the best we can do to improve the condition of people and the planet at the same time.

            More food in the right place, safer food, and a smaller footprint in producing that food is essential. GMO’s have a lot of potential for good or harm–if they are used correctly, they can accomplish all of the above.

          • nightgaunt

            There are dozens of natural foods we are not using. Shouldn’t they be used first before we resort to such drastic alterations without safeguards or good knowledge?

          • JH

            There is absolutely no possibility of any modern ecosystem functioning as it did when it was “natural”. In most of the world, ecosystems have already been hammered so bad that it’s hard to imagine a few genes causing any more noticeable damage.

            My guess is the food you eat – gmo or otherwise – and the place you live cause more change in ecosystems than all of GMO ever will. Not to mention the fact that GMO reduces pesticide use and increases yield…

          • nightgaunt

            GMOs are designed to either take more pesticide or manufacture it themselves. Yields have been shown to be the same or less.

          • http://appsapps.info/ app

            There are GMOs that have absolutely nothing to do with pesticides.

            There is one that has to do with producing a protein that is used in the manufacture of reduced fat and fat free ice creams that are just as creamy as their full fat versions. They taste so much better than the nasty ice milk your grandmother grew up with.

            This protein prevents the ice crystals that would normally spoil the texture and taste of lower fat ice cream. It was found in the blood of an arctic fish and in that fish it acts as an anti-freeze, preventing the fish from becoming frozen in very cold waters.

            If we were to get this protein from its original source, it would be so much more costly and very likely drive that arctic fish to extinction.

            So, we genetically modified a plant to produce this protein cheaply and in abundance.

            The fish gets to live and we get an affordable, healthier, tastier alternative to full fat ice cream.

          • #Super

            because we can feed the world with ice cream.

          • http://appsapps.info/ app

            The same protein has other applications, that can save lives, deicing planes to make air travel safer, in a coating used on power lines, to prevent a common cause of winter power failures (downed lines due to accumulation of excessive amounts of ice & snow), and better preservation during transport, of human organs for transplants.

          • I_think4myself

            I like full fat ice cream. I just do not eat it every day, The sugar in ice cream is not good, so once or so a week, it is a treat!
            FIsh antifreeze, I wonder if it does subtle changes to the developing fetal brain, perhaps predisposing some infants to autism. Glyphoate does, but BIG CHEM declares such statements to be heresy.

            Tie him to the stake.
            And pile the sticks high
            By the blaze of the torches,
            Gyrating to celebrate auto-da-fé
            And toss them to the pyre

          • Damo

            Absolutely not true. Go ask a farmer that farmed prior to the introduction of Roundup Ready beans, and see what he says. Chances are he is grateful for the reduced pesticide bill.

          • JuHoansi

            So your argument is that past bad practices justify future ones? Wow… so much for logic. And no, GMOs have not reduced pesticide use and increased yields. Pesticide use has not fallen with the planting of GMO crops. http://www.enveurope.com/content/pdf/2190-4715-24-24.pdf

            http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/reports/superweeds/

          • #Super

            yield increase is highly debatable, especially when you consider the long term effects of destroying the biodiversity of the soil. Like you said, we’re already nearing the point of no return, but that seems more an argument to stop and allow the ecosystem to recover than to continue at this rate. Also, I don’t believe the argument that the chemicals we are using are safer… there’s no proof that the level of toxicity won’t accumulate in the ground soil and aquifers. When you don’t have proof, it’s safer to err on the side of caution.

          • Damo

            No, you are wrong, we do have proof. Furthermore, high tillage farms have no, absolutely no, biodiversity in their soil. The soil is dead for the most part and ammendments need to be added (in the case of organic farms this is manure or compost, but still an ammendment) to make up for the missing neotodes, earthworms, and other beneficial flora and fauna.

          • I_think4myself

            A few genes changing in response to over use of antibiotics has leemember whered to MRSA, C.difficile, and other superbugs. Thee is a study I read a few weeks ago,..I am trying to recall where..implicating glyphosate in enh

          • Benjamin Edge

            Is your answer that we should abandon the Great Plains to prairie grass and buffalo?

          • nightgaunt

            Isn’t that what they evolved for?

          • Austin

            actually, that would be far more efficient at producing food. There are estimates of the number of bison exceeding numbers of cattle nowadays, and wild game fowl were exceedingly more abundant than today’s chickens… Believe it or not, this is actually a feasible way to run a food system. It wouldn’t revolve around farmers, but instead on hunters and gatherers shipping native foods across the country to distribution ports.

          • hyperzombie

            Corn was not developed in the Americas?

            South America, along with tomatoes, potatoes, tobacco and others. Squash is from NA, but it is hardly a major crop. Canola was developed in NA but that was back in the 1970s, and Triticale in the 50s.

          • Matt

            Mexico is now South America? Seems USA-centric to me. 😛

          • hyperzombie

            Mexico is now South America?

            Yep!!
            Sorry you are right. I am wrong. :(
            Corn came from Mexico-ish.

          • Kevin Folta

            Corn comes from an antecedent originating in a narrow region of Mexico. Teosinte was domesticated and brought northward by humans, not nature. It’s current form is not natural, not even close. it is a reflection of human intervention in genetics. Addition of a gene of known function to help farmers is just a precision extension of that process.

          • Matt

            Yes, but it is just another variable in the continued perturbation of natural ecosystems, one that seems to be having a rather large impact. Look at biodiversity at microbial, plant and animal levels… GMO plots are deserts of diversity.

          • nightgaunt

            You can’t compare cross breeding unless you claim they also used viruses and jellyfish, and humans and so on in their breeding. This is a whole order of magnitude, if not several, away from mere cross breeding.

            Without precautions and long term study of how genetic material is spread and unforeseen effects caused by the alien gene insertions, we will only find out later, much later if it isn’t identified at all.

          • Kevin Folta

            @nightgaunt:disqus Let me guess… you don’t know much about plant breeding?

            The most often used hybrid crosses mix thousands of viruses, transposable elements, mismatched genes and many other genetic oddities. We don’t know what 50% of the genes even do. Contrast that against moving a gene or two that we completely understand? I’ll take that any day.

            I have precautions too, but because I understand the biology they are quite different. I’m also not going to let my opinions limit what farmers can safely grow.

          • JRT256

            Radiation, Colchicine?

          • phil

            Humans, not nature?….aren’t humans…..nature?

          • Kevin Folta

            Phil, you’ll have to ask that to crazy people that muddle around with semantics. I think in this case the separation of “natural” processes are those that do not occur as a result of human intervention.

          • JuHoansi

            Of course, if that’s your argument, ie. that EVERYTHING is nature, including dioxin, plutonium, PCBs, etc. So?

          • ggm281

            I would argue that humans have a larger impact on any ecosystem. So perhaps we should just stop interfering with nature altogether?? Just allow viruses and other diseases to function without intervention? All this “modification” like vaccines should be halted? Maybe we should replicate Jonestown all over the world and leave the planet to the “lesser” animals?
            Or perhaps we can acknowledge that given the facts on the ground – that people will continue to reproduce at well above replacement rates particularly in the poorest areas of the world – that intervention is a necessity.

          • Matt

            GMOs are an extension of human action. We’re crushing ecosystems and the answer is to “well, a little more damage won’t hurt too much”. What is the tipping point? We simply don’t know.

            As for viruses, diseases, vaccines… there’s a distinct difference between GMOs and those.

          • ggm281

            No actually there isn’t a difference. It is man controlling nature. Viruses, parasites are all part of an ecosystem. You may see an ethical difference, but nature doesn’t have ethics.

          • JuHoansi

            And apparently neither do GMO “scientists”.

          • Kevin Folta

            Farming is an extension of human action. If you want to destroy natural ecosystems and diversity, put in a farm. None of those plants belong here.

            We’re well past a diversity bottleneck. New molecular techniques allow introgression of wide genetics on a scale never seen before. It is such a dead argument to those of us that understand plant breeding.

          • JuHoansi

            “If you want to destroy natural ecosystems and diversity, put in a farm. None of those plants belong here.”

            I agree. Like Jared Diamond once famously surmised, “Agriculture is the Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race”

          • Cameron

            I agree. Like Jared Diamond once famously surmised, “Agriculture is the Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race”

            So get rid of those farms and then come talk to me when the majority of the global population starves to death. that is of course if you’re not among those who starved.

          • JuHoansi

            Sure, we’ll get rid of farms slowly enough that people won’t starve to death. We could create vertical farms in the meantime to tide us over. Lots of possibilities and options and alternatives to “starving to death”.

          • JRT256

            And the GMO Papayas that are, in effect, vaccinated against a virus? Is that a good or bad thing?

          • Matt

            Who knows! We simply don’t know the extent of effects.

          • JuHoansi

            Who is forcing you to reproduce?

          • #Super

            It seems when people talk about genetically modifying food, it always comes down to a discussion of population control, very difficult to trust anyone with that line of thinking. We are fighting so many natural forms of mortality, do we really need to ‘thin the herd.’ It’s a temporary solution, when you consider that the ozone and fresh water won’t last much longer.

          • http://cendax.wordpress.com/ Norbrook

            Key – North America. Corn is native to Central and South America. Just like potatoes.

            Once again, massive scale monoculture was in vogue long before GMO’s arrived on the scene. I might also point out that many “traditional” methods of agriculture cause far and away more effects on ecosystems. Slash and burn agriculture, for example; or to use another one, those “wonderful earthworms” so beloved by organic farming advocates are not only not native to large parts of North America, they drastically changed the existing ecosystems.

          • Matt

            You’re quibbling over geography, what’s the point?

          • #Super

            Considering the amount of plant species we’ve destroyed, our past ecosystem was in no way a “monoculture.”

          • http://beginingsinwriting.wordpress.com/ R.w. Foster

            Corn was developed in the Americas. One of the ancestors of the familiar yellow corn is maize.

          • nightgaunt

            Somehow about 8 years ago Monsanto GMO corn made its way all over Mexico and even to their most secret and safe areas for their maize seed. I admit it seemed highly suspicious to me how thorough Monsanto seemed to have infected their precious seed crop. And they lay claim to any contamination as their own.

          • http://beginingsinwriting.wordpress.com/ R.w. Foster

            You’ve got to be Edgar Allen.

      • bee valentine

        Yes, modifying through breeding, but not inter-species and with bacterial and viral transporters. That is a whole new ball game, as Dr. Moreau can attest.

        • JLBuck

          Dr. Moreau is science-fiction.

          Please explain to me why modifying through breeding is so different from genetic modifications? Genetically modifying food is much more precise and controlled, not to mention, it has to go through more testing before it is approved to be sold and distributed.

          • bee valentine

            “Dr. Moreau is science-fiction.” Ha! Surely, your didn’t believe that you had to point that out to me? It was an allegorical reference. As for your idea of precision and control…that’s both naive and vain all at the same time. No one controls viruses. Have we learned nothing from the past. Do you know how genes are spliced with between plants and animals?

          • Metalhead Nick

            Dr. Moreau is less about humankind’s failures at meddling with nature than mankind’s animality. Vivisectomy was the new thing when it was written. It is about pain and suffering vs knowledge, about how the humans engaged in acts worse than the animal people in the name of science. In the end he goes to the countyside because people think he is reverting into an animal just like those on the island became animals again. It’s not just science fiction, it’s an allegory for something else. You reveal your own ignorance.

          • Metalhead Nick

            Do you know your own genome is spliced with bacterial and viral DNA?

          • Metalhead Nick

            Do you know how they got spliced in?

          • Metalhead Nick

            What do you mean by the past anyway? Learned what that we could cure polio if it weren’t for ignorant holdouts?

          • Regressive Goosesteppers

            “Do you know how genes are spliced with between plants and animals?”

            Clearly you do not. it’s funny that you scoff at him for demonstrating the difference to you between reality and science fiction when you obviously cannot make the distinction on your own.

          • Craig W Crosby Sr

            Only did one search; found peer reviewed study:
            http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roundup_Ready_Corn

            Are you sure you want to eat this stuff?

          • Regressive Goosesteppers

            Sourcewatch? Seriously? You couldn’t find an actual scientific argument that didn’t come from a special interest group run by a pair of well-know eco-fraud nutjobs who also believe that vaccines cause autism and that animal research has yielded no medicinal benefits?

          • Craig W Crosby Sr

            Didn’t review sourcewatch. I did a quick search, and that was the first result. What I was referring to was within:

            “On September 19, 2012, a team led by Gilles-Eric Séralini
            of the University of Caen published a study called “Long term toxicity
            of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified
            maize” in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology.[1] The study ran for two years, studying the effects of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready corn variety NK603 and/or Roundup
            herbicide on 200 rats. Only 30% of males and 20% of females in the
            control group died during the experiment, compared to much higher rates
            of mortality among treated rats.” Gilles-Eric Séralini, Emilie Clair, Robin
            Mesnage, Steeve Gress, Nicolas Defarge, Manuela Malatesta, Didier
            Hennequin, Joël Spiroux de Vendômois, “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize,” Food and Chemical Toxicology, Available online September 19, 2012

            I totally disagree with their position on vaccines and animal research, which were not discussed in thie sourcewatch item. The 2012 study is widely referenced in other postings. I guess if it is not a Monsanto study you don’t want to know about it?

          • Cameron

            The Seralini paper is one of the handful of over 2000 studies done on the subject that say GMO’s are bad, and have been ripped apart under peer review.

        • disqus_zXLbNfw1Yi

          In fact, horizontal gene transfer (inter-species) is common in nature, and the term “species” is not even well defined. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Difficulty_of_defining_.22species.22_and_identifying_particular_species

        • Kevin Folta

          Just a little FYI, plant genomes are loaded with bacterial and viral sequences. Plants are plants because of a bacterial symbiont. You’re going to have to move that goalpost.

        • Metalhead Nick

          Alright you have bee in your name. What happened when people bred native honey bees with African bees ? They hoped to get docile bees ( like our native bees) and get more honey (like African bees). Look at what happened. Hybridization has way more factors involved. The outcome is always more unpredictable.

        • Amelia Jordan

          Not really. Nematodes steal bacterial and fungal DNA in order to gain competitive advantages, and our own mitochondria were once entire bacteria, now they are an integral part of every cell. You can find evidence of horizontal gene transfer in almost every family of organism on the planet. Sharing DNA isn’t new, nor is it particularly dangerous.

        • Regressive Goosesteppers

          “That is a whole new ball game”

          Not according to every accredited geneticist or biochemist out there.

      • Alan_McIntire

        You’re right!. We wouldn’t have the corn, tomatoes, wheat, horses, pigs, sheep, apple trees we have NOW without selective breeding.

        • JLBuck

          RIGHT. He surely must realize this. So he either thinks we should go back to food that grows naturally, and without any assistance from humans, or he should be OK with GMOs. There’s a disconnect in his logic. He’s using the weakest argument possible in this debate.

          Everything we do is affecting ecosystems on a large-scale level. We can’t know all the effects that settlements, buildings, cities, vehicles, etc. (ad nauseum) are having on large-scale ecosystems. So let’s go back to being primitive?

        • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide Co2 Molecule

          Call me when you get a plant to breed with a jug of round up.

          • Cassandra

            You might not understand what Roundup Ready plants are. They do not contain Roundup. They just aren’t harmed by Roundup. This doesn’t make them toxic. Some plants have developed a resistance to Roundup through regular old selection, too.

          • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide Co2 Molecule

            They are not harmed by roundup…

            So we can use more?

          • Cassandra

            You couldn’t use any Roundup on them if they weren’t modified. But if they are modified with the RR trait, you can spray them and the weeds growing with them with Roundup at the normal rate, without harming the crop. If corn weren’t modified you could use other, more harmful herbicides. Roundup is popular with farmers and environmental restoration scientists because it’s the least toxic herbicide we have.

            The idea that farmers are “dousing” crops with high doses of Roundup is part of the propaganda, but if you think about it, it doesn’t make sense. Farmers won’t use more than they need to because if they did, it would cut into profits. No business person intentionally wastes a product that costs money.

        • SusanStop

          I don’t mind hybrid or selective breeding within species. I DO mind altering the DNA with unrelated and pretty noxious things like bacteria, viruses, spider venom, human genes etc.. which would NEVER happen in nature.. too many unknowns.

          Natural Breeding (hybridization) is vastly different than genetic engineering in a lab. You can NOT say we have been Genetically Engineering plants for thousands of years now can you?

          Hybrids are NOT anything like genetic engineering! In simple terms Genetically Engineered is created through gene splicing, in a laboratory. It is nothing like hybridization. It merges DNA from different species, creating combinations of plant, animal, bacterial, viral and even HUMAN genes to produce species that cannot occur in nature… and they are exchanging their genetic information in the wild. I guess Monsanto and DelMonte never heard the phrase “Don’t Mess with Mother Nature”..

          Seedless grapes and watermelon are ok they are made by hybridization -same species and could happen in nature. You could even say their genes were ‘modified’. Where Genetic Engineering becomes dangerous is forcing genes/DNA into unrelated species, like scorpion poison genes into cabbage, e-coli feces/aspartame, Human genes in gmo rice (yes all true, google them). These could never occur in nature and from our scientist friends like Dr. Huber, Dr. Suzuki, Dr Pang, Dr. Suzuki and many more, could have very unexpected results and studies are showing harm to health and the environment from GE foods.

          In other words, a hispanic female might marry an asian man and you could call their children hybrid. If a man wished to marry a coconut tree and have an offspring, that would require genetic engineering.. believe it or not they are using human genes in plants now too :/

          “Biotechnology (& by implication GM technology) has NOT been with us since agriculture began”
          http://gmandchemicalindustry9.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/biotechnology-by-implication-gm-technology-has-not-been-with-us-since-agriculture-began/

          Robyn O’Brien with special guest is Dr. Ray Seidler, PHD and former EPA Scientist
          Hybrid vs GE at apx 5;10.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RijqT6ojZeU

          “This is the type of blatant and unfortunate obfuscation that GE patent holders often roll out. All the chemical companies engaged in biotechnology and even the US Patent Office recognize genetically engineered plants or animals as organisms that have had their genetic makeup altered to exhibit traits that are not naturally theirs. In other words, these are new life forms (hence the patents) created by the transfer and introduction of genetic material from other species in ways that could not occur in nature or through traditional breeding methods. The Monsanto Company’s own website draws a clear distinction between genetically engineered and conventionally bred crops.”
          http://justlabelit.org/specters-new-yorker-gmo-labeling-essay-misses-the-mark/

          Scientific American Disinformation on GMOs
          The piece begins with the tired old pronouncement used by industry to reassure the public since the early 1990s that humans have been “tinkering” with crop genomes since the beginning of time ..
          http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Scientific_American_Disinformation_on_GMOs.php

          “FIVE PILLARS OF FOOD SAFETY HOW THEY ARE BEING IGNORED BY GOVERNMENT REGULATORS By world renowned scientist, Dr. Shiv Chopra.”
          “GMOs are not the same as hybrids. GMOs are created by inserting a gene of interest from a certain species into a completely unrelated species. In doing so, the recipient species is fooled into adopting the functional characteristics of the donor species..”
          Read More (including a brief bio):
          http://vitalitymagazine.com/article/five-pillars-of-food-safety/

          “A lot of people confuse hybrid seeds with GMOs and say things like “we’ve been genetically modifying food for thousands of years.” Here’s why that’s not true…”
          http://www.smallfootprintfamily.com/hybrid-seeds-vs-gmos

          “GMO and selective breeding [hybrid] are not the same”
          http://www.greenlivingtips.com/articles/GMO-vs-selective-breeding.html

          “A much larger number of mutations(genetic changes) occur on genetic manipulation than in normal plant breeding. Such mutations can change the chemistry and biochemistry of the organism at the molecular level, which could have a dramatic impact on the functioning of the plant.”
          http://newindianexpress.com/opinion/article125218.ece

          Dr. David Suzuki speaks out against genetically modified food.. hybrid vs gmo
          http://youtu.be/2mBF1OOPdTo

          “Heirlooms, hybrids and GMOs: A hackers guide to knowing the difference”
          http://www.healthy-holistic-living.com/heirlooms-hybrids-gmos-hackers-guide-knowing-difference.html

          • drloko

            Horizontal gene transfer has been happening naturally for millions of years. This isn’t anything new.

          • Swami_Binkinanda

            Like the famous jellyfish corn hybrids of the Mexican highlands, or the glowing fish crossed wheat of Iran.

          • Alan_McIntire

            “I don’t mind hybrid or selective breeding within species. I DO mind altering the DNA with unrelated and pretty noxious things like bacteria, viruses, spider venom, human genes etc.. which would NEVER happen in nature.. too many unknowns”

            It DOES happen in nature. Check “horizontal gene transfer” or ” lateral gene transfer” and you’ll get articles like

            http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1003877

            and

            http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5845/1753

          • SusanStop

            Sure bacteria to animals. Not DNA from an animal species to a plant…

          • Alan_McIntire

            That/s a moot point. Nobody is transferring animal genes to plants- Offhand, I can’t think of any animal genes we’d WANT in plants.

          • GoingtoMars
          • Kevin Folta

            As a guy that pokes around in plant genomes, I’m glad to challenge your assertions. First, there are no commercial plants with animal genes.

            Second, bacterial and viral genes make up huge amounts (in some cases most of) plant genomes.

            And selection is not the same as genetic engineering. Selection has more risk, as we have no idea what genes are being moved or what they all encode. Transgenic plant production is precise and gene function is known. Much less risk.

            Yes, we have been genetically modifying plants for >10,000 years. It was random and haphazard, and many selections may have killed those that ate them. Now we just know how to move genes with precision and test them for safety. Very good times for plant improvement.

          • Rob Bright

            You assume that one gene only serves one function. In fact, since the completion of the Genome Project in the early 2000s, we learned that a single gene could have multiple functions, and that we don’t really understand everything that genes may do. So playing around with this stuff is highly risky, given our lack of knowledge of gene functioning.

          • SusanStop

            Nope nope and nope but in particular.. precise? lol

            Genome editing not as precise as it’s made out..
            Dr. Michael Antoniou explains that Biotech’s bragger PR about “precise editing of genomes” is in fact sheer hype and does not represent reality.
            http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15592-genome-editing-not-as-precise-as-it-s-made-out

            “The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation
            Plant transformation is a genetic engineering tool for introducing transgenes into plant genomes. It is now being used for the breeding of commercial crops. A central feature of transformation is insertion of the transgene into plant chromosomal DNA. Transgene insertion is infrequently, if ever, a precise event. Mutations found at transgene insertion sites include deletions and rearrangements of host chromosomal DNA and introduction of superfluous DNA. Insertion sites introduced using Agrobacterium tumefaciens tend to have simpler structures but can be associated with extensive chromosomal rearrangements, while those of particle bombardment appear invariably to be associated with deletion and extensive scrambling of inserted and chromosomal DNA. Ancillary procedures associated with plant transformation, including tissue culture and infection with A. tumefaciens, can also introduce mutations. These genome-wide mutations can number from hundreds to many thousands per diploid genome. Despite the fact that confidence in the safety and dependability of crop species rests significantly on their genetic integrity, the frequency of transformation-induced mutations and their importance as potential biosafety hazards are poorly understood. Genetic Engineering | EcoNexus
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559911/

            An interview with Dr. Thierry Vrain: A former genetic engineer speaks out about GMOs.
            ..”The conclusion is starkly clear: genetic engineering is an imprecise technology.”
            http://www.synergymag.ca/an-interview-with-dr-thierry-vrain/

            I do thank you for not pulling out the bogus debunked billion trillion study..

          • Swami_Binkinanda

            “Yes, we have been genetically modifying plants for >10,000 years. It was random and haphazard, and many selections may have killed those that ate them. Now we just know how to move genes with precision and test them for safety. Very good times for plant improvement.”
            Really? Any evidence for that you could cite? I would suggest it was not random, not haphazard, and that none of the selections killed those who ate them based simply on historic evidence. I’ll grant that we can move genes around and test them for “safety,” if by safety you mean finding the LD=50 dose. What we are leaving as uncontrolled variables are the effects on the ecosystem and the economy.
            Why no EIS/EA process for GMO agriculture?
            Who really benefits and can we have an accounting of precisely who benefits and how much?
            What is the GMO agriculture system costing us in terms of unrecoverable commitment of resources?
            Why no labeling? Why do defenders freak out when a simple labeling program could settle everything and make consumer choice the arbiter of product success in the marketplace, instead of intentionally obfuscating or hiding the facts from consumers?
            Why the aggressive, self-righteous chest pounding when lesser mortals dare to question the received wisdom? It’s the response I’d expect from someone trying to bullshit me, frankly.
            Something is whiffy and the petulant shouty response from purportedly dispassionate scientists is a large part of it. Unless and until this defensive attitude with its appearances of having something to hide stops, the mainstream is going to be suspicious of the intentions of those backing GMO food deployment.

          • disqus_zXLbNfw1Yi

            Horizontal gene transfer (inter-species) is common in nature, and the term “species” is not even well defined. There is no such thing as “natural”, anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Difficulty_of_defining_.22species.22_and_identifying_particular_species

          • Warren Lauzon

            Read about the “poisonous potato”. It was done with the methods that you approve of back in the 60’s. Compare that to the new potato just approved which was done with methods that you do NOT approve of – yet has reduced amounts of the cancer causing chemicals. http://boingboing.net/2013/03/25/the-case-of-the-poison-potato.html

          • hyperzombie

            Natural Breeding (hybridization) is vastly different than genetic engineering in a lab.

            Yep, they are different. It is far safer in a lab, far less genetic cnhange.

            It is nothing like hybridization. It merges DNA from different species, creating combinations of plant, animal, bacterial, viral and even HUMAN genes to produce species that cannot occur in nature… and they are exchanging their genetic information in the wild.

            Well if it cant occur in Nature, how can they exchange the genetic info in the wild?

            Seedless grapes and watermelon are ok they are made by hybridization -same species and could happen in nature.

            I didnt know that nature did polyploid breeding? Chemical Mutagenesis and Radiation mutagenesis was used to create seedless crops. Most grapes are clones.

            forcing genes/DNA into unrelated species

            Every living thing is related, look up the theory of Evolution. There are no foreign genes.

            In other words, a hispanic female might marry an asian man and you could call their children hybrid.

            Nope, that would be just a regular human. If you bred an asian with a neanderthal, that might be a hybrid. For example a donkey and a horse= a Mule which is a hybrid. Lion and tiger= Liger which is a hybrid.

            If a man wished to marry a coconut tree and have an offspring, that would require genetic engineering

            Nope, GMO would be taking out a useful gene from a coconut and putting it in a human. Like a gene for longevity or growth.

          • Rob Bright

            You’re assuming that one gene only serves one function. In fact, since the completion of the Genome Project in the early 2000s, we learned that a single gene could have multiple functions, and that we don’t really understand everything that genes may do. So playing around with this stuff is highly risky, given our lack of knowledge of gene functions.

          • hyperzombie

            So playing around with this stuff is highly risky, given our lack of knowledge of gene functions.

            So we should ban all plant breeding? Lets just stick with the old varieties.

          • SusanStop

            Why are you against natural selection and hybritization? Just a foolish argument from someone who spends many hours a day defending the AgriChemical Monsanto Cartel for free.. right?

          • hyperzombie

            Why are you against natural selection and hybritization?

            I am not against any plant breeding, I am just against folks don’t think. Mother nature manipulates the genome far more than GE does, yet no one has a problem with that. Also other breeding techniques introduce far more random genetic change as well.

          • SusanStop

            See my reply to Folta

          • G031

            Random mutation can produce anything, at any time.

      • Joseph G. Shobe

        We haven’t been inserting bacterial DNA into our food for forever. This is a very new development and one which has not had nearly enough time to understand the effects on the ecosystem.

        • drloko

          It’s been happening in nature for millions of years.

          • http://cendax.wordpress.com/ Norbrook

            Which is where we got the idea in the first place. Along with most of the tools to do it.

          • drloko

            Very true.

          • http://beginingsinwriting.wordpress.com/ R.w. Foster

            Billions.

        • Kevin Folta

          Plants have thousands of genes from relatively recent bacterial origin. Look what’s in the chloroplast! C’mon folks. Biology 101.

          • I_think4myself

            Lab transgenetic tools are easy-in, easy-out.
            Natural acquisition of these traits are not easy-in, easy-out. Pig weed easily acquired the resistance to glyphosate trait.

            Since Bt corn only uses 2 of the 8 Bt toxins, the corn borer is becoming immune to Bt corn, the 2 toxins produced by Bt corn. The corn borer was never immune to the whole spectrum of Bt toxins, because becoming immune to 8 toxins simultaneously and surviving all other variables to reproduce is infinitesimally remote
            New Bt seeds are being engineered using 2 of the remaining 6 toxins. Looks like soon there will be 4, then 2, then none…

            Bt also inhibits mosquitos. The Bacillus thurigiensis bacterial toxins reduce mosquito propagation in waterlogged soils.
            When mosquitos are immune to al Bt’s, their populations will increase dramatically everywhere. They will drink of you enough blood to reduce your body temperature below their active feeding trigger temperature.

        • JRT256

          No, we expose seeds to radiation and induce random mutations. As a result, we have Wheat with a protein that doesn’t occur in nature. Isn’t that the same as GMO? No, GMO has only used naturally occurring proteins.

          • Austin

            There are clear ecological effects of some transgenics. Herbicide resistance in crops has contributed to the decline of pollinators across the country, including the charasmatic monarch butterfly, by destroying host plants and nectar sources. We destroy native plant and animal species at our own peril, as we are intimately dependent on them in ways many are unaware.

          • Austin

            didn’t mean to reply to JRT, but the original commenter. Sorry for that

          • #Super

            Proteins that people have had allergies to in the past, and now their choices are limited. That is if the foods are labeled as such. So why not label them to protect the public health?

        • Normand Bertrand

          we haven’t but nature has been doing this for millions of years

      • http://macromanjr.blogspot.com/ Brian Lockett

        And funny enough, as a result, we’ve also seen a sharp increase of food allergies, over the same period of time we started genetically-modifying food. Now, is this necessary a the cause of such the outcome? We don’t know yet. More than anything, we don’t seem to care, either.

        And frankly, that’s all I’m hearing Bill say here. We don’t know for sure here. And frankly, our biggest issue with food is mismanagement. What’s wrong with that for an answer from people looking for some mindlessly-ready support from him?

        Why do people want his support so readily when they want him in the first place for being a publicly-recognized rational figure? Where is he not being fair about expressing his doubts here? Leave it to you general sort to go making politics out of science.

        • Rob Bright

          Well said…

          • http://macromanjr.blogspot.com/ Brian Lockett

            Thank you.

        • kurzweilfreak

          Where do you get your figures for this claim of increased food allergies over the last 20 or so years?

          • http://macromanjr.blogspot.com/ Brian Lockett
          • James Reich

            I wasn’t going to comment on this, but the bees disappearing in the 80’s has absolutely nothing to do with this. That was when varroa mites were introduced in the U.S. and annihilated the bees. We know this for sure, and we know for sure that it had nothing to do with what plants were being planted. Now if you want to say the current collapses we are seeing in the bees, you have a little more wiggle room, but for the most part it looks like it is a combination of stresses. Not least of which are these same mites and the miticides used to help control them.

            And some new research suggests that it might be our overuse of antibiotics that are causing the increase in food born allergies. I don’t know when we started to abuse them like we are now, but the 80’s sounds about right.

          • Austin

            it’s not just honeybees, but all kinds of pollinators which are in decline. The destruction of nectar sources and host plants by massive herbicide use (Allowed because of transgenetically modified crops resistant to glyphosate) has been the main cause of the death of these native plants and the main reason pollinators are dying… they are starving to death with no food sources.

          • Damo

            I know, no source, blah blah, but since GMOs allow “Big Ag” to control weeds with less toxic herbicides, I am not sure about your statement. Yes, I know that flowering plants that would once grow between the rows are now being killed, but pesticides are being applied fewer times throughout the year, they are applied with much more precision, and decay much faster thanks to GMOs. I think that should account for some positives on the ecological side.

          • #Super

            Hmmm… “less toxic,” this is why they won’t serve modified foods in their corporate cafeterias, and why those who apply them are required to wear the equivalent of chemical warfare protection gear? Have you ever worked on a farm?

          • Damo

            Yes, have you? I have never seen roundup applied with chemical protection gear. I have seen fields washed away into rivers and streams choking out the macroinvertebrate populations. This was due to those who refuse to use no-till, but instead use tillage as weed control.

            I don’t know what corporation you are talking about that doesn’t allow GMOs in their cafetaeria, but surely, if an internet commenter said it, than it is absolute proof that GMOs are evil.

            Come with me for a week, and you’ll change your tune.

          • Austin

            there are definitely positives to GMOs, my work with stream restoration has showed me this. But I don’t think we should ignore negatives, and there really are some negatives just by the sheer area of monoculture that transgenics have allowed the ag industry to develop. not against GMOs, just wanting people to protect the environment.

          • I_think4myself

            Glyphosate has a 1/2 life of ~30 days in neutral fresh water. Studies in Australia show a 1/2 life of 30 to >400 days in sea water. Studies in Sri Lanka, and Central America show a 1/2 life in extremely hard water of 2 to 22 years. The US has many areas with extremely hard ground water.
            Ex. Limestone aquifers…almost the whole state of Florida. We need studies done here.

          • Damo

            I don’t dispute that we should always look for more information and we may never know if something is truly harmful or not, because it may take decades to find links. If and when we do find something, yes we should pull that product immediately. But study after study ( independent and corporate funded) has shown low toxicity in glysophate and the best warnings about it say it is potentially carcinogenic.

            But you have to realize that a lot, and I mean a lot, of things are potentially carcinogenic. And really, there is no true way to prove anything is harmless, just differing degrees of harmful.

            None this has to do with the fact that GMOs that either contain bt or are glyphosate resistant allow farmers to use less chemicals

          • #Super

            You have to wonder what the agricultural chemical industry intends to do after they’ve succeeded in annihilating the pollinator species.

          • I_think4myself

            Most cereals are self pollinating. BEES! Corn don’t need no stinkin’ BEES! a

            A diet of cereals, and algal proteins…the future is upon us. If you recall Soylent Green was originally a sea crop, until they found a ready steady source of protein at hand.

          • I_think4myself

            HEAR! HEAR!

            Glyphosate damages the bees gut biome, just as it does in humans.

          • Larry McNally

            exception: neonics have proven detrimental to CCD and the research is still “in Progress” as is the research on chemical cocktails involved with Ag spray culture. Furthermore, I have seen no mention of soil biology as yet in this blog, and this too should be considered a real concern.

          • #Super

            I think the fear is that if we don’t do something now to prevent modified seeds from completely wiping out the biodiversity in our soils, the choice of consuming organic produce will be a thing of the past. Modified seed companies will have a monopoly on seeds that can survive the increasing level of toxicity that they, as producers of the neonics and herbicides, have introduced to our soil, air and water. If you think using aquifer water faster than it replenishes is bad now, wait a decade or so when these stronger chemicals leach their way in and the water that remains is too toxic to touch. As with any corporation seeking to monopolize the use of a natural resource, just follow the money.

          • Damo

            You do know that modern herbicides and pesticides are used because they are safer than the old ones, right? I mean, would you rather that we use DDT? Or even some of the toxic things allowed on the “organic” list?

          • Damo

            Soil biology is immensely affected by the use of GMOs, in a good way. But I guess you are in favor of tillage methods that destroy the soil ecosystem, lead to siltation of streams, and release carbon into the atmosphere. Now, new research is showing that neonicitoids may be harmful to pollinators, and if that is the case I am in favor of regulating them, but don’t confuse one chemical with all chemicals.

          • MadMunchkin

            “We know this for sure.”
            Source, please.

          • Guywithaface

            also the fact our population has increased greatly over the last 20 years and maybe just maybe that a few extra billion people would account for more allergies…. just winging it here.

      • Rob Bright

        Another sad soul who does not know the difference between selective breeding and genetic engineering. (It’s pretty funny when people who clearly don’t understand the science pretend they are pro-science and call anyone who disagrees with them anti-science. Ah, well, science doesn’t pick sides and all will be revealed once science is used as it should be. (Ie, not solely for the profits of corporations producing said science…)

      • Sabbie

        Because the genetic modification we’ve done in the past has limits as to what can produce a viable offspring. You can’t mate a jellyfish and a polar bear, but now you can make a polar bear glow in the dark by inserting jellyfish genes. That’s a fundamentally different level.

      • Modern Money

        No, we have not been creating transgenic organisms “forever”. We’ve been doing it since the 1970’s. GE technology is fundamentally different from selective breeding and hybridization because those techniques merely rearrange the genes that already exist in a species’ genome. They do not introduce foreign genes.

    • JH

      I can’t say I agree that he applies the “gold standard of science” in his “defense” of climate science. More like the moldy Alarmist Team consensus.

    • jonathan gibbs

      You’re the last person in the world who should speak for Nye. This crowed is Anti-Science

      • bee valentine

        Anti-Science? So now this is the new label for anyone who demands more evidence from long-term GMO studies? Hardly call 10 years of review, science. Throughout history anyone who challenged accepted science dogma was ridiculed or discredited. Until it was disproven.

        • Jordan Grey (Jack)

          That’s because to disagree with scientific consensus that hasn’t been disproven is a position worthy of ridicule.

        • drloko

          The evidence is already there.

          You get the anti-science label for ignoring thousands of studies with billions of animals that show no harmful effects of GMOs.

    • 1KonaFarmer1

      Typical GMO article message board: Men (scientists) debating technology. Why females (food shoppers) keep on reacting by instinct. Are you guys doing that at home with your wives sometimes? Who loses? Who wins?!? Label the stuff and let her (she is the market) decide. Sales will plummet, but they will have the chance to rise again. Don’t label it, and your field of science and sales and dividends will shrink forever.

      • Neil

        wow. wow. Did you just wake up from the 1950s?

      • Pamela Wright

        Sexist much? I shop and I have my own money and I science and I debate… and so does my son, all the above. Also, I am a small business person and do not want mandatory labels. I am perfectly capable of making up my mind without being scared with baseless, useless, and general labels that actually transmit no useful information whatever. Made with *what* GMO, in what percentage, in what way? Nope, just CONTAINS GMOs. Might as well say “Made with atoms” for all the use that stupid label would be. And now we see why people like you think labels will do something. You think women are ignorant wenches who shop based on our emotions and wouldn’t understand real genetic information if you bashed us over the head with the latest study. If you want labels, you better learn about the science and make your laws a lot more intelligent and your labels more informative. And while you’re at it, *pay* for it. I don’t see why I as a business person or a consumer should have to pay because you are hysterical.

        • Ted Miner

          It’s not sexist to want transparency with regards to the food we feed our families.

          Labels are informative and give food buyers more important information to help them make the choices that are right for them.

          We don’t need people who would like to continue to hide pesticide laden GMOs in the food we feed our children.

          • Deb Donohoe

            Are you aware that coated or bt gmo (corn only) is optional for gmo- not a given? Also, that coated seeds are also offered for organic seeds developed & sold by the same companies that sell gmo? Did you know certified organic farmers use pesticides? Further, are you aware that “natural” pesticides are 50% carcinogenic- just like synthetic, that conventional farmers also use natural pesticides (bt being one of them) & that alcohol (including wine) is also a carcinogen? My point being, natural or synthetic doesn’t determine the safety, it’s the amount used w/ regard to its toxicity. Both organic & conventional food can have traces of pesticides but both are far below what is considered a safe level by experts. (In fact, most pesticides are naturally formed by the plants themselves.) In other words, just bc it can be measured w/ today’s advanced technology, doesn’t mean it will have any deleterious effect on your system. Besides, our kidneys & liver are designed to flush these toxins out & they do.

          • Caroline

            “Our kidneys and liver are designed to flush these toxins out.” Well, our liver and kidneys are working in overdrive. More than 83,000 people are waiting for a kidney transplant. Often waiting from 5 to over 10 years. I guess our kidneys can’t take all these toxins.

          • Deb Donohoe

            Show us the data on how this is related to pesticides particular to gmo & not chronic disease. Is dialysis or transplants a new phenomenon? I’m not a health professional but high blood pressure & diabetes from disease are linked to kidney failure among other conditions & gmo has not been shown to affect these nor have the more benign pesticides we use associated w/ gmo. People jump to conclusions on crumbs of information to support their agendas & more sadly their psychological needs. Meantime, these hurt others in real physical terms such as the those in countries currently being denied the opportunity to try vitamin A enhanced golden rice or more simply, to be able to realize healthier crops & bigger yields to feed their families or make a better living.

          • Michael Phillips

            Another excellent reply. But where are Ted and Caroline to see if their positions hold up to reality and your flagrant application of common sense?

          • Donna Peplum

            Better yet – show us the data on pesticide use on GMO farms. The USDA says that glyphosate use on GMO crops is increasing which results in increasing amounts of toxic herbicides and pesticides in our food. So now you think the solution is to spray Agent Orange 2,4-D, an older and more toxic herbicide that is linked to all sorts of cancer and disease to fix your GMO problems? No thank you to Agent 2,4-D in our food. Yet on organic farms, where synthetic chemicals are not used and natural pesticides – which wash off and break down in sunlight are used – they are used ONLY AS NEEDED. Organic farmers don’t spray the heck out of their crops to treat weeds and pests that may or may not be there. What does your common sense tell you about the increase in use of toxic herbicides and pesticides on your GMO crops now?

          • Deb Donohoe

            First of all, the toxicity of glyphosate is ~equivalent to table salt, lower than cinnamon. We use anywhere b/w 12-24oz. per acre, twice/yr. early in the growing season & yes, studies have shown very little traces to none reach the actual bean or corn kernel. A recent study actually has shown pesticide use has decreased over 30% w/ gmos. Why would we spray more than what’s needed? We haven’t even sprayed for insects in the last 3 seasons bc bt corn & coated soybean seeds have been enough. 2-4-D does not contain the controversial ingredient assoc. w/ agent orange problems but another ingredient. Your argument is like saying since pesticides contain water, water is dangerous. We do not have glyphosate resistance bc we have incorporated other products periodically to avoid that (like we always have) & 2-4-D will give us one more tool. Btw there are exceptions in organic farming that do allow some synthetic pesticides. And actually it is my understanding that fruit & vegetable farmers, organic or conventional, typically put more pesticides & fertilizers on their crops than grain farmers. All of this & our yields have increased over 20% using less land. I actually need to go now to help bring in some of that grain! Thanks for the question.

