GMO Labeling Articles Should Reference Scientific Consensus

By Keith Kloor | March 30, 2015 1:16 pm

I recently spoke at Cornell about the public GMO discourse–who has shaped it and how some commonly held perceptions have taken hold in the media.

In one talk, I discussed the importance of thought leaders, such as Michael Pollan and Vandana Shiva. Pollan and Shiva are cultural icons who speak to (and on behalf of) people who share their values. Pollan has the ear of those who care deeply about the production of food. Shiva has the ear of those who care deeply about the environment. Their respective audiences overlap and often coalesce around larger sustainability, corporate influence and social justice concerns. Influential voices in this virtuous space are invested with moral authority. It also helps to be anointed by the media as a thought leader, which elevates one’s standing. The role thought leaders play in the GMO debate is something I’ll expand on in a future post.

The other talk I gave (similar to this one) explored the Frankenfood meme that is still well represented in popular media, as I pointed out in the previous post. There, the role of self-appointed public advocates has been essential to the popular framing of GMOs. As the Washington Post has just noted in an editorial:

The GM-food debate is a classic example of activists overstating risk based on fear of what might be unknown and on a distrust of corporations.

The editorial, which is a forceful argument against mandatory GMO labeling, continues:

People have been inducing genetic mutations in crops all sorts of other ways for a long time — by, for example, bathing plants in chemicals or exposing them to radiation. There is also all sorts of genetic turbulence in traditional selective plant breeding and constant natural genetic variation.

Yet products that result from selective gene splicing — which get scrutinized before coming to market — are being singled out as high threats. If they were threatening, one would expect experts to have identified unique harms to human health in the past two decades of GM-crop consumption. They haven’t. Unsurprisingly, institutions such as the National Academy of Sciences and the World Health Organization have concluded that GM food is no riskier than other food.

Which brings me to a recent post by NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen, who wondered how reporters should characterize the positions of political candidates who deny that man-made global warming is occurring. After all, as Rosen says:

Claims that climate science is a hoax, or that human action is not a factor are not defensible positions in a political debate.

You should read Rosen’s post to see the options he lays out for the reporter faced with a Ted Cruz answer on climate change. (Cruz, in case you didn’t know, denies global warming.) Rosen argues in favor of options #3 (calling out the denialism, citing the scientific consensus) and option #4 (confronting  the denialism head-on).

That got me thinking: What if reporters applied this same standard in their GMO coverage, particularly when faced with advocacy groups that deny a scientific consensus on the safety of genetically engineered foods? Remember, the same highly regarded scientific societies and bodies that declare global warming to be real also declare GMO foods to be safe.

So when environmental and food consumer groups pressure restaurant chains to not use the new federally approved, genetically engineered apples and potatoes because they are “risky,” how should reporters respond? When leading environmental and consumer watchdog NGOs insist there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs, as they have done again recently (when this is patently untrue), how should reporters respond?

Probably not like this Reuters article, which, given the history of the reporter, is not surprising.

With Congress now joining the fight over GMO labeling, reporters are going to have ample opportunity to clarify where the science stands on genetically modified foods. Pro-GMO labeling advocates argue this issue is all about transparency, but if they didn’t feel that GMOs were inherently unsafe, they wouldn’t be asking them to be labeled. That suggestion of health risk is implicit in every article about GMO labeling. Thus, it behooves reporters to cite the body of scientific evidence that speaks to this implied safety issue.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Uncategorized
ADVERTISEMENT
  • mememine

    The only thing certain about science’s climate change consensus is 34 MORE years of climate action failure, wrong predictions, 97% certainty and total global denial.
    Get up to date;
    *Occupywallstreet now does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded and corporate run carbon trading stock markets ruled by trust worth politicians.

  • mkassowitz

    The scientific “consensus” on GMOs is not one. It is a PR line. The WHO just stated glyphosate in RoundUp is probably cancer causing. This is not the first time. MIT called this into question last year. (http://robynobrien.com/mit-study-questions-monsantos-safety-claims-for-roundup/) And, lest we forget, the main reason Monsanto’s GMO seeds exist is to sell more RoundUp. Successful strategy. But now they are scrambling to sidetrack public attention by saying their is a scientific consensus on its safety. Clearly there is no consensus in science that Monsanto hasn’t paid for.

    • FosterBoondoggle

      Glyphosate is an herbicide, not a GMO. There are plenty of GMOs that have nothing to do with either Monsanto or application of herbicides. An honest advocate might favor labeling based on which pesticides had been applied and what traces were found in pre-market tests. But that’s not what the anti-GM advocates are asking for, which is a blanket label that would “inform” consumers only about how the breed was originally created, while providing no information at all about what it contains (or even whether it contains anything chemically different from a non-GM sourced product, as in the case of oil from soy or sugar from beets).

      • Nom de Plume

        Ironically, for all its bad rap, glyphosate is popular because it breaks down relatively quickly with no residue. There are some really nasty herbicides that hang around in the soil for much longer periods of time.

    • Stephan

      One trait does not make GMOs unsafe. The consensus is that GMOs are not inherently unsafe. BASF makes herbicide tolerant seed to sell their herbicide as well, and they do not use genetic modification, rather they use selective breeding.

      Also, if that WHO statement is true, never go outdoors. UV light is on the same list.

    • Stephan

      Oh. And one MIT computer scientist is not the same as MIT.

      • Guest

        FOR THE UMPTEEN MILLIONTH TIME “TOXIC SUBSTANCE” IS MEANINGLESS WITHOUT THE CONCENTRATION.

        JHC, man. Learn some basic science.

        • JH

          apologies Stephen, I miss-posted the above comment. j

    • jfowler

      Based on statements from a large number of independent
      scientific organizations across the world – e.g., the US National Academies of Science, the European Commission, the American Medical Association – there =is= a scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops pose no greater risk than conventionally bred crops. Selected representative quotes. Note that these organizations represent scientists across a broad spectrum, not just ‘plant scientists employed by Monsanto’.

      Furthermore, I ask:

      1) Whether you agree with the idea that there =is= a scientific consensus that human activities have contributed to global climate change, and if so, why you recognize it as a consensus.

      And

      2) If you do recognize the scientific consensus on climate
      change, please define exactly why you believe the scientific consensus on genetically engineered crops is different and non-valid.

    • JH

      “glyphosate in RoundUp is probably cancer causin”

      FOR THE UMPTEEN MILLIONTH TIME “TOXIC SUBSTANCE” IS MEANINGLESS WITHOUT THE CONCENTRATION.

      JHC, man. Learn some basic science.

      • Derek Bickerton

        No, why don’t YOU learn some science, JH. Like

        Vandenberg, Laura N., et al. “Hormones and endocrine-disrupting chemicals: low-dose effects and nonmonotonic dose responses.” Endocrine reviews 33.3 (2012): 378-455. “The poison is the dose” is simply not true any more. So WHO is right, glyphosate probably IS carcinogenic.

        • Jackson

          Might a solution to this be to mandate higher glyphosate usage to ensure that people aren’t in the low dose or nonmonotonic range?

          /snark

          • Derek Bickerton

            Snark? You can say that again! Seriously, Jackson, just read the paper (or if you’ve read it, make a better effort to understand it)

    • FosterBoondoggle

      Since you’re bringing the WHO into this — in a context only tangentially related to GMOs — here’s what the WHO says directly about GMO safety: “GM foods on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.”

      http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/np5/en/

  • JMac

    Over 90% of GMO crops in use today are designed to be ROUNDUP READY.

    What this actually means is that crops such as corn, soy, canola, sugar beet, or cotton are: READY TO BE SPRAYED WITH ROUNDUP WEED KILLER AND SURVIVE, while nearby weeds are killed.

    This allows Farmers can spray toxic Roundup weed killer DIRECTLY onto crops that will be turned into the food that you and your family eat.

    When someone is peddling GMO they are actually peddling ROUNDUP READY poison resistant crops. If you go strictly by the numbers, this is what GMO is all about. Or at least 90% about.

    These crops that are turned into your food have been genetically modified so that they can be sprayed directly with toxic Roundup weed killer. The poison is absorbed internally into every cell of the plant. It is then harvested, processed into food, and you eat it. So in other words, you are eating the poisoned plants that have been designed to survive being poisoned. Does this sound like a good idea to you?

    Roundup is made up of the primary ingredient glyphosate, a chemical that very effectively kills microbes, and surfactants. One of the surfactants used Roundup are chemical compounds called siloxanes. Siloxanes are used in pharmaceutical drugs to penetrate the cell wall and get the drug into the cell more effectively. Glyphosate and siloxanes combine in Roundup to create a new molecule that is a hydrophobic substance. This new molecule is much more toxic to microbial cells than Glyphosate alone and easily penetrates the microbial cell wall.

    Prior to 2005, the formulation for agricultural grade Roundup produced was roughly 300 times more toxic than Glyphosate alone. In 2005 the surfactants were modified to include more powerful siloxanes, which created an even more toxic formulation than the previous permutation. After 2005 Roundup Weathermax Two is roughly one thousand times more toxic thanGlyphosate alone. In addition to the newly added siloxanes, oxalic acid wasadded as an adjuvant to make roundup work faster. Oxalic Acid speeds the glyphosate into plant and allows it to penetrated very quickly, delivering the glyphosate deep into the tissue of the plant.

    This chemical concoction is designed to kill plants by disrupting the shikimate pathway, which is the plants defense system, a plants version of an immune system. Roundup disrupts the shikimate pathway essentially giving the plant AIDS. Pathogens the plant could normally defend against infect the plant and kill it. So what’s the big deal? Roundup only kills organisms that have a shikimate pathway as their defense mechanism.

    Promoters of Roundup being sprayed directly on your food will tell you not to worry because human beings don’t have the shikimate pathway. But they are ignoring a very important point. More than 90% of the DNA in your body is not your own and belongs to microbes. They are the friendly microbes that you depend on. They make up the majority of your immune system and they extract minerals and enzymes from the food you eat and guess what? They have the shikimate pathway. Your friendly bacteria that maintain your health are the precise organisms that Roundup Weathermax Two was designed in a lab to kill. When you eat GMO food laced with trace amounts of this poison, it attacks those microbes. Roundup residue on the food you eat is literally killing the microbes within your body that you are dependent on for survival.

    What we as a society have the good fortune of having this toxic concoction of chemicals that is much more toxic than glyphosate alone being sprayed directly on to crops that we convert into food that we eat. There have been precisely zero studies done as to the toxicity of the entire Roundup formulation on mammals. ZERO. Tests have only been carried out on the primary ingredient glyphosate alone. And in addition to that, there have been precisely ZERO studies of the toxicity of this concoction to mammals when chronically exposed at low levels as most people in the United States are.

    If you live in the United States and consume GMO food on a daily basis, which most people do without even knowing it, you are ingesting trace amounts of Roundup Weathermax Two every single day. If you eat foods that contain wheat, corn, soy, canola, or sugar and they are not organic you are eating the toxic herbicide Roundup Weathermax Two. This is a fact.

    There has never been one single safety study carried about
    by anyone to determine if ingesting trace amounts of Roundup Weathermax Two every day for years is harmful to your health. These tests have never been done. NEVER. If you are eating GMO food, then you are the experiment. You are the lab rat who may get sick, may develop cancer, or may die from chronically ingesting this poison.

    You are the lab rat.

    • Jackson

      Roundup disrupts the shikimate pathway essentially giving the plant AIDS. Pathogens the plant could normally defend against infect the plant and kill it.

      This part is so distracting that I can’t focus on anything else in your post. You have made this claim numerous times before, and been corrected on it yet you still make the claim. It’s just so bizarre, I have a compelling need to to know where you picked up this understanding of the shikimate pathway.

      I suppose a plant being unable to biosynthesize it’s own aromatic amino acids might eventually lead to a break down in defense against pathogens, if it could live long enough for the pathogen to kill it. But it couldn’t live long enough for a pathogen to kill it, it would die just from being unable to produce proteins critical in its everyday function.

      It’s like saying exploding C4 near a human is deadly because an explosion of C4 disrupts the human immune system. I suppose it does, but it also explodes the human, which is probably a more direct cause of death.

  • Nom de Plume

    Sigh. The problem with introducing “scientific consensus” is that science is determined not by consensus, but by method of inquiry. An object dropped in a vacuum at such and such point on the earth will fall near 9.8 meters per second per second regardless of a show of hands. In introducing “consensus,” you introduce the question “consensus of whom?” which puts you right back at the start. This is because an appeal to “consensus” is an appeal to trust rather than information, and people know, on a seeming instinctive level, that science is based not on “trust me,” but “prove it.”