          • Donna Peplum

            Awww, Deb, aren’t you sweet! Good luck with your grain. Sadly, you have provided only anecdotal stories which don’t hold up to the scientific evidence. Hope you don’t go drinking that Roundup. While the agrichemical industry wants you to believe that it’s as safe as table salt, according to a recent peer reviewed study, the scientific evidence says it was the most toxic of 9 herbicides and pesticides recently tested. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3955666/ And as for glyphosate use, the USDA provides facts and figures in a recent report that show that Roundup use increased from 1.5 to 2.0 pounds per acre. If you really think you are reducing insecticide use you need to check again. That Bt corn expresses 6 different versions of synthetic Bt toxins from every cell of the plant during its entire life cycle – and they don’t wash off! There is already evidence that these Bt toxin are harmful: http://gmofreeusa.org/gmos-are-top/gmo-science-studies/bt-bacillus-thuringiensis-studies/ Show me the peer reviewed study on the long term health effects of these Bt toxins on human health. You can’t? That’s too bad because I can show you a study that found these very Bt toxins in the blood of 93% of pregnant women tested and the cord blood of 80% of their unborn babies and others in the link above that show evidence to the contrary. Sorry but your anecdotal stories just don’t hold up.

          • Deb Donohoe

            I am not familiar w/ the organization or study you quote but the LD50 of glyphosate can be found anywhere. A recent meta-analysis on gmos was done here: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0111629 Bt is a bacteria commonly used by organic as well & is found naturally in the soil. I would guess if there is any increase in Roundup use it may be related to those who are experiencing resistance of a certain weed, but overall use of pesticides have decreased. In addition & more importantly, there’s no question the toxicity of pesticides has decreased from 30-40 years ago. My story is not uncommon. But obviously the hype and fear surrounding “chemicals” is. http://www.pnas.org/content/87/19/7777.abstract

          • hyperzombie

            the scientific evidence says it was the most toxic of 9 herbicides and pesticides recently tested.

            That is NOT what the study says. They tested these chemicals on cell lines, almost everything kills cells in a petri dish, including salt and distilled water.

            are reducing insecticide use you need to check again.

            Roundup is not a insecticide. The USDA says that herbicide use is stable.

          • Deb Donohoe

            Upon looking closer at your data here, I see they repeatedly source the researcher, Seralini. His work has been criticized & rejected by the scientific community at large & he has had to w/draw his papers after they’ve been independently reviewed. There are one or two other scientists in this area that have had the same problems but I apologize, I’m not familiar w/ their names. That said, I don’t think anything or anyone will change your frame of mind- it is set. Be assured, however, the anger & anxiety you carry around like a torch is doing more harm to your health than anyone or anything in the environment. All of this, just to be on the wrong side of history- go figure.

          • SusanStop

            Only AgriChemical Cartel talking heads are still putting Seralini down. I would love to hear what your credentials are. Do they stack up to Seralini’s?

            IT HAS BEEN REPUBLISHED!

            The famous 2 year Seralini rat study that scared Monsanto so bad that they had to take over the journal that published it and have it retracted but Surprise, IT HAS BEEN REPUBLISHED!

            Republication of the Seralini study: Science speaks for itself
            http://www.gmoseralini.org/republication-seralini-study-science-speaks/
            http://covvha.net/republication-of-seralini-study-science-speaks-for-itself/#.U6mPKbG8QWA
            http://www.enveurope.com/content/pdf/s12302-014-0013-6.pdf
            http://www.examiner.com/article/s-ralini-study-on-toxic-effects-of-gmos-and-glyphosate-republished
            http://foodintegritynow.org/2014/06/26/seralini-republished-long-term-study-gmos-roundup-causes-serious-health-issues/
            http://seedfreedom.in/republication-of-the-seralini-study-science-speaks-for-itself-2/

            IT HAS BEEN REPUBLISHED!

            Jul 10, 2014 … Séralini said that five separate journals offered to republish the paper.. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v511/n7508/full/511129f.html

            IT HAS BEEN REPUBLISHED!

            In case you didn’t know, FCT, the first journal that published, then retracted this monumental study after the FCT editorial board acquired a new “Associate Editor for biotechnology”, Richard E. Goodman. This was a new position. Richard E. Goodman is a former Monsanto employee.. Goodman had no documented connection to the journal until February 2013. Shortly thereafter the Seralini study was retracted amid much of the science community’s objections. Does Monsanto now effectively decide which papers on biotechnology are published in FCT? And is this part of an attempt by Monsanto and the life science industry to seize control of science?”
            http://independentsciencenews.org/science-media/the-goodman-affair-monsanto-targets-the-heart-of-science/

            IT HAS BEEN REPUBLISHED!

            Dr. Seralini’s account of the study, the attacks, the cover-up, the conflicts of interest etc…. Biosafety and the ‘Seralini Affair’ » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
            http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/27/biosafety-and-the-seralini-affair/

            IT HAS BEEN REPUBLISHED!

            1240 Scientists Demand Seralini GMO Study be Republished
            http://naturalsociety.com/hotly-debated-study-gmo-republished-1240-scientists-will-supressed/

            IT HAS BEEN REPUBLISHED!

            First, you have to find it funny that when Seralini used 10 rats per group the trolls complain, but when Monsanto or their references do it that’s just fine… The study only looks at limited parameters and it cannot be used to claim safety by chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity standards. “The aim of this study was to evaluate the protein quality of organic and genetically modified soy” It is criticized here.
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412014002669
            http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/

            Ten things you need to know about the Séralini study
            http://www.gmoseralini.org/ten-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-seralini-study/

            Abby Martin on the Seralini study Jul 17, 2014
            Conclusive Link Between GMOs and Disease in Rats
            http://youtu.be/cssKS-hzQ7U

            IT HAS BEEN REPUBLISHED!
            IT HAS BEEN REPUBLISHED!
            IT HAS BEEN REPUBLISHED!

          • drloko

            The Seralini paper was retracted because of concerns about the validity of the results.

            It was not republished in a peer reviewed journal.

          • SusanStop

            Wow we can say anything on the internet without substantiation… glyphosate is safer to consume than table salt or cinnamon?

            For those who keep saying organic uses more pesticides..
            New Study Finds Organic Diet For One Week Drops Pesticide Levels By 90 Percent In Adults
            http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/05/12/new-study-finds-organic-diet-for-one-week-drops-pesticide-levels-by-90-percent-in-adults/

            “Is Organic Food Better for You?
            “It shows very clearly how you grow your food has an impact”
            ► Organic crops contain an average of 17 percent more antioxidants than conventionally grown crops.
            ► Some of the organic crops, including fruits, vegetables, and grains, had as much as 60 percent higher concentrations of antioxidant compounds than conventional crops.
            ► The level of flavanones, which are associated with a lower risk of stroke, were 69 percent higher in organic foods tested.
            ► Pesticide residues were found to be three to four times more likely in conventional crops compared to organic.
            ► Overall levels of pesticides were found to be ten to 100 times lower in organic food than in conventionally produced food.
            http://foodrevolution.org/blog/organic-food-better/
            http://foodtank.com/news/2014/09/organic-produce-higher-in-nutritional-content-than-conventional-produce

            “New study further confirms industrial farming methods strip food of important nutrients. Learn more:
            http://orgcns.org/1oUochn

            President’s Cancer Panel: “Eat Organic” – 2010
            http://www.rodalenews.com/presidents-cancer-panel

            “PESTICIDE USE ON GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS Ramon J. Seidler, Ph.D. Former Senior Scientist at the Environmental Protection Agency September 2014
            Co – authored with David Bronner, BA Biology, Harvard 1995, President, Dr. Bronner’s
            http://static.ewg.org/agmag/pdfs/pesticide_use_on_genetically_engineered_crops.pdf

          • Deb Donohoe

            I’m not impressed w/ data or statistics cited by biased organic backed groups who have everything to gain & nothing to lose w/ the demonization/ban/labeling of GMOs. It’s all marketing, plain & simple, to deceive consumers & line their own pockets. This stuff is drivel. I’ve read studies that contradict

          • Donna Peplum

            HAHAHA no of course you arent impressed with independent science because it doesn’t support your BS. You’d much rather cite nonsense, such as the meta analysis you reference above. Do you even read what you post? That analysis cherry picked data to support your BS when they should have included studies such as these: Barney Gordon (2007) Manganese Nutrition of Glyphosate-Resistant and Conventional Soybeans BETTER CROPS WITH PLANT FOOD Vol. XCI (91), No. 4 http://www.ipni.net/ppiweb/bcrops.nsf/$webindex/6023B2456D1CE559852573940017E6CF/$file/BC+2007-4.pdf

            Székács, A, Darvas B. (2012) Environmental and Ecological Aspects of First Generation Genetically Modified Crops Regarding Their Impacts in a European Maize Producer Country IJEP Vol. 2 Iss. 5 2012 PP. 9-15 http://www.ij-ep.org/paperInfo.aspx?paperid=799

            You anti-science GMO farmers are all the same! You don’t bother to read the references you post! You have no idea what you’re talking about!

          • Deb Donohoe

            We have had 18 years of first hand experience w/ gmo. We have farmed for over 35 years. Yes, I am college educated (Phi Beta Kappa), understand the basics of science (e.g. the scientific method) & do read & comprehend the articles I share. As an aside, I was raised by an mentally ill woman who was also a “healthnut” & sold organic products for years. In addition, she belonged to a cult. Unfortunately, the tactics you & your friends use to manipulate the readership here are all too familiar to me; threatening, chastising, misleading, taunting, lying & generally poisoning the whole discussion to suit your own bizarre ends. You’re like a cornered animal lashing out in all directions. In fact, I suspect this really isn’t about gmo at all, but a much deeper, more disturbing personal problem. C’est la vie. On the other hand, I am here to inform to the best of my ability by sharing our own story & trying to explain what we do & why we do it- that it is based on reason, not emotion. And I will continue , not to be deterred by detractors, enjoying this great life & excited about what the future holds for agriculture, while pressing on as a positive & productive member of society.

          • Rob Bright

            But the studies put out by biotech corporations is A-O-K, huh? You have some strange biases against science — something leading toward corporate/ industry/ tobacco science. You’re right about the marketing though — Monsanto et al would like all of us to believe their pseudoscience and eat their pesticide laden food-like-substances.

          • drloko

            You accept a study of thirteen people conducted over one week while you reject a study of 100 billion over thirty years?

            The science doesn’t support your position.

          • hyperzombie

            Better yet – show us the data on pesticide use on GMO farms

            http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0111629#s4

            The USDA says that glyphosate use on GMO crops is increasing which results in increasing amounts of toxic herbicides and pesticides in
            The USDA never said any such thing.
            http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1282242/err162_summary.pdf

            2,4-D, an older and more toxic herbicide that is linked to all sorts of cancer and disease to fix your GMO problems?

            2-4-D is less toxic than Glyphosate to plants and has about the same toxicity to humans. You can buy 2-4-D at the local hardware store, it is in Weed n Feed and dandelion killer, it is so toxic that it doesn’t even kill the lawn. 2-4-d is also not linked to cancer, that study has been dismissed.

            they are used ONLY AS NEEDED

            Nope, and they are sprayed far more often as well.

          • Randall

            What you say is happening is not correct.

            There is no such thing as Agent Orange 2,4,d, that statement is meant to mislead and cause fear–nothing else.

            It is not linked to “all kinds” of cancer or disease. I’m aware of the few studies–out of hundreds–that link 2,4-d with some higher diseases with a few isolated groups of applicators–not the public.

            We have been using 2,3,d on food for decades–it has been the most popular weed control for grain crops since the 1950’s. It is nothing new.

            I raise some crops using organic methods, some crops non-GMO, and about 30% GMO. GMO is by far the best for the environment when you consider how much tillage , fuel and iron, organic methods take.

            No farmer I know says they spray more by using GMO. Every farmer–me included–sprays less using GMO, and we use safer pesticides.

            Using the raw numbers of herbicides as a argument against GMO’s is an incredibly poor argument, and will only fool those with absolutely no understanding of what herbicides are used, how herbicides are used, or where they are used. I don’t think I have to use a parable to make this point–most people are smart enough to know that a simple raw number covering millions of acres and hundreds of herbicides says absolutely nothing.

            If you would like to discus real issues without making demeaning comments, I’m willing to do so with full transparency.

          • hyperzombie

            Modern farming is Awesome, check it out

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DktisG0J_9g

          • Gray Sun Light

            Pretty awesome, destroying the soil and the atmosphere, putting people out of work, keeping Monsanto and John Deere in the red. Keep it up!

          • hyperzombie

            destroying the soil

            Hmmm, they didn’t even use any tillage.

            putting people out of work,

            I saw lots of people and no robots in the vid.

            keeping Monsanto and John Deere in the red.

            Well they were growing Wheat and Canola, so it was highly unlikely it was a Monsanto product and the equipment was made by Case, not JD.

            Here is Organic farming. (john Deere tractor)

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuuSJf8JHq4

          • SusanStop

            The American Academy Of Environmental Medicine Says:
            “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects… GM foods pose a serious health risk in toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health.”
            http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopressrelease.html

            New Study: Huge Increase in US Chronic Diseases Linked to Glyphosate Herbicides
            http://sustainablepulse.com/2014/11/07/new-study-huge-increase-us-chronic-diseases-linked-glyphosate-herbicides/
            http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/92/abstracts/Swanson-et-al.html

            The The American Academy of Environmental Medicine’s (AAEM) position paper on Genetically Modified foods;
            http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html

            EPA ignoring their OWN policy set forth by OCHP on the tenfold safety factor for children???? For SHAME!!!! http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=13963

            oh and btw Golden Rice was a huge flop…

          • Caroline

            What do you think causes diabetes? We have children with Type II diabetes now. AND Type II is related to diet. AND all that money spent on developing golden rice could have been better spent on vitamin A supplement! How simple is that?

          • Deb Donohoe

            I should add that I heard Dr. Weiner, an oncologist from the University of Iowa, yesterday on Iowa Public Radio & he was asked about toxins we consume & how they relate to cancer. His response was that diet (sugar, overeating, abusing drugs & alcohol) exercise & personal habits like heavy smoking far outweighed any effects of pesticides & focus on improving those things alone would greatly increase the health of our country. Although we continue to look, the evidence is just not there.

          • Caroline

            Did you know that barley used to make alcohol is dried down with GLYPHOSATE. So yes, toxic pesticide is a big problem. The standard american diet is glyphosate-laden GMOs.

          • Deb Donohoe

            A close friend of my family died ~10 years ago of a rare genetic blood disease that attacked her kidneys. She was diagnosed in the 80s. Her brother donated a kidney but time took its toll. I don’t think she or her family would appreciate you using her as a poster child in your cause against gmos.

          • SusanStop

            You too…

          • Caroline

            My best friend’s husband is waiting for a kidney transplant. He’s been on the waiting list for almost 5 years now. AND my niece gave birth to a baby with one kidney several years ago. There is a serious uptick in kidney defect in the past decade. Something is seriously wrong and I think it’s all the toxic chemicals in our food especially GMOs. How do you explain the dramatic increase in kidney failure? It’s all genetics?

          • NRGuest

            83,000 out of 6 billion is a ridiculously small number.

          • NoToGMOs

            I may be mistaken, but I think she was talking about numbers in the USA only.

          • NRGuest

            Even so 83,000 of 316,100,000 is still fairly small (0.02% of the total population).

          • NoToGMOs

            That figure was only for people waiting for kidney transplants. What about people with other kidney problems that may not have reached the seriousness of requiring a transplant but serious nevertheless?

            What about liver problems and people waiting for liver transplants? It all adds up and is definitely not insignificant.

          • NRGuest

            But it still doesn’t appear to be substantially high enough to have an artificial cause. In all likelihood you are looking at natural failure rates.

            Even if we can establish it as an artificially high rate you have a massive task ahead to identify the cause. Claiming it’s definitely GMOs with no sources, (not to mention GMOs can vary wildly depending on the modification) is just unscientific and illogical.

          • NoToGMOs

            I never claimed it’s ‘definitely’ GMOs….just that, that co-relation has never been scientifically looked into (with epidemiological studies, for example) with any GMO.

          • JH

            No! Everything bad is caused because we are making everything unnatural! We have to stop living in houses and driving cars and eating fresh fruit and vegetables every day and using modern medicine and using soap and toilet paper and offending mother gaia!! It’s making us all SICKl!

          • NRGuest

            What’s really sad is I can’t quite tell if you’re being sarcastic or not…

          • http://beginingsinwriting.wordpress.com/ R.w. Foster

            What, specifically, are these “toxins”? I’ve not yet encountered anyone specify what they are supposed to be.

          • Michael Phillips

            Excellent points. I wonder if they will take your logical, evidence based arguments into consideration?

          • Rob Bright

            Well, they’re doing a hell of a number on our bee populations…

          • Deb Donohoe

            This is what I’ve learned about neonics in the last year. Neonics have not been shown to harm mammals & birds to the degree that older more toxic insecticides did & are used in all farming- gmo & non-gmo. Where there might be a connection w/ bees are that seeder planters owned by some farmers release coated seed dust above into the air as opposed to ground level. Planters can be retrofitted at a cost of ~$1000+ to lessen this dust by up to 90%. That said, problems are found in areas where there are a lot of hobby beekeepers who feed their bees sugar (cheap) instead of the recommended honey over winter which has been found to be less “nutritious”. In addition, some beekeepers themselves must put insecticides, like Amitraz, directly into their own hives to fight mite problems & if not done carefully, this can greatly contribute to the weakening of their immunities & cause some of the same problems the media has attributed to neonics. On top of this, weather (heat, extreme cold, lack of rain. etc.) plays a huge role in insect populations in general. There are places like the whole western half of Canada & all of Australia where neonics are used but there are no bee problems. In addition, bee problems continue to exist where neonics have been banned like some countries in Europe. Thus, if neonics are a contributing factor, they are way down the totem pole in importance.

            http://ausfoodnews.com.au/2013/05/06/honey-bees-disappearance-linked-to-human-shortcuts-in-honey-production-2.html

            http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pi117

            Sorry, those are the only articles I’ve bookmarked from this year. Got to get back to harvest!

          • Emerson White

            I am fairly certain that honey is not the recommended food for bees, because it can be a disease vector.

          • Deb Donohoe

            I’ve surmised it is from a couple of beekeepers I have followed on Twitter but it wouldn’t surprise me if there is disagreement in the industry. I know some beekeepers have more trouble than others so management of bees can differ among them.

          • Christopher Mason

            I am a husband that goes grocery shopping. My wife is studying for her PhD. Things like this are commonplace, nowadays. Also, women are now allowed to vote. Many in our culture today find this as a sign progression.

          • gskibum

            This issue of transparency is not the sexist part of your post. Nice moving of the goal post.

          • Michael Phillips

            How are labels informative when they contain no information? No transgene, no promoter, no copy number, no enzyme activity. Just “GMO”. Are all genes the same to you?

            Why should we cater to this sort of ignorance? Why not label them with “Contains DNA”?

            Would you support a label for organics that says “May cause food poisoning and death”? At least we know those are actual risks, even though small.

          • SusanStop

            ok fine, skip labels and just BAN GMO!

          • Randall

            It is only hidden to the inept, lazy, or gullible.

            http://npic.orst.edu/npicfact.htm

            http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=stelprdc5102692

            http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products.aspx

            Even the EWG relies on this data to scaremonger people, and the terrified are too lazy to find the actual data for their self.

          • http://beginingsinwriting.wordpress.com/ R.w. Foster

            Tell me something: Do you also want labels telling you what foods where harvested using John Deere tractors versus Caterpillar ones? Because it’s the same thing.

        • 1KonaFarmer1

          Subjective opinions and political correctness mean nothing in the world of marketing and sales. Old people want to see younger people in ads. Fat women want to buy from skinny models bodies. Men see a car brand as the extension of their genitals. Yes, and consumers are smart and often educated but still irrational in their decisions.

          Scientifically I know eating insects is nutritious. But no way I am eating ants and grasshoppers. Put them in your sons soup without telling him, you expect just kumbaya when he finds out?!

      • Nathan Williams

        Really? How sexiest can you get. What are you like 80?

      • jonathan gibbs

        Truth speaks!

      • bee valentine

        Yes, let’s pet the ladies on the head, while the Round-Up they spray on GMO crops passes through the placental wall into your future children. Let them breastfed your babies, as the chemicals pass through to them via nursing. Let’s not argue wholesale with women…with wives…with mothers…with those who shop for your meals. Let’s just pat them on the head. Mr. 1KonaFarm1…do you still allow smoking around your children?

      • Cassandra

        Females react by instinct???? Wow, did you realize that more women are getting college degrees than men these days? I’m a biologist and my husband does the shopping, by choice, because that way he gets to choose the food. He’s a foodie and I’m not. I’m on these forums when I have time, trying to counteract all the lies being circulated about genetic engineering. It’s a major means of providing medicines and it’s so much more than just two controversial crops by multi-national companies. Public sector scientists have developed some crops that are beneficial to the consumer, rather than just the farmer, but because of the regulatory hurdles those crops may not make it to the market. The multinationals are the only ones with the cash to do the scale of trials and safety testing required.

        Many of the issues are the opposite of what anti-GMO people are saying they are. For instance, do you think only GMOs are patented? No, plants have been patented since the early 1900s. Do you think farmers were all saving their seeds until GM crops came along? No, the majority of corn farmers stayed competitive by buying new hybrid seed annually ever since Pioneer came out with them in the 1930s.

        Farmers know these things, so the lies don’t fool them. But non-farmers don’t have a frame of reference to notice that the anti-GM articles are telling lies. Non-scientists don’t understand statistics well enough to realize how bad the handful of scientific articles against GMOs are. It’s a seemingly hopeless situation where well-meaning people are battling each other because their sources of information are so different. You think mainstream science is lying to you, and scientists know that NaturalNews.com and other anti-GM organizations are actually doing the lying.

        • 1KonaFarmer1

          You have kids, super woman? You know how happy they gobble down their food when they ask what’s in it while you tell them to shut up and just eat it?

          THAT’s what you are up against in consumer behavior. If you think splicing genes is the only science read something about marketing and consumer psychology for a change. Political correctness is trumped by sales demographics.

          Stick your head into the corporate sand and ignore farmers irritation further. We live in a regulated market economy based on choice for consumers. That’s why we have ‘previously frozen’ labels on meats and fish. Nothing different about it, but the food shoppers (yes, they are overwhelmingly female) simply wanted it. Farmers can’t build the ranch on pretense and omissions. Current GMO policy guarantees financial disasters for farmers, as we already see in the Cargill case.

          If you ignore and meddle with consumers wishes and desires via lobbying, legislation, and fear propaganda it will backfire. First they get irrational (believing in silly things), then they buy whatever else is possible (boom in questionable organic goods), then they’ll become belligerent (vandalism of fields, labs, and offices) and elect potential nut cases as politicians. GMO politics hurt the democratic system deeply by playing chess with lawyers in legislative, judiciary, and corporate functions. All the while the freedom of science is vanishing as US universities becoming corporate dependents.

          • Cassandra

            I think I understand your point about alienating consumers, and it reminds me of my own disgust with people who aggravate the science/religion controversies by campaigning to associate atheism with science. Religion simply isn’t a part of science, and pushing atheism in the name of science seems more likely to make religious people resent and reject science than to accomplish anything positive, IMHO.

            Yes, I find psychology, sociology, and marketing fascinating and important fields and I do read and think about them quite a bit. After considering and studying this for several years, I’m inclined to think that pandering to superstition or ignorant fears is not the way to resolve this GMO controversy.

            For a while I’ve gone back and forth about labeling, and I was especially inclined toward labeling of produce and actual products containing modified proteins or DNA for a while, but then I realized that that wouldn’t begin to satisfy the people who are most fervently pro-labeling.

            Many of the really adamant anti-GMO folks believe that sucrose from GM beets is somehow magically different from the sucrose from non-GM beets. They want sugar and oils labeled even though they’re not affected by modification. They have the false belief that there’s a difference. So a label on a pure compound like sugar would pander to that belief and effectively misinform people.

            I think education is the key and that’s why I used to spend a lot of time trying to explain the biology of GM to people on threads like this. I had little success because no one who feared GMOs believed what I explained and they had no interest in the scientific studies I showed them. What needs to happen is for more knowledgeable scientists to stick their necks out and explain the science to the public. I’m very disappointed that the major worldwide scientific organizations such as the National Academies of Science that have come out supporting the current GM crops haven’t done so in a way that the public will see and learn from.

            The Great Myth is that all GM safety studies were done and paid for by the genetic engineering corporations that developed these crops. The truth is that there have been numerous independent studies as well, and those are what convince some of the major food safety regulators to approve the crops. For instance, the European Commission wrote “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects,
            covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” You can read their report here:
            http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf

          • 1KonaFarmer1

            THX for the thorough response.

            More scientific explanations to opponents are not the answer–the problem is that GMO corporations have to stop their clandestine operations in lobbying and the rotation of key personnel to universities to government to federal institutions. Pure and simple.

            A little labeling would already satisfy a huge chunk of protesters. A respect for consumer choice is tantamount for a consistent marketing strategy.

            GMO science is hugely beneficial to mankind on so many levels. But when anonymous corporations undermine our society purely under profit maximization we do have a serious problem. And a promising technology gets damaged beyond repair and unmarketable in the end.

            I agree that education is key, but when an industry thinks that less consumer knowledge is just fine (not labeling), it shows you that there is clearly nobody at the helm of the corporations sharing this view.

          • Cassandra

            I can’t see this the way you do because what you call “rotation” is actually just scientists changing jobs, to me. I know a few of them and the ones I know are some of the most honest people you could want to meet. Most scientists are honest, simply because dishonest people would hate the ruthlessness of science itself against falsehoods. The whole point of research is to learn facts, and eliminate hypotheses that don’t pan out, whatever they might be. Bluffers don’t last long. If an experiment or conclusion is flawed in some way, even your best (scientist) friend will quickly jump up to point it out if they spot it. That’s the norm. Lying isn’t.

            The idea that all GMOs are the same in some toxic way is so very wrong that it does need to be dispelled instead of pandered to, in my opinion. So is the idea that sucrose is magically different if a beet is GM. This is ignorance at a profound level. Did you know that people in South Korea believe that fans can kill you by using up the air in a closed room? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_death Manufacturers there even put switches on fans so they don’t stay on too long, since this is an entrenched belief. I think we can do better here to educate people, but a lot more scientifically literate people, especially scientists, need to speak up.

          • Cassandra

            My overly long answer is to try to explain that I have thought about many of your points, and I don’t think they’re outlandish, but I have reached different conclusions. I’ll leave the gender issue out of it:-)

    • DRoell

      I’ve read the whole chapter on GMOs in his book now.
      He’s gone full crackpot. I have no other words for passages like this:

      Page 235f+:

      “But there was something weird and unnatural about putting fish genes in fruit, in tomatoes. Nobody wanted it, so that research was abandoned.

      I’ll grant you, this could be a visceral reaction from ignorant consumers. Emotional responses do not necessarily reflect scientific reality, as is evident in everything from creationism to the anti-vaccine movement. In this case, I think science and emotion are on the same side. There are valid scientific reasons to approach GMOs with caution, and those turn out to dovetail with economic reasons. So far, it’s not clear that investment in GMOs pays off. It’s certainly not clear that GMO research should be funded with tax dollars.”

      • Nathan Williams

        The only crack pot is you. Anyone that believes what you say in an idiot.

        • DRoell

          Do you believe I read the chapter?

      • Michael Phillips

        “It’s certainly not clear that GMO research should be funded with tax dollars.”

        As a plant scientist, I must say your knowledge of plant research sounds very limited.

      • SusanStop

        Sorry, Nye is right.. these mad scientists are just playing games, there really is NO benefit whatsoever… I mean they are making glow in the dark pigs! WTH good is that???

        10 REASONS WHY we don’t need GM foods
        1. GM foods won’t solve the food crisis
        2. GM crops do not increase yield potential
        3. GM crops increase pesticide use
        4. There are better ways to feed the world
        5. Other farm technologies are more successful
        6. GM foods have not been shown to be safe to eat
        7. Stealth GMOs are in animal feed — without consumers’ consent
        8. GM crops are a long-term economic disaster for farmers
        9. GM and non-GM cannot co-exist, GM contamination of conventional and organic
        10. We can’t trust GM companies
        with references
        http://www.saynotogmos.org/10reasons_need.pdf

        “..Science, which ideally should carry the banner for rigid standards, openness and integrity, has suffered the undue influence and control of autocratic, commercially-driven multinational corporations. In many disturbing cases, independent science has been increasingly displaced by the far more devious “corporate science” which places profits over people, above safety, and above revealed scientific method and peer-reviewed accountability.”
        Ralph Nader, Attorney, Author & Consumer Advocate
        http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/16/gmos-and-searching-for-the-crashless-car/

        The Food Safety Movement Grows Tall – Ralph Nader
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-nader/the-food-safety-movement_b_5515885.html

        “Retired EPA Senior Scientist Ramon J. Seidler, an expert on genetically engineered crops who wrote the U.S. government’s first research plans for these engineered foods, has released an important, information-packed literature review detailing how genetically engineered crops are not living up to their original promise and are instead causing serious environmental harm.”
        http://blog.seattlepi.com/videoblogging/2014/09/17/dr-ray-seidler/

        http://static.ewg.org/agmag/pdfs/pesticide_use_on_genetically_engineered_crops.pdf?_ga=1.260466254.274248203.1410996905

        WATCH: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsk9dc6pfaQ

        Can we just please skip labeling them and BAN GE/GMOS EVERYWHERE? Over 30 countries have and a bunch of counties in the US have done it!

        How long before it’s too late?
        GMO crops contaminating non-GMO crops across globe through cross-pollination.
        http://orgcns.org/1f1yVDm

        This is my biggest fear.. Putting genes back in bottles. “..once the genie is out of the bottle, it will be difficult or impossible to stuff it back.”
        http://www.goal-2025.com/the-trouble-with-monsanto-and-gmo/

        Experimenting With Life by David Suzuki
        “The difference with GM food is that once the genie is out of the bottle, it will be difficult or impossible to stuff it back. ”
        http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/food-for-life/356

        • drloko

          You are a poster child for how conservatives are an embarrassment. You are wrong on every point of science. Just check the USDA website.

          You can live in your little conservative world where GMOs are bad, temperatures haven’t ever changed, evolution doesn’t happen, and the Earth is 5000 years old. Just go away and leave progress to the rest of us.

        • Metalhead Nick

          You’re top ten list is completely backwards and utterly false. Except number seven. Saying that gmos are bad becuse they are in animal feed presupposes that they are bad already. It is an empty statement. Including on your list only shows you are not capable of thinking critically. It makes no more sense than saying organic food is bad because they feed it to animals without telling me sometimes. Oh, and to what you said earier, our own genome is littered with viral and bacterial DNA and no one had to engage in interspecies marriage for that to occur.

          • SusanStop

            It is also well referenced if you bothered to read it.

          • Metalhead Nick

            I’m not sure how referencing anti-GMO sites counts as being well referenced. All of those statements are rubbish.

    • Nathan Williams

      What were you thinking? You are wrong on the issue and one day you will understand that their are no human studies. Hello
      Kevin, I know you want to be famous, but give it up already. You never will be and you are so emotionally off, in addition to being wrong, that you could not handle the pressure.

    • cken

      You can’t defend either man made climate change or the total concept of evolution with the gold standards of science when both involve much speculation.

    • Sal Minella

      You said it, he defends climate alarmism, and you are surprised that he defends GMO alarmism. Where is the inconsistency?

    • bee valentine

      Kindly refer me to your gold standard, science-backed evidence to support your argument. 10 years? is significant to you? You act as if GMO crops are a faultless success story, when even as we speak, reports of monoculture failures are starting to surface. Compare this to our past blinded notions on smoking. The shattering deleterious effects on health and costs of first, second and third-hand smoking on our economies should give you sober second thought on GMO’s. The very nature of plant, animal, bacterial and viral mutation and evolution should encourage you to accept the fact that man will never, ever be in control of genetic manipulation. As a species, our lack of humility and apathy will be our undoing.

    • bee valentine

      Please post references to your gold standard of science research that supports your argument. 10 years is not significant.

    • Nathan Williams

      What a jerk you are kevin

    • http://macromanjr.blogspot.com/ Brian Lockett

      I find no flaw in Bill’s response to the matter. I see a man who simply doesn’t want to become the face of something he’s not entirely sure on himself.

      And in any case, he’s right–people don’t know the outcome of their enthusiastic action here, and the real issue in life is our social mismanagement of food.

      Nobody refuted him on this. They’re just complaining about him not supporting them. But a complaint is not a counterargument.

      • Kevin Folta

        I think that’s the problem Brian. Everyone turns to guys like Nye to provide a good interpretation of the current science. If he is unsure, he should say he has no hard idea.

        Social mismanagement? How does social mismanagement affect the citrus greening disease? Please let me know as soon as possible, because an industry is dying and we can’t implement working GM solutions. It is as easy as a social change we’ll start tomorrow. Please illuminate for us.

    • Rob Bright

      Oh, Kevin Folta, you pro-GMO troll! LOL! Your no scientist, but you sure know how to promote Monsanto’s et al’s unproven products. Are you still writing for all those trade association publications funded by Monsanto? Are they still paying for your airfare and hotels when you go speak on their behalf? You should give Big Oil a call — they’d love someone like you working for them.

    • TZ

      Like you are the authority and have all the answers? That is laughable! You are a paid crony for Biotech… their lap dog that begs for his supper….one day you WILL all pay for your crimes! I will be eating my popcorn with my organic butter watching the downfall of a tyrannical corporation and its many spawn… 😉 Now that would be my idea of heaven on earth….

    • richard40

      It does not surprise me that Bill Nye would use unscientific and underhanded tactics in this debate, since he is no better on the climate science debate.

    • brock2118

      The anti-GMO people are part of the crowd he runs with.

    • Jimmy Cahill

      Actually his whole argument is due to lack of evidence. He said recently that there have been no long term studies that pass the scientific “smell test”. He said something about different phases of testing, like red or orange or something. His basic stance, as I understood it, is that until we see some legitimate studies on long term effect, which we have none, than we shouldn’t just assume one way or the other.

      • Jimmy Cahill

        And there is evidence that these GMOs are affecting ecosystems. Round-up resistant weeds and insects are proof of this. The disappearance of honey bees is another prime example. To get GMOs through the FDA only takes a certain amount of time testing. I’m not positive but I think its 90 days. 90 days is impossible to figure out all the implications it might create in the future 10, 20 years down the road. He actually makes sense.

    • Fabian Rivera

      I guess it’s kinda hard to not stand by your assertions after you solidified your opinions by making an entire documentary and book chapter about your view points. He “changed his mind” after enough real scientist grilled him. Maybe people should just stick to listening to real experts and not TV “science guys”

  • mem_somerville

    I thought the vacuousness and lack of evidence in that answer was astonishing.

    But I bet that works really well at dinner parties in So. Cal. among the folks who also bought this product from him. On the other hand, we also know he wasn’t giving out organic snickers the other day.

    So I think there’s an educational opportunity that Kevin Folta could really help him with. Although the calls for a debate between Nye and Neil de Grasse Tyson were kind of amusing, I think he should talk to plant scientists.

    • DRoell

      “Bill Nye disguised as a scientist”. Not just on Halloween.

      • jonathan gibbs

        This site of monsanto et al lovers is a disguised science site 365 days a year….

    • jonathan gibbs

      Just like this Mary …. get real science plz. Like Nye instead of promoting junkscience

  • Loren Eaton

    “I stand by my assertions that although you can know what happens to any individual species that you modify, you cannot be certain what will happen to the ecosystem.”
    Great. Should we stop ALL plant breeding? Does an ecosystem know HOW an individual species has been modified? Can it tell the difference between classical breeding, mutation breeding and GMO’s?

    • jonathan gibbs

      How about doing some independent testing… real science…and post tests?

      • Regressive Goosesteppers

        You mean like the countless instances of independent studies that have proven time and again the safety and efficacy of GMO that you Luddite morons just refuse to acknowledge because they thoroughly tear apart your lame arguments?

        • Donna Peplum

          How about you stop the nonsense and show us a few links. How about a link to some long term studies that weren’t conducted on broiler chickens, fish, quails, unapproved varieties, are not funded by industry and meet all the criteria for toxicity, carcinogenicity and multigenerational harm. Leave out the performance studies that don’t address anything more than body mass, weight gain and milk production because sick animals can still be fat and we don’t like milk from sick cows. We’re not interested in 90 day studies either because they don’t address chronic toxicity.

          • drloko
          • No Gmo

            LOL! You don’t even know how to read! Donna specifically said no broiler chickens, nothing with ties to biotech companies, etc. and in response you post an article by a former Monsanto employee in a journal with ties to biotech companies which looks at mostly 49 day broiler chicken data! LOL! You are too stupid to even read your own reference! HAHA! Anti-science flatearthers are hilarious!

          • Loren Eaton

            Rejecting, out of hand, studies from people you don’t like is the most anti-science activity going on. Go to the Biofortified site and sift through the hundreds of studies out there if you want. You’ll find plenty that you can ‘live with’.

          • NoToGMOs

            There is not ONE study on biofortified that satisfies the criteria asked for by Donna above.

          • Karl Haro von Mogel

            And when you find some that fit the criteria, just add one more so you can keep claiming that there’s not enough research. It’s a perfect plan.

          • NoToGMOs

            The only thing I would add is for it to be blinded to prevent bias, but I’ll forgo that. For now, just find me one (doesn’t have to be ‘some’) that fit the criteria she requested.

          • Michael Phillips

            If you’re that curious, do the work yourself. Go to Biofortified and start reading. But don’t claim there is no research if you’re not willing to do the work to find it. And don’t expect others to make up for your laziness.

          • NoToGMOs

            I am not lazy. I read through every one of them. Still can’t find one that satisfies all of Donna’s criteria. Perhaps you being such a hard worker, could find one for me?

          • Michael Phillips

            You read 2000+ peer reviewed articles and didn’t find one that satisfied the arbitrary criteria of someone who is not trained in science? I am skeptical about several things here. I realize research that conflicts with a typical person’s world view is invisible to them. Are you absolutely certain this isn’t happening here?

          • NoToGMOs

            Yes, I did not find any that fit her criteria. How many times do I have to repeat that? One would think that in the time it takes you to keep posting in defense of GMOs, you would have been able to find and post one such study. I thought y’alls aim was to ‘educate’ the public? Why not start by providing a good study that satisfies very reasonable criteria for safety that Donna asked for?

            You don’t know whether she is or is not trained in science. So you bringing that up is simply an ad-hominem designed to deflect from the fact that you have NO study.

          • drloko

            See the Journal of Animal Science, there are thousands there.

            Now, why don’t you provide just one peer review study backing up your position?

          • No Gmo

            Thousands? LOL! You are too stupid to even read your own reference! HAHA! Anti-science flatearthers are hilarious! You couldn’t even provide one! LOL!

          • drloko

            Again, you have nothing but insults. No science, no studies, just conspiracy theories.

            Is that what science is to you? Insulting people to try to beat them down?

          • No Gmo

            HAHA! You can’t read either! LOL! You claimed “using BILLIONS of animals, none of which are chickens. See the Journal of Animal Studies,” Yet, your own reference says, “broiler data are particularly important due to the large number of animals involved (approximately 9 billion broilers” HAHA! You claimed none of them were chickens! LOL! I have plenty of evidence, but you are too stupid to even read your own references so why waste my time on you? LOL! Anti-science flatearther are hilarious! I would say enjoy reading, but you can’t read! HAHA! http://gmofreeusa.org/gmos-are-top/gmo-science-studies/

          • drloko

            No, I said there are studies that involve other animals than chickens. It’s simple math: 100 billion animals – 9 billion chickens = 91 billion animals that are not chickens.

            You claim that all GMO studies use chickens. That is clearly false. You should try reading some of those papers you claim to have debunked.

          • No Gmo

            LOL! You really didn’t read your own reference! HAHA! Let me finish that quote for you “broiler data are particularly important due to the large number of animals involved (approximately 9 billion broilers are processed annually in the United States)” That is per year! LOL! Do the math! HAHA! 94,683,600,000 of the 100, 000,000,000 are broiler chickens! LOL! Anti-science flatearthers who don’t even read their own references are hilarious! LOL!

          • NoToGMOs

            No, there’s none there either…..that satisfies all criteria that Donna mentioned.

            FYI, it is very obvious when biotech trolls throw out entire lists of studies as proof of safety instead of individual studies…..that they don’t actually have any.

          • drloko

            There are many there that meet all the criteria you propose. Here’s one:

            http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3644.htm

            You don’t even look at the research. You make up criteria, assume that no study has done it, and try to hide behind that.
            Where is your science? What evidence do you have?

          • No Gmo

            LOL! Coming from a guy that didn’t even read his own list and had over 40 duplicates on it a year after I told him about it! LOL! HAHA! Anti-science flatearthers are hilarious! Funny how if you actually knew how to read, when you said, “The research they were looking for was number 4 in that list.” http://www.biofortified.org/2013/10/making-sense-of-lists-of-studies/ YOU WOULD HAVE SAID #3 AND #4 ARE WHAT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR BECAUSE IT IS ONE OF OVER 40 DUPLICATES ON THE LIST! LOL! You are too stupid to even read your own reference! HAHA! Anti-science flatearthers are hilarious!

          • NoToGMOs

            Not to mention there are some on that list that actually show negative effects of GMO, lol!

          • drloko

            And you don’t have even a single peer reviewed study to back up your fantasy.

            If GMOs are so bad where is your overwhelming evidence?

          • No Gmo

            HAHA! You can’t read either! LOL! You claimed “using BILLIONS of animals, none of which are chickens. See the Journal of Animal Studies,” Yet, your own reference says, “broiler data are particularly important due to the large number of animals involved (approximately 9 billion broilers” HAHA! You claimed none of them were chickens! LOL! I have plenty of evidence, but you are too stupid to even read your own references so why waste my time on you? LOL! Anti-science flatearther are hilarious! I would say enjoy reading, but you can’t read! HAHA! http://gmofreeusa.org/gmos-are-top/gmo-science-studies/

          • drloko

            More cut and paste? Where is your evidence?

          • Loren Eaton

            Donna is not remotely qualified to set such criteria. Oh, and LOL!

          • NoToGMOs

            And you know that how? Oh, I forgot….assumptions, as usual.

            What makes them ‘bad’ criteria? That fact that you don’t have any study that fit them? Lol!

          • Loren Eaton

            I can’t cite studies done by a 4 year old, either. So what? The point is that her criteria are arbitrary and capricious and based on her own assumptions about motivations and qualifications. As someone who has been doing this for 30 years, I feel no great need to acquiesce to her demands.

          • NoToGMOs

            Fine, don’t ‘acquiesce to her demands’. I’m sure rational readers will know what to take from that.

          • Kevin Samuel Coleman

            Can you point me to non-GMO studies that fit Donna’s criteria specifically?

          • NoToGMOs

            It’s up to the makers of these novel organisms to provide sufficient proof of safety, not on the people who have cultivated age-old plants that have evolved over hundreds and thousands of years.

          • Kevin Samuel Coleman

            So you don’t know what the long term effects are of “non-GMO” plants then?

          • fiesta

            thank you for your wonderful posts.

          • drloko

            They have done that already. Sorry that it Government and the science bodies around the world don’t agree with you.

            The ball is in your court now. You need to show proof of your position.

          • NoToGMOs

            No, they haven’t done that already. What they have is cherry picked data and research slanted to fit their agenda. Not acceptable.

          • drloko

            Cherry picked? They examined every single published study. How is that cherry picking?

          • drloko

            You can read thousands of studies from the Journal of Animal Science. Try reading out of the non-fiction section for a change.

          • NoToGMOs

            Again, there are none that fit the following reasonable criteria to provide sufficient evidence of safety to humans:

            –Long-term (more than 90 days) and/or multi-generational in order to look for chronic effects.

            -Not conducted on quails, broiler chickens, fish or other such animals that are physiologically very different from us.

            -Independent of industry that created the GMOs

            -Are not ‘production’ studies that look at things like weight or how much an animal produces like eggs/meat/milk etc.

            -Are blinded (double-blinded would be great!) to prevent bias

            -Toxicological and/or carcinogenic studies that follow accepted international standards.

            If you had even one study that fit all these criteria and showed no harm from a GMO, you all would be eagerly posting it, instead of posting huge lists of studies that you expect people to wade through.

          • drloko

            Your criteria are unreasonable because they are not well defined. No matter who does the study you are going to say that it’s someone connected to he industry. You always leave some subjectivity so you can argue that an legitimate study is somehow tainted by conspiracy.

            There are plenty of studies that are:
            Longer than 90 days
            Conducted on animals other than birds and fish
            Examine toxicology

            That is standard in the literature. If you want something more, please send NIH a proposal.

          • drloko

            This study fits all of the criteria you requests:

            http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3644.htm

          • No Gmo

            LOL! You don’t even know how to read! I didn’t reject it because it was from people I didn’t like, I rejected it because it doesn’t meet the criteria mentioned. LOL! I don’t see much of anything on Biofortified that meets the standards mentioned. Please show me these “plenty” of studies you are talking about that are long term studies, didn’t use broiler chickens, fish, quails, etc. used varieties currently consumed, are not funded by industry and meet all the criteria for toxicity, carcinogenicity and multigenerational harm. No performance studies that don’t address anything more than body mass, weight gain and milk production. LOL! You are too stupid to even read your own reference! HAHA! Anti-science flatearthers are hilarious!

          • Michael Phillips

            And he forgot to say Simon says too. Seriously, how many arbitrary criteria will you throw up there to dismiss out of hand thousands of peer reviewed research articles? How about: “Show me research where every co-author’s name has the letter ‘R’ in it”.

            Do you also have such strict criteria for the papers which allege to show GMO harm? Most of those never even showed controls (Seralini)! I assume you apply the same strict criteria to all scientific articles you read, not just the thousands that destroy your “GMOs are evil” fantasy.

          • No Gmo

            Arbitrary? LOL! You can’t be this stupid! If you think broiler chickens are comparable to humans then let me see you fly! LOL! You have no idea what chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity standards are or you would know that only an anti-science flatearther would post 49 day broiler chicken nonsense! LOL! Anti-science flatearthers are hilarious! Seralini never showed controls? LOL! You can’t even read! The control data is all in the charts, graphs, etc. Don’t come here and post BS! Thousands of studies? Are you high? Show me thousands of health studies that show no harm and if you can’t then you need to admit you go around posting BS! Post the thousands of health studies that show no harm, or are you chicken? HAHA! Anti-science flatearthers are hilarious!

          • drloko

            What is you aponpbsession with broiler chickens? There are studies showing no harmful effects of GMO using BILLIONS of animals, none of which are chickens. See the Journal of Animal Studies,

          • No Gmo

            LOL! You can’t even read! HAHA! You claim, “using BILLIONS of animals, none of which are chickens” Funny how your reference in “Journal of Animal Studies” says, “The broiler data are particularly important due to the large number of animals involved (approximately 9 billion broilers” LOL! They used data from billions of broiler chickens, and you claimed they used no chickens! LOL! HAHA! Anti-science flatearthers are hilarious!

          • L7

            Hahahahaha! deloko has failed once again!

          • drloko

            There are many studies on animals other than chickens. Your claim that all GMO studies are on chickens is just misinformed and poorly researched.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Big hype for the study.

            Big flop in the science department.

            Typical version of PR based science in the most craven form.

            You should be embarrassed for shilling the study before it was freely available.

            FAIL!

          • drloko

            Yeah, I remember you, you were the guy who didn’t want to pay $15 to get access to the study.

            So what’s your new objection? Do you have an actual science criticism or just more conspiracy theory?

            Or are you going to go with just rejecting it without actually stating any reason?

            How about presenting some studies to support your position? Oh yeah, I remember. You don’t have any of those either.

            It’s a shame really. Some birther, creationist, climate denier group is missing their tinfoil hat because of you.

          • drloko

            I see you have no actual critism of the work. Just ad hominem attacks.

            When you have some science I’ll listen. I don’t argue science fiction.

          • No Gmo

            HAHA! You can’t read either! LOL! You claimed “using BILLIONS of animals, none of which are chickens. See the Journal of Animal Studies,” Yet, your own reference says, “broiler data are particularly important due to the large number of animals involved (approximately 9 billion broilers” HAHA! You claimed none of them were chickens! LOL! I have plenty of evidence, but you are too stupid to even read your own references so why waste my time on you? LOL! Anti-science flatearther are hilarious! I would say enjoy reading, but you can’t read! HAHA! http://gmofreeusa.org/gmos-are-top/gmo-science-studies/

          • drloko

            Can’t even do an original post? Just a cut and paste job?

            You still haven’t offered any evidence to support your claims.

          • drloko

            Look at it again. There are billions of animals in those studies that are not chickens.

          • No Gmo

            Not really, LOL! “94.7% or 94,683,600,000 of the 100, 000,000,000 are broiler chickens” http://beachvethospital.blogspot.com/2014/10/gmo-junk-science-meets-junk-journalism.html

            Cows aren’t comparable to humans so that leaves you with hardly anything. Besides, YOU claimed they didn’t use chickens! LOL! Anti-science flat earthers who can’tread are hilarious! HAHA!

          • drloko

            You said you would be satisfied with studies on animals other than cows or fist.
            By your own admission this study has at least 5 billion animals that are neither cows nor fish. The study finds no indication of harmful effects using 5 billion animals that a second ago you said would satisfy you.
            Now that you are faced with the scientific evidence, you want to restate your criteria. You are not even attempting to engage in a serious or honest discourse. You just want to move the goalposts when faced with incontrovertible evidence.
            You aren’t looking for science fact, you just want to believe your own science fantasy.

          • No Gmo

            LOL! I said no such thing! This was the initial criteria, ” How about a link to some long term studies that weren’t conducted on broiler chickens, fish, quails, unapproved varieties, are not funded by industry and meet all the criteria for toxicity, carcinogenicity and multigenerational harm. Leave out the performance studies that don’t address anything more than body mass, weight gain and milk production because sick animals can still be fat and we don’t like milk from sick cows. We’re not interested in 90 day studies either because they don’t address chronic toxicity.” Cows are not comparable to humans either, but even if they were it specifically says, “Leave out the performance studies” these are all performance parameters! LOL! Anti-science flatearthers who don’tread their own references are hilarious!

          • drloko

            Here is a study that satisfies all of your criteria:
            -greater than 90 days
            -not conducted on broiler chickens, fish, quails
            -not funded by industry
            -meets criteria for toxicology, carcinogenicity
            -Examines multigenerational harm
            -Is not a performance study
            -Examines both acute and chronic effects

            http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3644.htm

          • No Gmo

            LOL! Anti-science flatearthers are hilarious! This was a review of an application by Monsanto and it included almost all Monsanto data yet you claimed “not funded by industry” LOL! You can’t be this stupid! LOL! I’m done wasting time with you.

          • drloko

            Try actually reading the article. That is an EU study thar cleared GMOs for sale in Europe.

            You can’t even read science articles. No wonder you have no ability to argue science.

            Where is you evidence?

          • No Gmo

            It isn’t an EU “study” it is a review of a Monsanto application. I know you are a braindead troll, but come on even a 5 year old can see this isn’t a “study”. I posted hundreds of studies several times, but you are just too stupid to even comprehend what has been posted. Here it is again for like the 5th time you braindead idiot. http://gmofreeusa.org/gmos-are-top/gmo-science-studies/

          • drloko

            Apparently you don’t read many scientific papers. None of this study was funded by Monsanto. You can review it for yourself, the references are all cited in detail. None were funded by Monsanto.

            You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but you do not get to create your own facts. This study meets each and every criterion you requested. And typical for anti-science types, when you are confronted with evidence you simply deny it exists.

            As far as the references you present, they do not appear to support you claims. They find no harm from GMOs. Do you have anything that actually supports you position, or did you intend this to be a set of references that conclude that GMOs are safe?

          • No Gmo

            Come on stop making things up. This is a “submission of an application (EFSA-GMO-UK-2009-76) under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Monsanto,” LOL! You can’t expect me to take you serious when you post a review of a Monsanto application and tell me it doesn’t involve Monsanto. LOL! Anti-science flatearthers are hilarious! HAHA!

          • drloko

            No, it’s the opinion of EU scientist reviewing the data to either recommend or deny the application. You purposely cut the beginning of the title which is “Scientific Opinion on genetically modified soybean MON 87769”. The Monsanto application is a different document which can be found at the same site.

            The reviewers consist of 22 EU scientists, none of which are Monsanto employees.

            And here is a wonderful quote from one of your references

            “The risks of GMOs are no greater or less than those of any other introduced organisms, and the benefits are potentially far greater”

            So seriously, was this list intended to be a list of GMO supporting papers? It certainly doesn’t appear to support your claims of danger or harm.

          • No Gmo

            Come on, you can’t be this stupid! LOL! You claimed, “the references are all cited in detail. None were funded by Monsanto.” Really? Let’s check the references.

            1. Letter from the Competent Authority of the United Kingdom, received on 20 October 2009, concerning a request for the placing on the market of genetically modified soybean MON 87769 submitted under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 by Monsanto Europe S.A./N.V.

            WHAT? The first reference is “by Monsanto”! You have been exposed as a straight up moron! Anti-science flatearthers are hilarious! HAHA!

          • drloko

            Have you really never read a science paper before?
            These 22 EU scientists were empanelled to review Monsanto’s GMO products for introduction into the food supply in Europe.

          • No Gmo

            You anti-science flatearthers are hilarious! HAHA! You claimed, “the references are all cited in detail. None were funded by Monsanto.” Really? Let’s check the references.

            Hammond BG, Mayhew DA, Naylor MW, Ruecker FA, Mast RW and Sander WJ, 2001. Safety assessment of DHA-rich microalgae from Schizochytrium sp. I. Subchronic rat feeding study.
            Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 33, 192–204.

            Monsanto Company, St. Louis, Missouri, 63198
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230001914588

            How many times do you have to get caught before you realize you’re an idiot? Oh wait, you’re an anti-science flatearther so you are too stupid to realize you are stupid! HAHA!

          • drloko

            I can see you really have never read a science paper before. Take the time to actually read the references.

            The article your cite is part of Monsanto’s APPLICATION. Again, this is a scientific review of an APPLICATION by Monsanto.Monsanto provided their own studies for comparison.

            Again, this study is by independent reviewers and meets all of the criteria you requested.

          • No Gmo

            You keep getting caught! LOL! Anti-science flatearthers are hilarious! You just think nobody will check to see that you are exposed! The document you referenced is a review of an application by Monsanto and you just admitted it. You don’t even know what a study is!
            LOL! Anti-science flat earthers are hilarious!

            Oh by the way I found that quote you claim came from the reference I provided. It doesn’t seem to be found in the reference list I provided and you seem to have edited out the parts you didn’t like! LOL! Here is the original quote(not from the reference list I gave you) “The risks of GMOs are perhaps no greater or less than those of any other introduced organisms, although perhaps less predictable, and the benefits are potentially far greater” http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol4/iss1/art12/

            Show where this quote is on the list I provided or be exposed as a liar! You have already been exposed as an anti-science flatearther! HAHA!

          • drloko

            It’s basic research. Go see where the article is cited and cross reference it against the list. You can find it easily.

            I said form the very beginning that this is a study in REVIEW of an application by Monsanto. Again and again. Here is the process:
            1. Monsanto creates GMO product
            2. Monsanto does internal safety studies
            3. Monsanto presents application for sale of said GMO product
            4. UK Health Commission presents said application to the Competent Authority for a scientific opinion
            5. The Competent Authority conducts their own, independent study of GMO safety. This in part reviews Monsanto’s application and internal studies to their own research.
            6. The Competent Authority presents their findings.

            You are reading the result of 6. This is not 2 as you claimed earlier nor is it 3 as you claim now. This is not Monsanto’s application, it is not their study, it is not their scientists, and it is not funded by Monsanto.

            This study is from the EU Competent Authority. This is an independent science organization. This study empaneled 22 scientists and determined that this GMO product is completely safe and is equivalent to the non-GMO counterpart.

          • No Gmo

            So what you are saying is you can’t provide the evidence to support your claim of that quote being from the list I provided? LOL! Typical anti-science flatearther! HAHA! Provide the reference or be exposed as a liar! Last chance…

            You claim, “The Competent Authority conducts their own, independent study of GMO safety.” Where is this independent study since that is not required by EFSA or EC guidelines. Provide a reference for your #5 claim. Nobody cares about EFSA or the EC looking at Monsanto’s data. If #5 (The Competent Authority conducts their own, independent study of GMO safety.) meets the criteria above then I would be more than happy to look at it. Otherwise, EFSA, the EC, etc. just looking at Monsanto data(which they could have easily faked, etc.) and not repeating it is just useless nonsense.

          • drloko

            Here is the link to the study:
            http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/3644.pdf

            You can find all of the references at the end.
            Here is how you conduct the basic research you are asking for:
            1. Get the list of references in the document
            2. Get Monsanto’s original application (it’s cited)
            3. Get the references supplied in Monsanto’s application
            4. Remove the supplied references (3) from the list from (1)
            5. What is left is the references cited that are not from Monsanto.

          • No Gmo

            So what you are saying is you can’t provide the evidence to support your claim of that quote being from the list I provided? LOL! Typical anti-science flatearther! HAHA! YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED!

            You just posted the same “Scientific Opinion” which is not a study it is an “Opinion”. I gave you a chance to cite the independent study to confirm Monsanto’s results which you claim exists and meets the criteria mentioned, but YOU FAILED MISERABLY! HAHA! I’m done wasting time with you. I gave you plenty of chances to support your claims and you couldn’t do it! You are such a pathetic anti-science flatearther! HAHA!

          • drloko

            It cites to everything. Are you really not capible of opening the document and reading them?

            You claim you have all this evidence, but you don’t know the difference between a footnote and a reference. You can’t petform simple cross reference. You can’t perform a simple reference sieve.

            I suppose given your inability to do these simple research exercise it’s no surprise you believe things without support.

            So again, you have 2000 references showing GMO safety.

            I provided you a reference that meets every criterion you requested. You refuse to accept it and you refuse to provide any rational basis.

            You fail to state any critism of the reference.
            You do not challenge the statistics.
            You do not object to the methodology.
            You don’t question the credentials of anyone involved.
            You don’t reject the interpretation of results.
            You fail to link any of these people to a conflict of interest.

            So you object to what? You object to scientists doing experiments? What precisely do you see as an issue?

          • drloko

            Anything better then cut and paste?

            You can’t take studies that show GMOs are safe?

            What’s your argument?

            I’ve supported the claim that GMOs are safe with over 2000 studies.

            I countered your objection to the study means and methodology by providing you a specific reference that met all of you criteria.

            You don’t deny that this study meets your criteria. And by now I’m sure you’ve seen all of the many many more similar studies from the same group.

            So your argument now is what? It’s not a study? Why? Because they didn’t paint the lab walls the color you prefer?

          • No Gmo

            So what you are saying is you can’t provide the evidence to support your claim of that quote being from the list I provided? LOL! Typical anti-science flatearther! HAHA! YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED!

            LOL! You never provided over 2000 studies, you don’t even know what a study is! HAHA! You didn’t counter my objection, I asked you for an independent study and you provided an “Opinion” of Monsanto data. That isn’t a study, so I do deny it meets the criteria and you refuse to cite the independent verification you claim exists, so I have to conclude you are just an anti-science flatearther who has already been exposed! HAHA!

          • drloko

            Again and again you refuse to even read the article.

            It’s not an opinion of Mondanto data. Its an independent study.

            So then tell us what a study means to you? Apparently a group of scientists performing experiments and comparing those results to claims made by Mondanto doesn’t count as a study. So what counts?

          • No Gmo

            LOL! You are such an idiot! You were asked for the evidence and YOU REFUSED to provide it. So what you are saying is you can’t provide the evidence to support your claim of that quote being from the list I provided? LOL! Typical anti-science flatearther! HAHA! YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED!

            LOL! You were asked several times to provide the reference you claim exists and all you have posted is the same “Opinion” which you are too stupid to realize is just a review of Monsanto’s application! LOL! Typical anti-science flatearther! HAHA! YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED!

            LOL! You were asked several times to provide the reference you claimed of over 2000 studies and YOU REFUSED to provide it. LOL! Typical anti-science flatearther! HAHA! YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED!

          • drloko

            You can’t tell the difference between a footnote and a reference.
            You can’t tell the difference between independent research and a reference.
            I’ve provided you a reference that meets all of your criteria.
            You don’t even take the time to read the reference I provided. They don’t review applications. That is done at the governing body. This group handles the science.
            And what was the ‘Opinion’ of this group? Their opinion was the this GMO product was perfectly safe and could enter the food supply. They arrived at that opinion using independent data, as stated in their article. Is is too much trouble for you to actually read the reference?
            I suppose if you just want to ignore the science then reading the article is too burdensome. And since it goes against your preconceived notions I suppose it is difficult for you to accept.
            So what do you want other than that?

          • No Gmo

            LOL! You are just making things up and hoping nobody checks like you have over and over and no matter how many times you are caught you just make something else up to try to cover how you were caught.

            You made up a claim about a quote from the reference list I provided which is not on the list and when confronted with this YOU REFUSED to provide evidence to support your claim because it was FAKE!

            You claimed your JAS reference didn’t use chickens when in fact they used billions of chickens, I provided evidence chickens were used and you could not support your claim because it was FAKE.

            You claimed you provided over 2000 studies, but when asked for these studies YOU REFUSED to provide evidence to support your claim because it was FAKE!

            You claimed, “”the references are all cited in detail. None were funded by Monsanto.” when I provided evidence that references on the list were in fact by Monsanto you could not support your claim because it was FAKE!

            You claimed I posted a footnote when I actually posted “DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO EFSA” which was “by Monsanto”. I provided the evidence and you could not support your claim because it was FAKE!

            I can keep going, but why should I? You lost all credibility and you failed to support your claims and you failed miserably! LOL! Anti-science flatearthers are hilarious! Thanks for the laughs! HAHA!

          • drloko

            You have to be kidding me! Making things up?

            Are you seriously suggesting that I invented the Competent Authority, created a huge website and all that content, and hijacked an international government email domain all so I could mislead you into believing GMOs are safe?

            Seriously? Is that what you argument comes down to now? That there is a vast conspiracy to fake GMO safety?

            Seriously? I admit I’m completely stunned at the lengths you are willing invent to protect your faith in GMO harm.

          • No Gmo

            LOL! YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT! You can’t just make things up and hope nobody checks, HAHA!

            You made up a claim about a quote from the reference list I provided which is not on the list and when confronted with this YOU REFUSED to provide evidence to support your claim because it was FAKE!

            You claimed your JAS reference didn’t use chickens when in fact they used billions of chickens, I provided evidence chickens were used and you could not support your claim because it was FAKE.

            You claimed you provided over 2000 studies, but when asked for these studies YOU REFUSED to provide evidence to support your claim because it was FAKE!

            You claimed, “”the references are all cited in detail. None were funded by Monsanto.” when I provided evidence that references on the list were in fact by Monsanto you could not support your claim because it was FAKE!

            You claimed I posted a footnote when I actually posted “DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO EFSA” which was “by Monsanto”. I provided the evidence and you could not support your claim because it was FAKE!

            I can keep going, but why should I? You lost all credibility and you failed to support your claims and you failed miserably! LOL! Anti-science flatearthers are hilarious! Thanks for the laughs! HAHA!

          • drloko

            Wow, just Wow!!!

            So not only did I create a fake government website to try to fool you, I then created a fake journal called Critical Reviewes in Biotechnology, created fake content just to make it believable so I could put out this fake paper:

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

            Then I created yet another fake journal called the Journal of Animal Science, create even more fake content just so I could create another fake paper:

            http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/early/2014/08/27/jas.2014-8124

            And I did all of this just so I could falsely clam that there are over 2000 studies showing GMO safely (both papers have this and they do not completely overlap).

            So did I do all of this trickery by myself?

          • No Gmo

            LOL! Anti-science flat earthers just make stuff up!

            Both of your references combined do not list 2000 studies showing GMO safely. In fact, they DO NOT EVEN HAVE 2000 REFERENCES LISTED COMBINED! You honestly have no idea what a study is which is now obvious since your reference includes letters to the editor, articles, book chapters, etc. So you just made ANOTHER FAKE CLAIM! HAHA!

            Oh wait, there is more. There are several references on the list that suggest PROBLEMS! HAHA! Here is just a small sample :

            First of all there are several studies on that list that do not suggest safety like the study in #1319 which states, “with the present data it cannot be concluded that GM corn MON863 is a safe product.” so this claim is already debunked.

            #1422 on the list states, “An equilibrium in the number research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was currently observed. Nevertheless, it should be noted that most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible of commercializing these GM plants.”

            Serious concerns about the environmental and health risks
            #54 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392248/

            The Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods GM food not approved for food or feed anywhere in the world found in food supply.
            #80 http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nbt0508-478?locale=en
            EU to monitor for Chinese GM rice

            It is incorrect to assume that US federal-agency decisions on genetically modified (GM) organisms are always based on sound science
            #144. http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/476283b

            Biotechnology: US Congress right to halt GM salmon USDA regulations have a critical weakness.
            #150 http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nbt0911-772

            The release of the Cry1Ab protein by roots is a common phenomenon with transgenic Bt corn
            #204 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038071701001614

            The use of genetically modified crops may result in negative effects on the natural enemies of crop pests.
            #358 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0013-8703.2005.00235.x/abstract

            Combination of dormant seed and herbicide resistance makes GM glyphosate-resistant canola a new and difficult weed.
            #842 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22258428

            It is currently impossible to prevent gene flow between sexually compatible species in the same area. Pollen and seeds disperse too easily and too far to make containment practical.
            #854 http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nbt0602-542

            HGT from transgenic plants to microbes could have an environmental impact at a frequency approximately a trillion times lower than the current risk assessment literature estimates the frequency to be
            #974 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15340480

            The combined observations of decreased photosynthetic parameters and low nutrient availability in glyphosate-treated plants may explain potential adverse effects of glyphosate in GR soybeans.
            #1158 http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf904342t

            Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe?
            #1303 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17987446

            Most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters.
            #1367 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18989835

            ,etc.

            I guess we’ll just add that to your list of FAKE CLAIMS!

            LOL! YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT! You can’t just make things up and hope nobody checks, HAHA!

            You made up a claim about a quote from the reference list I provided which is not on the list and when confronted with this YOU REFUSED to provide evidence to support your claim because it was FAKE!

            You claimed your JAS reference didn’t use chickens when in fact they used billions of chickens, I provided evidence chickens were used and you could not support your claim because it was FAKE.

            You claimed you provided over 2000 studies, but when asked for these studies YOU REFUSED to provide evidence to support your claim because it was FAKE!

            You claimed, “”the references are all cited in detail. None were funded by Monsanto.” when I provided evidence that references on the list were in fact by Monsanto you could not support your claim because it was FAKE!

            You claimed I posted a footnote when I actually posted “DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO EFSA” which was “by Monsanto”. I provided the evidence and you could not support your claim because it was FAKE!

            I can keep going, but why should I? You lost all credibility and you failed to support your claims and you failed miserably! LOL! Anti-science flatearthers are hilarious! Thanks for the laughs! HAHA!

          • drloko

            Welcome to science! I see this is new for you.
            Read the article. It doesn’t state that it is presenting ONLY studies that support GMO safety. If it did you would complain that it didn’t consider any contrary evidence.

            , they actually reviewed all of the evidence (something you should try yourself). They considered contrary evidence. They determined that the overwhelming weight of evidence supporting safety was greater than the minor amount of evidence that did not.

            Just because a single study does not 100% determine that a product is safe does not mean that it is therefore eternally unsafe. You have to consider all of the evidence.

            So when actual scientists review all of the data (including the data you claim to have), they find that GMO products are completely safe.

            So you agree that the science community has actually considered your evidence. Real scientists found your evidence did not hold up.

            Do you have any additional evidence you would like them to consider?

          • No Gmo

            LOL! You can’t just make things up and call it science! HAHA! That is ANTI-SCIENCE! You really know nothing about science!

            You are so stupid you just admitted you made things up and both of your references combined do not list 2000 studies showing GMO safely. In fact, they DO NOT EVEN HAVE 2000 REFERENCES LISTED COMBINED! You honestly have no idea what a study is which is now obvious since your reference includes letters to the editor, articles, book chapters, etc. So you just made ANOTHER FAKE CLAIM! HAHA!

            Oh wait, there is more. There are several references on the list that suggest PROBLEMS! HAHA!

            I guess we’ll just add that to your list of FAKE CLAIMS!

            LOL! YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT! You can’t just make things up and hope nobody checks, HAHA!

            You made up a claim about a quote from the reference list I provided which is not on the list and when confronted with this YOU REFUSED to provide evidence to support your claim because it was FAKE!

            You claimed your JAS reference didn’t use chickens when in fact they used billions of chickens, I provided evidence chickens were used and you could not support your claim because it was FAKE.

            You claimed you provided over 2000 studies, but when asked for these studies YOU REFUSED to provide evidence to support your claim because it was FAKE!

            You claimed, “”the references are all cited in detail. None were funded by Monsanto.” when I provided evidence that references on the list were in fact by Monsanto you could not support your claim because it was FAKE!

            You claimed I posted a footnote when I actually posted “DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO EFSA” which was “by Monsanto”. I provided the evidence and you could not support your claim because it was FAKE!

            I can keep going, but why should I? You lost all credibility and you failed to support your claims and you failed miserably! LOL! Anti-science flatearthers are hilarious! Thanks for the laughs! HAHA!

            Nicolia is not a systematic review. If you actually read the article it doesn’t include the majority of the papers listed on their list so most of their list does not seem to be included in their review including numerous studies and even letters the editor, etc. that either observed problems or are questioning the safety of GE foods, crops, etc. Most importantly, since this is not a systematic review, all it is really is the opinion of 4 biased authors who are either biased biotechnologists or members of the pro-GMO group SIGA. They have no health, environmental, etc. background that I can tell and so all we have is their biased, unqualified opinion based on cherry picked references from their list. So as I said before, biased nonsense is not what was asked for, your reference was asking for a system to be put in place to assess human risks and not the opinions of biased and unqualified biotechnologists and 49 day chicken data with omissions also done by a biased biotechnologist. Hopefully you can read this, because I have really wasted a significant amount of time trying to help you read. LOL! Anti-science flat earthers just make stuff up!

          • drloko

            Still refusing to read the studies? Scientists have reviewed all of the studies to date. They find GMO products perfectly safe.

            The EU had reviewed GMO products and the literature. They find GMO products to be perfectly safe.

            Apparently only you have this hidden study that shows GMOs are not safe.

            Why haven’t you published this?

            Probably because you can’t tell a footnote from a reference. Do you think that someone who can’t tell a footnote from a reference can actually review science literature or conduct scientific studies?

            Probably not. And neither do the scientists that run the journals. That’s why they would not publish your work.

          • No Gmo

            LOL! I read your references and there is nothing there that suggests safety by any scientific standard. I don’t expect an anti-science flatearther such as yourself to understand though! HAHA! You can’t go against the weight of the applicable evidence and make things up and expect me not to laugh at you! HAHA!

            LOL! You can’t just make things up and call it science! HAHA! That is ANTI-SCIENCE! You really know nothing about science!

            You are so stupid you just admitted you made things up and both of your references combined do not list 2000 studies showing GMO safely. In fact, they DO NOT EVEN HAVE 2000 REFERENCES LISTED COMBINED! You honestly have no idea what a study is which is now obvious since your reference includes letters to the editor, articles, book chapters, etc. So you just made ANOTHER FAKE CLAIM! HAHA!

            Oh wait, there is more. There are several references on the list that suggest PROBLEMS! HAHA!

            I guess we’ll just add that to your list of FAKE CLAIMS!

            LOL! YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT! You can’t just make things up and hope nobody checks, HAHA!

            You made up a claim about a quote from the reference list I provided which is not on the list and when confronted with this YOU REFUSED to provide evidence to support your claim because it was FAKE!

            You claimed your JAS reference didn’t use chickens when in fact they used billions of chickens, I provided evidence chickens were used and you could not support your claim because it was FAKE.

            You claimed you provided over 2000 studies, but when asked for these studies YOU REFUSED to provide evidence to support your claim because it was FAKE!

            You claimed, “”the references are all cited in detail. None were funded by Monsanto.” when I provided evidence that references on the list were in fact by Monsanto you could not support your claim because it was FAKE!

            You claimed I posted a footnote when I actually posted “DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO EFSA” which was “by Monsanto”. I provided the evidence and you could not support your claim because it was FAKE!

            I can keep going, but why should I? You lost all credibility and you failed to support your claims and you failed miserably! LOL! Anti-science flatearthers are hilarious! Thanks for the laughs! HAHA!

          • drloko

            I think I’m beginning to understand now. You don’t know how to read scientific papers. That’s why you are unable to distinguish footnotes from references.

            “Nothing to suggest safety by any scientific standard” you say?

            Let’s see what the articles say:

            “soybean MON 87769 does not raise safety issues”

            “no reasons to suppose that these would pose safety concerns”

            “soybean MON 87769 are as safe and nutritious as those derived from other non-GM soybean varieties”

            “is as safe as its conventional counterpart and is unlikely to have adverse effects on human and animal health and the environment”

            “The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops”

            “we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops”

            So you really read these references and found “Nothing to suggest safety by any scientific standard.” Really?

          • No Gmo

            LOL! Now you say it is an article and not a study! HAHA! You Clown college alumni are hilarious! HAHA! Chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity standards moron! LOL!

            LOL! You can’t just make things up and call it science! HAHA! That is ANTI-SCIENCE! You really know nothing about science!

            You are so stupid you just admitted you made things up and both of your references combined do not list 2000 studies showing GMO safely. In fact, they DO NOT EVEN HAVE 2000 REFERENCES LISTED COMBINED! You honestly have no idea what a study is which is now obvious since your reference includes letters to the editor, articles, book chapters, etc. So you just made ANOTHER FAKE CLAIM! HAHA!

            Oh wait, there is more. There are several references on the list that suggest PROBLEMS! HAHA!

            I guess we’ll just add that to your list of FAKE CLAIMS!

            LOL! YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT! You can’t just make things up and hope nobody checks, HAHA!

            You made up a claim about a quote from the reference list I provided which is not on the list and when confronted with this YOU REFUSED to provide evidence to support your claim because it was FAKE!

            You claimed your JAS reference didn’t use chickens when in fact they used billions of chickens, I provided evidence chickens were used and you could not support your claim because it was FAKE.

            You claimed you provided over 2000 studies, but when asked for these studies YOU REFUSED to provide evidence to support your claim because it was FAKE!

            You claimed, “”the references are all cited in detail. None were funded by Monsanto.” when I provided evidence that references on the list were in fact by Monsanto you could not support your claim because it was FAKE!

            You claimed I posted a footnote when I actually posted “DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO EFSA” which was “by Monsanto”. I provided the evidence and you could not support your claim because it was FAKE!

            I can keep going, but why should I? You lost all credibility and you failed to support your claims and you failed miserably! LOL! Anti-science flatearthers are hilarious! Thanks for the laughs! HAHA!

          • drloko

            Sigh. Have you really never read a science paper before?

            The process is sort of like the ‘How a Bill becomes a Law’ cartoon.

            See, first a scientist does research. Reasesrch is the process of looking up prior work typically published in journals.

            Next, the scientist develops a methodology for an independent experiment. This is written up and sent in to the NIH as a grant proposal.

            The NIH (hopefully) approves said grant proposal providing funding to the scientist.

            The scientist then takes said grant funds to purchase the necessary equipment, pay lab fees, and most importantly, give 50+% of the grant money to a sponsoring university.

            Then said scientist conducts the proposed experiment. This is called a ‘study’.

            Next, the scientist writes up the results and sends them to a journal. This is called a paper.

            The journal does nothing for quite some time, then responds by rejecting the article by the anonymous peer reviewers. This anoynmous panel suggest additional statistical evidence along with consideration of prior publications that by sheer coincidence happen to be written by the peer reviewers or some of their friends.

            Said scientist then dutifully performs additional statistical analysis and cites the suggested references.

            The paper is then promptly accepted by the journal and is published. The published paper is called an article.

            So you see, an article is the published version of a paper that was written by a scientists detailing the study the scientist performed which resulted from research.

          • No Gmo

            LOL! Now you say it is “Reasesrch”! HAHA! You Clown college alumni are hilarious! HAHA! Chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity standards moron! LOL!

            LOL! You can’t just make things up and call it science! HAHA! That is ANTI-SCIENCE! You really know nothing about science!

            You are so stupid you just admitted you made things up and both of your references combined do not list 2000 studies showing GMO safely. In fact, they DO NOT EVEN HAVE 2000 REFERENCES LISTED COMBINED! You honestly have no idea what a study is which is now obvious since your reference includes letters to the editor, articles, book chapters, etc. So you just made ANOTHER FAKE CLAIM! HAHA!

            Oh wait, there is more. There are several references on the list that suggest PROBLEMS! HAHA!

            I guess we’ll just add that to your list of FAKE CLAIMS!

            LOL! YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT! You can’t just make things up and hope nobody checks, HAHA!

            You made up a claim about a quote from the reference list I provided which is not on the list and when confronted with this YOU REFUSED to provide evidence to support your claim because it was FAKE!

            You claimed your JAS reference didn’t use chickens when in fact they used billions of chickens, I provided evidence chickens were used and you could not support your claim because it was FAKE.

            You claimed you provided over 2000 studies, but when asked for these studies YOU REFUSED to provide evidence to support your claim because it was FAKE!

            You claimed, “”the references are all cited in detail. None were funded by Monsanto.” when I provided evidence that references on the list were in fact by Monsanto you could not support your claim because it was FAKE!

            You claimed I posted a footnote when I actually posted “DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO EFSA” which was “by Monsanto”. I provided the evidence and you could not support your claim because it was FAKE!

            I can keep going, but why should I? You lost all credibility and you failed to support your claims and you failed miserably! LOL! Anti-science flatearthers are hilarious! Thanks for the laughs! HAHA!

          • drloko

            Anti-Science?

            Papers published in peer reviewed journals.

            Papers published by EU scientists that independently review GMO products.

            2000+ studies (all available evidence, peer reviewed or otherwise) reviewed in 2014 that find GMO products are safe.

            2000+ studies reviewed in 2013 that find GMO products are safe.

            That’s anti-science?

            So what is science to you? Let me guess, your personal opinion counts as science. All other evidence and facts are anti-science. Does that sum up your definition?

          • No Gmo

            LOL! No matter how many times you repeat fake claims it doesn’t make them true. LOL! Now you say it is “Reasesrch”! HAHA! You Clown college alumni are hilarious! HAHA! Chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity standards moron! LOL!

            LOL! You can’t just make things up and call it science! HAHA! That is ANTI-SCIENCE! You really know nothing about science!

            You are so stupid you just admitted you made things up and both of your references combined do not list 2000 studies showing GMO safely. In fact, they DO NOT EVEN HAVE 2000 REFERENCES LISTED COMBINED! You honestly have no idea what a study is which is now obvious since your reference includes letters to the editor, articles, book chapters, etc. So you just made ANOTHER FAKE CLAIM! HAHA!

            Oh wait, there is more. There are several references on the list that suggest PROBLEMS! HAHA!

            I guess we’ll just add that to your list of FAKE CLAIMS!

            LOL! YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT! You can’t just make things up and hope nobody checks, HAHA!

            You made up a claim about a quote from the reference list I provided which is not on the list and when confronted with this YOU REFUSED to provide evidence to support your claim because it was FAKE!

            You claimed your JAS reference didn’t use chickens when in fact they used billions of chickens, I provided evidence chickens were used and you could not support your claim because it was FAKE.

            You claimed you provided over 2000 studies, but when asked for these studies YOU REFUSED to provide evidence to support your claim because it was FAKE!

            You claimed, “”the references are all cited in detail. None were funded by Monsanto.” when I provided evidence that references on the list were in fact by Monsanto you could not support your claim because it was FAKE!

            You claimed I posted a footnote when I actually posted “DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO EFSA” which was “by Monsanto”. I provided the evidence and you could not support your claim because it was FAKE!

            I can keep going, but why should I? You lost all credibility and you failed to support your claims and you failed miserably! LOL! Anti-science flatearthers are hilarious! Thanks for the laughs! HAHA!

          • drloko

            I suppose it’s no surprise that someone who can’t tell a footnote from a reference doesn’t know what research is either.

          • NoToGMOs

            Haha, you’re back peddling that junk science again?

          • fiesta

            “A new study about the purported safety of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, was released to the public this month by former Monsanto employee Dr. Alison Van Eenennaam….

            Unfortunately for Dr. Van Eenennaam (and the circus of biotech industry bloggers promoting her), GMO safety is not supported by the evidence in her meta-analysis of livestock data.

            First, let’s have a look at what the author means by the “100 billion animals” she claims to have studied. 94.7% of the approximately 100 billion are broiler chickens, which the author
            neglects to disclose for 37 pages. These chickens would have a natural lifespan of about 5 years, but they don’t live anywhere near that long in food production. Most are killed in their first 49 days.

            In other words, this isn’t a long-term study of animals living a full life-cycle. Instead, it’s a study of 19 years’ worth of 49 day-old
            chickens.

            A real safety study should also be examining toxicology and/or histopathology data. But the Van Eenennaam study is mostly made-up of livestock production data, which focuses on animal weight, feed efficiency, and the amount of time it took to get an animal ready
            for market.

            Even more interestingly, the data used in the study is made up almost entirely from statistics reported by the pro-industry Chicken Council. It’s incredible that Van Eenennaam would try to pass this off as even remotely useful for evaluating human safety.

            But even if Van Eenennaam were serious about the chicken data, what exactly would it show? Well, since it’s almost exclusively about feeding
            efficiency and carcass weights, if we assumed the GMO grains being fed to the broiler chickens lead to improved weight gain, we could
            potentially attribute the human obesity epidemic to GMOs. This probably isn’t the conclusion Van Eenennaam was going for.

            The other 5% of the data comes from dairy and beef cattle. Both suffer from the same
            shortened lifespan (approximately 4 years out of an expected 15 year natural lifespan), making a full life-cycle analysis impossible. And to complicate matters, the study doesn’t control for factors like hygiene, sanitation, or antibiotic use. Simply looking at milk production values
            or cattle weight tells us nothing about digestive, organ, or immune system health (which may also be obscured by the prolific rates of
            antibiotic use in modern industrial cattle production).

            So in conclusion, we have a researcher with close ties to the biotech industry
            using poor data to make baseless assumptions about the safety of products which weren’t even controlled for in her study. The data mostly consists of livestock production values, not toxicology or histopathology data, and very poor model organisms (broiler chickens)
            were used for the vast majority of the data tables. Finally, it is deceptive to promote this study as a “long-term analysis of safety”,
            considering the shortened lifespans of the animals in question and the lack of any medically useful data.”

          • drloko

            You clearly have little experience in the area of long term health studies. They are not conducted in the way you assume. I would suggest you send some time reviewing FDA guidelines.
            This study consists of nearly 500 billion years worth of data. The conclusion is clearly that GMO present little risk.
            On an individualized basis, you are more likely to die from the Sun exploding than from causes linked to GMOs;

          • fiesta

            LOL. No, doofus, it’s clearly you who are too ignorant to grasp the necessity of a control group, or toxicological analyses. Only the very dumb or very ignorant would put any value in the Monsanto controlled review you posted

          • drloko

            Do you have any science to back up you statements?

            What mechanism do you propose?
            Why are there no acute effects?
            Why does standard clearance not work?

            You have no science to back up any of your statements.
            You speculate about a harm, but you cannot suggest any specific harm or agent.
            There are no studies to support your position.

            At this point the science indicates you can eat GMO foods for millions of years and never see a single harmful effect. Not one.

            If GMOs are so very dangerous, why are these harmful effects not seen in any scientific study?

            You are afraid of science fiction while you ignore science fact.

          • NoToGMOs

            “The conclusion is clearly that GMO present little risk.”

            Yes, to broiler chickens, lol!

          • drloko

            If you have contrary evidence let’s hear it.

            2000 studies, 100 billion animals, everything from pigs to cows to chickens to humans. Not a shred of evidence of harm.

            Where’s your evidence?

          • NoToGMOs

            It’s not about quantity you dope. It’s about quality. A single good study will be worth more than your thousands and billions of studies or animals or whatever.

          • drloko

            You still have present no evidence to support your claims.

            You don’t even do basic research. Here is a study that has all of the criteria you ask for:

            http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3644.htm

          • drloko

            Do you have more than cut-and-paste?
            Maybe you have some evidence to share?

          • NoToGMOs

            “This study consists of nearly 500 billion years worth of data.”

            Talk about hyperbole!

          • drloko

            It’s a fact. I’m guessing you don’t have much experience in computing the threshold for harm from substances like this.
            Most studies are considered conclusive with < 1000 life-years of data. GMOs have been subjected to almost a million times more scrutiny than typical pharmaceuticals.

          • Kevin Samuel Coleman

            Can you please supply me with studies on the long term effects of non-GMOs matching your criteria?

      • Pamela Wright

        They have been done and are being done. When though, was the last time the did testing to see what new hybrid crop of non-GMO food would do to the ecosystem? Every major ecodisaster that has come down the pike has been caused by naturally occuring plants or animals in the wrong place, from kudzu to mongoose to pigs to wild rice to catfish to zebra molluscs. All “natural”. I say, embargo all natural food! No more traditional fishing or farming! Yeah, makes about as much sense as the nonsense Nye is spouting.

        • Ted Miner

          It will take more than Pamela’s Rantings to convince me.

          • Donna Peplum

            These anti-science people are great at spouting nonsense. Too bad they can never back it up with independent peer reviewed science.

          • Nathan Williams

            We could if there were ANY studies in humans but they don’t exist

          • drloko

            2000 studies, 28 years, 100 billion animals.
            http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/early/2014/08/27/jas.2014-8124.abstract

            Where’s your science?

          • L7

            Those so called 2000 studies you’ve posted, is not science, it is made up pseudo-science and half of them do not even link to anything but nonsense. Are you people that stupid? Such a waste of time in here.