    This is why appeals to “consensus” for AGW accomplishes nothing. Appeal to “consensus” for GMO, and the first reaction will be that the “consensus” is nothing more than the party line of big science or big ag or whatever happens to be the bugaboo of the moment.

    It would be much better to start with simply asking oneself why you trust GMO? Most likely the answer won’t be “scientists say,” but specifics. That people have been tinkering with crops for thousands of years, from cloning (potatoes and apples), to hybrids, to crops that are naturally genetically unstable (potatoes and apples again), to just what gets spliced in GMO.

    Once you do this, you can then address the fears of GMO. Is it because it’s “unnatural,” or is it fears of the plant requiring properties that would trigger allergies, or it is fears that the plant would somehow pass the splice genes to other species of plant, or is it fears that it will spread to related species, or is it simply hatred of ag companies or a mistrust of technology? All of these, and other possible fears, must be answered to be overcome.

    We also have to realize that not all these fears are irrational. Okra is related to cotton and some weeds, so cotton engineered to resist glyphosate could, in theory, pass this along to related species. The solution is to plant cotton or okra alongside these weeds and see if they cross. IIRC, one such experiment showed that while they could, the resulting seeds were viable. But until it was tried, no one knew.

    That’s science, and is really the best way to address GMO fears. Much better than arguing “consensus.”

    • Nom de Plume

      Make that “the resulting seeds were NOT viable.” Big difference here.

    • Dominick Dickerson

      I would agree that in one on one interactions, or the kind of public outreach people like Dr. Kevin Folta engage in relying on consensus isn’t likely the most effective route.

      But that kind of interaction is only half the battle. The media when they discuss this issue totally fail on their part, because when you’ve got 45 seconds to recap a story or even as brief two minutes section it’s hard to get into those specifics. The very least they could do create a backdrop of knowledge that publicizes the overwhelming consensus of experts. The problem is the number of people who are competent and impartial in their understand of genetic engineering and the number of people who are news producers probably don’t overlap.

      Take the latest blunders from MSNBC, they’ll rail on and on about how republicans deny the consensus on climate change, but bring up genetic engineering and it’s like listening to Fox talk about the war on Christmas.

      • Nom de Plume

        Most reporters are surprisingly ignorant on matters outside of journalism. Once upon a time, news organizations had a science reporter, who kept up enough with science to have a clue. It would help to have a science and technology editor to run things past to at least catch the most glaring errors.

    • JH

      I agree the appeal to consensus isn’t convincing to the skeptical mind.

      Two caveats:

      1) I think the appeal to consensus, as lame as it is, would swing a lot of on-the-fence people who simply don’t know much.

      2) (my preference) One could instead appeal to the basis of the consensus: overwhelming *experimental evidence* that shows GMO are safe to eat and safe for the environment.

      • Joshua

        ==> “I agree the appeal to consensus isn’t convincing to the skeptical mind.”

        Well – except for when they appeal to consensus – such as when they say “hardly any “skeptics” doubt that the earth is warming and that ACO2 warms the climate, they only doubt the magnitude of the effect.”

      • Nom de Plume

        I’m likely biased, but there’s something insulting in assuming people put no more thought in matters other than following the herd. Even those who don’t think much about an issue have a reason for their opinion. It might be a flawed reason, but it’s still a reason.

  • mem_somerville

    Well that’s a very constructive frame. I hope your science writing colleagues will be open to this.

    And when activists give them the list of the fringy contrarians who signed some opinion paper, point them here: http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

    Creationists draw up these lists to try to convince the public that
    evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a “theory
    in crisis.” Not everyone realizes that this claim is unfounded. NCSE has
    been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists
    affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Although we easily
    could have done so, we have resisted. We did not wish to mislead the
    public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the
    longer list of scientists!

  • Derek Bickerton

    Keith, you say “Remember, the same highly regarded scientific societies and bodies that declare global warming to be real also declare GMO foods to be safe”.

    Let me see if I’ve got this straight. Scientific authorities believe that pouring large quantities of carbon into the atmosphere will have severe negative consequences for humans and the environment. Scientific authorities believe that pouring large quantities of pesticides into the atmosphere will have no negative consequences for humans and the environment.

    Can someone explain this to me?

    • jfowler

      You do not have it straight. As far as I know, no scientific organization has ever said “that pouring large quantities of pesticides into the atmosphere will have no negative consequences for humans and the environment.”

      The scientific consensus is (to paraphrase) that genetically engineered crops are no more risky than conventionally bred crops. Selected representative quotes. Note that this does not say that all conventionally-bred, or all genetically-engineered, crops pose no risk. Rather, that there is no reason to separate out genetically-engineered crops as particularly risky.

      • Derek Bickerton

        Yes I do have it perfectly straight. If you grow Roundup-Ready crops, you have to use huge quantities of herbicides, mixed with surfactants designed to spread and cause the herbicide to be absorbed more thoroughly (many of which are poisonous in their own right). Unfortunately the GMO guys have not yet produced intelligent surfactants that can tell crops from weeds, which means that if you eat GMO foods you are eating the poisons that have been sprayed onto them. That is why GMOs are bad–not necessarily because of how they were produced (though these may pose risks of their own) but first and foremost because of the agricultural practices that growing GMO crops entails.

        • Jackson

          For clarification, do you hold the same view for all GMOs, or just the ones that work with pesticides? When you use the term “GMO” are you only referring to the subset that are designed with pest management in mind?

          • Derek Bickerton

            Sorry, I thought I’d made it clear that I regarded the most serious threat as coming from GMOs that require substantive herbicide spraying. That doesn’t mean other GMOs might not be harmful in other ways, but first things first seems a good motto here.

          • JohnL

            So why not focus on pesticides instead of GMOs?

          • Derek Bickerton

            I notice that every one of my critics has done his/her best to distract attention from the bizarre paradox to which I was trying to draw attention: a “scientific consensus” believes that vast carbon emissions can cause perhaps irreparable damage while vast pesticide emissions will cause no harm at all. This is a totally illogical position, which is perhaps why nobody defends it (it is indefensible). Remember when a consensus of doctors assured us that smoking was harmless? No, people forget real quick nowadays.

          • Michael Phillips

            No, you keep insisting it is pesticides you are worried about, and that is exactly what your critics are responding to. GM plants allow us to reduce pesticide use in some cases (Bt) or substitute more dangerous ones in others (the herbicide glyphosate for atrazine). GM is a win-win strategy on pesticide issues. If you are hung up on some imagined hypocrisy of the scientific community (you imagine them saying: carbon emissions are bad but pesticide applications pose no problems), perhaps you should consider that you have invented this contradiction yourself, a classic straw man. Reputable scientific organizations do not say dumping huge amounts of pesticides into the environment has no consequences, so please either provide convincing citations to the contrary or stop repeating that falsehood.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Nope, your critics ignored your strawman arguments because informed people know you can’t equivocate a plant breeding technique with Agronomic management practices.

            Categorizing per acre herbicide application as substantive is not only false but misleading. Different pesticides vary in their toxicity and persistence , which is why weight is a terrible measure of a pesticides impacts. Thankfully there are measures like EIQ or environmental impact quotient that can better describe the actually qualitative effects pesticides have rather than a quantitative measure of simply how much is used, as the often cited Benbrook did with his study showing increase in the amount of glyphosate being used.

            With all due respect, perhaps you should stick with linguistics Mr. Bickerton. I have no doubt you’re a very bright person within your field but if your comments here are any indication of your general grasp of these issues , you are clearly out of your depth when it comes to matters of plant breeding and agronomy.

          • jfowler

            Your critics have focused on =your= statements, responding directly to those. You appear to have completely ignored the points raised by your critics – have you even read the writeup in the link I provided?

            This discussion is in the context of Mr. Kloor’s post on the scientific consensus on climate change and on the safety of genetically engineered crops. Those are clear – do you deny them? It was you that brought in some vague, unclear statements regarding “vast pesticide emissions”. It would help if you would provide a clear rationale for why you believe this is a relevant part of discussion regarding scientific consensus – it appears to me that the statements made are only assertions regarding your beliefs, not evidence-supported conclusions. But a more clear presentation of why you made these assertions could be illuminating.

          • Derek Bickerton

            OK, more irrelevant distractions. Of course nobody has SAID that pouring pesticides into the atmosphere was harmless. Nobody would say anything so stupid–this is precisely the point I was trying to make. But saying that GE is safe is actually equivalent to saying that, because GE HAS–not “might not”, or “need not have”–increased the use of glyphosate several hundred percent, and glyphosate is a Class 2 pesticide (less harmful only than the most deadly ones) that has been placed by WHO in Class 2a carcinogens–again, the next to highest class. As for who knows science, try follow my blog smokinggmogun@blogspot.com and we’ll see who knows most about science.

          • Jackson

            DB: “a “scientific consensus” believes that vast carbon emissions can cause perhaps irreparable damage while vast pesticide emissions will cause no harm at all.”

            DB a little later: “Of course nobody has SAID that pouring pesticides into the atmosphere was harmless”

            I’m not sure who’s fault it is, but I’m having a lot of trouble following you here. Would you agree that, while GMOs are not in the absolute sense 100% safe, are as safe as conventionally bred crops?

          • Derek Bickerton

            Sorry, I can’t agree one way or the other, because these are things that not only do we NOT know, we CANNOT know (if that’s what you’re fishing for, I can give you that I think some GMOs are likely to be safer than others, but that’s merely what I think in the absence of hard evidence either way.) Reason we cannot know, the effects of any ingested substance may not be visible until years afterwards, for instance, I gave up smoking at 40 and was diagnosed with emphysema 45 years later!

          • Jackson

            these are things that not only do we NOT know, we CANNOT know (if that’s what you’re fishing for, I can give you that I think some GMOs are likely to be safer than others, but that’s merely what I think in the absence of hard evidence either way.) Reason we cannot know, the effects of any ingested substance may not be visible until years afterwards

            I suppose, but this is true of everything. How can you be 100% sure some random mutation won’t produce an endocrine disruptor in the next generation of organic beets? There needs to be some level of risk that we can tolerate in any regulatory system, and saying we can’t be 100% sure about anything, therefore we should ban anything new is not the way forward.

          • Derek Bickerton

            Of course you’re right–strictly speaking. But this does NOT mean everything carries the same degree of risk. It’s not a question of “saying we should ban everything new”, Nobody but a straw man would say anything so daft. But just tell me we shouldn’t exercise a little caution about eating food that’s been doused with poison! (Btw, did you see the video where the presenter asked the GMO guy to drink glyphosate after he had said how safe it was?)

          • Jackson

            But this does NOT mean everything carries the same degree of risk.

            I agree. Further, I think based on the evidence so far, GMOs are way under the threshold for reasonable amount of risk. Should new evidence be produced that shows an increased risk, I think we should re-evaluate.

            But just tell me we shouldn’t exercise a little caution about eating food that’s been doused with poison!

            I think the word “poison” here is a loaded term, but sure, we should exercise reasonable caution when ingesting pesticides.

            (Btw, did you see the video where the presenter asked the GMO guy to drink glyphosate after he had said how safe it was?)

            I did. The presenter was an idiot, and under no circumstances should you drink a tall glass of roundup. I view risk not as an absolute quantity, but as relative. I don’t think the most important question is “Is glyphosate non-toxic,” I think the most important question is “Is glyphosate less toxic than the herbicide it is replacing.” If you presented me with the choice of drinking a cup of glyphosate or a cup of most other herbicides, I would honestly choose the glyphosate.

          • Derek Bickerton

            No that is not the most important question. The most important question is, does glyphosate cause cancer and other diseases, over a long period? See my blog if you want to keep up to speed on the evidence that it does.

          • Jackson

            Remember when a consensus of doctors assured us that smoking was harmless? No, people forget real quick nowadays.

            I’m only in my early thirties, so no I don’t remember this. I have heard people claim that this is the case, and I have heard people claim that this is not the case. I would be interested to see any evidence one way or the other. I suspect it is similar to the claim that there was scientific consensus in the 70s or 80s that there was going to be the threat of “global cooling.” Turns out it wasn’t scientific consensus, just some confused popular press article.

          • Jackson

            Two things then.

            1) The GRAS (generally regarded as safe) designation is in relation to conventionally bred crops, meaning that GE crops are as safe as conventionally bred crops. Conventionally bred crops can be herbicide tolerant as well, and can be bred to work with a particular herbicide. It seems as if your concerns are entirely unrelated to GMOs.

            2) What if someone developed, through genetic engineering, a variety of crop that could be used with a pesticide that is much safer, and much better for the environment than anything we currently use. Would that be a step in the wrong direction or the right direction?