          • drloko

            2000 studies published in multiple journals by hundreds of scientists is pseudo-science? Really?

            Ok, then please post links to even 100 peer reviewed science articles that support your position.

            You don’t have any science to back up your statements. All you have is science fantasy.

          • L7

            No, I am afraid you’ve just described the so called science you think you have.

          • drloko

            So where’s you science? Let’s hear it.

          • L7

            You’ve heard it. It’s has been offered to you over and over again and you’ve even tried to refute it so I am afraid there is not much more that can be offered to you or your pro-GMO buddies at this point.

          • drloko

            No, I have yet to see a single peer reviewed study from you.

            I’ve offered over 2000 studies over a thirty year period with 100 billion animals.

            You’ve offered science fantasy, conjecture, and conspiracy.

          • L7

            As I have said before, your 2000 so called studies are fantasy, they have been debunked many times over. If you are truly interested in seeing the unbiased, peer reviewed studies again, which have been offered here already, you can scroll through the comments to find the links I am not going to waste my time re-posting them. And even if I did, you’d come back with some sort of rebuttal as all you pro-GMO, anti-science deniers do. I have heard it all before.

          • drloko

            So once again you offer no science to back up you clip aims.

            You offer no scienticfic criticism against the 2000 studies presented. You think you can wave them away by stating they are debunked.

            If you want to debunk them, then you need to offer a scientific analysis that demonstrates exactly how they are flawed.

            Again, you have no science fact, just science fantasy, conjecture, and conspiracy.

        • Nathan Williams

          Oh really, post links, and I want to see the humans studies thanks.

        • jonathan gibbs

          Rant on….give me one human pre-or post test on these crops.

        • Michael Phillips

          Pamela, your detractors are not willing to admit all the ecodisasters we know of have involved “natural” plants and animals and none have involved GEs.

          Seems like a good time to throw out the fact that the reason we need to use pesticides in agriculture in the first place is because while useful, traditional breeding is a sloppy technique that inadvertently eliminated natural plant defense genes.

          I wonder if Bill Nye takes that into consideration when he says the things he does?

      • Kevin Samuel Coleman

        We should halt all agriculture then because all agriculture has this risk that Nye mentioned.

  • http://twitter.com/Zombiehero Justin P

    The book is even worse. For a book on science, he has no bibliography or any citations for any of the claims he makes. He even goes as far to say that GM Papaya causes allergies.

    “Furthermore, there is apparently some evidence that some people are allergic to the genetically modified papaya.”

    It looks like Nye is getting his “science” from such “experts” as Jeffery Smith and acclaimed “science” organizations like i-sis.

    His shtick is 10th grade, written for a Dunning-Kruger audience who want to be told they are smart.

    • DRoell

      Seriously? Wow.

    • Pamela Wright

      Allergies from the papaya? Hawaiian farmers should sue him for maligning their product. Papayas are an allergen to a lot of people, but not specifically gm papaya. Where did this originate? Do you know of any studies?

      • jonathan gibbs

        No post tests done…no testing. No evidence = no science.

        • DRoell

          Evidence for something that doesn’t exist?

  • conspiracygirl

    It is laughable that Bill Nye, an engineer that shuns all science that doesn’t fit his political narrative, has become such a poster child for science. More laughable even than when Bill Maher — anti-vaxxer, opponent of evidence-based medicine and proponent of woo-woo — was given the Richard Dawkins award.

    If you people are serious about promoting science then stop giving the science cherry pickers like Nye such a prominent platform.

  • Miles Stockdale

    Bill Nye has a prize Sacred Cow that he keeps well fed with nonsense, and well protected from exposure to the harsh weather of evidence and reality. It sounds like when it comes to his new he just phoned it in. I had pre-ordered it, but I am relieved to say that I cancelled the order just before it came out.

  • Tom Scharf

    Anti-GMO and pro-AGW are connected by the thread of fear of implementing change to an ecosystem that could result in unknown consequences. Leave it alone and nothing bad will happen, change it and something bad might happen.

    Don’t forget to ponder the good things that happen when implementing certain changes to the eco-system. Now the engineer in Nye should be asking what the trade-off is on risk vs. benefits.

    One can always dream up catastrophic consequences and apply some dubious level of risk to them. This is where “science” becomes quite malleable to anyone with an agenda, and the layman is not able to discriminate between fear mongering and better estimates.

    On the anti-GMO side, the argument should be: Just because GMO’s have been safe so far doesn’t mean they will continue to be safe. I don’t trust Dr. GMO Frankenstein working at evil corporate overlord Monsanto to do the right thing. This argument is at least understandable.

    A related thread also connects to the anti-Nuke fear. Irrational fear of the invisible. Radiation is out to get me, GMO’s are out to get me, CO2 is out to get me, and I can’t even see them coming! They are boogie men hiding in the closet. If we didn’t do this stuff, then I wouldn’t have to worry about it, and I would sleep better at night. So lets not do it, it’s not worth it.

    • DavidAppell

      The problem with basing decisions on “risk vs. benefits” is, especially with AGW, those who have to deal with the consequences of the risks are not those getting the most benefits.

      Burning fossil fuels now might seem cheaper to you right now than using sustainable energy sources, but your decision affects the rest of the world, especially the poor, and they have no say in your decision. It effects the world for a hundred millennia, and noone in the future has a say in your decision. Even in the US, those who suffer health problems from the pollution of your fossil fuels have no say in your decision.

      With AGW you can’t just back out if your risk vs benefit calculation is wrong and the risks *are* greater than the benefits. The climate change we’ve already created, and what’s coming that we’re already committed to, cannot be easily undone.

      • JH

        Which ignores the risk that use of continued use of fossil fuels will have only a modest impact on climate while having a substantial positive impact on other aspects of quality of living.

        Your example about air pollution is a classic cherry pick, since no-doubt the number of people who have been saved even just by a FF-powered medic or ambulance is likely comparable if not dramatically higher. Not to mention the millions of hours of work on disease and other aspects of human health that have been and will continue to be dramatically aided by both the efficiency of FF-based transportation and FF-powered electricity.
        As usual, David does the one side because that’s all he can see.

        • DavidAppell

          “Of course, you completely ignore the risk that use of continued use of fossil fuels will have only a modest impact on climate while having a substantial positive impact on other aspects of quality of living.”

          You made that up, and offer no proof whatsoever. Try again.

          • JH

            “You made that up, and offer no proof whatsoever. Try again.”
            ??? I guess you just don’t get it, which isn’t surprising.

          • DavidAppell

            You made up your claim about “modest impact” and “having a substantial positive impact.” You offered no evidence for these whatsoever. You’re just trying to win an argument by postulating these claims are right.

          • Tom Scharf

            Every industrialized society on Earth uses fossil fuels for good reasons that are easily evident. At best studies such as this suggest doing things like putting scrubbers on coal plants is a good investment if you can afford it.

            These type of economic studies are almost worthless. They attempt to measure second and third order affects using correlation and very biased assumptions of causation in many cases.

            For example, what is one of the most significant factors for why so many more people die of cancer now than 100 years ago? Coal plants? Polluted water? Cell phones? GMO’s? They all correlate.

            One the most significant factors is because people simply live a lot longer, and have more opportunity to get cancer. This combined with an effective health system that has made other causes of death less likely.

            Paradoxically it logically follows that when you reduce the per capita death rate from heart disease, you increase the per capita death rate from cancer.

            It is factors such as this that make unscrambling the eggs of causation a major guessing game, and ripe for abuse from people with an agenda.

          • DavidAppell

            “Every industrialized society on Earth uses fossil fuels…”

            Yes, that’s exactly the problem.

            “…for good reasons that are easily evident.”

            No, they aren’t “easily evident.” Many studies show fossil fuels harm people, the ecosystem, and (for at least 100,000 years) the climate.

            Whatever gave you the idea that your greed — for the cheapest energy source possible, regardless of how it impacts other people and other species — is (a) allowed, and (b) morally permissible.

            “At best studies such as this suggest doing things like putting scrubbers on coal plants is a good investment if you can afford it.”

            Scrubbers don’t capture CO2, and coal use still does a great deal of damage. In fact, using it to create electricity creates more damage than value. How stupid is that?

          • Tom Scharf

            Everyone who puts gas in their tank or turns on their home’s climate control gets immediate positive feedback on how this is useful.

            My “greed” is allowed and permissible because society has chosen this set of rules to live by in their infinite wisdom in which you get exactly one vote to influence others with your morally superior and vastly more intelligent viewpoint.

            The way to resolve these societal differences is through a process called elections, and as someone once said, elections have consequences. Failure to convince others of your views is your cross to bear alone.

          • DavidAppell

            “Everyone who puts gas in their tank or turns on their home’s climate control gets immediate positive feedback on how this is useful.”

            The negative feedback comes later — and with coal and oil it’s greater than the positive feedbacks. But because gasoline users can push almost all of these other costs onto others — the poor, the unhealthy, and especially the future — many (just like you) are able maintain the illusion those externalities don’t exist and they don’t need to be paid for and the world is made of lollipops and chocolate.

          • DavidAppell

            “My “greed” is allowed and permissible because society has chosen this set of rules to live by in their infinite wisdom in which you get exactly one vote to influence others with your morally superior and vastly more intelligent viewpoint.”

            Of course they have. We make SO2 and N2O emitter pay more for their pollution — and, as your own data showed a few weeks ago, a cap-and-trade system has led to a significant drop in such pollution. You’re no longer allowed to dump your trash over a bank down at the end of the street; you’re forced to pay for garbage disposal, even though dumping it would be cheaper. No one now tosses their slop into the streets, because it has serious negative extrenalities. Your deoderant no longer comes in a spray can, because it destroys ozone and puts others at risk.

            The negative externalities of CO2 are now well known, and serious. Many responsible governments have already started to charge those who want to use the atmosphere as a CO2 waste dump. The US will too, even though it will still go down in history as the greediest contributor to the the climate change over the next 100,000 years.

          • DavidAppell

            “One the most significant factors is because people simply live a lot longer, and have more opportunity to get cancer. This combined with an effective health system that has made other causes of death less likely.”

            In no way does that mean carcinogens don’t cause cancer. Or that medical and environmental economists can’t determine their effects by statistical means.

            Without the carcinogens that are in coal, fewer people would be dying of cancer. They lose years from what their life could have been. These are real human losses, and they exist despite better health care and longer life expectancies. Your attidude is basically, don’t complain about the carcinogens, because you should be happy enough that you’re living longer than 100 years ago and getting better medical care. Try telling that to someone dying in a West Virginia cancer cluster. Or a miner dying of black lung disease.

        • DavidAppell

          “…since no-doubt the number of people who have been saved even just by a FF-powered medic or ambulance is likely comparable if not dramatically higher.”

          An ambulance can’t be an electric vehicle?

          On the other hand, fossil fuels in the US cause at least $120 B/yr in negative externalities (which doesn’t include the cost of climate change):

          “Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use”
          National Research Council, 2010
          http://books.nap.edu/catalog/12794.html

          (Dollar figure for 2005, in 2007 dollars.)

          • JH

            David, as usual you reference only the costs that support your view.

            “$120 B/yr in negative externalities”
            Which is less than 0.1% of US GDP, even by your most radically biased pumped up estimate.
            How are you powering your instrumentation and equipment in that electric ambulance, David? Drawing off the battery? :) When you can only run 100 miles on a charge, I figure you’ll have to have a few extra vehicles around. Of course, you could use velomobiles.

          • DavidAppell

            “How are you powering your instrumentation and equipment in that electric ambulance, David?”

            Nuclear, wind, solar. Etc. The Tesla Model S now gets 265 miles to a charge. And this number will only increase with time.

            http://wallstcheatsheet.com/automobiles/top-10-electric-vehicles-with-the-longest-driving-range.html

          • DavidAppell

            “Which is less than 0.1% of US GDP, even by your most radically biased pumped up estimate.”

            Your math is wrong — it’s 0.7% of today’s US GDP. But see below.

            If you actually read the report you’d see that
            (1) the authors think it is probably a substantial underestimate
            (2) it doesn’t include the cost of climate change, (3) it’s for 2005 in 2007 dollars. So it’s close to 1% of 2005 GDP.

            That report also finds 22,000 premature deaths a year from fossil fuel use. What percentage of the GDP is that?

          • DavidAppell

            A later paper found that fossil fuels actually set up backwards economically:

            Generating power with coal and oil creates more damage than value-added, according to Yale economist William Nordhaus in a 2011 paper:

            “Environmental Accounting for Pollution in the United States Economy,” Nicholas Z. Muller, Robert Mendelsohn, and William Nordhaus, American Economic Review, 101(5): 1649–75 (2011).
            http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.101.5.1649

            Summarizing that paper’s findings: for every $1 in value that comes from coal-generated electricity, it creates $2.20 in damages.

            Total damages: $70 billion per year (in 2012 dollars).

            Petroleum-generated electricity is even worse: $5.13 in damages for every $1 in value.

      • Tom Scharf

        I can absolutely back out if my calculations are wrong. At some cost. The “we must act now before its too late and tipping points are almost us” argument is unconvincing.

        Doing nothing for the next two decades and getting a better assessment of the risks is perfectly defensible and has almost zero difference either way in the next millennium.

        What you need to do is propose a plan that is effective at reducing global emissions so at least the cost can be assessed. The risk is debatable and will only be cleared up by time. The risk is discounted because activists have overplayed their hand and engaged in unbridled and unsupported alarmism that has hurt the credibility of their argument. Self inflicted wound.

        If you convince enough people of your calculations, then maybe society will act earlier. Good luck.

        • DavidAppell

          “I can absolutely back out if my calculations are wrong.”

          How?

          And how do the interests of others — especially developing nations that will bear the brunt of climate change — get an equal say in your calculation?

        • DavidAppell

          “What you need to do is propose a plan that is effective at reducing global emissions so at least the cost can be assessed.”

          These studies have been done, and in places have been implemented. British Columbia has had a carbon tax since 2008, and it’s now C$30/tonne. It’s by law revenue-neutral, so income and corporate tax rates were decreased. Cuts to income and other taxes exceeded carbon tax revenues by C$500 million from 2008-2012. They’e cut emissions by about 20% (while emissions have risen in the rest of Canada), and their economy has done better than the rest of Canada.

  • bstrong2

    …”advocating mandatory fear mongering labels”

    Mr. Kloor, please explain to me what is scientific about opposing transparency and the consumer’s right to know. I’ll wait.
    (I still havent got a response back from Monsanto on this question).

    • JH

      The consumer doesn’t have a “right” to know anything. Some food companies, however, offer knowledge to consumers along with their food, which comes at a premium price. So the option “to know” is already available.

      In some cases the government mandates a right for consumers to know about particular aspects of a product – when there are demonstrated potential dangers with a product. Since that hasn’t happened with GM foods, there is no mandate.

    • Miles Stockdale

      If you actually cared about the answer to your question you could simply read the reasons given by the AMA, AAAS and Scientific American. You could also read the book “Labeling Genetically Modified Food: The Philosophical and Legal Debate” compiled by a series of experts (on both sides) and put out by a major academic publisher.

      • No Gmo

        So you disagree with the majority of the medical community who support labeling(the AMA position is fringe in the medical world) and you want me to listen to a group that started off as a bunch of geologists? LOL! Anti-science flat earthers are hilarious! Bill Nye agrees with the majority of the medical community and you agree with AAAS when the chair of the board at the time of their report was a biotechnologist who has formerly worked for the biotech companies Evogene as well as Sigma-Aldrich and the rest of the board included another biased biotechnologist, an astrophysicist, an entrepreneur and a psychologist!
        Astophysicist? LOL! Next you are going to bring up Neil deGrasse Tyson… Oh wait… LOL! Maybe you are going to post some blog like Kloor did with the European Commission on it… Oops, they SUPPORT labeling. What’s after that, the Royal Society of Medicine?..Oops, that isn’t their position it was just an article in their journal, LOL! Are you going to save the best for last?… The French Supreme Court… No, not the French Supreme Court with all those members of the medical community!…Oh wait, they aren’t a medical group! LOL! I wonder who approves Kloor’s posts, because they should be fired. Right after they fire Kloor for not fact checking his own references over and over again! Oh wait, there is a BASF advertisement on the page right now, maybe BASF approves Kloor’s posts! LOL!

        • Miles Stockdale

          Noah, like any sane person would, I am not going to read your anti-science, pseudo-science screed.

          And like any same person I understand that nursing organizations are not science organizations, and in the case groups like the ACP they did not reach their position based on scientific evidence. As I care about science, I don’t care that some organizations came to a pro-labeling position based on gut feeling, or based on being exposed to bad science such on as the nonsense produced by Seralini.

          • No Gmo

            So what you are saying is you think that the largest medical groups in the UK, Australia, Germany, etc. based their decisions on “gut feeling”! LOL! You anti-science conspiracy tinfoil hatters are hilarious! It’s all just a conspiracy in the medical community! LOL! HAHA! Anti-science conspiracy nuts always give me a good laugh!

        • Regressive Goosesteppers

          Drooling anti-science sock puppet account moron is a drooling anti-science sock puppet account moron.

          • L7

            And that’s a moronic response! lol

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Insanity looking in a mirror and spewing it out.

    • DavidAppell

      As a consumer you DO know that organic foods have no GMOs. So the no-GMO option is already available to you

      I also don’t think the consumer has any “right to know.” And if they did, there are other things I might like to know more than whether my food contains GMOs — were any animals involved treated humanely? What is the food’s carbon footprint? What pesticides were applied, and how much of each?; Was child labor involved in producing the product? What wage did the workers receive? Etc.

      • Donna Peplum

        DavidAppell, you are not hearing right. I want to know if it’s GMO. Just like I want to know how many calories there are in a single serving. OH MY! I am a fear mongering, calorie counter!

        • JH

          You’re not hearing right Donna: Organic foods are GMO free. You can have all the organic food you want and not have to worry about GMOs.

          • L7

            Not everyone purchases organic, so for the people who don’t, label it.

          • Donna Peplum

            You need to clean your ears. I’m not rich and you pro-GMO activists are all elitists. I can’t afford to buy organic foods. And I will not be force fed your toxic pesticide producing herbicide drenched GMOs. Nor will I feed them to my new baby. Keep eating them toxic GMOs they mess up your brain and they seem to affect your reading comprehension.

          • DavidAppell

            Donna, if you’re not willing to spend a little more in support of a belief you seem to hold strongly, you aren’t very serious about that belief to begin with.

          • JH

            But Donna, most of your anti-GMO buddies keep telling us that organic is really cheaper to grow and produce. So I guess you’ll have to go back to your buddies and figure out who’s BSing who, huh?

          • NoToGMOs

            Certified organic. It is the certification/verification process that makes it more expensive. A farmer growing crops organically, but without certification will have much lower costs.

      • JH

        That’s right David Appell. It’s not enough for Donna that she has a GMO free option. She absolutely requires that every molecule of food be labeled according to its origin on the off chance that she might want to eat it.

        • JH

          Ah, David! We agree on something! Cool.

    • Regressive Goosesteppers

      ” about opposing transparency and the consumer’s right to know.”

      The only thing preventing your “right to know” is your own stupidity and phobia of science.

  • jonathan gibbs

    Losers…..Neil de Grasse also supports labeling….get science!

    • DRoell

      So, “winner”, answer me a simple question.

      What benefit does an average consumer gain by knowing if a food item was potentially created by using one specific out of many breeding methods?

      • L7

        If they can label a crop, fruit etc. which has been organically grown, why is it so tough to label a crop, fruit etc. that has been genetically engineered? It shouldn’t be an issue either.

        • jonathan gibbs

          Right applying this label is not the work of Einstein.

          • DRoell

            Answering my above questions seems to be, though. Give it a try?

        • DRoell

          Answer the above question. They can also put a label on food telling you the color of socks a farmer was wearing during harvest. Doesn’t make it useful.

          • L7

            How old are you? What do the color of a farmers socks have anything to do with this? It’s What you are saying is useless! ROFL!

          • DRoell

            Knowing if a food items was potentially created by one specific breeding method is just as useless.

            Which is what my above question is about, but you guys don’t answer it.

          • L7

            Because it is a ridiculous and irrelevant question! Why do they label organic then? If they can label organic, label GE also because not everyone eats organic, simple as that.

          • DRoell

            You think it’s ridiculous and irrelevant to ask for benefits of such labels?
            I see.

            Do you mean to imply there are none?

            As to “organic”, well… it’s a simple marketing label. And it’s completely voluntary to put such a label on food. You want a voluntary GE label? Fine. But you guys ask for an enforced one.

          • L7

            Benefits of such labels comparing them to the color of a farmers socks certainly is. ROFL!

          • DRoell

            I’m laughing, too. You’re making a good argument against GE labels so far.

          • L7

            No, it is ridiculous that you are comparing a farmers sock color to labeling! lol

          • DRoell

            You’re not strong on logic, are you.

            Farmer’s sock colors would be a label, too. And equally useless.

            I’ve asked enough times by now, I guess there really are no benefits to a consumer knowing if a food item was made with one specific breeding method.

            You guys want a useless label. Derp.

        • DRoell

          You can put labels on food telling you the color of a farmer’s left sock during harvest. Doesn’t make sense, either.

          I’d appreciate if you answered my above question.

          • L7

            Another idiotic answer! And by the way, that question was not directed at me but I will answer it with my opinion. If I can walk into a grocery store and have the choice to buy conventional or organic, I’d like to have the choice with GE foods also because not everything conventional is genetically engineered.

  • http://KenMitton.com Kenneth P. Mitton, PhD

    gmo is another way to alter our ecosystems. there is lots of altering going on without the use of recombinant DNA that alters ecostystems too.

    gmo based industries have nice scientists working for them but economics is the big driver. if it was for the good of mankind Monsanto would not be taking farmers to court because gmo seed blew over into their fields.

    I am afraid its not purely a scientific issue that has nothing to do with a biz model. If there was no profit in it I think most gmo products would not exist.

    • JH

      ” If there was no profit in it I think most gmo products would not exist.”

      If there was no profit in it almost nothing you know in the modern world would exist. Everything you do and touch during every day of your life is here because someone can make a profit, from the hospital bed you were born in to the food you eat to the computer you type on.

      Companies make a profit when they offer people products that improve people’s lives.

      • Donna Peplum

        As Kenneth Mitton stated, If there was no profit in it I think most gmo products would not exist. This “technology” has failed to improve anyone’s life – quite the opposite. Since the introduction of GMOs into our food supply, chronic disease has risen and is now responsible for 7 out of 10 deaths among Americans each year and accounts for more than 80% of the $2.7 trillion our nation spends annually on medicare. You anti-science people are hilarious. Show us the long term studies that prove that GMOs don’t cause any form of chronic disease. We can’t find a single one on your so called list of 2000 safety studies. Thank heavens America is waking up. Several school districts in Minnesota just announced that they are removing GMOs from school lunches to support kids’ long term health. Did you get the part about LONG TERM? Minnesota is opting our kids out of your GMO experiment.

        • Donna Peplum

          Correction to that last post – it should have read medical care, not medicare.

        • JH

          “Since the introduction of GMOs into our food supply, chronic disease has risen and is now responsible for 7 out of 10 deaths among Americans each year and accounts for more than 80% of the $2.7 trillion our nation spends annually on medicare.”

          ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

          What else you got up there that needs to be pulled out?

          • Donna Peplum

            HAHAHAHA! NOTHING! In the U.S., chronic disease is now the leading cause of death & disability. And you have yet to provide ONE peer reviewed long term study that addresses chronic toxicity. YOU CAN”T PROVE THAT GMOs DON’T CAUSE CHRONIC DISEASE AND ARE KILLING US! HAHAHAHAHAH!! The joke is on YOU!

          • Loren Eaton

            “YOU CAN”T PROVE THAT GMOs DON’T CAUSE CHRONIC DISEASE AND ARE KILLING US!” Geez, lady, take a Valium. And you can’t prove that it is not organic that’s “killing us”.
            If you knew the first thing about science and statistics you’d know that one can’t prove a negative and that correlation does not equal causation.
            And yet you think you pack the chops to decide which studies are valid. Delusional!!

          • http://www.nukingpolitics.com Keln

            Correlation is not causation and you can’t prove a negative. You’re breaking some basic science rules there.

          • Donna Peplum

            You have yet to provide one long term independent study that proves GMOs are safe – we want the link – where is the independent long term study GMO & related pesticide study that meets the criteria for toxicity as well as carcinogenicty and finds that your GMOs are not linked to chronic disease – where is the proof of safety? Oh I forgot. I already asked that and you can’t because there is no proof. You anti-science people make a lot of noise but you have nothing to back up your nonsensical safety claims.

          • DavidAppell

            You can’t prove GMOs are “safe.” You can’t prove ANYTHING is “safe” — and certainly not for organic foods or non-GMO foods.

          • fiesta

            http://www.gmoevidence.com/

            And a great deal of evidence showing GMO health hazards

          • http://www.nukingpolitics.com Keln

            Well, it’s not really my job to provide you with something that is easily searchable. But I did it anyway:

            http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/

            I can guess you would disregard the content of the article, so just go to the bottom of the article and download the Excel list of 1,783 studies. Use the list to find the reports. They are organized by year and list the journal or publication they were published in, volume and pages. Many also have a DOI.

            If you can’t access the journals, go to a library or a local college that has free academic database access. There is also a link to a pdf summary report that analyzes all of the listed articles.

            It’s all there in black and white if you are willing to read it.

          • Caroline

            Boo.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Nice bumper sticker, but I’m a little more serious about the health of my family. I think I’ll avoid the poison until it proven safe for humans.

        • Neil

          Tell that to the first world activists that have being doing everything they can to stop Golden Rice from going to market in developing nations.

          • No Gmo

            LOL! All kinds of stacked pesticide expressing and herbicide tolerant crops are approved and the first world activists can do nothing to stop them, but with their magical powers they’ve managed to stop high diabetes rices(AKA golden rice) in other countries? LOL! CONSPIRACY TIN FOIL HATTER ALERT!

          • Neil

            Well, Greenpeace seems to be fairly proud of their ability to stop the cultivation of Golden Rice:
            http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/China-says-no-to-genetically-engineered-rice/

            So either you are right or Greenpeace is lying. which is it?

          • No Gmo

            LOL! You just can’t read! That article is about Bt rice! LOL! Anti-science flatearthers who can’t read are hilarious! HAHA! http://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/campaigns/food-agriculture/problems/genetic-engineering/ge-rice/

          • Neil

            damn, sorry, clicked through a link on Greenpeace golden rice page and it sent me to a page that proclaimed they had stopped GE rice. My bad. good news for you.

            Now here is the bad news.

            My question is still 100% valid. You claim activists cannot stop approval of GE crops and Greenpeace is claiming that they did EXACTLY that. So, once again, either you are right or Greenpeace is lying. Which is it gonna be?

          • No Gmo

            Neither, most of the GE crops that are put up for deregulation are deregulated. Some take longer than others, but MOST are. So while Greenpeace would like to believe they stopped Bt rice in China they probably had little if any impact. China is now at the point where they produce enough rice using conventional varieties so that probably played more of a role than anything. If Greenpeace was so capable of stopping GE crops then why couldn’t they stop a wide variety of other GE crops? Like I said if they can’t stop corn expressing a half dozen pesticidal protein and tolerant to a couple of herbicides then it is a conspiracy theory to think they are going around stopping all the GE crops everywhere. Utter nonsense.

          • Neil

            So all the actions and campaigns from Greenpeace and other activist organizations on stopping GE crops have been completely ineffective? Good to know.

    • Michael Phillips

      “…taking farmers to court because gmo seed blew over into their fields.”

      A thoroughly debunked myth.

  • Mommy Warrior

    What’s wrong with taking the precautionary principle when it comes to the food we feed our loved ones? There’s a question of safety circulating throughout the world when it comes to GMOs and I’m not interested in feeding my family food that is surrounded in controversy.

    • bobito

      Bicycles, cars, and motorcycles are scientifically proven to kill people every day, ban those? Certainly you wouldn’t risk putting your loved ones into a car given the overwhelming evidence that you all could die!

      Should we also ban cell phones because they may cause cancer? Should we take down power lines because they may cause cancer? Should we outlaw wind turbines because they may cause wind turbine syndrome?

      There are risks everywhere, why should we treat GMOs any differently than we treat others?

      • Ted Miner

        False equivalency.

        None of the things you mentioned are hidden from the consumer.

        You are supporting the corrupt GMO pesticide industry’s on going conspiracy to keep poisons pesticide laden GMOs hidden in the food we feed our children.

        Label GMOs and people can choose to accept the risks or not, just like they do in your bogus straw man argument.

        • bobito

          Yes, certainly a false equivalency. Cars are known to cause death and dismemberment, GMOs have been stated to be as safe as conventionally modified organisms by several credible scientific organizations. So clearly we should label GMOs so that everyone knows how safe they are!

          Buy organic if you have an irrational fear of GMOs.

          • Ted Miner

            There is no scientific or medical consensus on GMO safety.

            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.

            See more here: http://gmofreeusa.org/gmos-are-top/there-is-no-scientific-consensus-on-the-safety-of-gmos/

          • bobito

            I’m sure the scientific community was rocked when their consensus was blown away by a single nutritionist’s opinion being included in junk mail to some residents of Washington and Oregon.

          • Ted Miner

            All the other corrupt GMO pesticide industry operative try to talk it away too.

            FACT is they hired the nutritionist, the editor, the printer, and bought the stamps to send it out.

            Most people will pay more attention to the advise given them by their healthcare organization than some bogus disinformation argument by a corrupt anonymous GMO pesticide industry troll.

          • bobito

            Troll! Wow! Now we are getting somewhere!!!

            I never said anyone should trust me, I’d suggest they go to these sources: http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/GLP-Science-and-GMOs.pdf

          • Ted Miner

            The GLP is a well know GMO pesticide industry disinformation site. Disinformation sites like this are controlled by the GMO pesticide industry. Those sites contain only talking points, disinformation, cherry picked agenda driven pseudo-science that only accepts “science” that supports the GMO pesticide industry agenda. Some of those sites include The genetic literacy project, biofortified, GMO answers. and many more. The architect of this sleazy disinformation machine is Jon Entine you can learn more about him here:http://www.propagandists.org/propagandists/jon-entine/

          • bobito

            Sorry, I didn’t realize that. I’ll rephrase my response:

            I never said anyone should trust me, I’d suggest they go to these sources:
            The AMA
            The American Association for The Advancement of Science
            The National Academy of Sciences
            Food Standards Australia New Zealand
            The French Academy of Science
            The Royal Society of Medicine
            The European Commission
            The Union of German Academics of Sciences and Humanities
            The World Health Organization

          • Neil

            you got the main ones but missed a few bobito:

            American Council on Science and Health
            American Society for Cell Biology
            American Society of Plant Sciences
            American Society for Microbiology
            International Seed Foundation
            Crop Science Society of America
            Federation of Animal Science Societies
            Society for In Vitro Biology
            International Society of African Scientists
            Society for Toxicology
            International Council for Science
            Royal Society of London

            http://files.vkk.me/images/cce3cffc1f2013113a84723ec6929436375d10e1.jpg

          • No Gmo

            LOL!

            American Council on Science and Health? LOL! They are an industry front group! : they have received funds from nearly every major biotech company page 16 and 17. http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/81210328-0357.html?end_page=30
            http://www.motherjones.com/documents/809483-acsh-financial-summary

            American Society for Cell Biology : Council members include biotech company employee James Sabry, Genentech, Inc. http://www.ascb.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=974&Itemid=410 Hmm.. biotech tainted just like Ted said! LOL!

            American Society of Plant Biologists : Plant scientists are health experts? LOL! They give out the DENNIS ROBERT HOAGLAND AWARD Funded by the Monsanto Agricultural Products Company http://my.aspb.org/?AF_Past_Awardees

            members include Monsanto consultant and former Editor-in-Chief, of the American Society of Plant Biologists’ journal The Plant Cell http://www.biology.wustl.edu/faculty/quatrano/profservice.php

            American Society for Microbiology : Statement by David Pramer who has had a working relationship with Monsanto employees going back over 50 years, showing a professional conflict of interest. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC277730/

            International Seed Foundation : A seed foundation are health experts? LOL! Affiliate members include biotech companies like BASF and Syngenta http://www.worldseed.org/isf/affiliate.html

            Crop Science Society of America? LOL! : corporate members include Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta https://www.crops.org/membership/corporate/directory

            FASS : Committee Members include Gary Hartnell, Monsanto Company http://www.fass.org/sac_biotech.asp

            Society for In Vitro Biology : board of directors include Pioneer and Monsanto employees.http://www.sivb.org/mem_officers.asp

            Society of Toxicology(SOT) : this report was done by a working group which included people like, “Ian Kimber, Syngenta”. http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/71/1/2.full
            and, “Steve L. Taylor, University of Nebraska” the Co-Founder and Co-Director of the Food Allergy Research and Resource Program(FARRP) which is an industry-funded consortium with more than 50 member companies. A presentation by FARRP lists, “FARRP AG BIOTECH CONSORTIUM Monsanto DuPont Dow Agrosciences Syngenta (U.K.) Bayer (France) BASF (Germany)” http://ec.europa.eu/research/allergy/pdf/workshop/taylor.pdf
            Society of Toxicology is also involved with the, “Monsanto Award” given out at their annual meeting. http://www.uri.edu/news/releases/html/03-0725.html

            International Council for Science : quote is from a reference to a 2003 ICSU report(New Genetics, Food and Agriculture: Scientific Discoveries – Societal Dilemmas) written by Gabrielle J. Persley, who is also a board member for ISAAA http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Gabrielle-Persley/1652662

            ISAAA is funded by just about every major biotech company. http://www.isaaa.org/inbrief/donors/default.asp

            So a bunch of biotech tainted nonsense. LOL! I trust what the majority of the medical community from the link Ted gave you says, instead of fake claims and biased biotech tainted nonsense on the genetic idiocy project website! LOL! Anti-science flatearthers who don’t check their sources are hilarious! HAHA!.

          • Neil

            Ted linked to a flyer from a health insurance company

          • No Gmo

            LOL! You are too stupid to even click the links Ted gave you! HAHA! Anti-science flatearthers are hilarious! He gave you a link with over 100 groups on it including numerous medical groups which combined represent millions of members of the medical community! LOL! I trust what the majority of the medical community from the link Ted gave you says, instead of fake claims and biased biotech tainted nonsense on the genetic idiocy project website! LOL! Anti-science flatearthers who don’t check their sources are hilarious! HAHA!.

          • Ted Miner

            He must be a new GMO pesticide industry troll trainee.

            lol!

          • Neil

            Sorry, you are right, I did not click on the gmofreeuseorg link because 99 times out of 100 they are complete rubbish. That link is a very impressive gish gallop, that I certainly don’t have time to completely unravel but I pulled a thread and well…it doesn’t look great for you.

            But first up when I talk about a scientific consensus I mean: “ the scientific consensus is that GM technology is safe – no more risky than other crop breeding techniques – and that products made using the technology should be examined on a case-by-case basis focusing on the type of change made rather than the fact that recombinant DNA technology has been used”.

            Now the vast majority of quotes on that page are about labeling and it is possible to support the scientific consensus above AND support labeling. A quick browse of the list shows that it is padded with known cranks (e.g.ENSSER and, the now unfortunately named, I-SIS) and absolute unknowns (Seguin Family Medical?) but there are some interesting surprises – the Australian and British Medical Associations for example. I actually very much doubt that gmofreeusaorg is accurately representing the viewpoints of these organizations so I have an email out to the Australian Medical Association asking them whether they have an official position of GMOs since the quote is from a single press release 15 years ago, (they probably won’t get back to me but if they do, I’ll let you know), and I checked the BMA link and low and behold look what I found:

            “In our view, the potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects is very small and many of the concerns expressed apply with equal vigour to conventionally derived foods” (p3), and there are numerous references to testing GM crops on a case-by-case basis on pages 3-5 culminating in “While the BMA does not see a case to halt the sale of currently available GM foods, it does not feel that the argument has yet been made to allow widespread commercial planting of GM crops in this country. Our reasoning relates more to the lack of clear benefit rather than presence of unacceptable risk to health, and to the demonstrated need to assess GM crops on a case-by-case basis.” (p5)

            So there is a highly probable that the BMA would supports the scientific consensus listed above. I mean they would probably also support labeling also so there’s that.

          • Ted Miner

            LOL!!

            What a load of discombobulated BS right off the brain?

            Seriously!

            LOL!!!

          • No Gmo

            LOL! You posted a graphic with untruthful quotes and then you question who is “accurately representing the viewpoints of these organizations”? LOL! You can’t be serious! LOL! You can’t read either! LOL! There are 2 quotes on that website from the Australian Medical Association. One is from 2010! Though it is funny that you complain about 15 year old references when your graphic had plenty of quotes that were just as old! LOL! Also funny that you can’t read the BMA report correctly, it says, “many of the concerns expressed apply with equal vigour to conventionally derived foods. However, safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the basis of information currently available.” Yet, your claim is “GM technology is safe – no more risky than other crop breeding techniques” That isn’t at all what it says, it says that there isn’t enough research to conclude that GE foods are as safe as conventional food yet. That is the consensus in the medical community! That if you eat GE foods today you probably won’t die as a result tomorrow, but there is no telling what the medium and long term impact is, and of course they should be labeled so that humans can choose for themselves whether or not they want to take that risk with a “lack of clear benefit” as the BMA report says. LOL! I trust what the majority of the medical community from the link Ted gave you says, instead of fake claims and biased biotech tainted nonsense on the genetic idiocy project website! After getting caught posting a graphic with untruthful quotes and biotech affiliated nonsense you should realize there is no such consensus as you claim. If there was such a consensus then your graphic wouldn’t have used fake quotes and mostly groups with biotech affiliations, they would have quotes from the majority of the independent medical community! Your graphic had to use fake quotes and biotech affiliated groups because there is no such consensus! LOL!

          • Regressive Goosesteppers

            “Anti-science flatearthers who don’t check their sources are hilarious!”

            No, you’re not, you’re just annoying and pathetic. Especially when you make multiple sock puppet accounts to make it look like your insane anti-science propaganda has any validity or traction to it, Ted/NoGMO.

          • Regressive Goosesteppers

            Pro-tip, moron: If you’re going to try and ad hominem away hat debunks your idiotic, organic industry-fed lies, you’d do better than to cite garbage yellow journalism like Mother Jones, which has an anti-science streak a mile wide. I suppose you also believe that vaccines cause autism?

          • No Gmo

            LOL! You are too stupid to even click the links! HAHA! Anti-science flatearthers are hilarious! I provided links to two documents with ACSH funding listed. Do you have some evidence that ACSH isn’t funded by like every major biotech company? LOL! Of course you don’t! HAHA! I suppose you also believe that they get funding from the toothfairy instead of biotech companies? LOL! ACSH knows you anti-science braindead morons will believe anything you read on some anti-science blog! Braindead morons like you are their target market! LOL! HAHA! Anti-science flatearthers always give me a good laugh!

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            It must be interesting to live in a reality as you describe.

            The mind is interesting and the way you seem to perceive the reality here is strange for most real people.

            Nice deflection though …..

          • Ted Miner

            LOL!!

            Show us what they actually have to say.

            We are all waiting to hear how they support your agenda.

            ”course if you can’t give us the goods we’ll all know how you tried to scam us with some bogus list and no detail.

          • fiesta

            You are posting fake attributions. I’m reposting part of No GMO’s comment on the subject, here:

            The American Dietetic Association(which changed their name to Academy
            of Nutrition and Dietetics) put out a press release in response to the false claims made by websites, stating that they do not have an opinionon genetically engineed food. Ethan A. Bergman, the president of the
            Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics even said, “In addition to being untruthful, the statement attributed to the Academy may give voters a
            false impression of registered dietitians and the Academy.”

            So you already have been exposed for your “untruthful” claim.

            Royal Society of Medicine : that quote originates in an article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine and not from the Royal Society of Medicine. In the same journal there is a response from medical researcher David Schubert, which points out numerous errors in this article and states, “‘GM crops consumed… with no reported ill effects’ –
            therefore they are safe. This statement is illogical and the conclusion is not valid. There is no assay and there is no epidemiology. If any GM food product did cause harm it would be impossible to pick up within the constant background of disease, particularly since in the USA, the biggest consumer, there are no labelling requirements.”

            WHO, FAO, etc. co-sponsored report says, “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”

            Royal Society of London,
            U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Indian National Science Academy, Mexican Academy of Sciences and Third World Academy of Sciences : This report
            says, “We recommend that: (i) public health regulatory systems need to be put in place in every country to identify and monitor any potential adverse human health effects of transgenic plants, as for any other new variety. Such systems must remain fully adaptable to rapid advances in scientific knowledge. The possibility of long-term adverse effects should be kept in view when setting up such systems. This will require coordinated efforts between nations the sharing of experience and the
            standardization of some types of risk assessments specifically related to human health; (ii) information should be made available to the public concerning how their food supply is regulated and its safety ensured.” No public health regulatory system has been put in place to monitor any
            potential adverse human health effects of transgenic plants. According to a Health Canada report, “We did not find any post-marketing surveillance system for genetically modified foods in place in any
            country.” So, it is fraudulent to claim this report suggests GMOs are safe when the recommendations the authors suggest are needed to conclude safety have not been put in effect.

          • Neil

            I didn’t list the “Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics” or “American Dietetic Association” as supporting GMO safety. I can’t be “exposed” for a claim I didn’t make.

            Your objection to the EC reference is disingenuous and legalese. I don’t speak legalese but how about I modify the reference to read: The Directorate-General for Research and Innovation from the European Commision. Oh,and the EC supports labeling? Fine. This is not about labelling. It is about the scientific consensus regarding the safety of rDNA technology in agriculture.

            Your comment on the Royal Society of Medicine is accurate. Thank you for pointing that out, I will no longer use that as a reference.

            The “WHO, FAO, etc. co-sponsored report” you speak of is actually the IAASTD and I did not list the IAASTD as a supporter of the scientific consensus because of the quote you pasted. However, the World Health Organization DOES support the consensus and saying that the IAASTD’s conclusions are endorsed by the WHO is at odds with what the WHO actual says.

            Your quote from the combined Academy of Sciences is from a report called “Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture”. You claim that their recommendations have not been implemented and this not really true as there a more and more meta studies being published every year :

            Alessandro Nicolia, Alberto Manzo, Fabio Veronesi, and Daniele Rosellini. An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2013. doi:10.3109/07388551.2013.823595

            and

            A. L. Van Eenennaam and A. E. Young. Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock populations. J ANIM SCI September 2, 2014jas.2014-8124

          • No Gmo

            YOU DID LIST “Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics” or “American Dietetic Association” it is in the “untruthful” graphic you posted above! LOL! You posted a graphic with untruthful quotes and then you question who is “accurately representing the viewpoints of these organizations”? LOL! You can’t be serious! LOL! You can’t read either! LOL!

          • Neil

            what? go read the graphic again. tell me which organizations are above and below it because, seriously, I can’t see it on the graphic

          • No Gmo

            OK, I’ll give you that one. This is “version 2” LOL! Version 1 included the ADA(now AND). It must have just been updated.

          • No Gmo

            Here is the original graphic… With the ADA claim, the Royal Society of Medice claim, etc. which are “untruthful”

          • No Gmo

            Funny how you claim, “Your objection to the EC reference is disingenuous and legalese.” when this isn’t the opinion of the EC it is just a report sponsored by the EC. However, when a “WHO, FAO, etc. co-sponsored report” disagrees with you it isn’t “disingenuous and legalese.” You will apply all sorts of double standards to try to justify your cognitive dissonance! LOL! You claim, “Academy of Sciences is from a report called “Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture”. You claim that their recommendations have not been implemented and this not really true” It is completely true, they aren’t calling for meta analyses by biased and unqualified biotechnologists like Nicolia and Van Eenennaam, they are calling for “public health regulatory systems need to be put in place in every country to identify and monitor any potential adverse human health effects of transgenic plants, as for any other new variety. Such systems must remain fully adaptable to rapid advances in scientific knowledge. The possibility of long-term adverse effects should be kept in view when setting up such systems. This will require coordinated efforts between nations the sharing of experience and the standardization of some types of risk assessments specifically related to human health” , etc. Nothing there about 49 day chicken nonsense like Van Eenennaam used, or letters to the editor, etc. like Nicolia used. They are talking about “identify and monitor any potential adverse human health effects” NO SUCH SYSTEM IS IN PLACE! Look at what the majority of the medical community says in the statements you were given!

          • Neil

            The report “A Decade of EU-funded GMO Research” is endorsed by the Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science, and by the Directorate-General for Research and Innovation from the European Commission. When I see the description of the IAASTD described as a “WHO, FAO, etc. co-sponsored report” it sounds like they endorsed the assessment. The IAASTD was endorsed by governments (and rejected by others) not by agencies or NGOs. The IAASTD does not speak for the WHO and it is deceptive to suggest otherwise. I clearly stated in my previous comment that the IAASTD does not support the consensus. So your statement is invalid.

            Nicola’s paper was a review article, not a letter to the editor, and these are usually peer reviewed – do you have evidence that this particular review article was not peer reviewed? And I suspect they are only unqualified in your eyes because they do not agree with you. I bet you think Seralini is an amazingly qualified biotechnologist, yeah? The point I was making is that there are many, many people following up on the health effects of GM food and with the epidemiological methods we have today it is absolutely amazing that we haven’t found anything. As for your complaint about using broiler data…that just shows you don’t understand animal models and statistical power.

          • No Gmo

            Funny how you claim, “Your objection to the EC reference is disingenuous and legalese.” when this isn’t the opinion of the EC it is just a report sponsored by the EC. It was endorsed by one person at the EC and you want to try to claim it is now the opinion of the whole EC? LOL! Talk about disingenuous!

            Can you even read my statement? LOL! “However, when a “WHO, FAO, etc. co-sponsored report” disagrees with you it isn’t “disingenuous and legalese.” You will apply all sorts of double standards to try to justify your cognitive dissonance! LOL! You claim, “Academy of Sciences is from a report called “Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture”. You claim that their recommendations have not been implemented and this not really true” It is completely true, they aren’t calling for meta analyses by biased and unqualified biotechnologists like Nicolia and Van Eenennaam, they are calling for “public health regulatory systems need to be put in place in every country to identify and monitor any potential adverse human health effects of transgenic plants, as for any other new variety. Such systems must remain fully adaptable to rapid advances in scientific knowledge. The possibility of long-term adverse effects should be kept in view when setting up such systems. This will require coordinated efforts between nations the sharing of experience and the standardization of some types of risk assessments specifically related to human health” , etc. Nothing there about 49 day chicken nonsense like Van Eenennaam used, or letters to the editor, etc. like Nicolia used. They are talking about “identify and monitor any potential adverse human health effects” NO SUCH SYSTEM IS IN PLACE! Look at what the majority of the medical community says in the statements you were given!”

            See this? “Nothing there about 49 day chicken nonsense like Van Eenennaam used, or letters to the editor, etc. like Nicolia used.” A meta analysis using letters to the editor? You are talking about statistical power of letters to the editor! LOL!

            My complaint is that you don’t understand animal models, I would get laughed out of the lab if I suggested using broilers to assess human safety! LOL! Anti-science flatearthers who can’t read are hilarious! LOL! HAHA!

          • likesreading

            Your commentary is wonderful on this subject. Too bad environmental and farmer rights advocates cannot afford people like you to educate the public. Instead, it gets subjected to 24/7 corporate propaganda.

          • likesreading

            ” I would get laughed out of the lab if I suggested using broilers to assess human safety! ”

            The online GMO sellers lack a very, very basic understanding of experimental methodology, but are so self assured of their competency to make pronouncements about the state of GMO toxicological research. See drloko’s comment about how Van Eenennaam collected “500 billion years of research.”These reckless morons are going to drag the world down with them

          • Neil

            What? Nicolia’s paper is not a letter to the editor. It’s a review article. Says it right there above the title. If you go back and read my comment more carefully you will see that the statistical power comment was aimed specifically at the broiler study, not the Nicolia review article. Why do you think that was?

          • No Gmo

            I never said Nicolia was a letter to the editor. LOL! You seriously have reading comprehension problems. Let’s try this again : “See this? “Nothing there about 49 day chicken nonsense like Van Eenennaam used, or letters to the editor, etc. like Nicolia used.” A meta analysis using letters to the editor?” Do you see where it says, “letters to the editor, etc. like Nicolia used”. It doesn’t say it was a letter to the editor it says “used” letters to the editor. I’ve spent a lot of time just trying to help you with your reading comprehension issues and I simply don’t have the time to continue helping you with your reading ability. Good luck.

          • Neil

            wow, if you think that sentence was clear you are heading to Dunning-Kruger territory. So you are saying that Nicolia review article can be ignored because there are letters to the editor among the 1700+ papers they reviewed?

          • No Gmo

            You can’t read. We’ve been through this multiple times where your reading comprehension skills have been exposed as subpar at best. Just stop wasting my time with your ignorance.

          • Neil

            It’s a fair question but if you can’t answer it, I understand

          • No Gmo

            I can answer it, but based on your previous ability to comprehend what I have posted, I doubt you would be able to read it. Nicolia is not a systematic review. If you actually read the article it doesn’t include the majority of the papers listed on their list so most of their list does not seem to be included in their review including numerous studies and even letters the editor, etc. that either observed problems or are questioning the safety of GE foods, crops, etc. Most importantly, since this is not a systematic review, all it is really is the opinion of 4 biased authors who are either biased biotechnologists or members of the pro-GMO group SIGA. They have no health, environmental, etc. background that I can tell and so all we have is their biased, unqualified opinion based on cherry picked references from their list. So as I said before, biased nonsense is not what was asked for, your reference was asking for a system to be put in place to assess human risks and not the opinions of biased and unqualified biotechnologists and 49 day chicken data with omissions also done by a biased biotechnologist. Hopefully you can read this, because I have really wasted a significant amount of time trying to help you read.

          • Ted Miner

            Tell us what these organizations have to say.

            Until then you’ve just listed a lot of names. Anyone would be a fool to believe that kind of cut and paste limited information.

            You haven’t proved anything except that you know how to cut and paste from the GMO pesticide industry troll handbook.

          • bobito

            Hey, those were in an image so I couldn’t cut/paste, I had to type them in!!!

            I’ve set out to prove nothing, just having a conversation. If anyone is interested they can feel free to investigate whatever claims they want. I certainly don’t suggest anyone form an opinion form some random dude commenting on a blog…

            I made up my mind a couple years ago on GMOs after doing my research. I started out being skeptical of them, but after learning about the science I see why my skepticism was not warranted. And I certainly don’t expect to change your opinion…

          • Regressive Goosesteppers

            “Until then you’ve just listed a lot of names. Anyone would be a fool to believe that kind of cut and paste limited information.
            You haven’t proved anything except that you know how to cut and paste from the GMO pesticide industry troll handbook.”

            Says the science-hating Organic industry shill whose sole contribution so far has been to repeat outright lies and copy/paste from the notoriously disingenuous “GMO-free project” junksite.

          • Regressive Goosesteppers

            Ted: “BLAH BLAH BLAH, ASSERTING CLAIMS WITHOUT FACTUAL BASIS, WAH WAH WAH, ALL SCIENCE THAT PROVES ME WRONG IS A PLOT BY THE LIZARD PEOPLE CORPORATION, HOMINEM HOMINEM HOMINEM, STRAW MAN STRAW MAN STRAW MAN.”

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            He must have really struck a nerve. Pretty funny!

          • JBaileyz

            Yes, it’s all one big conspiracy theory. *They* have bought out every scientist, group, individual and website that supports the use of GMOs. Um, do you think that human beings work for all these entities and if there were real risks, they would just go along with the big plot to poison us all? After all, that would mean poisoning themselves, their families, friends, all of civilization. Do you really believe that?

            The irrational paranoia and hysteria over GMOs is what confounds me the most.

          • No Gmo

            LOL! What are you talking about? We already established that the majority of the medical community don’t agree here and that these websites are using some “untruthful” claims and groups heavily funded, etc. by biotech companies. That isn’t a conspiracy, it is reality. When you claim consensus and the best you can come up with is “untruthful” claims and a bunch of groups affiliated with biotech companies then all I can do is laugh! HAHA! I trust the majority of the medical community over “untruthful” claims and a bunch of groups affiliated with biotech companies! LOL!

          • gina13

            Aren’t they also misrepresenting the AMA? Doesn’t the AMA also claim that GMOs are uniquely dangerous and therefore need to be subjected to pre market testing? Being that none were, does the AMA have a position on currently commercialized GMOs– particularly since 81 % have been the subject of absolutely no published research?

          • JBaileyz

            Thanks for illustrating my point about irrational paranoia and hysteria of the anti-GMO crowd. I rest my case.

          • No Gmo

            Thanks for illustrating my point about how anti-science flatearthers are too stupid to understand what the majority of the medical community says! HAHA! I rest my case.

          • No Gmo

            LOL! You think the consensus is based on fake claims and reports involving biotech companies and biotechnologists. Anti-science flatearthers are hilarious!

            European Commission : the quote does not represent the European Commission since the report specifically states, “The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission.” the authors include people such as Marc Van Montagu who has an obvious conflict of interest considering he founded two biotech companies, Plant Genetic Systems Inc. and CropDesign and makes millions from GMO’s since he invented the Agrobacterium method. Funny how the European Commission SUPPORTS LABELING!

            Royal Society of Medicine : this quote originates in an article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine and not from the Royal Society of Medicine.
            In the same journal there is a response from medical researcher David Schubert, which points out numerous errors in this article and states, “‘GM crops consumed… with no reported ill effects’ – therefore they are safe. This statement is illogical and the conclusion is not valid. There is no assay and there is no epidemiology. If any GM food product did cause harm it would be impossible to pick up within the constant background of disease, particularly since in the USA, the biggest consumer, there are no labelling requirements.” http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/101/9/435.2.full

            Union of German Academies of Science and Humanity : The names at the bottom of the report here are all biotechnologists with a professional conflict of interest and as far as I can tell no real health background. http://www.abic2004.org/download/reportongmohazards.pdf

            Royal Society of London, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Indian National Science Academy, Mexican Academy of Sciences and Third World Academy of Sciences : This report says, “We recommend that: (i) public health regulatory systems need to be put in place in every country to identify and monitor any potential adverse human health effects of transgenic plants, as for any other new variety. Such systems must remain fully adaptable to rapid advances in scientific knowledge. The possibility of long-term adverse effects should be kept in view when setting up such systems. This will require coordinated efforts between nations the sharing of experience and the standardization of some types of risk assessments specifically related to human health; (ii) information should be made available to the public concerning how their food supply is regulated and its safety ensured.” No public health regulatory system has been put in place to monitor any potential adverse human health effects of transgenic plants. According to a Health Canada report, “We did not find any post-marketing surveillance system for genetically modified foods in place in any country.” So, it is fraudulent to claim this report suggests GMOs are safe when the recommendations the authors suggest are needed to conclude safety have not been put in effect.

            AAAS? The chair of the board at the time of their report was a biotechnologist who has formerly worked for the biotech companies Evogene as well as Sigma-Aldrich and the rest of the board included another biased biotechnologist, an astrophysicist, an entrepreneur and a psychologist!

            National Academy of Science) : quote is from a summary of a 2000 report. Page R5 of the Full Report states, “Michael Phillips was involved with this study until 7/13/99 and is currently employed with the Biotechnology Industry Organization” Biotechnology Industry Organization members include just about every major biotech company. http://www.bio.org/articles/bio-members-web-site-links Page R6 lists the BOARD ON AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES which includes, “ROBERT T. FRALEY, Monsanto Company” and, “THOMAS N. URBAN, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.” http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9795&page=R6

            Food Standards Australia New Zealand : SUPPORTS LABELING!
            etc.

            I trust what the majority of the medical community from the link Ted gave you says, instead of fake claims and biased biotech tainted nonsense on the genetic idiocy project website! LOL! Anti-science flatearthers who don’t check their sources are hilarious! HAHA!.

          • bobito

            It appears you have your talking point in order, well done!

          • Ted Miner

            Actually he has his FACTS in order.

            Those FACTs show that YOUR BS is a FAILURE.

          • bobito

            “Those FACTs show that YOUR BS is a FAILURE.”

            Yup, that’s the whole idea of talking points.

          • Ted Miner

            They never check sources they just cut and paste from the troll handbook. All that’s in the troll handbook is GMO pesticide industry agenda certified by Jon Entine and company..

            It’s the liars handbook.

            LOL!!!

          • Neil

            Ted links to what amounts to a flyer from an insurance company. It’s amazing how you trust insurance companies when they confirm your biases.

          • No Gmo

            LOL! Ted linked to a page with over 100 different groups. I don’t expect anti-science flat earthers who reference biotech tainted nonsense to be able to read though! HAHA! LOL! I trust what the majority of the medical community from the link Ted gave you says, instead of fake claims and biased biotech tainted nonsense on the genetic idiocy project website! LOL! Anti-science flatearthers who don’t check their sources are hilarious! HAHA!.

          • Ted Miner

            I didn’t say I trusted insurance companies.

            Insurance companies are the ones that have to pay for the health care issues being caused by the pesticide laden GMOs being hidden from us in the food we eat.

            They are concerned about the hit their bottom line is taking from the serious medical conditions being caused by pesticide soaked GMOs that they have to pay for.

            FACT is there is no consensus on GMO safety. THe science has nor been done.

          • Pamela Wright
          • Pamela Wright

            Your entire argument is ad hominem. You do realize that all the agencies have specifically posted position papers. That means they *as a group* agree with the position. While individual members are free to disagree with any part of it, the groups voting members agree overall. If you just refuse to accept the expertise of anyone in the field, then of course you can claim no experts have a consensus. But they are the experts in their field, and they disagree with you. Your insisting otherwise changes nothing.

          • No Gmo

            LOL! Anti-science flatearthers are hilarious! You seriously think plant scientists are experts at health! Please go to a plant scientist the next time you need medical help and see how that works out for you! LOL! I trust what the majority of the medical community from the link Ted gave says, instead of fake claims and biased biotech plant scientist tainted nonsense on the genetic idiocy project website! LOL! Anti-science flatearthers are hilarious! HAHA! I always get a good laugh at the conspiracy tinfoilhatters that think plant scientists are health experts! LOL!

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            It’s so interesting to see how they try to bury the truth with their diversion tactics. Totally designed to divert and deflect the facts they want to see buried.

            Coordinated PR responses, likely coming out of a warehouse in Virginia.

          • Regressive Goosesteppers

            “There is no scientific or medical consensus on GMO safety.”

            Ted here is clearly a big proponent of the “Big Lie” tactic.

          • Pamela Wright

            Ok, design such a study. Submit it for approval. Request a grant. And study it. Instead of just pulling out this canard every time someone points out that no ill health effects have been reported and all gm foods are tested for safety before release, why not actually do the study that would satisfy you once and for all? Can’t do it yourself? Start a kickstarter campaign and fund a grad student who would probably be over the moon to get that kind of backing. Stop pretending you actually care if you aren’t willing to put your money and your time where your mouth is.

      • L7

        Ridiculous comparisons and quite laughable too!

    • Tom Scharf

      There is nothing wrong with it. You can eat organic. TODAY.

      Why do you feel compelled to control what I feed my family?

      • Mommy Warrior

        Did I mention you OR your family? Ummm… NO.

        • Regressive Goosesteppers

          Except for the part where you’re trying to force them to pay more money for less quantity and quality of food (and the strong possibility of being exposed to e.Coli) simply because you hate and fear science.

          • Mommy Warrior

            You obviously haven’t been to Costco lately…

        • JH

          You mentioned “our loved ones”. Didn’t you?

          Ummm…Yesssss.

          Oh! Your sheep, right? Sorry! :)

          • Mommy Warrior

            You know JH, you’re SOOO nice! I always speak positive in hopes that others will play nice as well. I like to include people in conversations because I’m hospitable like that, so you take it for what it’s worth and obviously, you take to name calling… I’m here to discuss, as you are, my opinions about being cautious when it comes to GMOs and you want to start an argument by being rude and calling names because you don’t agree with me. If you don’t agree, fine, but at least when you name call, do it with proper grammar. :)

          • JH

            Snort. Look who’s talking.

          • Mommy Warrior

            Yes, I AM looking and being rude is a behavior that I don’t take kindly. Go on little man, go get some sunshine, breathe some fresh air and be thankful for all the good in your life. I’m done here… Peace

        • Tom Scharf

          What is your point then? You can have exactly what you want. Is there anyone here talking about banning organic foods? You might want to listen up to what GMO activists are advocating for.

          • Mommy Warrior

            I just LOVE how an opinion that I have about taking the precautionary principle becomes something completely different. Tom, maybe you need a nap as your thinking has become a bit clouded. YOU are talking about topics that were NEVER mentioned by me. I am taking the cautious route when purchasing food for my family, YOU are replying to me talking about, well, NOT that. Maybe you need a break, as negative comments can really wear a person out. Why don’t you take a deep breath and be thankful for all the positives in your life. Maybe watch the sunset tonight and reflect on everything that is right in this world. I’m done here, as you really weren’t paying attention to what I’ve been saying all along. Peace

    • JH

      Mommy Warrior, the good news is that there’s no evidence that GMO’s are unsafe in any way. That’s why we don’t label them: there is no health threat.

      • Ted Miner

        You can believe that Mommy, ‘cuz JH here sez it true.

        Kind of like meeting Moe in a dark ally to get hooked up with heart surgery.

        • Mommy Warrior

          Thank you Ted! I’ll keep that in mind. :)

      • Mommy Warrior

        Hmmm… that’s not what the other side says. So, being stuck in the middle of a scientific debate, I agree with Bill Nye and choose the precautionary principle until this topic has been resolved. As a Mommy Warrior, I will be sure to let ALL other Mommys know that GMO foods are being questioned and ask them if they want to experiment on their children. I wonder what they’ll say?

        • JH

          “being stuck in the middle of a scientific debate”
          Or you could actually learn something. :)

          • Mommy Warrior

            Oh JH, what was I thinking? Of COURSE, learn something! Yes, I have learned all right, I’ve learned that I’m not interested in feeding my family GMO foods that are registered with the EPA as a pesticide. I have learned that most scientists are much like most politicians, $$$ decides the results in data/votes. I have learned that no matter how friendly and positive I am in a GMO type article, there’s ALWAYS someone that behaves like a naughty school child. And there’s something else I’ve learned, when I speak up as a MOM, people just don’t like the fact that we Moms make 85% of the consumer market in the US. That’s right, and we share information with each other on EVERYTHING including which companies that donate $$$ to not label. How’s that? We call boycotts and guess what? It’s WORKING! Have you seen the quarterly losses over there at Kellogg’s? Yeah, I guess I really should learn something… :)

          • JH

            “I’ve learned that I’m not interested in feeding my family GMO foods that are registered with the EPA as a pesticide.”

            Is that list written with lemon juice? I don’t see anything on it.

          • Mommy Warrior

            My Dear JH, you obviously are going to disagree with me about MY opinion of being cautious about the foods I feed my family and then tell me to learn something new. It’s completely transparent to me that you are trying to ruffle my feathers, but it’s not working. You see I’m quite familiar with the tactics of making the “Mom” look ridiculous… BUT, I just adore that the Moms have the purchasing power and the ability to teach other Moms about the precautionary principle when it comes to the foods we feed our families. LOVE IT!! As a matter of fact, I’ll be thinking of you today as I paper another parking lot with information on… wait for it… The Precautionary Principle!

            I’m done here as I have much to do! Sharing everything I can with the other Moms… OH, what? I’ve been asked to speak at a Moms’ group later this week? Why YES, I’ll help them with the precautionary principle as well… Ta Ta! :)

          • DavidAppell

            Several years ago I wrote an article about the PP for Scientific American. Someone said, under the PP we would have have started using fire.

            The PP has a place, but it’s a slippery idea that some use to make whatever claim they want. It’s also exceedingly difficult to do a really thorough risk-reward analysis. For example, what about the risk of global famine — are GMOs OK then? NGOs actually stopped food aid from going to dirt-poor Africans because it contained GMOs. That’s on a whole different moral plane….

          • Mommy Warrior

            I’m all up for risk, as long as it’s not a blind risk that I’m unaware of and if the risk is labeled, then I can choose if I accept the risk at my discretion.

          • DavidAppell

            By now any risk of GMOs certainly isn’t “blind.” But since no risk has been identified, there’s no labelling necessary. Don’t like that? Eat organic, problem solved.

          • Mommy Warrior

            Most definitely blind Mr. Appell as there have been NO studies longer then 90 days that prove safety of GMOs and those studies are bought and paid for by BigAgrochem. Organic presents it’s own problems as there are MANY gray areas of exceptions and with Tom Vilsak trying to dismantle the NOSB, well, problems are not solved. Labeling is necessary, it alerts Moms like myself if it’s something I would like to feed my family. Why can’t I have that choice? SO, in the meanwhile, I will practice the precautionary principle and I will share that bit of information with every Mom I know…

          • DavidAppell

            Is there any study proving that organic food is safe?
            Is there any study proving that any food is safe?
            Is there any study proving that *anything* is safe?
            IF so, give us some links.

          • Mommy Warrior

            Why don’t you do your own research Mr. Appell? I’ve done mine, you go do your… and please let me have my choice when it comes to feeding my family GMOs.

          • DavidAppell

            “Why don’t you do your own research Mr. Appell?”

            So you CAN’T name any study that proves organic foods are safe.

            I’m not surprised. Logically, no such study can exist — you can’t prove a negative.

          • Mommy Warrior

            Honestly, this has nothing to do with proving safe or unsafe, this is about my choice on wether or not I would like to feed my family GMOs. And YOU still haven’t answered MY question… why can’t I have a choice? No links necessary.

          • DavidAppell

            You brought up “safe,” not me.

            Here’s an easy way to meet your goal for your family: buy organic. Problem solved.

          • Mommy Warrior

            Mr. Appell, you keep insisting that buying organic is the end all, we already discussed why it is not. You keep choosing not to answer my question, why won’t you? Ahhhh, because there is NO argument when it comes to wanting a label so that I can have a choice if I would like to purchase GMOs or not. You have been repeating the same thing over and over again and maybe you need to clean your glasses as you’re missing the most important part of my comments which are… I take the precautionary principle when purchasing food for my family and I would like a label so that I can have a choice wether or not to feed my family GMOs. Obviously, we’re at a standstill… so I will take the high road and move on as I already deal with children in my everyday life that repeats and repeats and repeats…

          • DavidAppell

            You ALREADY have a choice — buy organic. Why does that not suffice?

            There simply isn’t any evidence that GM foods are unsafe. So labeling it would increase their cost, when many people have trouble keeping up with food prices already. Why label something that isn’t consequential?

          • Mommy Warrior

            Wash, rinse, repeat… Wash, rinse, repeat… Wash, rinse, repeat…

          • DavidAppell

            Sorry, but the answer remains the same. You already have a choice to avoid GMOs. Why aren’t you utilizing it?

          • Mommy Warrior

            Mr. Appell, a very small percentage of foods are labeled when it comes to organic and GMO Free. As one of 85% of the consumer population for this country (Moms), labeling is an important part of our decision making when it comes to feeding our families. We have that right to know if the foods are GMO. We can butt heads all day long, I won’t change your views and you won’t change mine. I’m okay with that. But to continue on with this conversation is a waste of time for me and I’m sure you’ve already hit your comment quota for the week and you’ll be able to collect your check. I’m sure you’ll comment back as you always do and why not? Easy money! I’m sure I’ll see you around in some other thread, regarding food or climate change… until then, I’m out. Namaste

          • DavidAppell

            If the food you buy is so important, why not just buy organic and sidestep this entire issue?? Why drag everyone else through labeling, when the science shows GMOs are no different from any other food?

            Also, I don’t see where the consumer has a “right” to know what’s in your food. Do you know what’s in the organic food you buy, such as fecal matter? Do you have a right to know what pesticides were sprayed on the crops in your food? Where that food was grown? How it was transported? What its carbon footprint is?

            Consumers don’t have a “right” to know any of these things. Labeling GMOs will only cost money, with no value-added.

          • CB

            I think consumers do have a right to know what’s in their food!

            …and they have a right to believe something is dangerous for them despite all evidence to the contrary…

            We had a referendum in CA recently about it and I voted no to labelling, not because I think people don’t have a right to know, but because the language was meaningless. It would have made it illegal to label GMO items “natural”, which is nonsense. Either everything is natural or nothing is natural. It’s a meaningless word.

          • Debbie Owen

            We should have the right to know about the food we pay for and feed to our families and no one else should be allowed to tell us what we should know and what we shouldn’t know about our food. As far as organic food is concerned, that is nothing but a silly argument meant to be a distraction because pro-GMOers can’t come up with a good reason not to label GMOs. Organic food is already labeled so it is easy for anyone to avoid it if they want. Now we need GMOs labeled to make it easier for people like me to avoid. Busy mom’s should not have to do a lot of research on every single ingredient just to find out if something might be GMO, it should be as simple as looking at a label. Who are you, or anyone else like you, to tell anyone that we don’t have the right to know about the food we buy and consume? That is just very unethical. By the way, labeling GMOs won’t cost food manufacturers much, they already change their packaging frequently anyway so it wouldn’t be hard for them to add a few simple words to a label. Besides, they are already doing it for other countries, so we know they could easily do it for us as well. Labeling GMOs, much value added for those of us who care about what we are feeding our families.

          • DavidAppell

            Where is our “right” to know about the food we eat established? In the Constitution? The Declaration of Independence? The Bill of Rights?

            “Now we need GMOs labeled to make it easier for people like me to avoid.”

            IT IS ALREADY easy for people like you to avoid GMOs — buy organic food. You go to the produce aisle and look for the organic food section. It’s all non-GMO. Easy.

            The rest of us don’t want to pay extra for labeling foods that are in no way harmful.

          • Debbie Owen

            Reread what I wrote, I said we SHOULD have the right to know. It is not easy for people to know for sure if it is GMO because not all non-GMO is labeled and that limits our choices. The rest of you aren’t going to pay extra either, that is just a lie told by the GMO biotech companies and their supporters, it is a scare tactic used because they can’t come up with a good reason not to label GMOs either. By the way, we do have a moral and ethical right to know and someday we will have a legal right to know as well. It is really a shame that while we live in a free country we don’t have the freedom to know what is in the food we pay for and feed to our families.

          • DavidAppell

            It doesn’t make logical sense that labeling GMOs won’t increase prices. Builiding a food pipeline that only handles GMO-free food will be in parallel to one that handles GMO food. I don’t see how that extra pipeline doesn’t cost extra.

            What exactly is it that you fear about eating GMOs?

          • Debbie Owen

            Who said anything about an extra pipeline? Farmers don’t have to do that if they don’t want to, it is their choice. Farmers already know what kind of crops they are growing and if GMO and non-GMO crops get mixed together then it will be labeled as GMO. Simple. Besides many farmers that provide crops for food products for other countries are already separating the crops because other countries already require labels. As far as my “fear about eating GMOs”, I just want to be able to avoid GMOs that have been genetically engineered to produce it’s own pesticide or to be able to withstand repeated applications of herbicide. Bt corn, for instance, is even registered as a pesticide with the EPA. Those poisons don’t wash off and they are in our food supply. If you don’t mind eating GMOs there is no need for you to be so afraid of a simple label.

          • DavidAppell

            How would food companies keep GMOs from nonGMOs? Wouldn’t they need completely different facilities, for the fear (of some) there would be “contamination?” Do they need completely different trucks to cart away what the farmer produces? Wouldn’t you need to make two sets of labels? All of this will cost money.

            The Bt endotoxin is very selective and considered safe for humans, other mammals, fish, birds, and the environment. What’s the evidence it is not?

            nonGMO crops receive pesticide too.

            We have all — you included — been eating GMO foods for well over a decade. Where is the evidence of harm?

          • Debbie Owen

            I would love it if farmers could keep GMO crops separated from non-GMO crops, but that isn’t necessary for a simple label. As I already said, if the crops get mixed the label can say contains GMOs or may contain GMOs. Remember, all we are talking about is a simple label. If you believe Bt is safe to eat then that is a choice you can make, labeling GMOs makes that choice easier for everyone. You can find evidence of harm if you really wanted to, all you have to do is look around, our country has become very sick since GMOs were snuck into our food supply in 1996. There have been many cases where people have eliminated GMOs from their diets the best they could and their symptoms from allergies and GI disorders greatly improved or even disappeared. I have seen it for myself and that is evidence enough for me.

          • DavidAppell

            “As I already said, if the crops get mixed the label can say contains GMOs or may contain GMOs.”

            But you want no mixing of nonGMOs with GMOs. How is that supposed to happen without parallel pipelines?

          • Debbie Owen

            Maybe you should reread my comments, I don’t think other people reading this will have a problem understanding it. We are talking about labeling GMOs, we don’t need parallel pipelines for that.

          • DavidAppell

            Labels aren’t “simple.” They convey useful information. A GMO label isn’t useful, because the food is the same as non-GMO food. So any label would bring confusion to the reader.

          • FNLED

            Silly lying dissembler.
            Stop the silly nonsense.
            It’s pathetic.

          • Debbie Owen

            Wrong again, a label is simple, maybe it is the information they convey that is complicated for you. You are highly underestimating the reader, anyone who pays attention to labels are smart enough to do research and decide for themselves if they want to purchase and consume GMOs and their accompanying toxins. That is what an informed choice is all about. I think you should do some research yourself because GMO crops are not the same as non-GMO crops. GMOs in our food supply has been genetically engineered to withstand repeated applications of herbicide and/or to produce it’s own pesticide. Conventional corn, for example, is not registered with the EPA as pesticide like GMO Bt corn is. If you want to eat it, that’s your choice, don’t try to take away the rights of other people by trying to keep them in the dark about what they feed to their own families. That is just unethical.

          • DavidAppell

            I’ve done plenty of research and reading on GMOs. No science shows they cause any harm at all. It’s not enough to complain about Bt corn, because the Bt endotoxin is safe for humans:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_maize#Food

            In short, you are afraid of your own imaginings.

          • Debbie Owen

            Obviously you haven’t done much research if you say “no science shows they cause any harm at all”. Anyone reading this who has done any real research at all knows that isn’t true. If you really believe Bt is safe then eat up, give the rest of us a choice and label GMOs. No one knows what the long term effects of repeatedly eating Bt (which is in so many food products) day after day. In short, you are afraid of a simple label.

          • DavidAppell

            “…our country has become very sick since GMOs were snuck into our food supply in 1996.”

            THIS is your reasoning????? Such claims are the exact *opposite* of science. I thought you had some rational reasons for why you wanted to avoid GMOs, but now it’s clearly based on your feelings and things you believe without any science backing them up — in fact, with the science saying the opposite.

            Don’t make the rest of us pay for your refusal to understand the science.

          • Debbie Owen

            You wouldn’t have to pay just because my choice is different than yours, but that has already been explained to you so now I am assuming you are deliberately using scare tactics to mislead people. The evidence I have seen with my own eyes beats anything a stranger says on the internet. Label GMOs.

          • DavidAppell

            I don’t believe what you said to me. If GMO and nonGMO food products are to be kept separate, you necessarily need separate facilities for them, separate farm equipment, separate trucking and rail cars, etc. Otherwise people who imagine GMOs can cause harm will complain that we’re extinguishing the human race.

          • Debbie Owen

            Wow, go back and reread the comments, why does everything have to be repeated to you? I’m sure everyone else reading this thread will be able to comprehend. Let me try again with you since you just want to go in circles. Farmers don’t have to change anything if they don’t want to, they don’t have to keep GMO and non-GMO separate. The label can easily say “may contain GMOs”. It is so simple, I don’t know why you can’t/won’t understand. Try to get this, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A SIMPLE LABEL.

          • Caroline

            I buy organic to avoid GMOs but most conventional supermarkets sell limited organic or non-GMO foods

            Michael Pollan said that without GMO labels you have a TWO-Tier Class food system. One tier for the organic folks and the second tier for EVERYONE ELSE. Labeling is about giving Everyone Else the information they need to make an informed choice. Labeling is for EVERYONE not just for the organic folks. You do believe in equality?

          • DavidAppell

            If you care as much about the food you eat as you say you do, isn’t it worth taking an extra 20 minutes and going somewhere that does have a more extensive selection of organic foods.

            Where I live all the stores have a well-stocked organic section.

          • Caroline

            Michael Pollan said without labels you have a TWO-tier class food system. One class for the organic folks and the other class for EVERYONE ELSE. And the Everyone Else class shops at conventional supermarkets with limited organic or non-GMO foods. Labeling GMOs will give EVERYONE ELSE the information to make an informed decision. You do believe in equality?

          • DavidAppell

            So what? What’s so bad about having a two-tiered food system, as long as it doens’t cost extra.

            Buy organic and your problem is solved, cleanly and neatly. Labeling GMOs will only increase food prices for the rest of us, and food is getting expensive enough already. And we know the science says there is no harm in eating them. Personally I’d be more concerned about the insect DNA and insect proteins that are an inevitable part of harvesting and processing grains.

          • CB

            I actually dislike excluding GMOs from the organic definition!

            An organism is, by definition, organic, genetically modified or otherwise.

          • Debbie Owen

            It looks like my other comment was removed. Why is that, don’t you want any responses to the one above? If that is the case I wouldn’t be surprised if many people tried to respond to the ridiculous comment that we don’t have the right to know what we are paying for and feeding to our families. Yes we do have the right to know and no one else should be allowed to tell us what we should or should not know about the food we purchase and consume. That is unethical! Organic food is used as a distraction by the pro-GMOers because they can’t come up with a good reason not to label GMOs, besides organic is already labeled so they can avoid it if they want to. Now we need GMOs labeled to make it easier for people like me to avoid GMOs. Busy mom’s should not have to research every single ingredient before going shopping just to find out if something might be GMO, it should be as simple as looking at a label so we can know for sure. By the way, labels add much value to those of us who care about what we eat and feed to our families. Now let’s see how long before this comment is removed.

          • DavidAppell

            There is a VERY good reason not to label GMO food — the science shows they are equivalent to non-GMO food; there is no harm in eating them. By now that science is overwhelming. You might as well label crops with the phase of the moon the day they were planted.

          • Debbie Owen

            That isn’t a good reason at all. Even if you were right about science showing they are equivalent to non-GMO (which you aren’t), that doesn’t take away from the fact that we should all have the freedom to know what is in the food we pay for and feed to our families. Even water is labeled.

          • DavidAppell

            Yes, the science says GMO crops and non-GMO crops are “substantially equivalencet.” As far as I know, papers that claim there is a harm from GMO foods have all been found to based on bad science.

            If you want to know what’s in your foods, why aren’t you interested in the pesticides applied? In the crops’ breeding history? In its potential for allergies? Whether the workers who picked it were paid a fair wage? How much insect contaminaton is in them (they contain foreign DNA and proteins too)?

            There is a lot one might want to know about one’s food. Whether they’re GMO-based hasn’t been shown to be a factor that causes any harm — so why label them just because some people have an irrational fear of them?

          • Debbie Owen

            People don’t want labels because of an irrational fear, we want to know if the ingredients in food products were derived from GMOs, it is as simple as that. Just because there is a claim that GMO crops and non-GMO crops are substantially equivalent doesn’t necessarily make it so. Of course there is a difference or they wouldn’t have been patented. Of course I’m interested in the pesticides, if something is labeled GMO corn or soy that will tell me that the plant produces it’s own pesticide and I don’t want that. That is my choice and everyone should be able to decide for themselves. You seem to have an irrational fear of a few simple words on a label, there is no need to be afraid of a label.

          • JH

            “OH, what? I’ve been asked to speak at a Moms’ group later this week? ”
            Better shave first.

          • Mommy Warrior

            LOL! I’m a silky smooth hottie… no shaving required!

          • DavidAppell

            So then buy organic, and — poof! — no GMOs. Problem solved.

  • John Green

    I think Bill’s comment is perfectly in line with accepted science and the precautionary principle.

    For example, there is a consensus that climate change is occurring, but there is no scientific consensus on just exactly what it means for us. The IPCC says that “defining what is dangerous interference with the climate system is a complex task that can only be partially supported by science, as it inherently involves normative judgements.”

    So our BEST response is precaution and precautionary action.

    This is the EXACT reason Bill Nye is also a GMO-skeptic and urges caution. Yes, there may be a consensus that there is no immediate toxicological effect from their use, but as we have seen over the past decade, the use of this technology has accelerated the evolution of herbicide resistant weeds and insecticide resistant pests.

    There are many reasons to urge caution about GMOs, and anyone who tells you that is anti-science are generally pushing a corporate agenda, not a scientific one.

    • mem_somerville

      Wow, that’s amazing. I really had no idea that weed resistance and insect-resistant pests hadn’t existed before GMOs.

      Do you think Tabashnik faked this data on Bt then?

      And do you think all these weed scientists are lying to claim that herbicide resistant weeds aren’t new?

      Good thing we have you. We otherwise might have had to rely on data.

      • John Green

        >I really had no idea that weed resistance and insect-resistant pests hadn’t existed before GMOs.

        I never said they didn’t. Re-read what I wrote. The word “accelerated” is there.

        >Do you think Tabashnik faked this data on Bt then?

        Uhm, Tabashnik literally contradicts you: “reduced efficacy of Bt crops caused by field-evolved resistance has been reported now for some populations of 5 of 13 major pest species examined, compared with resistant populations of only one pest species in 2005.”

        >And do you think all these weed scientists are lying to claim that herbicide resistant weeds aren’t new?

        Again, I used the word accelerate.

        Go back to school and learn some reading comprehension.

        • mem_somerville

          Oh, so you admit that resistance is not related to GMOness. It existed before then. Right. That’s quite so–it has nothing to do with it being a transgene.

          And I’m curious how Tabshnik contradicted me with 2005 data in piece from 1994. Did he time travel?

          • John Green

            You dolt. The important thing to note is that Bt resistance does occur and is harmful. Now, the spray version comes with risks for sure, but spray breaks down in the environment quickly. Bt plants that constantly produce delta endotoxin ACCELERATE target resistance. That, again, is the key here.

          • hyperzombie

            but spray breaks down in the environment quickly

            That is why they spray far more often.

          • John Green

            “Spray far more often” than what? The plants constantly express the delta endotoxin. No amount of spraying can accomplish the level of insecticide in the environment caused by crops which themselves express the insecticide.

          • hyperzombie

            environment caused by crops which themselves express the insecticide.

            So why do they spray citrus fruit, they contain a registered pesticide expressed in the crop?

        • mem_somerville

          I am also confused about how he “literally” “contradicted” me (beyond the time travel issue).

          I claimed there was Bt resistance before GMOs. Your unsourced sentence said nothing of the sort to “literally contradict” that.

          Do you not understand the words “literally” or “contradicts”? Can I hook you up with your local library’s literacy project?

          • John Green

            I never claimed there wasn’t resistance before GMOs. Read my OP, I used the term “accelerated” – are you really that poor at reading comprehension?

          • jonathan gibbs

            She’s just having a circular discussion, as usual. Manipulative at cost is her style

          • Benjamin Edge

            Where is this “accelerated” resistance occurring?

            http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2013/05/superweed/

          • John Green

            I commented on that article. Go read it for a comprehensive overview. The PLOS1 study quite literally says herbicide tolerant crops have increased total chemical usage. However, their incorrect use of the word “pesticides” to refer to only spray insecticides biased the language of their study.

        • Randall

          John, I have more resistance problems in my non-GMO than in my GMO-traited crops. Both bugs and weeds.

          • John Green

            And how do you propose that occurred?

          • Randall

            I’ll be honest. Poor management on my part. I relied too much on my experience instead of the knowledge (educated theories) of our county extension agent. He was right, I was wrong.

            I switched modes of action, and the problem is back under control–for now. It is something that is always coming up.

            GMO’s are another tool that helps switch up management practices. I’m seeing less resistance to GMO methods than non-GMO methods.

          • NoToGMOs

            If I may ask, resistance to what exactly in your non-GMO crops?

          • Randall

            Same as GMO–Weeds and insects.

            I also have resistance to blight sprays on potatoes. If there were a GMO potato available that did as good of a job on blight as the papaya does on ringspot virus, it would save a lot of spraying.

            Resistance has happened faster with non-GMO methods. That is my experience.

          • NoToGMOs

            I meant resistance to which particular herbicide and/or insecticide?

          • Randall

            Everything–even cultivation gives bindweed and established dandelion an advantage.

            This is not a complete list, and I’ll use name brands. Sencore, Lorsbank Pursuit, Pounce, Warrior, Velpar, Atrazine. Also my potato blight fungicides.

            I’ll be happy to be more specific, and discuss the particular chemical and the particular problem.

            GMO’s have been flat-out better against resistance. Not only are all of the above chemicals still available for use on a GMO crop that are available for a conventional crop, but the additional GMO-specific treatment is available too, and in the case of RR, is more effective in a particular year, and lasts for a longer period of time without changing routine.

          • Jason

            Don’t forget that Western Corn Rootworm have developed resistance to crop rotation in two seperate geographies. Therefor, we should label all crops that were rotated from a previous crop…. Just as a precaution.

      • jonathan gibbs

        Scientist Mary….stating this your are not. These crops foster weed resistance… BS artist/faux pro scientist

    • JH

      The precautionary principle doesn’t have anything to do with “accepted science.”

      • Nathan Williams

        oh really?

        • Michael Phillips

          Yes, really. And in practice, no one follows the precautionary principle. If you disagree, explain why cars are still allowed to circulate, given crash-related death statistics. In fact, explain why organic food is still sold, given the well documented number of deaths associated with organic-food poisoning (don’t forget Germany 2011, 31 deaths and hundreds permanently injured from organic sprouts). Why don’t we apply the precautionary principle to organics?