        • jfowler

          I will point out that you were not clear (“straight”) in your initial comment. That comment appears to directly accuse “scientific authorities” of saying something that they did not about “large quantities of pesticides”.

          You further asked for someone to explain “this” to you. I tried to do so, with a link to some of the exact words from a set of scientific organizations to which Mr. Kloor referred in his post. If you read the excerpts in the link, it will give you a clearer picture of the consensus regarding genetically engineered (GE) crops – with which you may disagree.

          However, other posts in this thread bring out an important point – if ‘pesticides’ are your concern, then realize that a number of GE crops (current and in development) are not in any way associated with pesticides; and that many conventionally bred crops =are= associated with pesticides. Your focus on GE crops (and not ‘pesticides’) is less likely to address the harm about which you appear to be most concerned.

        • hyperzombie

          If you grow Roundup-Ready crops, you have to use huge quantities of herbicides

          Nope, it just gives farmers the option to use Roundup on the crop. It doesn’t need to be used. The application rate stays the same for Roundup with or without the GMO trait, nothing changes but the timing. The surfactant used in Roundup is just refined beef and sheep tallow, hardly dangerous, it is an approved “Organic” adjunct as well.
          There are many GMOs that are not Roundup ready, and lots of conventional herbicide tolerant crops as well, including sunflowers, wheat, canola, rice, beans, rye….

        • Bridgetvandongen

          http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2014/07/glyphosate-math.html
          These so called ‘huge’ quantities are not born out by the maths.

          • Derek Bickerton

            The amount of glyphosate used on crops in the US has increased from 27 million pounds in1996 to 250 million pounds in 2009, so there’s a typo in your comment—where you wrote “maths” you must have meant “myths”.

          • Jackson

            Do you think gross tonnage is the most appropriate and useful way to measure pesticide application?

          • Bridgetvandongen

            That is because more glyphosate resistant crops are being grown, not because more is being applied to the individual crops/harvests.

          • Derek Bickerton

            No? What do you do when you get superweeds? But in any case, what difference does it make? More is more, whatever kind of math you use.

          • Bridgetvandongen
        • Bridgetvandongen

          Let us say your objection is valid. Does this mean you only oppose RR crops? Surely your statement applies to all conventionally grown mono-culture crops which are sprayed with different (and probably more toxic) pesticides? What about large-scale organic farming which uses organic pesticides which are even more toxic than synthetic ones? Do you oppose those too?

  • Mike Richardson

    I’d certainly like to see that same standard applied. It’s one thing to question the business practices and ethics of companies like Monsanto, but genetic engineering is simply a tool, neither good nor evil. And so far, it’s shown the most promise of alleviating food shortages and malnutrition in the developing world by providing more resilient and productive staple crops. When scientific fact challenges your ideology, your ideology should adapt and change, instead of prompting you to attack the facts and the messengers. There’s no reason to give equal air time or press to ideas that have been factually discredited, regardless of how vocal the proponents of such ideas may be.

  • Viva La Evolucion

    I am less concerned about GMO labeling as I am about GMO/pesticide corporations lobbying for continued subsidized corn/soy bio-fuels and animal feed.

  • Buddy199

    That got me thinking: What if reporters applied this same standard in their GMO coverage, particularly when faced with advocacy groups that deny a scientific consensus on the safety of genetically engineered foods?
    —————–
    That gets me thinking. What if reporters applied this same standard for objective fact when addressing groundless (according to the U.S. Dept. of Justice) political narratives such as “hands up, don’t shoot” pushed by advocacy groups that deny factual evidence? What if reporters actually “reported”, rather than delivered ideological narratives?

  • https://plus.google.com/u/0/101557612307322870761/posts John Scott

    Let’s be clear. Both sides jockey for position and interpret the science in ways that support their claims. NONE OF THAT MATTERS.

    Where is the science that demonstrates a harm in transparency? You can parade every scientist who has ever lived before a podium and have them declare GMO safe. I couldn’t care less. If people want to know what’s in their food they should have a right to know, regardless how Monsanto feels about it. The fact that they fight so ferociously to prevent disclosure reeks and tells you everything you need to know about their trustworthiness. [drops mic]

    • Dominick Dickerson

      If you understood the science you would understand that labeling something as “gmo” confers no actual information. It doesn’t tell you any thing about its nutritional content, it doesn’t tell about where it came from, or how it was grown. It denotes a method of plant breeding that consists of various forms of genetic engineering, either trans or cisgenic (the origin of the gene is from a species that is incapable transferring genetic information sexually or from either the same or readily interbreeding species, respectively). In addition there are other forms of genetic engineering that don’t move genes around. RNAi technology and the crispr/cas9 systems edit the expression of existing genes without crossing the arbitrarily derived species barrier.

      But why? These are plant breeding methods, not Agronomic practices. No other method of plant breeding requires a label, even though other forms of breeding are as disruptive if not potentially more so. Mutation breeding, where seeds are exposed to bouts of eradication or or immersed in mutagenic chemicals like colchicine inorder to increase the rate of mutation. This is a nontargeted approach is random, of the millions of starts a plant breeder may generate maybe 1 would have the desired mutation. None the less it’s still considered not only safe, but permitted in organic. There are practices like protoplast fusion, where to 2 plant cells in tissue culture are coaxed into forming a single cell and they can grow the plant in the medium to instead of a seed. Nary a peep, and this method violates the species barrier just as much as transferring a single or small number of genes through genetic engineering. Even traditional crossing of plants can result in unintended changes to the genome, since even in this case the 2 sets of genomes are shuffling together. That’s why the consensus state is that genetic engineering is no riskier than any other method of plant breeding.

      No other plant breeding method is subjected to such close scrutiny and no other types of plants have been studied as intensely before release. Yet still for some reason a certain contingent of people want a label.

      Mandatory labeling is reserved for things that confer information that has potential impacts on health, nutritional contents, and ingredients. Things conferring information on known allergens. Since “gmo” isn’t an ingredient, its a plant breeding method, and it confers no information that poses a potential health risk a mandatory label called for in the initiatives is unnecessary be a use we don’t label things by the method their seeds were produced and we shouldn’t. Because of the consensus statement, genetically engineering as a plant breeding method is no riskier than other forms of plant breeding.

      Many of the gmo-labeling initiative just don’t make sense or are so carved out with exceptions that they would be useless. Cheese produced using chymosin derived from genetic engineering wouldn’t be labeled. Alcohol that could potential be made from grains that were genetically engineering would be labeled. And I don’t think meat from animals fed genetically engineered crops would be labeled either though that may vary in more familiar with New York’s inane legislation. Restaurant of and prepared foods would not have to be labeled. Very few things would be labeled. Except processed foods and produce. For fresh produce there’s really only 3 or 4, about 10% of sweet corn, hawaiian virus resistant papaya, a very limited amount of virus resistant squash, and I think there are virus resistant sweet peppers in China but am unsure if they’re exported. In a few years we’ll see arctic apples and the innate potatoes. So in a few years well have a half dozen types of fresh produce, now its only 3. The vast majority of current genetically engineered crops destined for human food are as components of processed foods, oils, flour, sugar. This derived from corn, soy, and sugar beet. However these refined products are unlikely to even carry anything “transgenic”, the oil, sugar, flour is chemically identical to non engineered sources.

      So if there’s no nutritive difference, no chemical difference, and no increased risk, it’s simply improper to utilize a mandatory label. I don’t care about your right to know, mostly because for all the reasons I highlighted above, there’s no substantial information conferred from such a label. You wouldn’t know anything about the product other than the method used to induce a useful trait into gene.

      But what really is the kicker is that already in place are voluntary labels that exclude genetic engineering as a practice. USDA Organic and NonGMO project verified products prohibit crops from genetically modified seeds to be used. These two options should be more than adequate to give consumers a choice, if they want to avoid genetically engineered crops. The new legislation introduced in the House will create a third system, a voluntary national non-gmo label that producers who want to serve the market can use, if it passes.

      tldr: genetic engineering is a plant breeding method and we don’t label foods based on plant breeding methods and voluntary labels that already exist serve to give consumers options if they want to avoid genetically engineered crops.

      P.s. Pick up your mic

      • Debbie Owen

        We aren’t asking for a breeding method to be labeled, we are asking for GMOs to be labeled, the kind that were snuck into our food supply in 1996. Do you understand that organisms are not breeding methods? The voluntary labeling law that is proposed isn’t good enough because GMO companies will never label their products voluntarily. In fact they spend millions of dollars fighting labeling laws because they don’t want people to know what is in their products. The fair thing would be for everyone to label their products GMO, non-GMO or organic. It needs to be a mandatory law so that everyone is accountable for their products and so consumers will have the freedom to know what kind of food they are paying for and feeding to their families. Besides, the proposed voluntary labeling law would override states rights, and that isn’t a good thing. Also a couple more points, one is that there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs and two, GMO crops may be intensely studied before it is released, but only by the companies that would profit from them. I think we have learned that studies can be skewed to show favorable results to the companies involved. Absolutely no independent testing is done before GMO crops are snuck into our food supply and released to an unsuspecting public.

        • Jackson

          Besides, the proposed voluntary labeling law would override states rights, and that isn’t a good thing.

          I think it would be a good thing to have nationwide labeling standards. Why are “state’s rights” so important in this case?

          one is that there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs

          Sure there is. Something like what, 90% consensus that they are as safe as plants produced through traditional breeding.

          GMO crops may be intensely studied before it is released, but only by the companies that would profit from them. I think we have learned that studies can be skewed to show favorable results to the companies involved. Absolutely no independent testing is done before GMO crops are snuck into our food supply and released to an unsuspecting public.

          Which is studied more, new crops created through genetic engineering, or new crops created through selective breeding or mutagenesis?

          • Debbie Owen

            The topic isn’t breeding methods and no there is not any scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs just because the biotech companies and their supporters say so. States rights are very important, especially in this case. The proposed voluntary labeling law won’t allow states to have mandatory labeling laws, they will keep people in the dark about what they feed to their families. Do you really expect GMO companies will voluntarily label their products? If GMOs were safe then they would be proud to label, but they aren’t and that is why they fight mandatory labeling laws. GMO companies don’t want to be held accountable for their own products and that is very telling.

          • Jackson

            there is not any scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs just because the biotech companies and their supporters say so.

            Scientists. Geneticists. Plant biologists. Toxicologists. Both in industry and in the public sector. You can’t just define away anyone who thinks GMOs are as safe as plants developed through traditional breeding.

            If GMOs were safe then they would be proud to label

            I don’t think this follows at all. To make it a true statement I would reword it to: “If the vast majority of the public thought GMOs were safe, then they would be proud to label it.” They are resistant to labeling because the general public is woefully underinformed about biology, agriculture, and science in general.

        • Dominick Dickerson

          But you do want a plant breeding method labeled. You want organisms produced via one plant breeding method to be labeled, while no other methods which are equally risky,”unnatural” and undergo no testing.

          Good thing a patchwork of mandatory state labeling laws wouldnt impact interstate commerce….oh wait it would? That’s funny cause laws that effect interstate commerce are specifically enumerated to the federal government. Which is likely how the GMA will challenge Vermonts labeling law, as well as potentially making it a compelled speech case.

      • Viva La Evolucion

        Actually, if there is GMO label then there is strong likelihood that the product will contain Glyphosate and AMPA residue, as majority of current GMOs are the Roundup Ready variety. Also, Glyphosate was recently classified as “probably causes cancer”. Nevertheless, I do think that genetic modification has a lot of potential for good, I just don’t think that majority of it’s current applications are examples of that. Radiation and mutagenic chemical breeding are currently more effective at producing desirable traits, but those plants can’t be patented like GMOs. So, GMO seed companies obtain high quality seed, which was created using radiation and mutagenic chemicals, and then genetically modify those plants to be resistant to Roundup, etc.

        • Dominick Dickerson

          That’s not true at all about mutagenic breeding. It’s not more effective at generating useful traits, its random. So yeah assuming you have the infrastructure to mutate and then grow an inordinate number of replicants, the chances of you getting a desirable mutation increase. But we’re talking about literally years, potentially hundreds of thousands if not millions of replicants. Is it possible to do, clearly cause it’s been done many times. But I would hardly characterize it as “effective”, its luck. And more to the point we have no idea what other effects are occuring in mutagenic derived varieties, because they’re not tested. And they can most certainly be patented.

          Non genetically engineered grains may have trace amounts of glyphosate on them to as it’s used in some places as aid during desiccation. Wouldn’t be covered under labeling provisions. If you want a label to inform about what pesticides are used to produce a crop argue for that (and watch how fast Big Organic bolts from supporting such a measure cause it would dismantle the myth many have the organic means no pesticide). You shouldn’t use a label that denotes a type of breeding as a proxy for what pesticides are on crops.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            Actually, mutagenic breeding has produced some of our most desired fruits and vegetables, which have qualities like improved flavor, size, texture, yield, etc, while currently available GMOs only produce traits that are desirable to farmers, such as giving them ability to spray their crop with herbicide without killing them. Nevertheless, I believe the combination of both methods will ultimately prove to be the best approach. In addition, I like the method that Monsanto uses that involves using mutagens to create random mutations and then using rapid genetic sequencing to select the desirable traits from mutated plants, which saves literally years of time. I agree with you that organic farmers use pesticides that are dangerous and in large dose will kill you just as dead as their synthetic counterparts. And, I agree that genetic engering is just a breeding method, and not necesaarily something that needs to be labeled. But, similar to how some people are opossed to creating a human/animal hybrid , there are significatnt percentage of people opposed to plant/bacteria hybrid, and thus it is something that possibly warrants labeling. While I am not opposed to the GMO breeding method, I am concerned about the majortiy of its current applications, primarily creation of herbicide tollerent crops. I am not a fan of herbicide tollerant crops, be them tradtiionally bred or GMo, as they result in increased herbicide usage. I would like to see more GMOS that with traits like drought tollerance, improved flavor, etc – and less herbicde tollerant crops. Until that day, I must admit that I enjoy witnessing GMO seed/pestidiee manufactuers waste money trying to stop the inevitable labeling of GMOs.

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/creating-tastier-and-healthier-fruits-and-veggies-with-a-modern-alternative-to-gmos/

          • Dominick Dickerson

            “And, I agree that genetic engineering is just a breeding method, and not necessarily something that needs to be labeled. But, similar to how some people are morally opposed to genetically engineering a human with some animal DNA , there are significant percentage of people opposed to genetically engineering a plant with bacterial DNA, and while I am not opposed to either, it is something that I do think should at least be labeled to satisfy those with moral objection.”

            But the point of a mandatory label isn’t to satisfy peoples “moral objections”. Thats like asking for a mandatory ” not kosher” label. If people are concerned for whatever reason and wish to avoid genetic engineered crops they already can under the current labeling framework. Just buy organic or NonGMO project. If h.r. 4432 passes the legislature consumers will also have a national non gmo voluntary label as well. I have doubts that the Boxer/DeFazio bill will make it in a republican controlled legislature, while H.R.4432 at this early stage already enjoys bipartisan support if we’re going by cosignatories.

            Also if gmo labels were small, innocuous, back of packaging and included the trait used then perhaps there would be less resistenace against labeling. But that’s nt what labeling initiatives wanted. They explicitly want big front of package labeling that likely contains little more than three letters. What kind of information regarding a scientifically valid health concern would such a label impart? Nothing at all. And in addition to not labeling plant breeding methods, we don’t use mandatory labels to satisfy peoples “moral objections”, voluntary labels like kosher and rainforest alliance certification do that and concerning moral objections to genetic engineering there are already voluntary labels those consumers can seek out.

            P.s. If you read what I wrote you’ll find I was denying that mutation breeding had utility, I was saying that given the nature of how the genetic change is induced, which is random, it’s not particularly “effective” unless you’re screening a high number of replicants.
            No where am I saying genetic engineering is the only way, I just want to be clear about that. Genetic engineering is only as good as having high quality varieties developed through traditional breeding methods inwhich to insert the new gene events. And I just want to also reiterate that mutagenic varieties can most definitely be patented, since you didn’t address this refutation of you previous incorrect statement.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            I totally support small GMO labels that include trait used, but I doubt there would be less resistance from GMO seed, pesticide, and junk food manufacturers if that was the case. And, for the most part I do agree that people’s moral objections should not necessarily require mandatory label when voluntary labels are available to accommodate them, but I do think the GMO labeling side will ultimately win this issue within the next five years or so. And, I think that GMO seed, pesticide, and junk food manufacturers opposition to the labeling is a costly PR nightmare that is strengthening the anti-GMO movement. Thank you for letting me know that non-GMO plants can be patented. I was not aware of that, but after looking into I see that the Clearfield crops are patented. I do not believe plants should be allowed to be patented, be them GMO or traditionally bred.

          • Jackson

            A bit of trivia you might find interesting: The first plant patented was a variety of rose, in 1930.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I just looked it up and it is interesting subject to me. After reading about it more I think that being able to patent plants does NOT have the intended result of increased botanical innovation because it limits the innovation to that which can be profitable to corporations, such as herbicide tolerant crops, which are not necessarily the most beneficial forms of innovation. At the same time being able to patent plants suppresses other forms of botanical innovation by diminishing other motivating factors that are involved in creating new plants, and it creates a system in which the most qualified plant breeders are often employed with large corporations to make plants that make profit for the corporation, rather than working on creation of other, potentially more beneficial plant varieties for farmers and consumers.

          • Jackson

            At the same time being able to patent plants suppresses other forms of botanical innovation by diminishing other motivating factors that are involved in creating new plants

            Can you explain what you are saying here? Nothing occurs to me when thinking about other innovation being discouraged.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            The ability to patent plants suppresses other forms of botanical innovation by diminishing other motivating factors that are involved in plant breeding, such as goal of producing a desired novel trait that may not be profitable to patent but valuable nonetheless. Also, plant patents gives breeders less access to use best available seeds of the time for use in breeding, so has obviously slowed down innovation in that regard.

        • hyperzombie

          Actually, if there is GMO label then there is strong likelihood that the product will contain Glyphosate and AMPA residue

          I guess you never looked up LibertyLink crops? Also GMO.

          Radiation and mutagenic chemical breeding are currently more effective at producing desirable traits, but those plants can’t be patented like GMOs.

          Hardly, look up Clearfield crops. They are mutagenic and patented and even herbicide tolerant.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            Thank you for bringing that to my attention. So, I guess it would have been better for me to say that a product containing GMO label would also likely contain Glyphosate or Glufosinate and/or their metabolites. Also, thank you for letting me know about Clearfield crops being patented. I’ve heard of Clearfield crops, but didn’t know they were patented. I personally don’t believe any plants should be able to be patented, be them GMO or traditionally bred.

          • hyperzombie

            Oh, and I forgot to mention navigator crops, GMOed to be resistant to Oxynil herbicides.

            I personally don’t believe any plants should be able to be patented, be them GMO or traditionally bred.

            Well that would be a stupid idea, why would anyone spend time and money designing a new crop if you couldn’t make money doing it?

          • Viva La Evolucion

            I can think of plenty of reasons why someone would spend time and money in new crop development, even if that crop could not be patented. For instance, most of the seeds one available for purchase at local garden stores were created through years of breeding, and I do not believe there is a patent on any of those seeds. What was the motivation behind creation of majority of our currently available seed? People will still buy seeds from reliable quality plant breeders and seed providers, even if the seeds are not patented, especially hybridized seeds. I can somewhat understand a utility patent for herbicide tolerant crops, which would only apply if one were to use the herbicide that the crop was resistant to in conjunction with growing the specific herbicide tolerant crop, but that is not the same as patenting the actual seed. I am not a fan of herbicide tolerant crops, and think their use should be strongly regulated in order to prevent overuse of herbicide, so I’m still convinced a utility patent for herbicide tolerant crops is a good idea either. Plant breeders to not need to patent their plants to make money.

          • hyperzombie

            most of the seeds one available for purchase at local garden stores

            I can almost guarantee that they were patented at one time or they still are on patent. This is the most expensive seed on the planet.

            What was the motivation behind creation of majority of our currently available seed?

            Money, money, followed by interest in plant breeding.

            People will still buy seeds from reliable quality plant breeders and seed providers, even if the seeds are not patented, especially hybridized seeds.

            But they would have no motivation to make better seed, and you have to buy hybrid seeds every season anyway.

            but that is not the same as patenting the actual seed.

            Patents expire, like the one on RR soy is over and gone now.

            think their use should be strongly regulated in order to prevent overuse of herbicide,

            You mean underuse, right? Under use leads to resistance, overuse costs huge money.

            Plant breeders to not need to patent their plants to make money.

            Yes they do, plants are self replicating. Just like software.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            After reading about plant patents more, it looks like the first patents on plants in the 1930s explicitly excluded seeds, and only applied to plants propagated by cuttings or other clonal methods. It was not until the 1980s that the first GMO was patented, and not until 2001 that utility patent could be given to conventionally bred plants with “novel” traits. I do not believe that giving corporations/people the ability to patent plants has succeed in its intended goal of increased botanical innovation because it limits innovation to that which can be profitable to corporations, such as herbicide tolerant crops, which are not necessarily the most beneficial forms of botanical innovation. The ability to patent plants also suppresses other forms of botanical innovation by diminishing other motivating factors that are involved plant breeding, such as goal of producing a desired novel trait that may not be profitable to patent but valuable nonetheless. And, patents on plans gives breeders less access to use best available seed for breeding, so has obviously slowed down innovation in that regard. In regards to the increasing problem of overuse of herbicide, and it’s similarity to overuse of antibiotics (Monsanto has patent on glyphosate for use as antibiotics by the way) I am less concerned with weeds evolving resistance to herbicides, and more concerned with the toxicity and carcinogenicity of herbicides in conjunction with ever changing surfactants and other ingredients, and the impact the rapidly increasing use of these chemical cocktails has on soil microorganisms, the environment, and human/animal health.

          • hyperzombie

            such as goal of producing a desired novel trait that may not be profitable to patent but valuable nonetheless.

            All new seed varieties could be profitable. All you need is demand, frescada lettuce, those new mini bell peppers are very profitable. Thousands of new varieties are created and they do find a market.

            And, patents on plans gives breeders less access to use best available seed for breeding,

            Hmmm, how does it do that? The original plant is still available for all other breeders.

            and it’s similarity to overuse of antibiotics

            resistance is mostly caused by people not taking the meds properly, and leaving some resistance. Most likely the same with herbicides, cheap farmers using less than the recommended amount, lead to the over expression of EPSPs genes in some weeds.

            Monsanto has patent on glyphosate for use as antibiotics by the way

            Nope, it is a patent for an anti plasmodium (parasitic protozoa) like Malaria. Protozoa are not bacteria so it is not a antibiotic. According to the medical lit that I read, glyphosate doesn’t work that well at curing malaria symptoms, but it does show some promise of preventing the infection. On the other hand, 2-4-D (also patented for this purpose) does show some promise of curing the symptoms in early testing. These tests would have most likely never been done without the patent protection.

            and more concerned with the toxicity and carcinogenicity of herbicides

            Well if that is your concern, you should check out Cornell’s excellent EIQ site, they have almost every single herbicide and insecticide all listed with the Environmental Impact Quotient, broken down for you.. Check it out. http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/eiq/equation.asp#table2

          • Viva La Evolucion

            My point is that patents create a system in which corporations are motivated to spend more of their time and money on creating crops like herbicide tolerant crops, which are more profitable due to incorporation of herbicide usage into the patent, and less motivated to create other less profitable traits such as improved taste, which even though there would be demand does not compete with profits a new herbicide tolerant crop would bring in.
            In regards to patents limiting availability of seed that breeders can use, it is my understanding the breeder can not use patented seed for breeding. If a person creates an improved flavor trait in lettuce crop through mutagenic breeding, and patents that lettuce plant, no one else can use that seed for breeding, even if they purchase the seed, thus the patent has reduced available germplasm to seed breeders.

            In regards to Monsanto patent for glyphosate use in killing microorganisms such as parasites, glyphosate is also quite effective at killing certain types of bacteria. My point is that widespread use of glyphosate and other herbicides does have significant impact on soil microorganisms, and the impact is most likely altered when used with different combinations of surfactants and other ingredients. I would like to see more studies on different formulation of glyphosate and their impact on soil microorganisms.

            Thank you for providing that link to environmental impact of herbicides. It looks like that was last updated in 2008. I am curious if environmental impact of glyphosate has increased since then considering the new “probably causes cancer” rating, and increasing use.

          • hyperzombie

            profitable due to incorporation of herbicide usage into the patent,

            It is not incorporated into the patent.

            less profitable traits such as improved taste,

            Well if you could find the improved taste gene, you would be a very rich man… Taste is subjective.

            breeder can not use patented seed for breeding.