    • Pamela Wright

      The problem is with the overbroad application of the precautionary principle which is just not warranted and sometimes dangerous. We are experiencing climate change, right now. It is happening. That isn’t a guess or a vague fear. Nye agrees. Then he refuses to do the one thing we know we can do, which is to develop food plants capable of surviving under these new conditions using the only means to do so fast enough. He is worried about upsetting an apple cart that has already been demolished. It’s complete idiocy. His inconsistency has to be due to confirmation bias and close mindedness. He doesn’t like them, so that’s that. He just doesn’t like them. Fear of vague potential harm should not stop one from taking direct and immediate action about a real and immediate one. It’s equivalent to the anti-vax fears about vaccines side effects keeping them from getting the only known thing to prevent real world deadly effects. See the comparison? He is perfectly able to see the foolishness of anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, and anti-evolutionists, but somehow manages to excuse himself from using science on his pet subject. Sorry, when you make public comment while positioning yourself as a science proponent, you better come with the evidence, not vague fears and nonsense about being cautious.

      • John Green

        Vague potential harm? What is vague about accelerated weed and insect resistance? What is vague about increasing levels of herbicides to deal with resistance? What is vague about recombinant delta endotoxin acting as a systemic and mucosal adjuvant?

        • OWilson

          On the other hand what is vague about world record agricultural production every year, which feeds those who are not fortunate to to sit down every evening for a gourmet meal, glass of fine wine, stroke their chins, and muse about “being cautious”?

        • NoToGMOs

          “What is vague about recombinant delta endotoxin acting as a systemic and mucosal adjuvant?”

          Thank you for mentioning that. I had also been wondering about Bt toxin’s nature as an adjuvant. As good or better an adjuvant as cholera toxin:

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10354369

          Which is the toxin that researchers conducting food allergy-related studies use to make their experimental animals (mice) allergic to peanut or other allergen! They feed them peanut along with an adjuvant like cholera toxin to make the mice anaphylactic to peanut.

          Which leads me to wonder about the rise in peanut and other allergies concomitant to the introduction of Bt GMOs.

        • Benjamin Edge

          Accelerated resistance? You have any data to support that claim? Sure herbicide resistance is happening, but it has been happening since the first herbicide was used. Weeds also adjust to mechanical control, including hand weeding.

          And since when did anyone other than a farmer care about herbicide resistance? It makes life more difficult for a farmer, but anyone who thinks farmers just keep spraying more and more of the same herbicide thinking it will do the job must be thinking about the way urbanites handle weeds in their own yards. Any additional herbicide a farmer uses is still within acceptable safe levels as born out by USDA residue reports.

          I presume delta endotoxins acting as systemic and mucosal adjuvants were a big concern with produce from the organic industry before Bt-GM crops came along?

          • John Green

            A Washington State University study found that the annual increase in the herbicides required to deal with tougher-to-control weeds on cropland planted to GE cultivars has grown from 1.5 million pounds in 1999 to about 90 million pounds in 2011.

          • DavidAppell

            Link please.

          • John Green

            All you have to do is copy paste into Google. I can’t seem to get links to post here, it won’t let me post them. I apologize.

          • DavidAppell

            It’s this Charles Benbrook paper:

            http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186%2F2190-4715-24-24/fulltext.html

            and, no surprisingly, your numbers are wrong — these are the “incremental increase per year,” which is not usage. In the abstract Benbrook writes, for he United States between 1996 and 2011:

            “Overall, pesticide use increased by an estimated 183 million kgs (404 million pounds), or about 7%.”

          • JH

            Nice work sir.

          • DavidAppell

            Thanks JH. It’s distressing how many anti-GMO groups passes this around (do a Google search on “has grown from 1.5 million pounds in 1999 to about 90 million pounds in 2011”) with almost no one actually reading the paper, or at least its abstract.

          • JH

            I have a good handle on the basics but I don’t follow the GM literature. Sometimes you know when something’s BS but it takes so long to find documentation.

    • Nathan Williams

      and the long term effect in humans are unknown

    • Michael Phillips

      Bill is just wrong on this. Use of GMOs is no different than genetically modifying plants with mutation breeding, inbreeding, hybridization, or selective crosses as far as its impact on the ecosystem goes. And we already accept those risks. The ecosystem does not sense what technique was used to make a modification. Singling out genetic transformation as uniquely dangerous belies a serious ignorance of even basic plant biology. Clearly, it is an emotional issue for him that he is not thinking scientifically about.

    • RobertWager

      Have you read this from the European National Academies of Science 2013 report -Planting the Future

      “The misuse of the precautionary principle has led to restrictive legislation and both a political and market mistrust of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
      This has had a profound chilling effect on both public and private
      investment for European agricultural research”

      EASAC 2013

      • No Gmo

        You forgot to disclose that BIOTECH COMPANIES GIVE YOU FREE VACATIONS! Look at the authors in this report.

        Reidunn Aalen – has a patent on plant gene for use in genetic engineering.http://www.freshpatents.com/Reidunn-Aalen-Oslo-invdira.php

        Ervin Balazs – “former founding general director of the Agricultural Biotechnology Center Gödöll,, lead a unit on molecular virology and genetic engineering of crops”

        Ralph Bock – “Director of the Institute of Biochemistry and Biotechnology of Plants”,

        Ian Crute : “has had a 40 year career in crop research”

        Michel Delseny : Laboratoire Génome et Développement des Plantes

        Torbjörn Fagerström : President of the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

        etc.

        So you referenced a biased report written by people who have a conflict of interest since they are involved in genetic engineering of plants and appear to have no real health or environmental background.

      • John Green

        I’d have to agree that the PP can be misused, and should be applied to itself. However, I am reading the paper now, and that section is using economic cost-benefit analysis and risk as their basis for the statement. It’s very important to realise the PP is not about risk management. In risk management, you have known factors. You know the risks, and you figure out what level of risk is acceptable. So I think their criticism of the PP is based more on their projected loss of economic competition. There is simply no comment on ecology or anything other than economics in that section of the paper.

      • L7

        Wager, this is really getting quite tiresome, quit posting this nonsense please. Does No Gmo have to continuously correct you on this one? Do you not understand or comprehend?

  • Ted Miner

    Keith Kloor has again shown us that he is a GMO pesticide industry propagandist. He support GMO pesticide industry pseudo-science that will not accept any science that does not support the GMO pesticide industry junk science agenda.

    Bill Nye is just the latest ethical scientist to be vilified because he supports real honest ethical science and not the GMO pesticide industries corrupt cherry picked pseudo-science agenda.

    Nye is among good company as many other ethical honest scientists have suffered the same kind of corrupt dishonest GMO pesticide industry placed hit pieces by Kloor and other propagandists like Jon Entine, Nathanael Johnson and other industry disinformation hacks who try to destroy and ethical scientist who dares to question the corrupt GMO pesticide industry junk science agenda.

    We can also see the large contingent of GMO pesticide industry operatives here to support this sleazy disinformation with their corrupt amplification and attempts to control the narrative with their comments. Their the same people we see everywhere these days pumping out their disinformation, talking points, and lies, and intimidating anyone who dares to support the real truth.

    The real losers in this are the people coming to Discover for truthful accurate information, and Discover, who has lost any sense of credibility by publishing this corrupt viscous GMO pesticide industry placed disinformation.

    • Neil

      So when Bill Nye looks into it a little more and changes his mind, will you change yours or just spit the dummy and get angry with him like your types did with Neil deGrasse Tyson? I mean, you guys are running out of respectable people you can turn to to confirm your biases.

      • Ted Miner

        Ask me when that happens.

        Nice attempt to mud up the issue though.

        The other GMO pesticide industry goons will be impressed.

        • Neil

          Oh I will.

          And you are wrong about me being a “GMO pesticide industry goon”.

          • Ted Miner

            You fooled me.

            I’ll always go with what they do instead of what they say.

    • Regressive Goosesteppers

      I wonder how much money the multi-billion Organic Industry corporations pay shills like Ted to spout their anti-science propaganda in the hopes of driving the gullible and uninformed into paying vastly more for less quality and quantity of food, all in the name of profit.

      • Cletus DeBunkerman

        Apparently the biotech pesticide industry representatives here want to suppress and minimize what he has to say.

        It’s always so interesting to see them being so sensitive to the truth.

  • reginabee

    Seeing how Monsanto does attack and discredit anyone who dares defy them I can see how Bill decided to take the old chin stroking instead of just saying that he is very uncomfortable telling people that gmo is safe. He is on the right side I am certain, he just does not want to stir up the ire of monsanto.

    • Sterling Ericsson

      And who exactly has Monsanto “attacked and discredited”? Or do you somehow thing when scientists criticize shoddy studies by the likes of Seralini, somehow Monsanto is behind that?

  • The Batman

    Long story short: his politics precede his science.

    Hypothesis: he’s human and not some über unbiased magical man of scientific rationalism

    • DRoell

      Science is a method. In the chapter on GMOs there’s none of that method to be seen, rather the polar opposite.

      And that makes him… not a scientist.

  • kevindee

    Bill Nye? NOOO! I always loved this guy… why is he doing this?

    • Ted Miner

      He didn’t do anything. He got put on the GMO pesticide industry hit list because he wouldn’t rubber stamp the GMO pesticide industry pseudo-science agenda.

      • Sterling Ericsson

        I assume you also believe in the “big pharma” hit list and the green energy hit list or whatever nonsense climate change deniers are calling scientists that research climate change?

        • Ted Miner

          I was talking about the GMO pesticide industry hit list. Specifically the hit list that caused GMO pesticide industry propagandist Keith Kloor to try and vilify a real scientist with the integrity to stand up to the GMO pesticide industry pseudo-science agenda.

          • Sterling Ericsson

            It’s amazing how much you sound like an anti-vaccine person or climate change denialist. Kloor is standing up for the scientific consensus on GMOs, Bill Nye is just spewing long since debunked propaganda points from the organic industry.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            You must be posting in the wrong thread.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Exactly!

  • Pamela Wright

    Because Nye has fallen victim to the same trap as Eugenie Scott and Tyson himself. Just because they are scientists, that doesn’t mean they know anything about GMOs. Their liberal backgrounds lead them to distrust big business and hence Monsanto. (WTF was that about big business asking for money for their product?) and GMO. Frankly, the appropriate response would be “I am not an expert in that field.” And then zip it. When they don’t, they show they are just as capable of falling for confirmation bias, selective memory, political bias, etc. as anyone else. Really, we should not be surprised. They are human. (I have to say though, his response enfuriated me, and I needed a second to cool off.)

  • Eli Rabett

    Now some, not Eli to be sure, might ask the Keithster what large proportions of his salary he is setting aside to help the poor subsistence farmers purchase the majic GMO beans, and oh yeah, the equipment needed rather than keeping back the seeds from their own crops. The Ag companies are very aggressive about your buying the seeds from them, and the farmers really need Keith’s help

    Further Since GMO crops work best in plantation/large farm settings, Keith is probably campaigning for collectivization of the small farms, rotten socialist that he is.

    Allow Eli to point out, that within the current agricultural system, advocating for GMO crops is damn close to passing a new Enclosure Act and chasing the crofters off the land.

    • Sterling Ericsson

      Farmers have had to buy new seed every season for decades, ever since the introduction of F1 hybrids. Due to the fact that the hybrid traits are lost if the seeds are bred, buying new clonal seeds every season is the only option. Unless farmers want to go and buy the old kind of seeds that have a third of the yield.

      And the farmers that do choose to do that can continue to grow and harvest their seeds as much as they want, this doesn’t affect them.

      • Eli Rabett

        Not true of subsistence farmers in rural areas of the third world.

        • Sterling Ericsson

          How would they have contact with GM crops then for it to matter? And that’s pretty sad for them then, since they are working on a third of the yield that modern crops have.

          • Eli Rabett

            Because their land is valuable if aggregated to grow GM crops. Also the issue of local markets being taken from them. Serious people who are not trying to make a living hippie nerd punching and selling patented GMO seed pay attention to these things.

            For example, although there are emerging methods for synthesizing artemisinin (keystone malaria medicine) rather than extracting it from sweet wormwood the various organizations involved are paying careful attention to finding a soft landing for poor farmers who have been making a living by growing the wormwood

            So Eli once again asks if GM crops are going to save the poor, what is Keith doing to make sure that the seeds are available to the poor?

            The glory of Borlaug’s green revolution was that the seed was made available to farmers world wide at low/no cost. The seed companies and the Kloors appear to have forgotten this lesson

    • Tom Scharf

      Even people with a brain the size and capability of a rabbit could figure out that use of GMO crops is voluntary.

      • Eli Rabett

        Strangely enough, the ability to farm large areas by tossing crofters and subsistence farmers off common land is only voluntary on one side. Until you figure out how to make GMO seed available at no cost to the subsistence farmers in a way they can use them all the seeds are contributing to is the enclosure of the commons and the profits of large agribusinesses.

        It really is a problem.

  • Deb Donohoe

    We have grown gmo over 15+ years for commercial use & to feed our own cattle. We primarily grow soybeans & dent/field corn though we do have alfalfa, oats & cover crops (rye- w/ many benefits of its own). Gmo has allowed us to decrease our insecticide spraying (this is the third season in a row haven’t had to spray bc of bt corn & coated soybeans). Gmo has allowed us to use a herbicide approx. the same toxicity as table salt (glyphosate) @ typically ~16oz./acre (applied 2x early in season). Gmo has allowed us to go no-till which means we don’t cultivate weeds & disrupt the microorganisms in the soil. (This helps the soil retain carbon, absorb more water, create nutrients & avoid run-off & erosion.) We never have had to use irrigation but gmo is ensuring we may never have to as the droughts get worse. We also never saved seed prior to gmo- it is too complicated for a farm our size (1000A+) (Saved corn seed is inferior btw bc of its cross pollination properties.) Whether we apply fertilizer (injected into soil) or herbicides, today’s technology allows us to do it w/ precision to save costs & be more environmentally friendly. Our cow/calf herd has thrived on our gmo alfalfa, corn & soybeans. (They are grass-fed/pastured as well in the warm months.) Many cows live for 14-15 years. Even our dogs steal ear corn from the cribs. Both seed & chemicals including fertilizers account for approx. 17% of our annual expenses each. By comparison, land rents account for >30%. Most farmers are too busy to sit down & state their case (like my husband) but this is conventional farming today & gmo has given us beneficial choices we wouldn’t otherwise have & for that, we’re thankful.

    • JBaileyz

      Deb, thank you for sharing your story! I’m a former GMO skeptic who recently realized that we don’t see scientists and farmers in the loud anti-GMO crowd. I’ve been seeking out real stories from you folks who know stuff about it, and who grow our food. It’s been quite an awakening to find out that everything I thought I knew about it is wrong.

      • Deb Donohoe

        Wow. Thank you so much. I was raised a “city girl’ by a mother who sold organic products so I was familiar w/ most of the arguments (& agreed that they were “common knowledge”, or no-brainers) until I met & married a conventional farmer & learned what really goes on out here. I come from a progressive family who had a bias against what we do for a living but then they slowly realized we were defying their assumptions every day. Farming is constantly evolving & I truly believe one day you will not be able to tell the difference bw conventional & organic bc they will both adopt each other’s best ideas. Thanks again!

        • JBaileyz

          Yes, keep telling your story! I’m a city girl, too, who knows nothing about agriculture but had my wake-up call by following my curiosity. What most of my progressive friends know about what they eat is that organic food magically shows up at the food co-op or in CSA boxes delivered to their door. Feeding the world is as simple as that, isn’t it? 😉

          With enough of these stories, more of us city folk should be able to figure it out.

      • L7

        Keep lying, it doesn’t make you right. I am familiar with your troll tactics, and I am pretty sure, this is one of them. I used to be a pro skeptic also until I realized the real science. :)

  • First Officer

    “I stand by my assertions that although you can know what happens to any individual species that you modify, you cannot be certain what will happen to the ecosystem.”

    I guess, as opposed to selective breeding or marker assisted techniques, or any other way but GE where we don’t quite know what happened to the individual species and we cannot be certain what will happen to the ecosystem.

    I guess we shouldn’t crow corn and potatoes in the EU and wheat and apples in the Americas either.

    • jonathan gibbs

      1 + 2 does not = 6 irrational & illogical

  • First Officer

    Reminds me a bit of Suzuki in that part of their GMO suspicions are anti-capitalistic based:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOK8JhgwmZ8#t=2080

    • JH

      Snooki! Stumbled into a biology class on his way home from bonging with his Che bros and managed to memorize a few of the words.

  • janvones

    Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson are all about Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson. Even Carl Sagan, one of the biggest influences on my life, tarnished himself when he stepped into politics and ideology in the name of Science.

  • jonathan gibbs

    Science Lo Mein http://goo.gl/X7xI3n

    Portrays the image of science info & followers of this site
    Nathan Rupert of flicker http://goo.gl/1Kd5Jb

  • Eric Jennings

    Well, no article on Bill Nye would be complete without what might be viewed as his greatest moment:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-QA-jlbRqY

    And no, he didn’t refute her. He did, however, agree that global warming = global cooling, which should be obvious to everyone who speaks plain English.

  • Sal Minella

    Bill Nye is the unscience guy. He backs all of the “chicken little” and bumper-sticker theories because they are popular with the progressive pseudoscience crowd. Science IS skepticism, and there is not a skeptical bone in his body.

    • JBaileyz

      So how do we relate to the “progressive pseudoscience crowd”? I was part of that crowd and now when I try to explain to my progressive friends what I’ve learned about GMOs, they can’t hear about the science because they’re so programmed by conspiracy theories about “Big Ag.” Anti-GMO activists have caused “GMO” to become such a loaded term that there’s always a visceral reaction whenever they even hear it. This paranoia blocks any listening or thinking that could possibly take place.

      I’ve tried telling them some of the stories from credible science and media sources, and their response is always “but but Monsanto.” These are otherwise intelligent people but there’s some kind of a mental block around this. Any ideas?

  • Annette Greco

    Nye’s opinion is clear, simple and relevant.

    Contrast that to the very unscientific, ranting, purple prose using insulting labels of “ignorant” and etc, that come from the pro-GMO people who call themselves the rational scientists. I’m so glad to see Nye standing up to the pseudoscience arguments that drip condescending jibes more than they make arguments based on evidence.

    People don’t seem to be aware that agricultural science, like all areas of public policy such as health care and finance, is dominated by industrial special interests and its hordes of dependent professionals.

    I have renewed respect for Bill Nye for standing up to the shills.

    And I’d like to say, in advance, that I’m not going to reply to the shills and trolls who may consider responding to my post with what they think are their penetrating posts backed by citations to bad papers and pseudo-studies of loose correlations and other statistical horsehockey.

    • JH

      ” posts backed by citations to bad papers and pseudo-studies ”

      As opposed to your citations to no studies and no papers.

      • Annette Greco

        A bare opinion is a bare opinion. There’s no more “evidence” for GMOs than there is against GMOs. I just recognize when something is a bare opinion and don’t try to market what I post as “science”, with bad studies and industry-insider pseudoscience as backing.

  • JBaileyz

    Bill Nye’s recent response is disjointed, vague, and makes no sense at all. I stroke my chin.

  • Ranj

    I disagree with Bill Nye. However, he’s entitled to a his opinion even if I believe it’s probably uninformed and, consequently, incorrect. By example, I (a PhD scientist in plant genetics) am not convinced about climate change based on computer modeling, so I guess I fall into the same “mix-bag” category for some of you who assume that “scientists” should hold the same “acceptable” position on issues like biotechnology, evolution, vaccines and climate change.

    • JH

      Perhaps one difference between you and the mass of anti-GMO activists (it’s kind of hard to call them skeptics, because they rarely present a rational argument) is that you have experience in the sciences, and probably in computer modeling, to draw on.
      And it’s one thing to hold an opinion. It’s quite another to be out there flogging your views in the general public using propaganda rather than education.
      Another important distinction between climate and, say, vaccines and GMOs, is that the latter can be tested and demonstrated safe in the lab, while climate models aren’t verified through testing.

  • Southern Yankee

    Bill Nyer “the science guy” BS in mechanical engineering. I’m convinced?

  • Matt Moran

    It is incorrect to say that GMOs have been found to cause no harm to the environment. They can clearly speed up pesticide resistance as has been seen with Bt-Corn and Glyphosate resistant soybeans.

    • RobertWager

      May I suggest you read two documents. The US National Academy of Science 2010 report-Impact of GE crops on Farm Sustainability in the US, and the European Academies Science Advisory Council 2013 report-Planting the Future.

  • RobertWager

    You, I or anyone who defends the science of GE crops must always demonstrate the evidence for why they think what they do. Personally if I cannot defend what I think/say then why do I think/say it? Why should Bill Nye be any different?

  • harflies

    Nye: Bought and paid for.

    • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

      By whom? Saying someone is “bought and paid for” requires some proof.

      • harflies

        How about East Anglia and Obama for openers.

        • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

          President Obama is actually pro-GMO. If Bill Nye was bought out by him, why would he be saying that GMOs aren’t 100% verified safe?

          I have no idea what a region in the U.K. has to do with any of this.

          I still don’t have any proof of your claims, by the way.

          • harflies

            Please. You make a fool out of yourself with your comments. For Obama, it is the opinion of Nye in regard to global warming, er, “climate change” that he (Obama) bases his opinion on to debate the argument as being moot. The two are as thick as thieves. To pretend that Nye isn’t beholden to this sham (and liberal propaganda in this regard) outs you as the apologist that you clearly are. And the U.K. reference that you feign ignorance on directly relates to the email trail that proves the scientific cover up regarding the seriousness of the “warming” issue. Grow up and do some research.

          • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

            I can’t actually understand what you’re trying to communicate. As far as I can tell, you’re saying that Obama and Nye are friends who are trying to pretend that GMOs are dangerous as well as trying to cover up global warming?

            I think you’re mistaken in who’s getting made the fool.

  • http://www.nukingpolitics.com Keln

    I’ve never liked Bill Nye. He’s no different from anyone else that uses science to back up what he believes in and then uses psuedo-science when actual science disagrees with his beliefs. And people like that are usually the loudest when it comes to debating science and attacking others as “science denialists” or “anti-science”.

    I think it’s ok to be a skeptic about GMO or AGW or I guess even vaccinations. But being a skeptic is just saying “I’m not totally convinced that what I’m being told is accurate”. That is a far cry from saying “GMO crops might destroy the environment” or “Vaccines kill children” or “there is no climate changes going on”.

    I’m a “climate skeptic” myself, but there are definitely changes going on, and it is silly to think that using fossil fuels would have zero effect. I think it’s wise to change how we produce energy and unwise to break economies and industry because it “might” solve a problem that we aren’t quite sure about the extent of yet.

    In the same vein, if I were a GMO skeptic, I would think that maybe further study would be the way to go, but not this fear-mongering or trying to shut down the GMO industry. Being a skeptic about something is just asking questions of it and requiring more data to fully accept it.

    Attacking something, like Bill Nye and other anti-GMO types is not skepticism, but it is anti-science.

  • Pointguard

    Nye is a charlatan – he is a mechanical engineering graduate – not a scientist. I am an engineering science graduate with a Professional Engineering license in Civil and Traffic Engineering – maybe I should pontificate on all things science. The amazing thing is that anyone listens to him.

    • Buddy199

      But he wears a lab coat and bow tie.

  • castlelrd

    Face it, Bill Nye is a man of the left first and foremost. Science comes second with him.

  • Semianonymous

    I think he is doing a very bad job of expressing several very good points:
    1) We are capable of producing massive amounts of food, but at some point the emphasis became quantity, not quality
    2) He is absolutely right that we cannot know what will happen in the environmental long term
    3) There is a long and storied history of foods previously declared perfectly safe, only to discover they cause a long term detriment.

    Of course. GMO’s are in many way solid science, and quite different from what we have experienced in the past. While the long, long term results are simply not known, the current data shows we shouldn’t be worried.

    4) He is (rightfully) suspicious of corporations and should be calling for increased transparency and oversight instead of stroking his chin.

    He should be denouncing the fear mongering and taking the position of “let’s wait and see, make sure the consumer decide what they prefer and make sure we keep an eye on the effects and the corporations producing the food.”

    Luv u bill

  • Kehvan

    Bill Nye: science denier.

    • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

      How so?

      • Kehvan

        Did you read the article?

        • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

          Of course I did. Where does it say that he’s denying science?

          • Kehvan

            His overwrought fears are contrary to the science.

          • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

            So saying that something hasn’t been proven to be safe is contradicting science?

          • Kehvan

            If the science says something is safe, and then you turn around and say it isn’t safe, you are contradicting science.

          • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

            Where does it say that GMOs are safe? GMOs haven’t even been around long enough to fully understand their effects on both animals (yes, I’m including humans) and the environment.

          • Kehvan

            Yawn.

          • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

            Cool comeback bro.

          • Kehvan

            It’s all I have for a lame brained moron who can’t bother the even read the article we’re discussing.

          • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

            AMAZING comeback, bro. /s

          • Kehvan

            It wasn’t a “comeback”… it was stating the facts of the matter.

          • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

            Except they WEREN’T facts of the matter. I’m not a “lame brained moron” and I read the entire article.

            So yes, cool comeback, bro.

          • Kehvan

            Ok, whatever you say.

          • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

            😀

  • JH

    Whoa! What a slug fest! Great work, Keith! :)

    • bobito

      Apparently if you mess with Bill Nye, you get the bull! 😉

  • Elad Stern

    GMOs, being a by-product of the scientific community, are seen as a sort of a solution to a temporary problem, almost as if the scientific research is meant for all its by-products to be used in some way. The scientific process is simply a tried and tested method for rational thought, to develop further our empirical knowledge. Though each step of the process is thought of as beneficial for its own sequel, outside of the bounds of the scientific laboratory, or those of the community research brainstorm, not every idea or observation has its immediate practical application or use.

    Many times, conclusions of empirical experts ridicule us who witnessed their being superseded with more updated conceptions and conceptualizations. For example, 19th experts have predicted too many horse droppings the major problem of 20th century Parisian roads. Rather, knowledge of combustion superseded the thought, bringing us the automobile. Atomic energy was thought to be a practical joke, ridiculing over the atom’s minuscule size and hence its energy. Einstein’s equations, on the other hand, expanded the minds of not only scientists but all intelligent persons on the globe today, with the discovery of the vast amount of energy in small capsules.

    GMOs, therefore, although seemingly practical and involving scientific knowledge, are built in similar lines of prediction, of the thought that territory is becoming scarce, and world hunger increases, therefore more crops should be grown of each acre of land. Such a rational thought may appeal to the mind, as an educated attempt at solving an existing problem. Science’s tools, however, allow us to probe into areas yet unlooked after. A few examples as such are the mechanisms of optimal nutrition, of life span, of the way the brain looks for information necessary to retrieve household necessities such as grains, which is difficult to find in these days, where the mental and emotional complexities of human relations make it a burdening, exhausting task, of the balance between mind and body in many sorts of daily and alternative activities, and how they contribute to global economy by regulating our physiological body-mind, thus reducing violence whose toll is great theft and the theft of the precious vitality of grain produce, over defensive constructs inside and out…

    I hope All these yet new blossoming fields of research may yet come to shed light from many sides to thought, how to use our human energies for optimal purpose in our lives, without creating more fear for our future generations, fears of agricultural disasters, of wars fought over crop technology, over physical and mental disease that is born due to the covering of artifice over nature and its most practical inspiration to relieve our mind’s natural stress and anxiety, as simple as by looking at a bird flapping its wings or a turtle pulling its legs into the shell, as simple as it is to understand our actual source of all inspiration to our burning anxieties in contact with life’s actual burdens.

  • katherinemch

    He said that we can’t predict what will happen ecologically when we modify something. If he thought about that argument for a bit he’d see that it implies the less-controlled alterations of hybridization and mutagenesis are MORE to be feared than the more-controlled GMOs. Add to that- we test GMOs far far more before they can get approved. So if we worry about throwing ecosystems out of balance… well, really we should cancel all of agriculture. This is not a ressonable argument for being shy of GE.

    He says what we need is healthier foods. Well, GE can do that better than any other branch of agriculture. I read recently of a GMO (sorry I forget what it was& I’m too lazy right now to look it up… I want to say it was yeast) which can provide the nutritional benefits of fish oil, without further depleting the severely overfished ocean. And of course thousands of kids are going blind right now who could really use that Golden Rice. Why on earth would he think nutrition and GE are on opposite sides? Is it because the most common GMOs right now are the fairly unwholesome corn & soy? Blame the consumer for buying so much corn & soy then. American overuse of corn syrup has nothing to do with whether they use GM or non-GM corn.

    I suspect that he has done almost no reading on the subject yet feels pressured to take a stand, so he just pulled something out of his behind. As a scientist and role model he ought to know (& advocate) that it is more than ok to say “I do not know enough about this subject to have an opinion” rather than blather on based on gut feelings.

    • Debbie Owen

      You could say the same thing about yourself, I could say that you don’t know enough about this subject to have an opinion, but I would never say that to anyone. Everyone is allowed to have an opinion. One thing, just as an example, that you clearly don’t know enough about is Golden Rice. None of those “thousands of kids” need Golden Rice to help prevent them from going blind. Golden Rice is nothing more than a very expensive failed experiment that doesn’t even work. Supplements and veggies are far less expensive and they work. The IRRI themselves say Golden Rice isn’t even ready yet. I looked at one of the studies done on Golden Rice and it was skewed (as studies are normally done with GMO crops) to come out favorably for the industry. To do that the people had to eat the rice with 10% of the meal being butter for better absorption. Now who would really eat their rice that way, especially in poor countries? Oh and by the way, soy wouldn’t be so unwholesome if it wasn’t GMO.

      • DavidAppell

        “Everyone is allowed to have an opinion.”

        But they’re not allowed to have their own facts, and that’s where the big difference is.

        • DavidAppell

          At a minimum you need to at least provide links to support the many claims you toss into your comments.

          • L7

            And so do you

          • DavidAppell

            I do.

        • L7

          “Your own facts” are just like opinions, we need real, unbiased, non-funded by biotech scientific facts, that’s the difference.

          • DavidAppell

            There are such facts — like the National Academy of Science reports — but you refuse to see them as facts because they don’t suit your biases and preconceived opinions.

          • L7

            No, I said unbiased!

          • DavidAppell

            The National Academy of Science’s only bias is for good science, which they’ve delivered on for a century and a half.

            Your idea of “bias” is anyone who disagrees with your (unscientific) position.

          • L7

            NAS reports on GMO are definitely biased and only an
            idiot would disagree. Do you even look at who is involved in these
            reports. BOARD ON AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES this report
            include, “GARY F. HARTNELL, Monsanto Company, St. Louis, Missouri” so
            this report has bias. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12804&page=R6
            This report also includes authors like PETER H. RAVEN, Missouri
            Botanical Garden, St. Louis who has a library named after him in the
            Monsanto Center! http://www.missouribotanicalgarden.org/plant-science/plant-science/resources/raven-library.aspx
            Page R5 of the Full Report states, “Michael Phillips was involved
            with this study until 7/13/99 and is currently employed with the
            Biotechnology Industry Organization” Biotechnology Industry Organization
            members include just about every major biotech company. http://www.bio.org/articles/bio-members-web-site-links
            Page R6 lists the BOARD ON AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES which
            includes, “ROBERT T. FRALEY, Monsanto Company” and, “THOMAS N. URBAN,
            Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.” http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9795&page=R6 Like I said BIASED!

          • DavidAppell

            That list includes world experts, including someone from the environmental group Resources for the Future, who are pro-GMO:
            http://www.rff.org/Publications/WPC/Pages/The-Benefits-of-Genetically-Modified-Crops-and-the-Costs-of-Inefficient-Regulation.aspx

            What proof do you have of any biases in the report? Or are you just claiming it’s biased because you don’t like its scientific conclusions?

          • L7

            BIASED!

  • dprouse

    The fact that Nye went instinctively to an anti-corporate message tells you everything you need to know. For him, the GMO debate is political, and he can’t help but inject his political ideology into it. (The “food system” line is another dead giveaway – that’s another favorite hobby horse of left-leaning academics.) Most scientists I know aren’t terribly political, but Nye clearly is, and as such he is incapable of being objective on GMOs.

  • RichardU

    Why do people who say the science is settled on climate change seem to be the same people who ignore science and object to GMOs? If “scientists agree” works for climate change, it should also work for GMOs.

    • JBaileyz

      People who understand climate change should ESPECIALLY understand how urgent it is that we have biotech in place to save our food supply in a rapidly changing environment. Species are gonna die (already are), the pests will win, and our numbered days on earth will be spent starving. How can people not make this connection?

      I guess it’s more important, though, to vilify That Evil Monsanto. Cutting of our nose to spite our face is a great way to go, right?

  • Jarrod Maddux

    This entire post is rife with lies and fallacy. There are hundreds of biotechnologist who have written papers on the environmental impact of GMO food. Here is a scientist (Bill Nye) talking about it and yet instead of giving any credence to his stance you DENY him, because his assertions don’t fit with the crap you’ve been taught. There to date, has been ZERO long term studies done on this technology, and before you troglodytes start pointing out the fact that GMO hybridization and nanny agriculture have been around for centuries, let me put a stop to that assumption that I am somehow misinformed on what qualifies as a GMO because we all know that I am not talking about those. The GMOs in question were first planted in the late 90s meaning there has been less than 20 years of any viable data and the information available has been produced by those that created the product in question. However the environmental backlash has been heavily documented. Why don’t you guys try and read some real research on the topic instead of reading the crap on the internet.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide Co2 Molecule

    Just labels…
    That’s all we need.
    Just label the GMO products.

    • bobito

      I agree, that way everyone will see that most of what they eat contains GMOs, and with that, all this needless panic about it will go away.

      • JBaileyz

        Except the anti-GMOers are banking on the idea that once we slap that label on, it’ll be easier to identify/vilify individual products. Though personally, the more I’m learning, the more I want to buy GMO for my own meals. Customized genetics for the best product along with less pesticides needed? You bet!

        • bobito

          Yes, I was just having a bit of fun with that comment. Certainly demonizing GMOs is their goal. I recall that the Oregon proposition stated that it must be labeled “clearly and prominently on the FRONT of the package”. That’s not a right to know, that’s a scarlet letter!

        • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

          Customized genetics that your body can’t recognize and pesticides consumed directly from within the plant? Sounds delicious!

          • JBaileyz

            You could stand to learn something about genetics. Organisms have thousands of genes, many that are common between different species; GMOs just pick one for particular benefits and transfer them between species.

            Currently, oranges in the United States are facing extinction because of pests. No conventional cure will work in time to save them. The best possibility is transferring one gene from broccoli that will repel the pests. Are you telling me that your body won’t recognize a gene from broccoli?

            The pesticides of which you speak, probably Bt, have long been used in organic farming. Does your organic food taste funny because that’s in it?

          • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

            No, YOU could stand something to learn about genetics. GMOs don’t just pick a gene from different species under the same genus, they pick from different domains and kingdoms, too. This is why it is NOT the same as hybridization, and have unknown effects. We are literally playing “God.”

            There’s a high chance our body will be perfectly fine, in fact, I’m sure it will be fine, too. We won’t know, though, will we?

            My organic food doesn’t taste funny because I wash it off. There aren’t pesticides IN it, they’re ON it. Huge difference there.

          • JBaileyz

            Did you know that we share 50% of the same gene sequences as bananas? That doesn’t make us bananas, or bananas human. A gene is just a particle that transmits certain characteristics, it’s not the item itself. If you add a gene from an elephant to a peanut, you’re not going to turn that peanut into an elephant.

            Understanding that you can wash insecticide from your food is a good first step. Most anti-GMO folks seem to believe that they’ll die if Bt comes anywhere near their food. It’s just a bacteria that turns off the hunger of certain pests. No tests have shown that it affects humans or other animals or plants at all.

          • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

            Yep, I knew that. I’m not really sure what either of your paragraphs have to do with anything, though.

            Also, why ask if my “organic food taste[s] funny because [Bt]’s in it” if you later say that you can wash it off? You’re contradicting yourself; first you say that Bt is in organic food, now you’re agreeing with me that it’s not in it, it’s on it.

          • JBaileyz

            I’m saying that if such different species as humans and bananas carry such a large percentage of the same gene, what would be the problem with transferring genes between organisms? The studies tell us: “none.”

          • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

            What studies?

      • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide Co2 Molecule

        If you label them “GMO” the first thing you would see is a new market for “non GMO”.
        We can’t have that.

  • hopleyyeaton

    As I suspected – just another greenie weenie.

  • j011254

    Here’s the difference between Nye’s advocacy of global warming and evolution and GMO’s. You see global warming and evolution are liberal, progressive darlings. GMO’s are not, so it’s no surprise that Nye would extol the “science” of global warming and evolution and run from the science of GMO’s. Nye is not a real scientist but rather a purveyor of the liberal, progressive agenda. GMO’s do not fit that agenda.

  • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

    I can’t understand why everyone is saying that Bill Nye ISN’T a science guy. Just listen to his theme song!

  • 013090

    I am disappointed to see this. It seems Nye has his own pet issues where he aligns with the scientific denialism crowd. I can sympathize and tolerate people in that crowd at times, but it makes it all the worse when it comes from someone like Nye who has been so publicly avid in his criticisms of climate change deniers and the like. He needs to realize all of his criticisms of them now apply to him.

    On the GMO issue, he is ignoring the overwhelming scientific evidence to hold onto his preconceived ideological beliefs on the issue. That is exactly what climate change deniers and creationists do. But it many ways, I am sad to say, he is now worse than your typical climate change denier or creationist.

    • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

      What has he done to “align with the scientific denialism crowd”?

      • 013090

        By going against the overwhelming scientific consensus on GMO’s.

        • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

          By “against” you mean “waiting until valid evidence before confirming that GMOs are 100% safe”? Fact: GMOs haven’t been outside of the lab long enough for scientists to observe all of the effects.

          • 013090

            We have tons of evidence to confirm they are safe. If you look into how this is done, it is basically a safer and far more effective version of what farmers already do to crops by other means (hybridization or forcing random mutations from exposure to radiation). Even if you don’t like it, you have to at least admit it is an improvement on older practices. By making the argument that there is an incredibly small and highly unlikely chance that the science could be wrong, you are making the same exact argument as climate deniers. Even estimates from staunchly pro-science organizations estimate only about a 95% confidence level that climate change is anthropogenic. So if anything, the scientific evidence in support of GMO’s is even stronger than the evidence for global warming.

            Fact: Nye is going against the overwhelming scientific consensus on the matter. Nye isn’t even a scientist. He is an engineer. He is basically saying that he knows better than all the Ph.D.’s. who are experts on the issue. Those PH.D.’s say the science says GMO’s which go through proper testing are entirely safe. His criticism equates him with climate change deniers in that way. That is why he is being a hypocrite.

          • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

            As I have said in a previous comment, GMOs haven’t actually been around long enough to fully understand the impact on animals (humans included) and the environment. Any scientist should know this.

            Climate change is a terrible example as this has been documented over hundreds of years. We have seen it’s effect on the environment and can directly relate causes. GMOs, however, have only been commercially available for the past 20 years.

            How is directly changing the DNA of a plant safer than hybridization and natural mutation? Combining two or more completely different domains’ DNA versus natural hybridization of two species/genus/family under the same order is completely different. One is a completely natural thing whereas the other can ONLY be done in a laboratory.

            Fact: Nye is stating his educated opinion. What does being an engineer have to do with anything? He’s not criticizing anyone nor has he said that he “knows better than all the Ph.D.’s. who are experts”. He’s not being a hypocrite at all.

            You really shouldn’t put words in other people’s mouths, 013090. It’s quite unbecoming. :)

          • 013090

            Thank you for the response.

            Nye is saying he knows better than all the Ph.D.’s though when he is saying they are wrong. My engineering comment wasn’t at all meant to insult engineers, but to make the point that he is not an expert on this issue, but a layman. The experts all pretty overwhelmingly say he is wrong on this issue.

            As for how long humans have genetically modified food, we have actually been doing it for thousands of years. By doing it in a lab though, we are able to be far more deliberate and safe about it though. For example, you mention ‘natural mutation’. But there really isn’t any difference in safety between ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ mutations since by definition these mutations are random. So we have no idea what they will result in. The mutation could be safe, but it could also be dangerous (generally, most mutations have no effect, but more have a negative effect than a positive one). But in a lab, we can learn what a gene does in one plant, and then input it to do the same thing in another plant with firm knowledge of what it will do. A great example of this is golden rice. All golden rice is, is the taking of the gene that makes vitamin A in carrots and putting it in rice so that the rice also produces vitamin A. We know what the gene does so it is extremely safe. Plus in parts of Asia vitamin A deficiency is widespread amongst the impoverished and causes many deaths and malnutrition. So by adding vitamin A to rice we are greatly benefiting the poor.

            Also, 20 years on the market is a very long time. Not only do we have strong reason to think that it is completely safe apart from field trials, but GMO’s have dominated our food supply for over two decades now to absolutely no ill effect. There are many reasons why the scientific community so strongly supports GMO’s.

            My point with Nye and climate change is that the science behind GMO’s is much more firm than the science on climate change (even though that is also very firm). Nye may just be stating his opinion, but so are climate change deniers. That doesn’t stop him from calling them idiots though. That is why he is a hypocrite. He is guilt of the same thing those he calls idiots are guilty of. In the end, neither Nye or (most) climate change deniers are idiots, they are simply biased.

          • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

            You guys sound like a broken record; repeating the same stuff over and over again. I’m out.

          • 013090

            I respectfully make several points which you are unable to counter, and you leave. I can’t say I’m surprised. This is all too common in the anti-GMO/AGW/evolution crowds. It doesn’t change the fact that that science is progressing, and so are GMO’s. New technological changes can be scary or unnverving, but we as a society need to keep on moving forward. We can’t be afraid of science. We need to embrace it.

          • NoToGMOs

            Ph.d’s in what exactly? Plant science? Haha. We are supposed to listen to their advice regarding health issues associated with GMOs? Gimme a break!

            Oh, and fyi: engineering is a science.

          • 013090

            Ph.D.’s not only in plant science, but in health. So really all Ph.D.’s at all associated with the issue pretty overwhelmingly support GMO’s.

            As for engineering, most people (including engineers) wouldn’t consider it a science in itself, but that is another debate.

    • Nathan Williams

      you are so lame, Nye is just rational

      • 013090

        Being rational is going against the overwhelming scientific consensus for ideological reasons? Creationists would love you.

        • NoToGMOs

          There is no ‘overwhelming’ scientific consensus. It’s in your imagination.

          Creationism is a totally different issue. You trying to conflate that with the GMO issue shows you are the irrational one.

          • 013090

            It is though. Go to any research institution or University and you will find it extremely difficult to find a single person who doesn’t support GMO’s.

            creationism is a different issue. I never said otherwise. But it is similar in that it is another outlet of scientific denialism based in ideological biases.

  • Robert Howd

    Bill Nye’s statement seems quite weird to me. Why won’t he support the actual science? Why wouldn’t he acknowledge that specific, identifiable genetic changes are at least as good, and probably better, than the pseudo-random changes that result from traditional techniques?

    • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

      And the “actual science” is…?

  • Steve

    Well, I think this is where Nye’s concern stems from. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23443944

  • Jordan Grey (Jack)

    Nye isn’t a GMO skeptic; he’s a GMO cynic. Skeptics go with the evidence. Nye has taken a stance that conflicts with a scientific consensus backed by thousands of peer-reviewed studies. He’s taken a position that’s equivalent to “I think the globe is warming, I just don’t think it’s due to human activity,” and he’s supporting this position with an argument from ignorance. I love Bill, but on this issue, he’s just another woo.

    • NoToGMOs

      “Nye has taken a stance that conflicts with a scientific consensus backed by thousands of peer-reviewed studies.”

      There is no such scientific consensus. Nye has, like a true scientist should, actually bothered to read and critically analyze EACH of the ‘thousands’ of peer-reviewed studies that purport to show GMO safety and come to the conclusion that they do not provide SUFFICIENT evidence of safety. Unlike most of the pro-GM people who are impressed with quantity (thousands of studies…..wow, must be true!!) rather than quality. Also the fact that they rely on plant scientists to tell them about human health issues….speaks volumes.

  • Alex Reynolds

    Because Monsanto deserves to be singled out with its sordid past history. Take Monsanto out of the biotech business and you get rid of the black eye, plain and simple. And tell them to take Agent Orange with them.

    Even pro GMO people admit the Monsanto Monopoly needs to go.

    http://www.fitnessmagazine.com/recipes/healthy-eating/nutrition/gmo-facts/

    But less than 20 years later, over a dozen weeds have developed resistance to glyphosate, meaning that farmers have to use more of it, as well as other more hazardous chemicals such as 2,4-D, a powerful herbicide linked to reproductive problems and birth defects, says Chuck Benbrook, PhD, a research professor at Washington State University’s Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources. On the basis of 16 years of pesticide data, collected since GMOs were introduced, Benbrook predicts that use of 2,4-D will increase more than fourfold in the next decade, spurred by new GMO crops. “Twenty years from now we will look back and deeply regret the misuse and mismanagement of current-generation GMO technology,” he says.

    This is Agent Orange, the same carcinogen that Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, et. al, poisoned Vietnam and our soldiers with. Now they are trying to patent it as their new pesticide- this is the part everyone should be paying attention to

  • OWilson

    Manufacturers love folks like Bill Nye.

    It allows them to re-package their old tired products with new labels, a marketing department’s dream!

    “Gluten free”, they scream, “environmental friendly” they claim, “Organic” etc.

    And, ching ching, add another 50 cents per package.

    These days, it’s better to be “cool”, than smart.

  • http://beginingsinwriting.wordpress.com/ R.w. Foster

    It absolutely boggles my mind that someone who supposedly champions the Scientific Method goes on record with a stance that clearly goes against said method. smh

    • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

      How does “waiting until it’s 100% verified safe” go against the scientific method?

      • http://beginingsinwriting.wordpress.com/ R.w. Foster

        That’s question is not just against the scientific method, but also against common sense. Nothing is 100% safe.

        • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

          So can you please explain to me how it goes against the scientific method? Thanks.

          • http://beginingsinwriting.wordpress.com/ R.w. Foster

            I just did. Maybe alter your question to what you really want to know?

          • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

            So your answer to how Nye goes against the scientific method is because “nothing is 100% safe”? How does that work?

          • http://beginingsinwriting.wordpress.com/ R.w. Foster

            No, I answered the question you asked which was, “How is wanting to wait until something is 100% safe going against the scientific method?”

            Nye is ignoring all of the safety data available on GMOs and GM technology. The only things tested more for safety are vaccines.

            There are literally thousands of studies that say GMOs are safe. Not only that, but we’ve been genetically modifying crops since the invention of agriculture about 25000 years ago.

          • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

            So you answered my question by saying that is “not just against the scientific method, but also against common sense”?

            All of what safety data? Give me some proof, please. Links to legitimate websites, science publishings, etc.

            This is something that people get mixed up with all the time. We have been modifying crops using HYBRIDIZATION, not gene insertion. There is a huge difference. Hybridization is a natural process and occurs within the same family. Gene insertion can only happen in a lab and can occur with any domain.

          • http://beginingsinwriting.wordpress.com/ R.w. Foster

            Okay, before I link you to studies, I must point out the flaw in your idea (and that of many other people) gene insertion happens in “the wild,” and has been going on for billions of years. Why do you think our DNA is only 2% different from chimpanzees, only 4% different from a fruit fly, and only about 3% different from a banana? It’s called “Horizontal Gene Transfer.”

            This is a link to a brief primer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer (note, that is merely to get you started, not the be all, end all of the science).

            Also, hybridization doesn’t only happen within the same family. It also occurs in the same class, family, phylum, or genus.

            Here’s a few links to GM safety studies: http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/early/2014/08/27/jas.2014-8124

            http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/
            The link above will lead you to the comprehensive aggregate review of 1783 studies. If you click that link, you’ll download the XLS file of everyone of them).

            This link: http://gmoanswers.com/studies/what-are-real-economic-and-environmental-impacts-gm-crop-use gives highlights of studies it links to.

            Hope that helps.

          • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

            I know about HGTs. I would have mentioned them, but I try not to go super in-depth using big science words that most people don’t understand. Unless, of course, I’m presented with another very scientific-minded individual.

            I’ve never heard of a hybridization occurring under a class, but I’m sure it’s possible.

            Hmmm, so it turns out, Alison Van Eenennaam, the co-author of the article in the first link, was a former employee at Monsanto. The data is uncontrolled (doesn’t seem to have quality control either), doesn’t mention trends in the livestock industry, and doesn’t mention long term health effects (it focuses on animal production, not toxicology). I will present proof if you would like.

            Here are just two debunked examples for your second link:

            #842
            Combination of dormant seed and herbicide resistance makes GM glyphosate-resistant canola a new and difficult weed.
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22258428

            #974
            HGT from transgenic plants to microbes could have an environmental impact at a frequency approximately a trillion times lower than the current risk assessment literature estimates the frequency to be.
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15340480

            Your third site is funded by all the big agrochem corps. How is that not going to be biased?

            That didn’t help, but thanks anyway. 😀

          • http://beginingsinwriting.wordpress.com/ R.w. Foster

            “funded by all the big agrochem corps”

            You didn’t click the link to the studies, did you? All 1700 + studies were independently done. And, the aggregate was done in Italy, which is notorious in the science world for being rather biased against GMOs.

            “Alison Van Eenennaam, the co-author of the article in the first link, was a former employee at Monsanto.”

            Relevance?

            “The data is uncontrolled (doesn’t seem to have quality control either), doesn’t mention trends in the livestock industry, and doesn’t mention long term health effects (it focuses on animal production, not toxicology).”

            QC: “Data on livestock productivity and health were collated from publicly available sources from 1983, before the introduction of GE crops in 1996, and subsequently through 2011, a period with high levels of predominately GE animal feed.”

            Long term health effects: These field data sets representing over 100 billion animals following the introduction of GE crops did not reveal unfavorable or perturbed trends in livestock health and productivity. No study has revealed any differences in the nutritional profile of animal products derived from GE-fed animals.

            Emphasis mine.

            With your first link, the lead author has only one study he has written, that one. I’ve also not found any citations of that study. As you may, or may not know, one of the primary measurements of the quality and importance of a science article is how many times it is cited by others. Being cited implies that the original article provides some important groundbreaking information, its data has been reproduced by others, and/or it establishes a new consensus on a scientific principle. As I’ve not found any, that strikes me a suspect.

            On to the second. Professor Heinemann certainly has more papers published. 79, to be exact. However, only 42 of those have been peer-reviewed. Amongst the anti-GM crowd, his record is sterling. Yet, with the independents, it’s not so polished. It’s rather odd that a 2004 study is still behind a pay wall, but, oh well. It makes for interesting reading, but it is hopelessly out of date, and cited only about 6 times.

            Got any better evidence?

          • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

            I said the THIRD link was funded by all the big agrochem corps, not the “1700+ independent studies.”

            I don’t think I need to mention relevance; it speaks for itself.

            “QC: “Data on livestock productivity and health were collated from publicly available sources from 1983, before the introduction of GE crops in 1996,and subsequently through 2011, a period with high levels of predominately GE animal feed.””

            Correlation doesn’t imply causation…as a scientific minded person, you should know that.

            Here is a full article about it with plenty of reputable sources at the bottom: http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15669-why-jon-entine-s-trillion-meal-study-won-t-save-us-from-gmo-dangers

            I can send you tons more evidence, but you seem to be choosing to counter anything I say regardless of whether I’m being factual or not.

            That’s a great way to lose friends, you know.

      • Jason

        Because science can prove nothing to be 100% safe. it’s an impossible outcome.

        • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

          Tru dat y0. It took long enough for someone to point that out. XD

          Let me rephrase it: how does “waiting until we have plenty of long term studies with all of the data fully monitored so we can come to an evidence-backed conclusion” go again the scientific method?

          • Jason

            I don’t think anyone would argue that goes against the scientific method. Many would argue, however, that we’re already there.

          • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

            Present me with it then, please.

          • Jason

            I suppose it depends on your definitions of “plenty” and “long term”. But, the scientific community has already reached an evidence backed conclusion.

            Here are some links to long term pieces on the issue.

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399

            http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/early/2014/08/27/jas.2014-8124

            There are others, but what’s significant to note is that the analysis of that first paper found that the results of the long term studies were no different than the 90 day studies, reaffirming the notion that 90day animal studies are sufficient for assessing risk.

          • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

            *shakes head* I got those same links from 013090 and debunked them, yet he refused to accept facts. Now YOU’RE posting them. I’m done. Peace!

          • Jason

            You asked where the evidence was. I gave you a sample of this evidence. It is your prerogative not to believe this evidence, but suffice to say that the scientific community at large disagrees with you. So, then the question becomes, What credentials do you have that would lead us to think we should believe your opinion over the consensus of those involved?
            I’ve yet to see any debunking of these studies that stands up to scrutiny. I am not speaking of the “billion animal” study specifically as I realize it’s not a study but merely an analysis of A LOT of anecdotal data.

  • Syl Dinada

    For Perspective look at the lawsuits against GM companies. In our litigious society even if there is a small chance of hazard someone will file a lawsuit. if there is real harm lawsuits and class-actions abound. Companies, especially huge companies are fully aware of this and have to be excessively cautious and vigilant. Regardless of where we stand on the science, perspective on the money should provide some clarity.

  • Vm

    well surprise surprise, bill nye is human. Lots of famous scientists made mistakes. That doesnt make their other work wrong. Galileo disagreed with Kepler, believing that planetary orbits must be circular. Tesla rejected relativity and believed in the aether. Einstein was suspicious of quantum mechanics.

    as was said of Stephen Hawking, since cosmology is hard to understand and can give results that are non intuitive, how do we know whether any new work from him is real or is just due to senility (he is getting old)? The answer of course is peer review

  • Roger Wilco

    Eff the ecosystem, that’s a given. What about the increase in colon cancers etc?

    The real question is what sort of modifications remain unseen, and what effects will those produce. I surely don’t want to find out with my body.

  • Keith B

    Bill Nye WAS a 2-bit Mechanical Engineer with ONLY a Bachelors Degree and
    NO TRAINING in Biology, Geosciences, Physics or Meteorology. Bill Nye
    was also a FAILED Standup Comedian, which is how he got into the “media
    world”. Don’t be fooled by this con-artist. Educate youself about this fraud before you believe any of his BS.

    • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

      Bill Nye is stating his educated opinion. How does that make him a con-artist?

      • Keith B

        Educated in WHAT? Physics, Meterology, Biology, Climetology, Paleontology, Antropology ….???? He has a BASIC degree in Mechanical Engineering, yet this liar has repeatedly called, CALLED himself a SCIENTIST! He is a Con Artist! A Comedian, a (Bad) Actor) and a fool like you,

        • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

          Nye got a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering at Cornell University. He’s an educated person, and yes, engineering is an applied science.

          You still haven’t told me how he’s a con-artist or a fool.

  • mfarah

    The fundamental rift between creationists and those who are supporting evolution version presented today.We may assign alphabets to demonstrate the timeline for creation and evolution events period spans.Then let an arbitrary (A-G) period be considered representing the time span used for the abiotic and the appearance of the first primordial cell. Whereas, the period G-Z represents the
    evolution period till the end of the universe/life, whenever it may happen. The group, who are talking about Darwin’s version of evolution, including natural selection, survival for the fittest etc., are restricting their vision within the G-Z periodof time. As such, no information is given to account for the A-G span of time regarding
    animals’ lives and their developmental evolution as they were single cells that abiotically evolved from the mud of mother earth to the humans and animals we see today. In this respect, people would like to get a credible account of how the first cells evolved to their present
    forms, as seen today. In order to find out the events of the beginning of creation you may read this eBook. http://www.decodinghumancreation.com

  • CRC60

    Should food products containing one or more GMO ingredients be labeled as such? Do consumers have a right to know?

    • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

      Yes, consumers have a right to know. Vermont was the first state to have a labeling law passed, and more will follow.

      • richard40

        The only right you have is the right to ask for a special gmo free label, which would be optional for any food maker that wants to use, inspect, and advertise for it, just like the kosher and organic people have the organic and kosher label. But leave the rest of us the right to buy/sell our normal food unchanged.

    • JBaileyz

      What would we label it? If they transferred a gene from a fish into a tomato to prevent freezing, the new ingredient may be the gene “afa3.” That doesn’t turn your tomato into a fish, it just means the tomato gets one benefit from the gene of another species. That same gene may appear in many other species too. The label “afa3” won’t tell you anything.

      • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

        We would label it “Genetically Modified”, what else? Labeling for consumers isn’t meant to be scientific, it’s because consumers have the right to know if their food has been tampered with.

        Also, a fish and tomato aren’t similar species are all. They’re in completely different kingdoms, which is something natural processes cannot do.

        • JBaileyz

          Well, if labeling isn’t meant to be scientific, then it’s of no use at all. Anti-GMOers whine all the time that we should label them the same as other products. If we wanna do that, we’ll list the actual ingredient along with all the rest. “afa3”

          Duh, obviously a fish and a tomato aren’t similar species. However, that’s one of the big examples that anti-GMOers use to freak people out about the technology. Don’t tell me you’ve never seen it?
          http://www.sallyhomemaker.com/journal/gmo-101-what-exactly-are-gmos-and-how-are-they-made/

          • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

            Labeling is meant to inform consumers that their food is genetically modified. People have the right to know. But yeah, if you want to list the exact species of GM on the label, that’s perfectly fine with me.

            I can’t figure out what that second paragraph has anything to do with anything…

          • JBaileyz

            You seem to be having some general difficulty following along, maybe some reading comprehension problems?

          • Mommy Warrior

            I think it’s the other way around JB, I COMPLETELY understand what xxT3 is saying…

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            The only problem is with your opinion statement that you are trying to pawn it off as a fact.

            It takes more proof that your opinion statement to make your point for most educated people.

          • richard40

            You are the one trying to impose your labeling standards on me, so you are the one that needs conclusive proof, you have no right to demand proof for my right to liberty, you must have conclusive proof to restrict it. But if you want food that meets you special gmo free phobia, then why not just ask for a gmo free label, just like the organic and kosher people do. As long as it leaves the normal food I buy unchanged, I have no problem with it at all.

          • richard40

            No, if you want food that is gmo free, then get a gmo free label, shop for that label, and leave the rest of us alone.

        • Jason

          But MANDATORY labeling is supposed to be scientific. It’s supposed to warn consumers about potential health or safety issues. These are based in scientific evidence. For issues outside of that, we rely of voluntary labeling.

          • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

            Notice I specified “labeling for consumers”.

            Anyway, I’m glad you’re for labeling; people have the right to know.

          • Jason

            I did notice… And if I’m not mistaken, the labeling for consumers being discussed would be mandatory gmo labeling… Correct? In other words, it ought to be based in science. Otherwise, let companies market their products how they want to and people will buy those that label the way they want products to be labeled.

          • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

            Yep! Label it if it has been modified. And of course it would be based on science; the entire concept of GM foods is science.

            How does that make sense? If the product is labeled that it has been genetically modified, how would that affect the marketing and buying?

          • Jason

            It’s a moot point. You can’t tell private individuals how they MUST market their products (i.e. What they print on their label) without sufficient evidence that’s its neccessary for the public good. Just wanting is not a good enough reason to infringe on people first amendment rights.

            Passing a law to require this label without any evidence that they’re neccessary sets a very dangerous precedent. Next what? We label what breed of cow our milk came from? What race of person picked the tomatoes?

          • xxT3|-|Hax0r4ch4||xx

            This is probably the funniest comment I have read. Thanks for making my day. I’m done.

          • Jason

            Of course I does. Other peoples rights are always important right up until they stand in the way of getting what you want.

          • Mommy Warrior

            LOL… Jason, it has nothing to do with marketing or the First Amendment right! Bwahahahaha! You’d better do a little more studying on what the First Amendment right ACTUALLY covers… you might learn something new. :)

          • Jason

            Oh really?

            Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio, a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court case.

            “Recognizing advertising constitutes commercial speech that is entitled to protection under the First Amendment, Supreme Court Associate Justice Byron White laid out the law: States and the federal government can only regulate commercial speech that is not false and deceptive and does not relate to unlawful activities if the restriction advanced “a substantial government interest, and only through means that directly advance that interest.”

            Furthermore…
            “For instance, with respect to cattle, consumers might reasonably evince an interest in knowing which grains herds were fed, with which medicines they were treated, or the age at which they were slaughtered. Absent, however, some indication that this information bears on a reasonable concern for human health or safety or some other sufficiently substantial governmental concern, the manufacturers cannot be compelled to disclose it,” the 2nd Circuit continued. “Instead, those consumers interested in such information should exercise the power of their purses by buying products from manufacturers who voluntarily reveal it.”

            I repeat…
            “Absent, however, some indication that this information bears on a reasonable concern for human health or safety or some other sufficiently substantial governmental concern, the manufacturers cannot be compelled to disclose it,” ….. Do you see any reason why these legal opinions wouldn’t also apply to GMO labeling?

          • Mommy Warrior

            Jason, the FACT is, there are NO proven studies of over 90 days that say GMOs are safe. That would lead me to believe that there is reasonable doubt.

            “Vermont’s new GMO labeling law (Act 120) does not violate the First Amendment because the disclosures it mandates are “purely factual” and the law “does not require manufacturers to state a particular viewpoint, such as whether GE foods are good or bad”, claims the state attorney general (AG).”

            http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Regulation/Vermont-GMO-labeling-law-does-not-violate-1st-amendment-says-AG

          • Jason

            Of course the state attorney General makes that opinion. It’s his state that passed the law. Wanna place a wager on whether it stands up to legal challenge?

            And if you can’t find any gmo studies over 90 days, you’re just not looking. That’s total nonsense.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Why don’t you give us some links to specific long term studies so we can make up our own mind after seeing the actual science.

            Just making a claim doesn’t prove a thing without showing the specifics.

          • Jason

            This link takes you to a blog that has 7-8 links to long term studies. Pop yourself some popcorn & make a night of it.

            Enjoy!

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

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            The link is not here.

            Please cite the individual studies.

            Thank you.

          • Jason

            The link is right at the bottom of my post.

          • richard40

            Can you point to any studies that prove gmo is not safe. You are the one that wants to restrict my freedom, so the burden of proof is on you, not us.

          • richard40

            The burden is on you to prove it is not safe, before you have the right to restrict food I want, and restrict my right to label my product as I see fit. Your statement would be equivalent to saying “there is no study proving deer meat is safe, therefore it must be banned”.

          • Mommy Warrior

            My Dear Richard, I can understand how text can be misunderstood… but truly, your comment makes me giggle! I am a Mom. I am 85% of the consumer population in this country. My job is not to prove that someone’s product is not safe, it’s THEIR job to prove that it IS. So in the meanwhile, I will chat with ALL my Mom friends and let them know that if we boycott specific items, being that we ARE the 85%, we can really get our point across! We are not asking for a ban, just a choice.

          • richard40

            You claim your views on wanting to ban gmo are the same as 85% of the moms out there, I doubt it. On gmo, it has already been proven that a gmo product is nutritionally identical to a non gmo product, which in the absence of other evidence proves it is safe. It is already well known that gmo makes food cheaper, something I expect your 85% of moms care a lot more about than your anti gmo obsession.

            And if all you want is a choice, not a ban, then you should support my alternative for a special gmo free label, just like they do with kosher and organic, which gives you exactly the choice you claim to be demanding. Then you can lobby all your mom friends to buy only gme free, and all my friends can ignore you and buy the normal food we already buy, and we will see who the market favors. But with my proposal it is a choice that only affects you and your anti gmo friends, and does not affect me and my normal friends, who don’t give a hoot about your anti gmo phobia, dont want to see our food labels cluttered with useless information, and don’t want to pay the extra costs associated with it.

          • Mommy Warrior

            You are SO funny! Lots of misinformation and assumptions in your comment Richard Darling! You’re quite good at pointing out obsessions and phobias and if I didn’t know better, I’d say you were trying to spin my original comment which was, please prove safety from an independent study that is longer than 90 days. That’s it, that’s all. When you find that link, I’ll gladly take a look, until then… I’m off to chat with other Moms about the Precautionary Principle.

          • richard40

            I notice you did not address my proposal for a gmo free food label, so you obviously have no way to challenge it.
            As for proving gmo safe, I would use the exact same procedures that are standard for any new crop variety developed with standard selective breeding techniques, since I have seen zero evidence the risks of gmo are any different than the risk of new crops developed by standard selective breeding. On the other hand, it sounds like you are insisting on special tests for all gmo products, that is not standard for other food products, and I see no need for it at all. By the way, if you really want this over 90 day study done, why don’t you donate to a charity that will do it, instead of picking my pocket to pay for it.

            By the way, the precautionary principle is mostly bs. It is basically a leftie tactic to make it impossible to ever have anything they don’t want, since absolutely nothing is ever totally safe. And it does not even account for all precautions, like the risk to the economy, and new poverty that might result, because of innovations that never happen.

            The right way is to evaluate safety vs cost impact, and properly balance the 2. I have a good example of the idiocy of the precautionary principle. There is an extremely small priority that civilization could be destroyed by an asteroid strike. Applying the full precautionary principle would require us to devote a huge % of our gdp to space asteroid deflection systems to totally eliminate that very small hazard. The right way is to balance the expense vs the probability and danger of the hazard, to arrive at a reasonable set of precautions. So perhaps we get an asteroid deflection system, but it does not need to be hugely expensive or perfect.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Are you a lawyer who is qualified to give and informed legal opinion?

            If not then we can all see you are throwing more BS at the wall hoping something will stick.

          • Jason

            Of course I’m not a lawyer…which is why I relied on the opinions of the Supreme Court where that case was tried. I’m thinking you might do good to rely on the opinions of those who are in charge of interpreting the laws as well.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Someone needs to call his mother.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            What rights are you talking about?

          • richard40

            Our right to not have our food labels cluttered up with your pet phobia, and having to pay to test for something I don’t care a bit about. If you want gmo free, then get a gmo free label, and look for it, and test for it, leave the rest of us alone.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Yup, he’s tossing BS at the wall hoping some of it might stick.

          • Jason

            You’d so yourself some good to actually read on some of the issues surrounding this debate. As is, you’re just showing your ignorance.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            It’s not my ignorance that gets pointed out when you post the lame talking points that you’re doing.

            Ding!! Dong!!

            Stupid is as stupid does……

          • Jason

            Right… You just keep telling yourself that. The rest of us know better.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Labels are required for sodium, trans fats, and many other things. Your claim that rules like labeling can’t be enforced on private companies is a total false statement.

            Please try not to get your false beliefs confused with the facts.

          • Jason

            I’m pretty sure we wouldn’t have much trouble associating public health concerns to sodium & trans fats. As soon as you can do the same for gmo foods, you’ll have no,trouble getting the FDA to mandate a label.

            Good luck!

          • richard40

            That is because sodium and trans fats can be safe in small amounts, but you need the label to tell if it is a large amount. But in the case of gmo, I suspect if you don’t want gmo, you wont want any gmo, no matter how small, while for the rest of us, we wont care if it is mostly gmo. Because of that, the better anology is to kosher and organic, where if it is kosher or organic, it must be 100% kosher or organic, and you assume if you don’t have the special label, then it contains some non kosher or non organic ingrediants.

          • richard40

            You want a special food category, gmo free, you get a special label. Unless you have solid proof that gmo harms me, which you don’t, then leave my food alone. If you want food that caters to your special phobia or religion, like organic or kosher, then look for the gmo free label, but leave my food alone.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Mandatory labeling is supposed to disclose and inform.

            The biotech pesticide industry representatives call for science, but all they offer is agenda driven junk science.

            TRUTH is the science has not been done. That is why labels are needed so food buyers can assume the level of risk they wish to impose with the food
            they feed their families..

          • Jason

            You go ahead & believe what ever it is that gets you through the day.

          • richard40

            I am all for labeling, if you want a gmo free label, you should get one. Then you can make sure you only buy food with the gmo free label on it, and assume if it does not have the gmo free label, it probably has gmo. But leave the labels alone for the rest of us, who don’t want our food labels cluttered up with garbage we dont care about, and don’t want to have to pay for inspecting for gmo when we don’t care about it.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Mandatory labeling is supposed to disclose and inform.

            The biotech pesticide industry representatives call for science, but all they offer is agenda driven junk science.

            TRUTH is the science has not been done. That is why labels are needed so food buyers can assume the level of risk they wish to impose on the food they feed their families.

          • richard40

            Labeling is supposed to inform us of unusual things, it is a waste for something that is standard practice. So the way it should be done is to have a gmo free label, with regular food left alone, just like they do with organic or kosher.

        • richard40

          You don’t have every food in the country labeled as non kosher, or non organic, while the kosher and organic foods have no label. If you want kosher or organic, you look for the special label that certifies it. You should do the same for gmo, just have a gmo free label. That way the rest of us, eating normal food, who don’t care whether it has gmo or not, don’t have to worry about your own special labeling concern.

    • richard40

      Provided you reverse your requirement, and only label food certified as gmo free, I agree with you. That way all of us normal people, who don’t care if our food has gmo, wont have our food labels affected, and wont ave to pay for any special testing and certification. Its just like organic or kosher. If you want a special food, with special inspections associated with it, you get a special label. You don’t see regular food with labels like “this food contains the following non kosher ingredients”. If you want kosher, you look for the kosher label, and assume if it is not labeled kosher, it is not kosher. So ask for a gmo free label, with the associated special inspections and certifications, then look for foods with that special label, and if it does not have that special label, you assume it has gmo.

  • http://macromanjr.blogspot.com/ Brian Lockett

    Since when has “science” been about accepting agendas, simply out of expectation? Now we’re talking politics.

    • http://macromanjr.blogspot.com/ Brian Lockett

      There’s nothing wrong with being careful about where you place your support. Especially when people are expecting you to support them without question.

      • Chris Preston

        Nye is wrong for disregarding the scientific evidence in favour of positions that feel good to him.

        • First Officer

          yes indeed. It’s not that he favors labeling but the reasons he gave for doing so.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            It’s obvious the biotech pesticide industry representatives. Will not accept and science or scientist who dares to speak out when the science conflicts with the corrupt biotech pesticide industry agenda.

        • Cletus DeBunkerman

          That’s an opinion statement and not factual at all.

        • http://macromanjr.blogspot.com/ Brian Lockett

          First off, he’s not ‘wrong” for it. He’s perfectly free to make up his mind however he choose.

          Second, have you seen the evidence for yourself? Just what evidence exactly has been conclusive on the matter?

          And by conclusive, I’m talking about something that isn’t loaded with “suggests” or “seems.” That’s not conclusiveness–that’s consideration. That means the issue is still up for question.

          People take the report of studies at second-hand, most studies typically claiming what something “suggests.”

          This is not equal to saying what something “is.” but to take what something “suggest” as something that “is” is nothing short of people being in favor of positions that feel good to them. Yourself included.

          Third, evidence is an interpretation of results, from a manner of research. Not all research is done to conclusive effect. And how can it, since research itself is a product of initial bias?

          All research (studies) are biased by nature. Every study serves an agenda, every inquiry has its angle. Most research is done by people already in favor of the results they find.

          We focus on areas we choose to focus, which is why our knowledge takes time to complete–we wait on enough people to properly notice all there we need to notice.

          There are only honestly-conducted biased studies. Not all bias is dishonesty. But even with bias, a study can be conducted fairly. But not all results of study are guaranteed to be such. That’s why science is a constant checking and rechecking.

          Fourth, you’re missing my point. Bill Bye doesn’t have certainty on the matter, so he still has his doubts on the matter. Is that so wrong? That’s all the point I was making. I didn’t question the said evidence–I spoke up for Bill’s honesty about uncertainty.

          Fifth, we don’t have singular body of “scientific evidence” all singular on the matter, all in favor of the same position. the issue is various, and even among people who are in favor of the issue of GMO, the results aren’t always compatible. In short, it’s still an unsettled issue.

          Sixth, we have no certainty as to why food allergies are skyrocketing, girls are maturing soon, and bees have been dying,, esp. since the 1980s. Until we do have certainty on the matter, don’t talk to me about the “evidence.”

          While we don’t have reason to panic yet, we also don’t have reason to relax with “evidence” on matters that aren’t yet conclusive. There is justification for one’s own doubts. Nye’s reasonable doubt is reasonable. Your accusation of him being “wrong” isn’t.

          • Chris Preston

            Nye is certainly entitled to hold an opinion; however, his opinion is wrong because it is not supported by the evidence. Rather his
            opinion is based on beliefs. In this way, his opinion is no different to any other opinion based on religion rather than facts. It is not a case that Nye has doubts because he considers the evidence base to be poor, but instead he chooses to disregard the evidence in favour of the debunked Bt corn harms monarch butterflies hypothesis.

            As for the evidence, well it works like this. There have been hundreds of studies of GM of which barely a handful of poorly done studies report any issues. If there was a problem, it should be turning up at a
            significant frequency. The fact that not one problem is occurring with any frequency in studies suggests that many of the problems reported are just statistical noise.

            For someone with a little skill, it is quite easy to assess the studies and determine their quality. Things to look for are: the appropriateness of controls (so comparing GM soybeans with wild soybeans grown under entirely different conditions is wrong, because soybeans are known to
            contain phytoestrogens and these need to be managed for); the number of comparisons done and whether multiple comparisons are controlled for; and whether the measures fall within the normal range for that factor.

            I also think you are falling in the Nirvana fallacy on GM without proving that organic food consumption is not causing autism. Perhaps until we know what causes autism, we should ban organic food production?

          • http://macromanjr.blogspot.com/ Brian Lockett

            Going to address this, line-by-line. Feel free to ignore whatever you will:

            Nye is certainly entitled to hold an opinion; however, his opinion is wrong because it is not supported by the evidence.

            Again, what evidence? Not saying there isn’t any. Not even doubting the evidence. Just saying, objectively, point to your reference of evidence. I wish to point out the nature of your “knowing.”

            Rather his opinion is based on beliefs.

            How do you know just what his opinion is based on? All he’s revealed here so far is that he has doubts on the matter.

            In this way, his opinion is no different to any other opinion based on religion rather than facts.

            Leave it to you atheists to take a swipe at religion at every needless opportunity. You’re almost as bad as vegans, constantly sporting to others the fact they’re vegan, where such information wasn’t even necessary at the moment. Anyways, you’re still not refuting anything I’ve said, nor are you providing any more weight to your accusations thus far.

            It is not a case that Nye has doubts because he considers the evidence base to be poor, but instead he chooses to disregard the evidence in favour of the debunked Bt corn harms monarch butterflies hypothesis.

            Unless you were on the research team, evidence here is something you’re talking at secondhand. So basically, even you don’t have certainty on the matter–you have trust on the matter of someone telling you what they’ve found.

            In any case, I’m merely defending the space for Nye’s right to reasonable doubt, as well as to the fact that he doesn’t owe anyone a damn thing out of political obligation. He’s free to make up his own mind, for his own sake.

            And, once again, based on what’s present here and elsewhere, I’ve not seen just where he’s claimed the source of his doubts, other than a quote saying what that there’s still so much we’re not sure for certain of yet, and because of such, he’s admittedly unsure on the matter.

            I see nothing here or have seen elsewhere of Nye claiming what hypotheses he base his doubts upon. As far as I’m concerned, you’re making assumptions that are more than what’s necessary to assume. You haven’t refuted or pointed out a thing yet–you just keep making accusations without showing the exact source of your assumption.

            As for the evidence, well it works like this. There have been hundreds of studies of GM of which barely a handful of poorly done studies report any issues.

            I guess you’ve ignored what all I said about the intrinsic nature of research. As well as the bit about there still being so much we (or should I say, “we,” placing emphasis on just how much you’re second-handing someone else’s confidence, and thus, aren’t truly of a “we”) are admittedly still not sure about as of yet.

            Apparently, “we” still don’t have enough certainty to put to rest some long-standing issues. Until “we” have certainty on the much “we” are the most uncertain about, “we” have no certainty enough to deal away with the reasonable doubt in Nye as of yet.

            If there was a problem, it should be turning up at a significant frequency.

            That’s not only an unfounded assumption, but it’s not based on enough information on your part. Truth is, you don’t know what’s all being tested, how far it’s being tested, and how much more “we” have to go along the lines of further research. “We” could be right. “We” could also be in need of further conclusiveness on the matter. My point here is that you truly don’t know what “we” don’t know, simply because of what “we” do report to know.

            It’s not like “we” have 100-years-worth of research on the matter. Researcher have really only started to even notice some of these issues relatively recently, some being as recent as the 1980s. For instance, we didn’t start researching peanut allergies much before the 1980s, until we saw a drastic increase of such. And we’re still not sure what’s been causing the skyrocketing rate of such food allergies.

            Our knowledge on the whole matter is still fairly young, and while studies may help aid “us” in some matters, the room for reasonable doubt–if just in the space of our uncertainties alone–has a reasonable justification. The only way to end a doubt’s justification is to refute it with a certainty.

            And if I read correctly, a part of Nye’s statement deals with a notion that we’re still not sufficiently sure on the matter of the long-term effects of some of what we’re doing. I’m not saying there’s no weight to what you’re saying. I’m just saying, you’re not grounding any such weight to your claims. You’re doing more speculating here than anything.

            The fact that not one problem is occurring with any frequency in studies suggests that many of the problems reported are just statistical noise.

            For the sake of argument, I’m not going to take a claim of mere “studies” as what validates the sum of what studies are available. Truth is, I don’t know what all studies are available on the matter. I do a good deal of reading, but hey, I can’t be everywhere. Just for YOUR sake, back up your claims with direct reference.

            And I’m not stating here that any such studies are wrong–I’m not rating accuracy of the studies. I’m only judging the basis of your answer–you’re not any sufficient answer. You’re merely throwing a bunch of claims about what is out there, without directly pointing to your source example for such.

            The logic is much like when someone claims what “can’t” be done, only that they don’t see a real reason for the “can’t” other than their own sentiment. When you claim a “can’t,” I expect one to show me the “can’t.” Likewise, if you’re going to claim what studies are there, reference some studies.

            Don’t just leave it to my faith to trust what’s there–provide the source of your claim. All it takes is a bit of Googling and then posting the URL in the comments.

            For someone with a little skill, it is quite easy to assess the studies and determine their quality.

            Which is something you didn’t do. It would’ve made all the difference to your counterargument here in claiming what there. Just saying, dude–you’re the one making the claims.

            Don’t just leave it for me to try to find just exactly what you’re talking about here. I shouldn’t have to do homework to aid your argument. I’d love for you to provide example, just so I, for the sake of my original point about the nature of your “knowing,” show you just how little you truly “know.”

            I bet even the articles of such studies you speak of will, more times than not, resort to what “suggests,” not what “is.” My point is that only certainty counts as certainty–no amount of confidence you exercise counts as enough as certainty for someone without your confidence.

            Things to look for are: the appropriateness of controls (so comparing GM soybeans with wild soybeans grown under entirely different conditions is wrong, because soybeans are known to contain phytoestrogens and these need to be managed for); the number of comparisons done and whether multiple comparisons are controlled for; and whether the measures fall within the normal range for that factor.

            Those are very select examples. The issue’s much wider than these issues. Narrow it down for me: Provide what you’ve read on the matter. Just what do you “know” here?

            I also think you are falling in the Nirvana fallacy on GM without proving that organic food consumption is not causing autism.

            You’re falling in the fallacy of assuming to know my argument, where I’ve given none. Show me where I implied or claimed anything about what GMOs here? I’ve sported nothing for nor against GMOs on this entire page. All I’ve done is raised questions. I let you people raise assumptions on your own to “know” my position. If any of you would even notice, I haven’t been addressing GMOs so much as I’ve been addressing your means of “knowing.”

            I’m challenging the nature of your “knowledge”–a secondhand faith–as not being sufficient for refuting Bill Nye’s mere presence of personal doubts.

            I haven’t read one way or another where he’s outright spoken against GMOs–I’ve only read here where he’s simply not sure on the matter enough to just mindlessly jump at the pressure of being the poster boy for it.

            You people are completely incompetent towards realizing just what you’re doing here. To the greatest irony, you’re doing something that many religious that you criticize do: asserting your mere confidence as certainty enough for others.

            Perhaps until we know what causes autism, we should ban organic food production?

            Hey, I say, do whatever it takes to obtain certainty. Though, doing something merely out of spite isn’t going to help matters. We have no reason to suspect organic food to cause autism, because it’s been around forever on this planet. Meanwhile, at least for argument sake, GMOs have only been around predominantly since the 20th century.

            There is more reason to examine what we’re doing differently, rather than to observe more of what nature’s being doing successfully for millions of years. Though, hey, if you truly suspect the organic food in your supposition, and aren’t just saying that in spite, by all means, let’s test it.

            Certainty is a reduction down to the irreducible. Let’s get to the irreducible in life by necessary means, and not play this game of politics in the meanwhile.

  • BLACKLOG1C

    Because millions of dead bees is a great thing! Soldier on GMO warriors!

    • Bingo

      Do you have links to research or articles proving that GMO cause bee deaths?

      • BLACKLOG1C

        Here’s some information. I wouldn’t say anything has been specifically “proven” yet as the issue is somewhat new. Neonicotinoid/fipronil Pesticides were first introduced around 1990 but now make up 80% of all seed treatments, meaning they’re much more widely used now than when they were first introduced.

        http://www.tfsp.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/WIA-MB.pdf

        “The U.S. Bans GMOs, Bee-Killing Pesticides in All Wildlife Refuges”

        http://news.yahoo.com/u-bans-gmos-bee-killing-pesticides-wildlife-refuges-193150944.html

        • Chris Preston

          Neonicotinoids have nothing to do with GM crops. They are used on all sorts of crops around the world.

          The appropriate action to take if there is data showing a significant environmental risk would be to tighten the registered use patterns for the insecticides to reduce that risk. Banning GMOs won’t help at all.

          • BLACKLOG1C

            The GMO crops are being specifically designed to be resistant to Neonicotinoids as a means of pest control. They go hand in hand. The only reason they’re being used in such quantities is directly related to the GM crops being pushed on farmers and hence their direct impact on bees and other insects.

          • Chris Preston

            The GMO crops are being specifically designed to be resistant to Neonicotinoids as a means of pest control.

            This is simply not true. Neonicotinoids are insecticides that can be used on any crop and indeed they are also used against termites.

            Neonicotinoids are used more on non-GMO crops than they are on GMO crops, simply as a result of the area of each that are grown. They are registered for use in most vegetable and tree crops as well as for several grain crops.

          • BLACKLOG1C

            “In the US, 90% of corn is treated with neonicotinoids. 88% of Corn is GM. Monsanto controls 80% of GM corn. Monsanto promotes Acceleron as a designer seed treatment for its GM products – Corn, Soy, and Cotton. Acceleron contains neonicotinoids (imidacloprid and Bayer’s clothianadin (Poncho/Votivo)) and a fungicide – both culprits in Collony Collapse Disorder.”

            My issue with GMO’s is derived from companies like Monsanto using monopolistic practices, and copyright extortion, to enslave farmers to their brand. They then coat the majority of their seeds with Acceleron, another wonderful Monsanto product, which negatively impacts pollinators as well as other insects. My problem here is with Monsanto, not the science behind GMO’s. But that is exactly what Bill Nye was trying to point out. There simply isn’t enough data to suggest that GM crops, resistant to Roundup which kills everything but the GM crops themselves, isn’t negatively impacting the environment. If, and when, there’s a an empirical connection shown it may be too late to reverse course. Huge conglomerates, such as Monsanto, have nothing but profits to protect. Being environmentally conscious isn’t good for business. GM crops are responsible for vast changes in old world vegetation density which can dramatically alter many factors in the surrounding environment, including bee / pollinator density.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Well said!

          • hyperzombie

            Neonicotinoids, have nothing to do with GMOs, if went away tomorrow farmers would still use seed treatments. And they use them on conventional crops. Neonicotinoids are far less dangerous to bees than Organophosphates and other broad spectrum insecticides.
            There is also no link between CCD and these insecticides, there is a whole beekeeping industry that only pollinate crops treated with these insecticides and they have no problems with excessive bee deaths, and in fact the industry is growing. Corn, Soy and Cotton dont need pollinators, and corn has no nectar so bees are not really interested in it.
            The only GMO crop that bees would be interested in is Canola, and bees do well in canola fields.

            No Farmers are enslaved to any companies product, they can switch anytime that they want and there are lots of independent seed and Ag suppliers out there. The reason they buy GMO crops is because they find value in them.

            Roundup is a herbicide it only kills plants not everything. It doesn’t harm bees or any other insect.

          • BLACKLOG1C

            So if bees don’t like corn, and the Roundup kills everything else…

            Maybe you can start to see the problem here? We are dramatically changing the environment to one that bees can’t survive in. It’s kind of like saying that corn / pesticides don’t kill elephants. But clear cutting the rain forest, then planting GMO crops, and spraying Roundup to kill every other living vegetation does.

            When the GMO crops are designed to produce less with each successive generation…

            Maybe you can start to see the problem here? When farmers choose to grow GM crops they have to continue to buy seed from the corporation as opposed to storing their own natural seed, like farmers have been doing for thousands of years before Monsanto. There is no food crisis that requires us to use GM crops. There is a profit crisis, inherent to Capitalism, that requires GM crops to be disseminated so as to generate yearly profits for the corporation as opposed to leaving these profits with the farmer and their families.

            Science is great, Capitalism is not. When the two get together the offspring enslaves the entire human race.

          • hyperzombie

            We are dramatically changing the environment to one that bees can’t survive in.

            Bees do perfectly fine in most Ag crops, and changing the environment is what all farming is about.

            But clear cutting the rain forest, then planting GMO crops, and spraying Roundup to kill every other living vegetation does.