            Sure they can, you just have to agree on terms. All the big Ag companies buy germplasm, check out Stine Seeds. They made a fortune selling soy traits to big Ag. If you wanted to make a better tasting sweet corn using Monsanto seed, they would have no problem licensing the trait to you.

            glyphosate is also quite effective at killing certain types of bacteria.

            Nope, it is actually horrible at killing bacteria, unless you apply huge doses. Even water kills bacteria at high doses.

            phosate and other herbicides does have significant impact on soil microorganisms

            No they don’t, tillage does though. Same with flatted cover crops, they can turn the soil bacteria to anaerobic.

            factants

            Ao you are concerned about “soap”

            obably causes cancer”

            No that is not what was determined. It is in the class of substances that “May cause cancer” right below coconut oil and shift work and way below sunlight.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            It is not incorporated into the patent.

            Maybe not, but GMO seed producers sell the herbicide that is used on their patented herbicide tolerant crops, which makes it more profitable to product herbicide tolerant crops than better tasting crops, which is the point I was trying to make.

            Breeders can not use patented seed for breeding, without agreeing to licensing terms and other obstacles, which slows down breeding process .

            Roundup DOES have an impact on soil micro-organisms. If you like disagree with that fact then I would love to see you provide some links to back up that false claim.

            Roundup DOES effectively kill many types of bacteria.
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23224412

            and Roundup “PROBABLY” causes cancer..
            http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/roundup-ingredient-probably-carcinogenic-humans/

          • Viva La Evolucion

            I can think of plenty of reasons why someone would spend time and money in new crop development, even if that crop could not be patented. For instance, most of the seeds available for purchase at local garden stores were created through years of breeding, and I do not believe there is a patent on any of those seeds. What was the motivation behind creation of majority of our currently available seed? People will still buy seeds from reliable quality plant breeders and seed providers, even if the seeds are not patented, especially hybridized seeds. I can somewhat understand a utility patent for herbicide tolerant crops, which would only apply if one were to use the herbicide that the crop was resistant to in conjunction with growing the specific herbicide tolerant crop, but that is not the same as patenting the actual seed. I am not a fan of herbicide tolerant crops, and think their use should be strongly regulated in order to prevent overuse of herbicide, so I’m still not convinced a utility patent for herbicide tolerant crops is a good idea either. Plant breeders do not need to patent their plants to make money.

  • patzagame

    Yes, lets rely on the “scientific consensus” on the safety of GMO RR HT/ Bt food crops .Considering the consensus once stated the world was flat,or the sun revolved around the earth,I’d say I won’t bet my last dollar on bio-techs’ industry driven safety consensus.

    • Dominick Dickerson

      Considering the the modern conception of science and the scientific method didn’t arise until after the enlightenment, it’s really not appropriate to suggest those things were a scientific consensus. You know, since they predate the conception of a formalized shared scientific method. But whatever thats a stupid argument anyways.

      • patzagame

        I didn’t say it was a scientific consensus,you did.I just made a comment about consensuses and you’re right,your argument is stupid.

        • Josh Frechem

          You’re right. The Earth being flat was a consensus of the layman and the clergy… Therefore trust the scientists. Thanks for the support! Oh and a little known fact is the heliocentric theory was proposed over 2000 years ago but wasn’t given real consideration for over 1000 years until the death of one of the greats. The thing holding them back? The layman and the clergy. So let’s take one from your book and not trust the consensus that is always wrong… yours.

        • Dominick Dickerson

          You made a false equivalence in your statement directly comparing the quality of the scientific consensus on genetic engineering, with your examples of I don’t know what to call them, popular consensus? Your the one who set them up as being of equivalent weight and potential truth, and method employed to assess validity.

          You said the popular consensus from before the era of science was wrong, therefore its reasonable to doubt scientific consensus, conducted after the formalization and widespread adoption of the scientific method.

      • Nom de Plume

        Actually, it apparently predates Aristotle. Or you could check out Francis Bacon. Since the “Enlightenment” didn’t begin until the 17th Century, and Bacon lived in the 13th, and Aristotle lived in the 4th Century BC, that up to 13 hundred years before the “Enlightenment.”

        As for scientific “consensus,” though, Galen’s Anatomy comes to mind.The student’s knew the cadavers didn’t match Galen’s descriptions, and the teachers knew it, but it was Galen, by gum, and who were they to question it?

        • Dominick Dickerson

          Thanks, I was considering post enlightenment if only because part of my point was the flow and exchange of ideas using a shared baseline methodology for conducting studies is what differentiates modern scientific consensus the popular consensus/appeal to inappropriate authorities / appeal to populism examples he tried to equate them with.

    • ForGMOEducation

      I think it’s more like “common sense” leads one to believe Earth was flat, while data suggests otherwise.

  • patzagame

    January 24 statement in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe — signed by 300 scientists, physicians and scholars — that asserts there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs.A broad community of independent scientific researchers and scholars challenges recent claims of a consensus
    over the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In the following joint statement, the claimed consensus
    is shown to be an artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated through diverse fora. Irrespective of
    contradictory evidence in the refereed literature, as documented below, the claim that there is now a consensus on
    the safety of GMOs continues to be widely and often uncritically aired. For decades, the safety of GMOs has been a
    hotly controversial topic that has been much debated around the world. Published results are contradictory, in part
    due to the range of different research methods employed, an inadequacy of available procedures, and differences
    in the analysis and interpretation of data. Such a lack of consensus on safety is also evidenced by the agreement of
    policymakers from over 160 countries – in the UN’s Cartagena Biosafety Protocol and the Guidelines of the Codex
    Alimentarius – to authorize careful case-by-case assessment of each GMO by national authorities to determine
    whether the particular construct satisfies the national criteria for ‘safe’. Rigorous assessment of GMO safety has been
    hampered by the lack of funding independent of proprietary interests. Research for the public good has been
    further constrained by property rights issues, and by denial of access to research material for researchers unwilling
    to sign contractual agreements with the developers, which confer unacceptable control over publication to the
    proprietary interests.
    The joint statement developed and signed by over 300 independent researchers, and reproduced and published
    below, does not assert that GMOs are unsafe or safe. Rather, the statement concludes that the scarcity and
    contradictory nature of the scientific evidence published to date prevents conclusive claims of safety, or of lack of
    safety, of GMOs. Claims of consensus on the safety of GMOs are not supported by an objective analysis of the
    refereed literature.

    • Dominick Dickerson

      The ensser document no more invalidates the consensus than similar documents asserting the anthropogenic climate change is real or that the earth is 6000 years old. The consensus is not determined by who has a bigger list of scientists, it’s determined by the scientific findings as presented and shared through the scientific literature.

      • patzagame

        Couldn’t agree with you more about the scientific findings as long as they are NOT industry controlled. http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/02/01/scientific-consensus-gmo-safety-statement-published-peer-reviewed-journal/#.VRsb5-FNKp8

        • Dominick Dickerson

          Like a disinformation site maintained/started by Henry Rowlands constitutes a valid source. He’s only the same webmaster behind a half dozen other antigmo sites.

          The overwhelming majority of all studies done indicate that genetic engineering is no more harmful than other plant breeding methods. A collection of 300 names on a list doesn’t invalidate that and neither does a handful of poor studies amongst thousands.

        • FosterBoondoggle

          ENSSER’s list is the equivalent of the creationist list of scientists who support creationism. See the NCSE’s “Project Steve” response here: http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve. (H/T to mem_somerville for the pointer.)

  • https://plus.google.com/u/0/101557612307322870761/posts John Scott

    This is the same way the tobacco industry kept us on that hamster wheel for decades. Monsanto uses the same tactic of doubt and denial and has actually employed the very same lawyers and PR firms as big tobacco. The way around this is for labeling advocates to cease any discussion about the science and simply insist that labeling be done no matter what the science says.

    We are told there is no value in labeling products that are safe. Every consumer has the right to decide what information has value to them just like you can’t label something kosher and then put pork in it even though pork is safe. Consumers need to organize and force GMO labeling by brute force and simply ignore corporate protests based on their own paid studies. You won’t get through to them no matter what you say so it’s time to stop talking and start doing.

    • Jackson

      What information are you hoping to gain by a label that says “may contain GMOs”? You gain no information about pesticides used, no information about safety or health risks, no information about nutritional content.

      Is there a labeling proposal out there that exists that you think is a good model for a national labeling requirement?

      • Debbie Owen

        A label that says may contain GMOs is all I need to know so that I won’t buy the products.

        • Jackson

          OK, but what information about the product are you really gaining? Do you want mandatory labeling just to satisfy your idiosyncratic boycott wishes? What about anyone else’s boycott wishes, do they get to mandate labeling for whatever they want too?

          Just buy food with an organic or GMO-free label, that way you can assure you aren’t buying any GMO products, problem solved.

          • Debbie Owen

            The label provides information to let me know that the food product is GMO. I don’t want food products that come from crops that have been genetically engineered to withstand repeated applications of herbicide (roundup ready) and/or to produce it’s own pesticide. Those poisons don’t wash off. Also not all organic or non-GMO products are labeled as such so I have to assume it is GMO and that limits my choices. Just label our food and give everyone the freedom of an informed choice.

          • Jackson

            I don’t want food products that come from crops that have been genetically engineered to withstand repeated applications of herbicide (roundup ready) and/or to produce it’s own pesticide.

            A “may contain GMO” label will not give you this information. Is there a model for a labeling law that you think would be particularly good that I could look at?

            There is no evidence that crops produced with John Deere tractors are any more harmful to your health than any other tractors, should we demand mandatory labeling because I have the right to make an informed choice about which tractor was used in production of my food?

          • Debbie Owen

            Don’t you know that most GMO crops are genetically engineered to produce it’s own pesticide or to be roundup ready? If the label says GMO or may contain GMOs, it is all I need to see to avoid the product. By the way, if you are silly enough to want tractors labeled, then you can make that your cause. Good luck to you. LOL

          • Jackson

            HT and Bt crops where some of the most successful early products using genetic engineering in food crops. There were also virus resistant fruits. Not all GMOs currently have to do with pesticides, and there is an even greater diversity of GMO crops in development. I want a labeling system that will be relevant for more than a few months before it needs to be scrapped and re-written.

          • Debbie Owen

            Do you know of any bills that didn’t need to be rewritten? If you are waiting for perfection it will never get done. It is very common for bills to be amended as the need arises. As I already said, most GMO crops are genetically engineered to be roundup ready and/or to produce it’s own insecticide and I choose to say no to GMO. Just label it organic, non-GMO or GMO.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Your options aren’t limited you have 2 god damn options Debbie.

            You have the freedom of informed choice. Either get informed that genetic engineering isn’t dangerous or choose to continue supporting organic.

            Not rocket science here debsters…

          • Debbie Owen

            Swearing already? No need for you to get so upset just because some of us care about what we eat, maybe when you grow up you will too. Now maybe you should reread my comment since you don’t seem to be able to comprehend. If everything isn’t labeled then it has to be assumed to be GMO and that does limit my choices. Did you get that this time? I doubt it, obviously you are against people having the freedom of an INFORMED choice.

          • FosterBoondoggle

            You have the option already to buy either organic certified or “Non-GMO Project” certified products, if this is such a concern to you. Just as an observant Jew can buy products with a Kosher certification. None of these are government mandated (though the organic seal has some USDA oversight). Why is this voluntary regime – where you simply avoid food not certified to your satisfaction – not sufficient to meet your needs?

          • Debbie Owen

            I already explained that, I don’t think I can explain it any simpler. Why don’t you think that GMOs shouldn’t be labeled? Are you against people having the freedom to have an informed choice or do you just think GMO companies shouldn’t be held accountable for their own products? I believe one of the reasons GMO companies spend millions of dollars fighting labeling laws is because they don’t want to be held accountable. Labels would make it easier for any ill effects from GMOs to be tracked back to them. Notice how organic and non-GMO are proud to label their products voluntarily, but GMO spends a fortune to hide what is in their products. That is very telling, obviously GMO companies know their products aren’t safe.

          • FosterBoondoggle

            What you’re saying is that you have some belief that’s different from what the FDA and USDA think about these products, and you demand a law — beyond the voluntary regime that already exists — to satisfy your beliefs. The question that those who disagree with your belief have is: why are your beliefs special, say, compared to the beliefs of observant Jews or Muslims? If I’m concerned about the phase of the moon during the wheat harvest, does that mean the government should require a label on bread to accommodate my desire? Why is your desire worthy of a law, while mine isn’t?

          • Debbie Owen

            LOL, yes I have a belief that is different from the FDA and USDA and their revolving doors with the GMO industries. No one else should be able to decide for us what we should know and what we shouldn’t know about the food we pay for and feed to our families. By the way, it isn’t just my beliefs, most polls show that at least 90% of us want GMOs labeled. Can you show me any polls that show how many people want to know about the phase of the moon during wheat harvest? Never mind, I don’t really care about that, but if that is your cause then good luck with that.

          • FosterBoondoggle

            Ah, so it’s all about the voice of the people! So by that standard, if the people demand to know the ethnicity of their produce pickers, should that go on the label?

            In case you’re interested, polls show that the same fraction of people want to know if there’s DNA in their food. See here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/01/17/over-80-percent-of-americans-support-mandatory-labels-on-foods-containing-dna. And, oddly enough, even in relatively liberal states like Oregon, Washington and California, when people have actually voted on labeling proposals, they’ve been defeated. So that 90% support doesn’t seem to work out at the ballot box.

          • Debbie Owen

            LOL! Do you know how stupid that is?! Guess what, I want all food with DNA to be labeled because all food has DNA! Just label it organic, non-GMO, or GMO!

          • FosterBoondoggle

            All food doesn’t have DNA. There’s none in sugar or oil. But I agree with your second sentence: it *is* stupid to base a demand for labeling on a poll.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            We already have the freedom to choose food options that don’t contain products derived from genetically engineered crops.

            By definition Organic or NonGMO project food exclude genetically engineered crops as sources for they’re ingredients. Therefore foods labeled as such don’t contain “gmo” ingredients.

            That’s just the way it is. Sorry.

  • patzagame

    “So when environmental and food consumer groups pressure
    restaurant chains to not use the new federally approved, genetically
    engineered apples and potatoes because they are “risky,” how should
    reporters respond?”….Well,reporters should respond by agreeing. iRNA apples & potatoes ARE risky,and where the heck are the feeding trials?At least with the current transgenic GMO crops,they can point to the so called 2000+ pseudo studies that they base their false claims of safety consensus on. Health studies are on GMO crops are seriously lacking and the federal government should never have approved these apple and potatoes!

    • Jackson

      What is it about RNAi technology that you find to be so risky?

      • patzagame

        are you daft?

        • Jackson

          are you daft?

          I don’t think so. The production of siRNAs to regulate gene expression is a naturally occurring phenomenon that happens in plants all the time. When you eat any kind of plant, you are eating a boat-load of siRNAs.

          Differential gene expression happens as a rule just from natural variation. One piece of cabbage that you are eating will have genes expressed at different levels than another piece of cabbage without any intervention from humans.

          What specifically is it about transgenically adding siRNAs that you find to be more risky than any other way to breed new varieties of crops?

          • patzagame

            feeding studies,duh, to show safety!

          • Jackson

            I’m not against feeding studies, although they are not my area of expertise. More study and more testing I think is almost always a good thing. That’s not really a reason why you think RNAi is particularly dangerous. You can breed differences in siRNA expression resulting in the same plant by selection breeding or mutagenesis, and absolutely no tests need to be done on those. Why do you think they are safer?

          • patzagame

            so you think silencing of genes is a perfectly acceptably attribute to add to the food supply? You sound like you are on crack!

          • Jackson

            so you think silencing of genes is a perfectly acceptably attribute to add to the food supply?

            Yes. Genes are silenced all the time. You cannot find a plant anywhere in the world who has genes that aren’t being down-regulated by siRNA. This is akin to saying “You want plants with DNA in them? EWWW!”

            You sound like you are on crack!

            I’m not on crack, but that is exactly what someone on crack would say.

          • patzagame

            You are a fool!

          • patzagame
          • Nom de Plume

            Not only are “silenced genes” a natural part of our food supply, but they’re a part of you and me, too. We all have dominate and recessive genes. This is why brown-eyed parents can have a blue-eyed child if there are blue-eyed ancestors on both sides of the family.

          • Debbie Owen

            I don’t think anyone is talking about naturally silenced genes here, I would be concerned about what is done in a lab. What about GMO arctic apples for instance? I read that the silenced gene that would stop the apples from turning brown also helps the apple to resist pests. That would mean that those apples would probably be applied with even more harmful synthetic pesticides. Without proper testing there isn’t any way to know of all the effects silencing even just one gene may cause and unfortunately these apples haven’t been properly tested before being approved. I myself would prefer an apple to turn brown anyway because that helps to determine freshness.

          • Jackson

            This is more double standards. Why is gene silencing through siRNA done through inserting a transgene more dangerous that silencing through siRNA done through traditional breeding?

            You want the one done through inserting a transgene to be tested beyond the extensive testing that is already done, while the one done through traditional breeding is not tested at all.

          • Debbie Owen

            What extensive testing? Where are the tests on the arctic apples?

          • Jackson

            There has been extensive studies on the safety of eating siRNAs. Do you have a reply to your double standards? Why do you think siRNA through transgenics should be held to a different standard than siRNA through selective breeding or mutagenesis?

          • Debbie Owen

            So you couldn’t find any tests on the arctic apples either!

          • Jackson

            You can correct me if I’m wrong, but i think they were approved on the basis of substantial equivalence.

            Why do you refuse to address your double standard? Do you even recognize that you are using one?

          • Dominick Dickerson

            She denies substantial equivalence and all the proteomic and metabolomic analyses in the world wouldn’t satisfy her.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            There is no substantial equivalence when a simple lab test will show us the GMOs are different from the conventional.

            That is a FACT that the corrupt GMO pesticide industry disinformation operatives always try and spin away.

          • Jackson

            There is no substantial equivalence when a simple lab test will show us the GMOs are different from the conventional.

            A simple lab test will also tell you that the conventional is deferent from the conventional. I don’t think anyone, even evil corporations, are trying to deny that there are genetic differences between different varieties, whether those varieties were produced through GE or through breeding.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            You can spin it any way you like but it doesn’t change the FACT that GMOS and conventional crops are NOT EQUIVALENT and the science proves that to be the TRUTH.

          • Jackson

            By your criteria conventional crops are also not equivalent to conventional crops. You are talking nonsense, but you did use lots of CAPS LOCK, so you must be right.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Wrong. Conventional crops and GMO crops can be identified through a simple lab test that proves they are not equivalent.

            You can try and spin the FACTS away but it doesn’t change the truth.

          • Jackson

            What do you mean here by equivalent? You can differentiate a GMO variety from a different variety produced by breeding, yes. You can also differentiate one variety produced by breeding and a different variety also produced by breeding.

            Your whole point seems to be that lab tests can differentiate between varieties. Of course they can. So what?

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            We are not discussing tradition varieties created by selective breeding. We are talking about untested GMO varieties that have been genetically engineered with DNA from another life form.

            The GMO pesticide industry disinformation echo chamber spends a lot of effort to try and deceive the public around the facts on this, just as you are doing here.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Show us the studies that invalidate substantial equivalence then.

            Show us you understand that substantial doesn’t mean identical.

            Intraspecific diversity can account for more differences in proteomic and metabolomic content when comparing transgenic organisms to their isogenic counterparts. Different varieties of the same species can vary substantially in their expression of metabolites and proteins. By your standards, as Jackson said , crops grown in one field on certain soils will be found to be different than those same variety planted on an different soil in a different field.

            Or are you a fundamentalist about this and don’t accept the idea that crops can exhibit a range of protein and metabolite expression not only between different varieties, but individuals of any given variety. And using these kind of compositional analysis genetically engineered crops are within the range of natural variation. The only difference is the insertion of an absolutely minuscule sequence of genes that’s is intensively studied before release. That’s why its “substantial” rather then “absolute” equivalence.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Substantially equivalents is a legal fiction created to allow GMOs to be released without further safety testing.

            It is a lie, and the fact that a simple lab test will show them to be different proves it.

            This legal fiction is how they justify hiding glyphosate/Roundup soaked GMOs in our food supply.

            Much of the rest of the world knows the truth and informs their people if there are GMOs in the food they feed their families, but here in the US the Monsanto controlled and corrupted agencies charged with protecting our health are doing the opposite.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            That’s nice, dear…

          • patzagame

            The only difference is the insertion of an absolutely minuscule sequence of genes???LOL,April fools right?Slick Dominick,should be your real name. here is some suggested reading for you http://natureinstitute.org/txt/ch/nontarget.php

          • Sally Blackmore

            You are right on that — that’s because why you are sitting here splitting hairs and trying to confuse the issue — we know that this is a dangerous technology. Notice anything different about our world in the last 20 years? Oh let’s see — where you hardly knew a person with cancer — there are now entire hospitals for children with cancer. You people really make me sick — and I pity the family that calls you a cherished member of it, because you clearly do not have their best interests at heart.

          • Jackson

            Notice anything different about our world in the last 20 years? Oh let’s see — where you hardly knew a person with cancer — there are now entire hospitals for children with cancer.

            You must be talking about your personal circle of friends, because the total cancer incidence has been trending steadily down in the last 20 years. As tragic as it is, children got cancer in the 80s, too.

            You people really make me sick — and I pity the family that calls you a cherished member of it, because you clearly do not have their best interests at heart.

            You seem like a nice person.

          • Debbie Owen

            I guess you are admitting that there wasn’t any independent testing. Substantial equivalence is a ridiculous excuse to not properly test GMO food products before releasing them into our food supply. Also I have no idea what double standard you are talking about, i just want food labeled organic, GMO, or non-GMO. There is no double standard there, label all the food!

          • Jackson

            You are demanding not only extensive testing by the company producing the product, but by “independent” sources. (If a government agency did testing that confirmed the safety of a GMO product, they would no doubt be dismissed as not “independent”)

            Yet, you demand ZERO testing for crops that do the exact same thing, but are created through selective breeding or mutagenesis. Not only do you not demand testing by the government for new crops produced this way, you don’t even care if the company producing it labels it. That is the double standard.

            Let’s say your dream comes true and a big “GMO” label shows up on all corn that uses transgenics to produce HT, and this crashes the product and nobody buys it so it goes off the market. Guess what? Monsanto will just put out their corn that has glyphosate resistance developed through selective breeding, and the only thing you have accomplished is the collateral damage of all the potentially beneficial GMOs.

          • hyperzombie

            Monsanto will just put out their corn that has glyphosate resistance developed through selective breeding, and the only thing you have accomplished is the collateral damage of all the potentially beneficial GMOs.

            And they would do it, I know that they have Non GMO Roundup ready canola, I seen some field tests a few years ago.

          • Debbie Owen

            Of course I want testing from independent sources. Studies can be skewed in favor of the companies that would profit. As far as glyphosate goes, this is the beginning of the end now that the WHO has declared it as a possible carcinogen.

          • Jackson

            As far as glyphosate goes, this is the beginning of the end now that the WHO has declared it as a possible carcinogen.

            Is that why sunlight, gasoline, and coffee no longer exist?

          • Debbie Owen

            Do you know how pathetic that sounds? It’s like you are saying “There are other carcinogens, so let’s add some more to our food”. First of all, we don’t drink gasoline and many people have learned to restrict their exposure to sunlight and how much coffee they drink. But many people aren’t aware that glyphosate is in many food products and that includes baby food! Do you ever get tired of advocating the unnecessary poisoning of our food?

          • hyperzombie

            HO has declared it as a possible carcinogen.

            Right up there with Orange Oil and coconut.

          • Frank Cannon
          • FosterBoondoggle

            This is what your WHO says about GMOs:

            “GM foods on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.”

            http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/np5/en/

          • Debbie Owen

            And like I already said, the WHO has declared glyphosate as a probable carcinogen. That declaration was made after the statement you quoted was made so your info is outdated. It also means that GMO roundup ready crops are also probable carcinogens.

          • TZ

            ruralvalues.org/images/_World_Health_Org_-_20_FAQ_about_GMO.pdf

            http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/

            Q20. What is WHO doing to improve the evaluation of GM foods?WHO will take an active role in relation to GM foods, primarily for two reasons:(1) on the grounds that public health could benefit enormously from the potential of biotechnology, for example, from an increase in the nutrient content of foods, decreased allergenicity and more efficient food production; and (2) based on the need to examine the potential negative effects on human health of the consumption of food produced through genetic modification, also at the global level. It is clear that modern technologies must be thoroughly evaluated if they are to constitute a true improvement in the way food is produced. Such evaluations must be holistic and all-inclusive, and cannot stop at the previously separated, non-coherent systems of evaluation focusing solely on human health or environmental effects in isolation.Work is therefore under way in WHO to present a broader view of the evaluation of GM foods in order to enable the consideration of other important factors. This more holistic evaluation of GM organisms and GM products will consider not only safety but also food security, social and ethical aspects, access and capacity building. International work in this new direction presupposes the involvement of other key international organizations in this area. As a first step, the WHO Executive Board will discuss the content of a WHO report covering this subject in January 2003. The report is being developed in collaboration with other key organizations, notably FAO and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). It is hoped that this report could form the basis for a future initiative towards a more systematic, coordinated, multi-organizational and international evaluation of certain GM foods.