            Using modern Ag practices and Modern chemicals allows farmers to clear cut LESS forest, if you want to save forest you should be 100% pro-GMO.

            When the GMO crops are designed to produce less with each successive generation…

            No they are not, record harvest again this year, with record yields. Isn’t more crop on less land a good thing?

            When farmers choose to grow GM crops they have to continue to buy seed from the corporation as opposed to storing their own natural seed,

            They don’t have to continue to buy seed, they choose to because it is beneficial to them. Farmers haven’t been saving seed for decades, it pays to grow the newest seed stock, or they wouldn’t buy it.
            The rest of your post is just a bunch of anti-corporate nonsense.

          • Randall

            You are getting some really messed up information from somewhere.

            Every plant everywhere is resistant to almost every insecticide–including “Neonicotinoids.”

            Ask a farmer. We’ll be happy to talk with you how we do things and what is happening.

          • BLACKLOG1C

            Read my comment further down.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            GMOs are geneticly engineered to resist neonicotinoids. The use of neonicotinoids has increased dramatically since GMOs were introduced to the marketplace.

            Your comment was designed to decieve. Standard operating procedure for the biotech pesticide industry representatives who flock to these comments to promote the corrupy biotech pesticide industry agenda.

          • Chris Preston

            GMOs are geneticly engineered to resist neonicotinoids.

            That is complete and utter rubbish.

            Neonicotinoids are insecticides and kill insects not plants. All plants are naturally not affected by neonicotinoids.

            I despair when peopel cannot get the simple things right.

  • Bingo

    GMOs are safer than most of the other foods on a supermarket shelf, which usually have excessive amounts of sugar and/or sodium.

    • BLACKLOG1C

      This is so completely wrong I have no idea how to even comment. You do realize what high fructose corn syrup is, right?

      • Cletus DeBunkerman

        He has only his belief statement with absolutely no facts to back it up.

        • richard40

          You have no proof that gmo is unsafe either. In fact, since millions now eat gmo foods every day, and are not dying from them, we already have a strong presumption that gmo is safe.

      • Chris Preston

        You do realize what high fructose corn syrup is, right?

        High fructose corn syrup is a product made from corn. The corn does not need to be genetically-modified to make this product. In fact the same product (although it would not be called corn syrup for obvious reasons) could be made from other crops, such as apples and pears or even honey.

        • BLACKLOG1C

          Right, it’s called sugar. I wasn’t even commenting on the GMO part of his statement.

    • Cletus DeBunkerman

      Do you have any kind of proof for your dubious statement?

  • Brunskii

    What a one sided, deficient, and clearly agenda driven article.

  • SkyHunter

    I am a GMO skeptic. Not because I believe they are particularly harmful to humans. But because they are part of a larger agricultural system that is antithetical to diversity of life.

    • hyperzombie

      But because they are part of a larger agricultural system that is antithetical to diversity of life.

      So you are against all farming? Even permaculture lacks diversity, and is far from natural.

      • SkyHunter

        Did you believe you were the first person to ever use the Nirvana fallacy in place of a real argument?

        • hyperzombie

          It is not a Nirvana Fallacy, all Ag methods are antithetical to the diversity of life, that is the whole point of Agriculture.

          • SkyHunter

            I guess it all depends on your perspective.

            Hyperzombie suits your hyperbolic nature.

          • richard40

            He is right, all agriculture distorts the ecosystem, for that matter even hunting and gathering distorted the ecosystem, as would any human activity. But the ecosystem naturally recovers and adjusts, as it typically does. The only time it wont is if the distortion is so severe that a very large proportion of the species are killed, like an asteroid strike, nuclear armeggaden, or some kind of unusual plague that ends up killing animals and humans by the millions.

          • SkyHunter

            What is your point?

          • richard40

            One point is banning gmo because it might distort the ecosystem is just as foolish as banning regular agriculture because it might distort the ecosystem. Both do distort the ecosystem, but the ecosystem recovers.

          • SkyHunter

            You are arguing a strawman.

            My opposition to GMOs is that they support an industrial agriculture system that is antithetical to diversity.

          • richard40

            Far better to return to organic farming, with about 1/10th the yields, so we can all starve, no thanks. Modern industrial farming methods allow 1 farmer to feed a hundred, instead of each farmer barely feeding their family, plus a few others. But no, lets all return agriculture back to the 1800’ds, so we can properly worship Gaia.

          • SkyHunter

            Organic yields are comparable to industrial and higher during droughts.

          • richard40

            I severely doubt it, otherwise market costs would also be similar. The important thing about yield is not just how much crop you get back, but how much labor and capital it takes to get that crop. If it takes vastly more expense per acre to get an organic crop back, and the hugely higher price indicates that is true, then yield per expense is vastly worse.

          • SkyHunter

            That is your opinion unsupported by evidence.

          • hyperzombie

            Well the law of supply and demand disagrees. During the drought of 2012, Organic corn increased in price by over 50%, regular corn increased by less than 20%.

            http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/lsbnof.pdf

          • richard40

            Don’t be obtuse. All you have to do is go to the store and look at the prices. Organic food costs more, you pay a premium for it. Are you seriously going to try and maintain that organic food costs less at the store. If organic did not cost a lot more, I expect a lot more people would buy it.

          • SkyHunter

            The retail price is not a reflection of the cost to produce. There are many factors, primarily supply and demand.

          • richard40

            Glad at least you are not foolish enough to deny that organic does indeed cost more, I was wondering how much you would be willing to lie. Yeah, its called a free market, supply and demand, let it work. If there was real demand for organic, more people would buy it, despite the higher prices, and then more people would produce it, again because of the higher prices.

          • SkyHunter

            When did you stop beating your wife?

            If you are going to call me a liar, you better back it up.

            Because now I am going to expose you for a liar. Or at least as a tool.

            “If there was real demand for organic, more people would buy it, despite the higher prices”

            There is real demand. So you are either lying, or you are a tool.

            “more people would produce it”

            Growth in certified organic cropland from 2008 to 2011 was 16%.

            http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/organic-production.aspx

            So again, you are either a liar or you are a tool.

          • richard40

            You just reversed yourself. When I previously pointed out that organic costs more, you said that was because of supply and demand, and used that as an excuse. Now you say there is real demand and real supply. My point once again, is just let the market work, no need to use gov to force it. If there is enough demand for organic, people will buy, and because of that more people will produce it. Personally, I know organic costs more, because I see it at the store (which you finally conceded), and does not add value for me, so I don’t buy it. But if you think it adds enough value for you to pay the higher price, that is your decision and your business, just don’t inflict your preferences on me, let the market work..

          • SkyHunter

            How did I reverse myself?

            How does providing evidence for supply and demand invalidate my suggestion that the price premium for organic was in part driven by demand for a limited supply?

            And when did I suggest that the government force farmers to grow organic?

            You have a very active imagination. That explains your motivated reasoning.

          • richard40

            Charachterise yourself however you wish. As long as you keep the gov out of it, and just let the market work, I dont care. You can pay higher prices for your organic, I will pay my lower prices for regular food.

          • SkyHunter

            So your opinion is informed by your paranoia of the government.

            I suspected you were a tin foil hatter.

          • richard40

            So saying I want the market to work, rather than having government dictats, makes me a tin foil hatter, really??? What in the world is wrong with supporting the free market over gov regulation. It looks to me like that comment makes you a big gov leftist. It also makes me suspect you do indeed want the heavy hand of gov dictating your preferences, since you did not answer any of my questions about what you did not want gov to do.

          • SkyHunter

            It is OT.

            Just because you worship at the free market altar, doesn’t make it the heart of every discussion.

          • richard40

            Just because you worship at the alter of organic food and anti gmo does not make it the heart of every discussion. Your last comment cuts both ways.

          • SkyHunter

            The topic under discussion is GMO, so by definition, GMOs are the specific topic and other agriculture part of the broader subject.

            Government conspiracy theories are off topic.

          • richard40

            And if you are going to propose gov regulations, I am going to respond with reliance on the free market, and my response is just as valid as yours. Unless you are not proposing regulations on GMO’s, in which case we have no disagreement. So you can answer a simple question, are you proposing regulations on GMO’s. If you are proposing GMO regulations, then my response is relevant, and it was wrong of you to say it was not.

          • SkyHunter

            I never proposed any government regulations.

            You prematurely ejaculated.

          • richard40

            Your fanaticism about GMO’s and organic sounding like those I had already heard from numerous times who ended up demanding regulations. But I notice you still did not answer my question, do you favor regulations on gmo’s and regulations favoring organics. I have never heard a denial of that from you, so if you don’t favor it, how about a denial.

          • SkyHunter

            I see, you can’t tell the difference between your mental fantasies and reality.

            I don’t know if I would favor regulations or not, I haven’t seen a proposal to evaluate. Unlike you, I try and judge ideas on their merits.

          • richard40

            Well I have seen all too many proposals to regulate GMO, and so far I have judged them on their merits, and most of them have been bad, mostly because they violate liberty free market principles. The only one I could support is a proposal to create a purely voluntary new food category, called GMO free, which food makers could voluntarily choose to get certified in, just like Organic, Kosher, Halal, etc. In that case, since they leave my regular food alone, and no food maker who does not want the GMO free certification is forced to do anything different, and all the costs of the certifications and inspections are borne by those wanting the special food category, I have nothing against it.

          • SkyHunter

            So you consider being informed as to what you are eating is a privilege, not a right.

            Interesting.

            What is the motivation behind such a belief?

            Do you also oppose forced labeling of ingredients?

            Are you so free market biased that as long as it is profitable it is good?

            Just curious to learn what gauge of tinfoil you are using.

          • richard40

            From your questions it does sound like you favor forced labeling of GMO, which belies your earlier denials that you want nothing from gov, and confirms my suspicions that you did.
            I want labeling of ingrediants that matter, where the specific quantity also matters, like salt, vitamins, protean, carbs, artificial flavors, chemical additives, etc. GMO does not matter, since GMO food is chemically identical, and even in your case the quantity does not matter to you, since I suspect you would not want any food with any GMO, no matter what the quantity.
            GMO free, like Organic and Kosher, is a specialty food category, based more on religious or pseudo religious belief, where only the people who want that specialty care about it, so they are the only ones that need special labels. If you want Kosher, you shop Kosher, and assume anything not labeled Kosher is not. Same with GMO, if you want GMO free, you shop for GMO free, and assume anything else may contain GMO. So you have the full disclosure you claim you want, while I am not inflicted with garbage on my labels I do not need or care about, and am not forced to pay for certifications, tests, and regulations I don’t care about.
            Now once again, I would allow the free market to trump my personal preferences. So if after this special voluntary GMO free category was created, it became so popular with consumers that most food people purchased had the GMO free label, and the food that was not GMO free became the specialty item, then at that point, with it being the standard consumer choice, rather than a specialty item like Organic or Kosher, I would not oppose reversing the labeling standard, so only food with GMO was labeled, and GMO free became the default. But for now GMO free is a specialty preference, not a universal consumer preference, so it should be handled with a specialty label.

          • SkyHunter

            If GMO is not a problem… why do GMO producers not want people to know they are eating it?

          • richard40

            My proposal does that. If you are eating anything that does not have the GMO free label, then you can assume it contains GMO, so it is fully transparent. But it has the added advantage that the people who want GMO free are the ones that have to pay for the extra testing and certification to get the new label, while the rest of us who don’t care have our labels unchanged. So why don’t you back my eminently sensible proposal. You get what you want, info on whether a food contains GMO, and I get what I want, my normal food labels left alone, and no extra costs imposed on me for your own anti GMO phobia. If you oppose this eminently sensible, fully transparent compromise, it indicates how truly fanatical and intolerant you anti GMO people really are.

          • SkyHunter

            The printing cost per label doesn’t change because it has the letters GMO added to it.

            It is a non-issue for me personally, I eat local organic vegetables. I am not against GMO in concept, just in practice. Glyphosate has sublethal effects on earthworm populations. Most GMO is glyphosate resistant. I am opposed to mono-crop industrial agriculture. The thrust of GMO research is to make mono-cropping more efficient. I believe it should be used in more benign ways.

            And I also favor more information over less. So I support initiatives to label GMO.

          • richard40

            Its not the printing cost per label, although label clutter can be a problem the more things you insist on adding. The main cost though is the testing and inspections required to determine whether GMO is there, which I don’t want to have to bear for my food. Let the people who want GMO free pay those costs to certify it as GMO free, and leave my food alone. But as I said, I don’t oppose labeling, as long as the labeling requirement is reversed, so the GMO free food is labeled, but ordinary food is left alone. So your line about favoring more information over less is totally irrelevant in response to my proposal, which is every bit as good from an information point of view.
            I suspect the labeling claim by the anti GMO people is bogus anyway, otherwise they would settle for my proposal. What they really want is a GMO ban, which I totally oppose.

          • SkyHunter

            What are the testing requirements?

            Please citing the language of bill in question.

          • richard40

            Any new FDA requirement is going to have verification and testing requirements associated with it. For GMO labeling, the maker will have to test their food, and verify the sources of all their ingredients, to verify if they come from GMO sources. And those sources will also have to verify they are free of GMO. Any time any manufacturer wishes to take on a new supplier, they will have to wait till they are verified as well. They will all have to prepare for FDA inspections, with added things to check for. They could get cited and fined, or even worse be shut down, if they miss anything in that process. That costs added money, and it is dishonest of you to pretend it does not.

            If the anti GMO people wish to create their own GMO free brand, with only that brand subject to added FDA inspections to make sure it contains no GMO, while all other food is ony subject to existing inspection requirements that have already been costed, and the extra costs associated with that added process is only paid for by that special GMO Free brand, that is their business, just like now the extra cost of Kosher is only levied on Kosher brands. But when you wish to change my food with your pet anti GMO phobias, and make me pay more for my food, by subjecting your completely unnecessary labeling and testing requirements on my food, that is different.

          • Atomsk

            Again. If you actually understood how markets worked, you’d be campaigning for actual information equality for buyers and against all forms of advertising etc, which is the primary way markets are distorted right now. The GMO labelling issue, which is about equal access to information, is just a small part of the global problem.

            Market fundies belong more or less to the same class of religious believers as any other fundies, except they’re more damaging overall than any other such group.

          • Atomsk

            and most of them have been bad, mostly because they violate liberty free market principles

            Actually, anyone who doesn’t just “believe” in “free market principles” as a religion but understands markets would support equal and complete access to product information to all products, by everyone. If most market fundamentalists weren’t completely ignorant about their own version of economics, if they understood what economic competition meant, they’d support full disclosure of all information on products sold on the market.

            The fact that market fundamentalists have no problem with extremely market distorting practices, including intellectual property rights, trade secrets, monopolies and oligopolies, advertising etc simply shows they’re just completely clueless quasi-religious ideologues, nothing else.

            Markets cannot work, even in theory, without ALL buyers having COMPLETE information on ALL products. GMOs are just a small part of this problem, but I don’t remember market believers ever campaigning for this.

          • adrianvance

            How gross, but then it fits that a cross-dresser would be obsessed with sex and such innuendos.

          • adrianvance

            Gee, I am going to have that printed and plasticated for my wallet. How profound!

          • hyperzombie

            Organic yields are no where near conventional yields for the majority of major crops. Can you cite some independent evidence supporting your position? (not the Rodale institute they are highly biased)

          • SkyHunter

            I suppose you don’t trust the UN either.

            http://www.fao.org/organicag/oa-faq/oa-faq7/en/

          • hyperzombie

            The FAO supports Organic farming over traditional farming for subsistence farmers, because they MAY get a higher yield with less input cost. Organic farming is more Modern than some forms of traditional farming, that translates into higher yields and safe foods for the poorest of the poor.

            The FAO clearly concedes that in the developed world the transition to Organic LOWERS overall yield.

            Also the FAO are huge supporters of Radiation Mutagenesis in seed development.

            http://www-naweb.iaea.org/nafa/news/pbg-vietnam-story.html

            Look up your favorite plant mutants here..Courtesy of the FAO and the IAEA

            http://mvgs.iaea.org/AboutMutantVarities.aspx

          • SkyHunter

            Organic works for commercial agriculture in developed world. The longer it is practiced, the better the yields.

          • hyperzombie

            Organic works for commercial agriculture in developed world.

            Well of course it works or no one would do it. It just is far more work and produces far less per acre for most crops. My grandfather grows conventional and organic crops, although he uses the most modern tools and methods allowed in Organic production, the yield is always lower.

            The longer it is practiced, the better the yields.

            Depends on the crops produced, without herbicides and modern insecticides the weed and insect pressure builds over time.

            OT, skyhunter, I have read your CC comments in the past and you seem like a reasonable sort on that topic, why so anti-GMO?

  • RAndrewOhge

    The Problem is ‘Lack of Credible US INDEPENDENT TESTING, The Business Practices of Monsanto and Friends, mixed with just enough Us Published Articles from CREDIBLE Sources to make a blanket “okay” impossible:

    GMO Health Risks: What The Scientific Evidence Says

    By Roxanne Palmer@rpalmerscience on March 30 2013 3:42 PM

    Many Americans are concerned about the spread of genetically modified organisms throughout agriculture — and the perception that some members of the U.S. Congress are in the pocket of the Monsanto Co. (NYSE:MON) certainly isn’t helping.

    But just what are GM crops, and what evidence do we have to suggest that they are dangerous to human health?

    Monsanto wasn’t always in the GM corn and alfalfa business. The company’s first product, introduced in 1901, was the artificial sweetener saccharine. By the middle of the 20th century, Monsanto had expanded into the manufacture of many other chemical products, including plastics, herbicides and insecticides, including DDT, now largely banned from agricultural use worldwide. From 1965 to 1969, Monsanto produced Agent Orange for U.S. military use in the Vietnam War — as did several other companies, including the Dow Chemical Co. (NYSE:DOW) — and has since been subject to numerous lawsuits related to the herbicide’s contamination with a toxic dioxin compound.

    One of Monsanto’s flagship herbicides is the comparatively innocuous Roundup, a weed killer made from the chemical glyphosate. Roundup kills plants by mucking with their ability to synthesize certain essential amino acids. It accomplishes this by inhibiting an enzyme called 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase, or EPSPS.

    In 1996 — just a few years before Monsanto’s U.S. patent on glyphosate expired in 2000 — the company began introducing genetically modified “Roundup Ready” crops that were impervious to Roundup, allowing farmers to use the herbicide without fear of harming their plants. Roundup Ready crops contain a version of EPSPS that is unaffected by glyphosate, as noted in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2006. This pesticide-resistant enzyme was taken from a bacteria growing on the waste at a Roundup factory.

    Genetic traits used to be literally shot into plants with a gun, using little metal bits coated with DNA. Nowadays, Monsanto employs a slightly different process, using a bacterium called Agrobacterium tumefaciens to infect plant cells with pieces of DNA containing the desired traits, as pointed out byColorado State University’s Department of Soil and Crop Sciences.

    Monsanto also makes corn, potatoes, cotton and soybeans that can synthesize their own insecticide called Bt toxin, a trait grabbed from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. Other GM crops are being developed to resist drought via the introduction of genes from other plants such as Arabidopsis thaliana, aka thale cress; moss; and yeast.

    Genetic modification is the cornerstone of agriculture — through generations of breeding, humans took one species, the wild cabbage Brassica oleracea, and turned it into a host of different foods, including broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower and kale. Now, biotechnology has accelerated the process and allowed breeders more precision in designing their crops. There is much disagreement about the cost of these advances.

    “There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat,” Pamela Ronald, a Univeristy of California at Davis professor, wrote for Scientific American in 2011. But the American Academy of Environmental Medicine has warned of “serious health risks” indicated by animal studies measuring the effects of GM foods.

    And much of the public is convinced that genetic modification is a health danger — hence the fierce push to label GMO food and broad restrictions on GM crops in Europe.

    Some of the health concerns of food-safety advocates are warranted. There is plenty of scientific evidence to recommend caution with respect to certain kinds of genetic modification, especially if there are genes involved that confer antibiotic resistance. But some of the studies that portray the most dramatic health effects of GM crops have been called out by other scientists as deeply flawed.

    One of the first major concerns that arose with the birth of GMOs was the possibility that grafting genetic traits from different plants onto other crops could be dangerous to people with food allergies. If you know you’re allergic to nuts, you know to stay away from them. But would you also have to keep away from GM crops that contain nut genes? And how would you know which GM crops to stay away from?

    In 1996, the New England Journal of Medicine published a paper that identified a possible allergic reaction to GM soybeans. A team led by University of Nebraska scientists found that a Brazil nut protein introduced to improve the nutritional quality of GM soybeans was able to provoke an allergic reaction in people with Brazil nut allergies.

    However, this problem can likely be nipped in the bud with proper safety testing. U.S. Department of Agriculture researcher Eliot M. Herman noted in the Journal of Experimental Botany in 2003 that the GM soybean injected with the Brazil nut gene “was abandoned during development, no product was released and no one was harmed.”

    Currently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require biotechnology companies to do premarket safety testing, including allergen testing (although the agency does recommend it). Calls for making premarket safety testing mandatory have come from numerous groups, including the American Medical Association, as reported by the Chicago Tribune. The prospect of hidden allergens could also be an arrow in the quiver of those who are pushing for labeling GMOs in the U.S.

    Another health concern related to GMOs rests on the possibility that genes might be transferred elsewhere. The nightmare scenario would be an antibiotic-resistance gene getting inadvertently passed to pathogenic bacteria in a person’s stomach. Much of the work that’s been done indicates that the rate of horizontal gene transfer from plants to animals and bacteria is probably very low. But, admittedly, there’s a real gap in our understanding of how genes may or may not be transferred from GM crops — or other crops, for that matter — into the cells of the gut and the bacteria that live in the digestive tract.

    Authors of a 2012 report on animal-feeding studies in the journal Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition found that while it’s clear a small amount of DNA from the diet can survive digestion, we have yet to see evidence that such dietary DNA can be integrated into the genome of an animal or even into the genome of a bacterium residing in the gut.

    “However, major methodological limitations and knowledge gaps of the mechanistic aspects of [horizontal gene transfer] calls for methodological improvements and further studies to understand the fate of various types of dietary DNA in the [gastrointestinal tract],” the researchers at the University of Milan wrote.

    The one major study of GMO feeding in humans that looked at horizontal gene transfer was published in 2004 in the journal Nature Biotechnology. Researchers looked to see if the Roundup Ready transgene — the one that codes for the herbicide-resistant enzyme — showed up in waste collected from seven volunteers who had had their large intestines removed for medical reasons. While a small amount of the transgene was found in bowel microbes in three of the seven subjects, the gene-transfer rate did not increase after they ate the transgenic soy, leading the researchers to conclude that whatever gene transfer occurred did not happen during the experimental period.

    In subjects with fully intact intestinal tracts, the transgene did not survive passage. The results indicate that while horizontal gene transfer after eating GM crops might be feasible at low rates in certain medically compromised people, it would probably be quite rare in most consumers.

    A 2008 paper in the journal Environmental Biosafety Research by an Australian researcher who reviewed the risks of GMOs associated with horizontal gene transfer concluded the potential danger was “negligible.”

    Overall, it’s clear more research is needed about the ability of genes to move from GM crops into the animals or humans who eats them.

    Meanwhile, some individual studies have conclusively found GMOs to be harmful. But many of these have been harshly criticized for loading the dice.

    Gilles-Eric Seralini, a researcher at the University of Caen in France, took a second look at Monsanto data on experiments feeding GM corn to rats in three papers, and claimed the numbers actually showed the animals fed GMOs suffered organ damage, based on the rodents’ growth and organ weights. But several European Food Safety Authority reviews found that Seralini’s math was off, that the rats’ organ weights were within an acceptable range, and that his team’s conclusions were not supported by the evidence.

    A 2012 paper by Seralini and other researchers purportedly found that a GM corn diet led to cancer in rats. But the study was released under extremely odd circumstances — Seralini made reporters sign confidentiality agreements that prevented them from asking other scientists to give their opinions on his research before an embargo lifted. And once other scientists got a look at the paper, the reaction was almost universally condemnatory, as exemplified by the European Food Safety Authority.

    One main objection stemmed from the fact that the rats used in the study belong to a strain called Sprague-Dawley, which is extremely prone to tumors later in life. While Monsanto did use Sprague-Dawley rats in its own experiments with GM corn, such trials lasted for 90 days, whereas Seralini’s experiment went on for two years.

    Many critics also said the number of rats used for such a long experiment — 10 rats for each experimental condition — was far too small, as Discover noted. In addition, there were curious gaps in the mortality data for the control rats: It’s unclear whether they died after developing tumors.

    A 2011 paper by Canadian researchers supposedly found Cry1Ab, an insecticidal protein made in certain GM crops, in the blood of women and in the cord blood of fetuses. But the study, examining just 30 pregnant women (and their fetuses) and 39 nonpregnant women, also came under attack for its methods and conclusions by critics such as Food Standards Australia New Zealand. The method the researchers used to detect Cry1Ab in the blood has been called into question, and the authors provided no dietary evidence on any of the study subjects. Without that, there’s no way to conclusively draw a link between anything found in the blood and GM crops.

    “Too often in the GM-food debate, generalizations and extremism lead to sterile public and political discourse that obscures key issues: what sorts of GM crops might bring true benefits to agriculture and consumers; how to avoid monopolization of farming choices; and what types of sustainable agriculture we want in the future,” Nature editors said last September. “Polarized debates, not GMOs, are the poison to be avoided.”

    • Chris Preston

      Well, you have demonstrated the ability to cut and paste, but do you actually have an argument?

      It seemed to me that your argument (as much as I could gather among the caps locked) was that the type of result you wanted to see from testing did not occur in the US. Perhaps the real problem is that what you want and what is real are two different things.

      I always find it kind of cute when people upvote their own posts, it is almost as if they have no confidence in what they write and want to make it seem like others approve.

      • RAndrewOhge

        It addresses the discussion fully, and if you think me OR you rewriting it makes the points any clearer, feel free. The first act of a troll is to attack the science-did you lose your play book?

      • TZ

        Actually his/her post is spot on! You are the one who is trying to discredit and deflect, showing clearly your desperation and lack of a scientific background!

  • Debbie Owen

    We have the right to know what is in the food we pay for and feed to our family. Busy mother’s shouldn’t have to do a lot of research on every single ingredient just to find out if it might be GMO, it should be as simple as looking at a label so we can know for sure. Don’t pay attention to pro-GMOers who say that we shouldn’t have the freedom to know what is in our food, no one else should have the right to tell us what we should or shouldn’t know about the food we consume. That is just unethical.

    • hyperzombie

      it should be as simple as looking at a label so we can know for sure.

      it is that simple, just look for the certified Organic or Non GMO label, simple.
      No one is forcing you to buy any foods, and once again if you want to avoid GMOs you already have 2 labels.

      • Debbie Owen

        No, not all non-GMO food products are labeled as such so we have to assume they are GMO, that limits our choices and that isn’t fair. There is not one good reason for not labeling GMOs so I’m not surprised you couldn’t come up with one either. Saying that organic and some non-GMO food products are labeled is a really weak argument for not labeling GMOs.

        • hyperzombie

          No, not all non-GMO food products are labeled as such so we have to assume they are GMO, that limits our choices and that isn’t fair.

          Yep, it is fair. your the one with the Phobia, so it is up to you to find food that suits your needs. Just like the religious folks, it is up to you to find the food that suits your needs.

          There is not one good reason for not labeling GMOs so I’m not surprised you couldn’t come up with one either.

          There are plenty, it will drive up the cost of foods and it is just stupid to label a breeding method.

          Saying that organic and some non-GMO food products are labeled is a really weak argument for not labeling GMOs.

          Nope, you have a choice. Suck it up and buy Organic Foods.

          • Debbie Owen

            I would love to find food that suits my needs but I need GMOs labeled so I can avoid food that doesn’t meet my needs. It really is that simple. Labeling GMOs won’t drive up the cost, that is just a fear tactic used by the GMO biotech companies and their followers. By the way, GMOs isn’t just a breeding method, don’t you know what the O in GMO stands for?

          • hyperzombie

            I would love to find food that suits my needs but I need GMOs labeled so I can avoid food that doesn’t meet my needs.

            It is so simple, just buy Organic or Certified Non GMO. It is not that hard, or there is even an Iphone app. There is no reason to label all the rest of food.

            By the way, GMOs isn’t just a breeding method, don’t you know what the O in GMO stands for?

            Yep, Organism… Hmm I wonder want a plant is, maybe an organism??? Could it be true?

          • Debbie Owen

            And you think an organism is a breeding method? LOL. You seem to have a problem with comprehending things, I already said that not all non-GMO is labeled and that limits my choices. You can keep talking in circles if you want, but you still can’t come up with a good reason not to label GMOs.

          • hyperzombie

            And you think an organism is a breeding method?

            i never said any such thing.

            I already said that not all non-GMO is labeled and that limits my choices.

            So, that doesn’t limit your choices, just like all Organic foods are not labeled Organic. Iff you want to make a peticular ffood choice it is up to you to find it, I am sure all muslims would like all NON -halal foods labeled.

          • Debbie Owen

            Then let that be their cause, and you are right, not all organic food is labeled either which limits my choices even more. By the way, yes you did say “it is just stupid to label a breeding method” and as I said GMO is not just a breeding method.

          • richard40

            No you dont, you need non gmo labeled, so you can find the food that meets your special need. And if the demand for non gmo food really was as much as you claim it is, food makers would be happy to label and market certified non gmo food, to profit from the demand of a nitche market, just like there are plenty of food makers that went to the trouble to label kosher or organic. But the burden should be on the person wanting the special food, not on the rest of us. So if somebody wants kosher or organic, they look for the kosher or organic label, they don’t look for regular labels that say NOT kosher, or NOT organic, to decide what they do NOT want to buy, they look for the special labeled food they want. GMO free should be the same, you want non gmo, you look for the non gmo label, and leave my normal food label alone.

        • richard40

          If they are not labeled gmo free you just assume they contain gmo, simple. You are the one that insists on a special product, gmo free, so you are the one that should have the special lable, gmo free, and have to look for that special label. Its just like Kosher or organic. You don’t have every single food label in the country saying “contains the following non Kosher ingrediants ” or “contains the following non organic ingrediants”. If people want kosher or organic, they look for it, and any extra cost from inspections to certify for it are born by them, not forcibly inflicted on the rest of us, as insisting that all food addressing gmo in its label would do.

          • Debbie Owen

            Who said I want kosher or organic, maybe I just want non-GMO and like I have said before, not all non-GMO is labeled. Your comment is really hypocritical, yes if people want kosher or organic they look for the label. Kosher and organic isn’t afraid or ashamed to label. GMO should label too, it is only fair. By the way, farmers already know if they are growing GMO or not, labeling would be easy. Don’t be afraid of a label.

        • First Officer

          Same with Kosher.

  • nomadHAR

    the Union of Concerned Scientists supports GMO labeling. the following link is a rational, measured page on the facts about GMO process and products.

    http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/food-agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering-agriculture

    • hyperzombie

      UCS is an activist group just like Greenpeace. they are hardly scientific.

  • nightgaunt

    What bothers me is that the skepticism about corporate GMOs is lumped in with those who are religiously and ideologically opposed to Evolution and Global Warming. It isn’t even close in the reasoning though I have seen it summarily dismissed as such.

    It would help if we had a whole raft of independent analysis of corporate GMOs yet one can’t because of the proprietary nature of the science as it is treated. Along with the danger of allowing others to own DNA even if it is just a minor alteration or found in a human body.

    GMOs are what the corporations want to help them own the mass food industry. Without independent analysis there is no way to fully support conclusions made by those same corporations over their own product.

    The changes that are made are for the increased use of toxic insecticides, fungicides etc. where the altered plants can withstand them, however we are not so protected.

    There is much more but I will leave it for now.

    • hyperzombie

      The changes that are made are for the increased use of toxic insecticides, fungicides etc. where the altered plants can withstand them, however we are not so protected.

      Nope, the changes are made so farmers can have options on how to treat weeds and so they can use less pesticides. Why would a farmer pay more for seed just so they could pay more for pesticides, that makes no sense.

  • creox

    GMO’s are about profits. That is my biggest concern and the fact, as Nye says, they have not been in the wild for long enough to see what damage they can do. We grow lots of food. It’s just not getting to the right places at the right times.

    • hyperzombie

      GMO’s are about profits

      Well all farming is about profit. Wouldn’t the “Organic industry” be more profit minded, after all they are selling the exact same thing for 50-100% more?

      • creox

        I mean profits over some marketed idea that it is about increased production to feed the hungry. People are not hungry because of a lack of food but the ability to get at it. This tech is promoted exactly like that but that is not the truth.

        • hyperzombie

          Most of the hungry people in the world are farmers that can’t grow enough to feed themselves and have seed for the next season. Modern farming technologies can and do help with that. THat is why there are less starving people today than in the turn of the century. (130 000 000 less)

          • creox

            According to Oxfam, among others, the world produces more food than ever before but people still go hungry due to distribution, poverty (the ability to pay). This has been the case before GMO’s became mainstream. I’m not talking about modern farming techniques. On a side note our modern techniques have also depleted much of crop land sterile due to over farming and mono crops.

  • Justin Waters

    Everyone – even non-scientist – can give a valid opinion if the opinion is based on valid research. Sadly, Nye did not cite any research, so we are left arguing in the dark. The deeper lesson is that we must stop giving special statuses and honorary degrees to celebrities. Nye is not a scientists; he is an entertainer with honorary degrees and a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering.

  • Sheila Grace

    Well, this argument is interesting. It makes me think of a Prof I had in a course entitled Religion, Ethics and the Environment. We had equal share in our concerns for the environment and differed a bit in how we viewed the Universe, his language called it the heavens, mine the galaxy. What he pointed out was, if we use the same pattern languages, symbols and emotional fervor, science could be likened to a religion.
    Reductionism, the birth child of the Enlightenment period tore us free from the Aristocracy and Church institutions. It gave us colleges and universities, massification and specialization. A new democratic citizen based government helped. The biggest push came from a thing we found in the ground, more concentrated BTUs then any other source we’ve found to date. It undeniably funded our ability to progress science and technology. So here we are. I can see both sides of the arguments and their validity. We don’t have to digress to our lesser hominid cousins and fling poo. It might be worthwhile to consider that while science as a discipline strives for objectivity through its mechanisms, scientists are humans, subject to the mores of their time. We have all been a bit seduced by everyday personal interaction with the other “disciplines” , marketing, economics, and cultures, TV, liberal capitalism, manifest destiny. As heroic a notion of linear unending progress is, it might be beneficial to have a look at what missteps that might create when coupled with specialization. What are we rushing for and where are we rushing to? A whole systems approach doesn’t have to condemn a specialized technology, nor does a specialized technology have to rush to implementation, that is, unless the objective has less to do with science and more to do with profit.
    That’s what makes this argument so fascinating, mired down in individual reality is the perception -right or wrong – it’s true. An argument comes from an emotion, a discussion comes from a contemplation.

  • Allan Nichols

    You can tell how bogus and political Discover is when the call Bill Nye a “Scientist” which he is not !!! So when Billy Nye a Mechanical Engineer who only earned a B.S. speaks about “Climate Science” it is only slightly less bogus than a Lawyer speaking as an authority on it.

  • Regressive Goosesteppers

    Nye is not a “skeptic”, he is a GMO Denier. He refuses to accept the conclusive scientific evidence proving the safety and efficacy of GMOs, and as such, by his own definition should be considered Anti-Science.

    Further, any person who takes an anti-GMO stance cannot and should not ever be called a stalwart defender of evolution; to take an anti-GMO stance is to display the exact same misunderstanding and flagrant disregard for the science of evolution as the most ardent creationist, I point you to Vandana Shiva and her ilk and their laughable fears of imaginary “terminator seeds”.

  • MrAndre

    I’m not a scientist, just an average Joe who has traveled around the sun 73 times. In my travels I have picked up a few pointers in life. When it comes to arguing, the person who has the most to lose screams the loudest. The person who has the most to lose financially in this agrument is the pro GMO side and the Monsantos of the world who have decided that everyone except them is stupid and cannot think for themselves. They say that food labeling is somehow “anti-science”. I have no problem with growing GMO food. I believe people should be able to grow what ever they want. Personally, I buy organic whenever I can because I believe that organics tastes much better. Unlike those perfect looking tomatoes in the supermarket that no longer smell or taste like a tomato–the same with perfect flavorless apples. So I avoid conventional and GMO produce when I can. I believe I have a right to know what is in my food. So I have a problem with “scientists” wanting to limit my right to know by limiting food labeling. Didn’t we go through this with the dairy association years ago when they did not want “rogue” dairies labeling their milk as not containing bovine growth hormones? Like all things…follow the money and you’ll find out what it’s all about. And it isn’t about science.

    • Canadian_Skeptic

      “Unlike those perfect looking tomatoes in the supermarket that no longer smell or taste like a tomato–the same with perfect flavorless apples”
      >>Ironically, that may very well be a product of traditional plant breeding as breeders select for traits that producers value (e.g. yield, shelf-life, resistance to damage during transport, etc) over traits consumers want.

      • MrAndre

        I agree with you. That’s why I don’t buy them. I am a pretty decent cook and I want my food to taste good so I avoid conventional when organic is available. I avoid GMO produce all together. That;s my choice. any plant designed to absorb pesticides and herbicides without harming the plant is not going into my body or anyone at my table. It may not be “scientific”, but it is my decision.

  • Марјан Ќуринов

    i just want to know why does every plastic-eating person have to prove that the plastic he eats is safe for me, too?

  • Jeff Cleveland

    It’s prudent to note that his response was likely less than academic because the person asking him the questions wasn’t exactly cordial either. I mean, I agree with the original posts position, but Nye likely was dismissive of his delivery and didn’t give it the time he otherwise might have.

  • Trevor Brown

    Eh, I don’t see this reply to this random person as his exact opinion… but that being said, I would like to hear him explain his comments. I, too, have voted against GMO labeling, and I hate seeing the fear mongering in this area. I’ve never been given a single legitimate reason to distrust it. If Nye has such a reason, and he believe in it enough to voice it, he should explain it in detail and provide evidence (or at least parallels which demonstrate his theory) for his reasoning.

  • Dark Cyberian Knight

    Sadly this seems like the uncertainty climate denial tries to sew.

  • Richard McCargar

    So when the majority say one thing about climate, if you disagree, you are a denier, but when a majority of scientists say GMO’s are safe, he is a skeptic, not a denier? B.S.

    http://thefederalist.com/2014/12/17/meet-bill-nye-the-anti-science-guy/

  • Haroon

    Seems like he’s trying to score cheap popularity points by feeding into popular pseudo-science. Pointing out the scientific consensus on GMOs means confronting the worldview of much of his fan base, so avoiding the issue with vague, nonsensical “skepticism” is easy political points for him. If the scientific community doesn’t call him out in it I would say “free points”.

  • Regressive Goosesteppers

    Denier. Bill Nye is a GMO-DENIER who refuses to accept the hard scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs because he puts his ideological, faith-based devotion o his politics and environmentalist religious views first.

    By his own definition given his own rant, that makes him Anti-Science, as well as an evolution denier.

  • Albert T. Colon

    If its not harmful, why is it banned in so many nations & countries except the United States… the majority of the science community DOES NOT AGREE that its not harmful… quite the opposite… nice try with that bullshit… lmao

  • William Brooks

    Sadly overlooked in his support for GMO’s, is the huge increase in herbicides that have resulted since their introduction. 527 million pound increase in herbicide use in the United States between 1996 and 2011. With 73% increase in 2013 alone. This has been largely attributed to increased weed resistance.
    Medical professionals in 64 counties support a ban, (or labeling) of them, because of suspected health problems. In March, the World Health Organization claimed a possible link between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Non-Hodgkins rates in the U.S. have doubled since the 1980s. It has become the fifth-leading cause of cancer in the United States, closely following, (with 21 other cancers and diseases), the ever increasing rates of pesticide use.
    UC Davis Mind center show that pregnant women have a 2/3 higher chance of conceiving autistic children, if they live within a mile of chemically sprayed fields.
    The United States National Library of Medicine National Institute of Health, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed has 1200 research papers from worldwide research, directly linking health issues with these chemicals.

    In so many research papers, there appear to be connections with * mitochondrial toxicity, * endoplasmic reticulum stress, and * other health issues”, with the registered endocrine disruptor and chelator: “Round up”. (If you don’t believe this, look up “glyphosate human toxicity”, at ncbi.nlm.nih.gov (= 556 papers).

    Moms Across America have taken measurements of glyphosate in mothers. They have show levels 10 times as high as the same studies of mothers in Europe, (and twice as high as legal limits in Europe), in mothers breast milk, placenta, urine, baby food, and even in the hospital feeding liquids for premature babies.
    Yet the FDA do not even require measuring this, claiming it is safe, in contradiction to it’s own database.
    It is a pity that the Food and Drug Administration (being run by the ex-Monsanto employee Michael Taylor), has the same cosy relationship with these companies, that the tobacco industry used to.
    It is a pity that your magazine appears to share this same view.
    I guess as ever, short term company profits supersede long term healthcare costs, for the nation.

  • Yin Simons

    This is a very true insightful post . As a professional writer,
    I recognize the value of effective communication skills. Oftentimes in this
    industry, it’s not so much what’s being said but how it’s being said.

    pest control reviews phoenix

  • Bill Bates

    There’s not soybeans growing in forests and corn everywhere. It is just such a bogus argument, and an argument from ignorance.

    pest control reviews phoenix

  • assman35

    Saying that GMOs will disturb ecosystems is like saying that I can’t enter the sport of Ultimate fighting because I would end up completely disturbing it. If I enter the sport of ultimate fighting I will be pounded into a bloody mess and probably die. Because its brutally competitive and I have never trained for it. Any GMO organism entering an ecosystem is the equivalent of me entering ultimate fighting. It won’t disturb the ecosystem…it will get extinguished from the ecosystem. Most of the organisms we modify are NOT modified to be better survivors, they are modified to produce more food for us. As such in any brutal natural contest (and contrary to what environmentalist think, nature is incredibly brutal) they will LOSE, LOSE LOSE.

    The ecosystem won’t get disturbed in the slightest.

  • Damo

    Ahem–those are all old pesticides. Thanks for proving my point.

    • I_think4myself

      You did not read the whole post.
      Aldicarb, Methyl Parathion, and Atrazine are still in use in the USA on food crops. The methyl parathion is being phased out even though it is extremely toxic. The other 2 are still in use. The 3 at the bottom of my post are there to illustrate how long some were in use before banned.
      Methyl Parathion dates from the 1950’s, and is just now being phased out. 60+ years of use.

      I created a long post with links to educate, and enlighten.. Not argue.

      • I_think4myself

        Correction:
        Aldicarb is the one being phased out, not Methyl Parathion, a very scary thing.

      • Damo

        Which is why you respond to my comment with the same information and throw a jab in at me. If you really want to educate, and think for yourself, read the scientific literature that Nye has pointed out.

        Those chemicals are used less, or not at all, because modern pesticides are safer. If you