            HERE IS THE REPORT THE WHO promised made after the statement biotech tries to use as WHO’s official stance on GMOs…

            International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) co-sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO), The World Bank, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and the United Nations Educational and Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) report involving 900 participants and 110 countries from all regions of the world : The safety of GMO foods and feed is controversial due to limited available data, particularly for long-term nutritional consumption and chronic exposure. Food safety is a major issue in the GMO debate. Potential concerns include alteration in nutritional quality of foods, toxicity, antibiotic resistance, and allergenicity from consuming GM foods. The concepts and techniques used for evaluating food and feed safety have been outlined (WHO, 2005b), but the approval process of GM crops is considered inadequate (Spök et al., 2004). Under current practice, data are provided by the companies owning the genetic materials, making independent verification difficult or impossible. Recently, the data for regulatory approval of a new Bt-maize variety (Mon863) was challenged. Significant effects have been found on a number of measured parameters and a call has been made for more research to establish their safety” “There is little consensus among the findings from the assessments of economic and environmental impacts of GMOs.” – Global Report http://www.unep.org/dewa/Assessments/Ecosystems/IAASTD/tabid/105853/Default.aspx/ “In regions or countries that choose to produce GMOs, regulation should be based on the precautionary principle and the right of consumers to have an informed choice, for example through labeling” –

          • Sally Blackmore

            Our dream will come true when this dangerous technology has been wiped from existence. Until then, I want to know what’s in everything I buy. Truth in labeling. Ever heard of it?

          • Jackson

            A big fat “GMO” label on the front of your food will tell you just about nothing. But you don’t really care about that, do you? Your only goal is to vanquish your ideological enemy, the dreaded GMO!

          • FosterBoondoggle

            They were tested for 18 years, between the time when the company developed them and they were approved by the FDA in the US. 18 years of tests. I know it’s easier to rant, but it’s also not that hard to look these things up.

          • Debbie Owen

            I couldn’t find any independent testing, but if it isn’t hard for you then please post a link.

          • Sally Blackmore

            Show me the tests performed by an independent source. Until then, please stop talking.

          • FosterBoondoggle

            If that’s your standard, you’re going to have to give up virtually all prescription drugs. As with pharmaceuticals — and almost everything else that’s subject to regulatory approval — the FDA or EPA specifies what tests they want to see done, and what standards the laboratory has to follow, then the producer pays for those tests. It wasn’t just filling out paperwork that made it take 18 years for Okanagan to get their apples OK’d. Incidentally, what test do you know of that’s been passed by grapefruit, broccoli or granny smith apples? Other than the usual one of eating them and not getting sick? (Though I have when I ate too many apples.)

            Arctic apples, once they’re on the market, will almost certainly be identified because the whole point is that they provide a consumer benefit. So you’re at zero risk of buying them accidentally. If you think that the government is irretrievably corrupt, so that their regulatory approval based on tests they’ve specified means nothing, then by all means live your life accordingly. No one stops you. But you seem to be demanding that the entire agricultural system follow you down that rabbit hole.

            BTW, to say “please stop talking” on a comment board is kind of like standing in a public space and loudly yelling “LALALA” because you don’t like a conversation that two other people are having nearby.

          • NoToGMOs

            18 years of tests to prove they don’t negatively affect human and animal health? Interesting! Where can I find these tests?

          • FosterBoondoggle

            They test them for concerns that the science-minded EPA and FDA think are relevant. They don’t test them to see if they affect your chakra, your chi or your harmonic aura. Any new non-GM apple variety can be introduced with no tests whatsoever. Even though it’s genetically distinct from and contains different proteins and DNA than any other apple ever grown. A GM variety has to be demonstrated to be equivalent to its non-GM relatives in terms of any attributes that the regulators think matter. Like I said, if you think they’re all in cahoots with Monsanto, top to bottom, you don’t have to touch them. No one is going to force feed you Arctic apples and they’ll be clearly identified when they hit the market.

            Since you evidently think they *are* harmful, in spite of the conclusions of almost all the studies to the contrary, perhaps you can point to that evidence (other than the ravings of Jeffrey Smith or the statistical fishing expedition of Seralini), including its replication by other investigators and its publication in a top-shelf science journal.

            I’m betting that you can’t, and that your demand for studies is really a red herring. You just don’t want GMOs, period, regardless of evidence. Just as observant Jews don’t want to eat pork or shellfish, and ultra-orthodox ones don’t want to sit next to a woman to whom they’re not related. That’s your privilege. But don’t keep trying to dress up your religious beliefs in factual clothing. It doesn’t work.

          • NoToGMOs

            Amazing. What a mind-boggling rant in response to a simple request to links to the 18 years of ‘testing’ that you yourself claimed were done!

            “They test them for concerns that the science-minded EPA and FDA think are relevant.”

            What concerns would that be exactly?

            *Hopefully this time you won’t launch into another 3-paragraph rant about everything under the sun from Monsanto to observant Jews!

          • FosterBoondoggle

            If that’s all you wanted, it was already delivered by Nom de Plume a while ago in the thread: https://disqus.com/by/disqus_k5tFnkzu5V/

            Here’s part of it at one of the FDA links: “The consultation process includes a review of information provided by a company about the nature of the molecular changes and the nutritional composition of the food compared to traditionally bred varieties,” said Dennis Keefe, Ph.D., director of the FDA’s Office of Food Additive Safety. “This case-by-case safety evaluation ensures that food safety issues are resolved prior to commercial distribution.””

          • patzagame

            LOL,ROTFLMAO.

          • Nom de Plume

            Took me less than fifteen minutes to find them. Just saying . . .

          • Debbie Owen

            You haven’t found any independent tests.

          • Nom de Plume

            So it’s your contention that the FDA, the USDA and Health Canada are part of a great conspiracy and are not independent?

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            She didn’t say that. She said you haven’t found any independent tests.

            All you have to do is post the tests, this has nothing to do with Debbie. It is about your failing to support your bogus claims with any facts..

          • Nom de Plume

            Here’s the FDA assessment.

            http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/Biotechnology/Submissions/ucm436163.htm

            http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm439121.htm

            Here’s an environmental assessment:

            http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/10_16101p_dea.pdf

            Here’s a plant risk assessment that contradicts your claim that they are more subject to pests than regular apples.

            http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/10_16101p_dpra.pdf

            Here’s the Health Canada assessment:
            http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/gmf-agm/appro/arcapp-arcpom-eng.php

          • Sally Blackmore

            “Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food.
            Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its
            safety is the FDA’s job.” — and the FDA turns around and relies on the industry to provide the studies.

            We all feel much better now.

          • Jackson

            I actually have no problem with a massive increase in funding for the FDA, EPA, and USDA, with part or most of that massive gain put towards testing the safety and ecological impact of new crops, including crops created through selective breeding, GE, or mutagenesis. I suppose that would just be seen as a big subsidy for those evil profit making corporations, though.

            I have never seen anyone from Greenpeace advocating for that.

          • Nom de Plume

            Let’s say a farmer finds an apple tree in his orchard where the fruit doesn’t turn brown. Should the fruit be tested for safety prior to marketing? Does it matter that this was a “natural” mutation or hybrid, and Arctic Apples ™ took genes from other apples?

            You made the distinction “synthetic” pesticide, as though this was different from “natural” pesticide. Are you implying that “natural” is somehow better?

          • patzagame

            no,not the same,sorry

          • Sally Blackmore

            I’m really sorry – but artificially silencing anything is a risky proposition — especially without adequate testing. It’s like taking apart a car, putting it back together and realizing you forgot to put a part back in. “That’s ok!” you say. “We probably don’t need it!”. Are you going to let your child drive that car? I don’t think so. And for you idiots to be promoting something without adequate non-industry testing is criminal in my book.

          • Jackson

            I’m willing to listen. Explain why “artificially” silencing a gene through RNAi is more dangerous than breeding for a gene to be silenced through RNAi.

            Analogies are supposed to make a complicated concept simpler, but I have even less of an idea what you are trying to say with your car analogy. Try explaining it without the analogy first.

          • Debbie Owen

            Great analogy!

          • patzagame

            I’ll post it again because you didn’t read it the first time.

          • Jackson

            To what does “it” refer? This response of yours is rather cryptic.

          • patzagame
          • patzagame

            Transgenic crops
            have the additional problem of expressing these transgenes in an artificial
            manner, interfering with the natural processes of the fluid genome and in
            different species. Further, as in the case of the GM wheat DIR093 generated to have altered starch
            content, the RNA sequences that have been inserted are present with both the
            matching and inverted repeat on the same strand, which does not occur naturally
            (see [32] for summary of miRNA GM crop risks). So for regulators to
            assert that as we eat RNAs in food all the time that RNAs are all safe to eat
            is both ignorant and misleading. This could be said of proteins, but prions
            disease has proved that we cannot make such assumptions, especially if it is
            out of its natural context or not naturally occurring. Sequence-independent
            effects are also common sources of toxicity for oligonucleotide therapeutics,
            which is length-dependent with increasing toxicity at lengths about 30
            nucleotides, well below the length of the dsRNA DvSnf7 (240 nucleotides
            long) contained in MON87411 and DR093 [33, 34].

          • Jackson

            Where is this copy and pasted from (without attribution, I might add)? It seems pretty high up on the crank scale.

            Transgenic crops have the additional problem of expressing these transgenes in an artificial manner

            These transgenes are expressed in a very natural manner. I don’t even know what it means to express a gene in an artificial manner. You hook up any promoter you want to an inverted repeat of your target sequence in order to create a hairpin that will be degraded and bind to your target. Biology and gene expression happen this way in nature, too.

            interfering with the natural processes of the fluid genome and in different species.

            “The natural processes of the fluid genome”? That doesn’t mean anything. It sounds like something generated by the Deepak Chopra phrase generator.

            the RNA sequences that have been inserted are present with both the
            matching and inverted repeat on the same strand, which does not occur naturally
            (see [32] for summary of miRNA GM crop risks).

            Yes, you use inverted repeats because this gives you complimentary sequences on either end of your single strand of RNA, causing it to fold over to bind to itself creating a hairpin loop of double stranded RNA. What happens to double stranded RNA in a cell? It is degraded. You now have little bits of small RNAs that guide Argonaute to sequence specific mRNAs and chops those suckers up, thus preventing translation into proteins. This is the basis for RNAi, and it is something we copied from nature. Nature came up with the idea, we just copied it. But even if it didn’t happen in nature, why is it a bad thing for us to do things that aren’t in nature, did you pick the computer you are typing on off the computer tree in your yard?

            So for regulators to assert that as we eat RNAs in food all the time that RNAs are all safe to eat is both ignorant and misleading.

            No, it’s not. We do eat RNA all the time. We do eat small RNAs all the time, from natural plants. All plants produce small RNAs to regulate gene expression, and you eat them everyday. Again, this is akin to saying “EWWW, I don’t want any DNA in my food!!”

            Sequence-independent
            effects are also common sources of toxicity for oligonucleotide therapeutics, which is length-dependent with increasing toxicity at lengths about 30 nucleotides, well below the length of the dsRNA

            This is the first I’ve heard of oligonucleotide therapeutics. It sounds interesting, so thanks for bringing it to my attention. It looks like they are injecting concentrated small RNAs modified specifically to penetrate cell membranes directly into the blood stream. I suggest that instead of doing that with your papaya, you instead eat it.

    • Dominick Dickerson

      http://informahealthcare.com/doi/full/10.3109/10408444.2013.842955

      Actually an increasing number to toxicologist don’t find that feeding studies of any length are particularly useful for safety assessments. Well conducted and scientifically valid feeding studies have never told scientists anything more than they already determine using other toxicology testing already done. You should read that paper it’s actually quite illuminating.

      • Saijanai

        3 ouf 4 of the authors of that study are are scientific advisors for ILSI. Kate Walker has an ILSI email account.

        Anything coming out of ILSI is “best practices” from the food industry’s point of view.

        See:

        https://books.google.com/books?id=3c5N3_2LawQC&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=nathaniel+johnson+ILSI&source=bl&ots=jlCjvODOgc&sig=lQo9EMJzwyZxs0Yn36HM5TCb-UM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=M_wbVeHKJ4K2oQTlloLoAQ&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=ILSI&f=false

        The WHO won’t even allow the ILSI to participate in decisions on food and water standards (page 127) because it is so biased.

        • Dominick Dickerson

          Doesn’t change the premise or evidence presented in the paper.

          Feeding studies tell you nothing other toxicology assessments couldn’t already tell you regarding safety.

          If the point of feeding studies is to tease out possible negative effects of consuming genetically engineered crops on the basis that whole foods will contain unknown proteins wouldn’t it be better to just assess it through proteomic analysis? Even if a whole food feeding study were to show some kind of deleterious effect, it wouldn’t be able to assert what was causing it. Which protein and what concentrations? The authors put it quite nicely that whole food feeding studies can quickly become hypothesis-less fishing trips, looking for differences with establishing specific causes.

          I think that whole food feeding studies aren’t going to go away anytime soon, because a public that doesn’t understand the limitations of such studies demands them and for ever increasing lengths of time as the inky acceptable “evidence”. I suspect those calling the shots within the opposition to genetic engineering understand this quite well, and leverage an uninformed public opinion to try to direct science policy.

          • Sally Blackmore

            So do you feed GM foods to your family and friends? You have NO concerns whatsoever? Well good for you. Those of us who know the truth will always disagree with you.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Absolutely none.

            I guess since this is America you’re free to disagree and buy USDA organic and NonGMO labeled products that already exist in the market. Since both of those preclude genetic engineering. Looks like you have an informed choice right there …

          • Saijanai

            I’m in favor of proteomic studies of whole food, not just GMOs. The impact of novel foods on indigenous populations is well-documented. The Tohono O’Odom Nation has the highest incidence of Type II diabetes in teh world, and is headed to even higher levels, at least partly due to the dietary changes the tribe has undergone in the past 50 years.

            Presenting relatively isolated groups of people with new food choices without first checking to see what impact those choices will have can lead to disaster. The tribal website predicts that the Type II diabetes rate for children born this century will be SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT by the time they reach adulthood.

            Though.. come to think of it, proteome testing wouldn’t reveal that issue…

            And given that pleiotropic changes are not predictable and not necessarily detectable via proteomic analysis, such analysis won’t be able to replace live animal studies anyway.

            By the way, the food industry completely denounces the utility of using proteomic testing for GMOs or any other food.

  • TZ

    GMOs cannot be GRAS (generally recognized as safe) the proper testing was not done and the testing that was showed GMOs caused harm to humans and animals! The FDA is a FRAUD!
    Please watch video clip….the fact IS GMOs are on the market ILLEGALLY! They cannot be considered GRAS!

    Please pass this info around…. The FDA IGNORED their own scientists warnings….they did NOT test GMOs properly…GMOs are on the market illegally!

    http://3dd.816.myftpupload.com/24-fda-documents/
    http://3dd.816.myftpupload.com/financial-times-article/
    http://3dd.816.myftpupload.com/article-on-illegality-of-fda/

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/jane-goodall-steven-druker-expose-us-government-fraud-gmos.html

    This is a must watch… Steven Druker says every GMO food is on the market illegally

    The Des Moines Register presented a free panel discussion Tuesday afternoon on the pros and cons of genetically modified crops http://archive.courier-journal.com/VideoNetwork/2744565232001/Steven-Druker-say-every-GMO-food-is-on-the-market-illegally

    • Buddy199

      Billions of people have been consuming GMO’s for 20 years. That’s a pretty large sample for a real world trial. Wouldn’t ill effects be very apparent now if they were actually dangerous?

      • Debbie Owen

        Look around you. Our country has become much more sick since GMOs were snuck into our food supply in 1996 and I don’t believe that is just a coincidence. Recently the World Health Organization said that glyphosate probably causes cancer, that means that GMO roundup ready crops probably cause cancer. Also there have been many people who have eliminated GMOs (the best they can without labels) from their diets and their symptoms from allergies or GI disorders have greatly diminished or even disappear. Everyone can see this for themselves, just give up GMOs and see how much better you feel.

        • Jackson

          Look around you. Our country has become much more sick since GMOs were snuck into our food supply in 1996 and I don’t believe that is just a coincidence.

          Anecdotally I have not found this to be true. What data are you looking at that says this?

        • FosterBoondoggle

          Autism is caused by eating organic food:

          http://io9.com/on-correlation-causation-and-the-real-cause-of-auti-1494972271

          Cancer mortality has fallen since the introduction of GMOs into food:

          http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5939a6.htm

          • Debbie Owen

            Correlation doesn’t mean causation and not all cancer rates have gone down. I would choose organic over GMO any day!

          • FosterBoondoggle

            Debbie Owen at 11 am: “Our country has become much more sick since GMOs were snuck into our food supply in 1996 and I don’t believe that is just a coincidence.”

            Debbie Owen at noon: “Correlation doesn’t mean causation”

            “I would choose organic over GMO any day!”: Lucky for you, you can do exactly that already. But, not satisfied with the market meeting your needs, you want laws! Laws, dammit! Because opinions! And feelings!

          • Debbie Owen

            You need to read more of my comments so you can quote me some more. Here is another one for you, “Label GMOs! Be for the freedom of choice and the freedom of a free market!”

          • hyperzombie

            the freedom of a free market!

            LOL, so forcing people to label stuff that they don’t want to, = “freedom”.

          • Debbie Owen

            Why don’t you ask yourself why they don’t want to label? Perhaps GMO companies know their products are harmful and that is why they spend millions fighting labeling laws. They sure aren’t proud of their products or they wouldn’t fight to keep them hidden.

          • hyperzombie

            Why don’t you ask yourself why they don’t want to label?

            I know why, it is because of folks like you. People that dont understand farming or plant breeding…

            They sure aren’t proud of their products or they wouldn’t fight to keep them hidden.

            They label them all, you just don’t see the labels, because you don’t grow these crops.

          • Debbie Owen

            So you believe that only farmers should see the labels? Do you think people are too stupid to decide for themselves?

          • hyperzombie

            Yep, cause you only want to see one type of label. There are many other crops that are herbicide tolerant and not GMO.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Then do so. You have the option.

            See no need to label, you already can make informed choices.

          • Debbie Owen

            I think everyone gets it, you don’t want anyone to have the freedom of knowing what is in the food they pay for and feed to their families. Very unethical.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Stop side stepping, you want the choice to avoid it. You have that choice.

            They have the freedom to get an education that includes a foundation in biology and science.

            Denoting something as being a “gmo” implicitly defines it by the breeding method used to create it Debbie. It’s not an ingredient. You have a disconnect on that. American already know whats in their food. What they don’t know is the process used by the plant breeder to create the varieties. And that’s not something that’s covered by mandatory labeling in this country.

            If you want inane labeling laws move to Europe.

          • Debbie Owen

            “Americans already know what’s in their food.”?! Seriously? Maybe you don’t live in America, but many Americans do not know what is in their food! That is why labeling is so important. It is really sad that anyone would think that Europe can know what is in their food, but Americans are not worthy! Shame on you! I love the USA and many of us will continue to fight for the freedom to know what is in our food, fighting for freedoms is part of our history and we will win this fight as well. Again, genetic modification is a breeding method, an organism is not!

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Again your wrong, genetic engineering is a breeding method, all plant breeding involves modifying the genomes of plants.

            I do live in America, shame on you for advocating for policies that dont have a sound foundation in science and evidence.

            Your free to buy voluntarily labeled foods that fit into your ideology. Do so

          • Debbie Owen

            Free to buy only voluntarily labeled food isn’t good enough! All food should be labeled, that is fair for everyone! Who are you or people like you to decide what other people should know or should not know about the food we pay for and feed to our families? Shame on you again for thinking that people are too stupid to decide for themselves! This is supposed to be a free country and we will win the freedom to know what is in our food in spite of people like you who are against this freedom! Anti-freedom=anti-American!

          • Jackson

            Blegh, at this point you are not even having a discussion, just shouting slogans. Mindless cheerleading.

          • Debbie Owen

            Thank you for admitting defeat! Label GMOs!

          • hyperzombie

            Anti-freedom=anti-American!

            You are the one that is anti freedom, forced labeling is the opposite of freedom, and you are free to buy whatever foods you want, or none at all.

          • Debbie Owen

            LOL, your argument is so weak. If they don’t want to label then they shouldn’t sell the product. People should have the right to know what they are paying for. Vote for the freedom of an informed choice, label GMOs!

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Never underestimate the power of the mob, when whipped into a frenzy by a couple demagogues. But I hope beyond hope that pompeo’s legislation goes through.

            If you want information then we should label all plant breeding methods, because they all pose the same amount of risk. And conferring information about risks is the purpose of mandatory labeling. So let’s have a “mutation induced by radiation label” for all crops bred using radiation or “chemically induce polyploidy” or “protoplast fusion” or “Underwent Chromosomal Rearrangement via meiosis and fertilization”.

            It should be all or nothing if were gonna play fair here.

          • hyperzombie

            There is nothing “IN” it to label….Corn is corn.

          • Debbie Owen

            No it isn’t. You have already been told before the difference, GMO Bt corn has pesticide IN every kernel and organic does not.

          • Jackson

            Organic doesn’t have Bt in every kernel, but it does have pesticides in every kernel. Further, seeing “GMO” on some corn won’t tell you anything at all about what pesticides were or were not used on that corn. If it is pesticides you are worried about, then advocate for a pesticide label, not a GMO label.

          • Debbie Owen

            As far as I’m concerned GMO=harmful pesticides/herbicides. Just label GMOs!

          • hyperzombie

            Nope, you are just Wrong.

          • Debbie Owen

            You are just a hyperzombie.

          • Jackson

            As far as I’m concerned GMO=harmful pesticides/herbicides.

            This perfectly illustrates the labeling debate. You are spectacularly ignorant, and you demand that your ignorance be enshrined in law.

          • Debbie Owen

            I demand mandatory labeling for organic, non-GMO and GMO because it is fair for everyone. I don’t care if you think I’m ignorant and if you think that the people in the USA are too stupid to have their food labeled. Everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether you agree with them or not!

          • hyperzombie

            Everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether you agree with them or not!

            They can now, that is why there is Organic and Non GMO labels.

          • Debbie Owen

            Not all organic and non-GMO is labeled as such so we have to assume it is GMO. That limits our choices so the fair thing is to label it all!

          • hyperzombie

            So you want a Bt label, not a GMO label, right? Or do you want a sprayed with pesticide label?

          • Skeptologist

            Correlation doesn’t mean causation

            Wow. Talk about blatant hypocrisy.

          • Debbie Owen

            LOL!

          • Skeptologist

            Yeah, I laughed out loud too when I read your comment.

          • Debbie Owen

            Why is that? Correlation may not mean causation, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t at least be looked at and considered, but you have to use some common sense as well. For instance, organic food has been eaten for thousands of years so it isn’t likely to be the cause of autism. On the other hand, what we can actually see with our own eyes is much more likely. I have seen it with my own eyes, GMO food products make people sick and when they stop eating it they get better. Nobody has to take my word for it, they can try it for themselves.

            But go ahead and look at the silly chart on the link he provided. The increased rise in autism happened only after GMOs were snuck into our food supply in 1996. So if what we eat can cause autism, what would be more the more likely cause? From the chart (even though it doesn’t say GMO) and looking at the years with the dramatic rise of autism, it would seem that GMO is the likely cause.

        • Buddy199

          Of course eating fresh unprocessed food will make you feel better, even fresh GMO produce from the local farmers market. If solid scientific proof actually existed that GMO foods cause widespread ill health why would the FDA, NIH and CDC sit on that information? Let me guess, it has something to do with Corporations.

      • TZ

        They are! Increases in auto immune, allergies, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, Autism, behavior disorders, intestinal issues, liver and kidney disease, diabetes and much more!

  • Buddy199

    I am convinced that cameras can steal my soul. There are a number of scientists on the internet who agree but who have been persecuted for their views by the Photo Industry. Dr. Oz even did a show about this. After I and many others protested my local Whole Foods now is a “Camera Safe” zone. I demand that cameras carry warning labels in the interest of consumer awareness. It’s the reasonable thing to do.

    • Skeptologist

      The sarcasm is strong with you :)

      • Buddy199

        Sarcasm? You’re obviously a tool of Big Photo, sir.

  • Deborah Bogan

    One differences between GMO and climate change

    GMO

    is a process used by large corporations to increase crop yield so they can increase their profits which they do not want us to know about so that we can make our own decisions about the food we eat and the processes used.

    Climate Change

    is an affect caused by large corporations using their oil based products and discouraging natural energy sources or it is a natural process that we have very little control over but want to spend lots of money on and if it is a natural process and we mess with it, we may actually cause more problems playing God and thinking we can stop it.

    Asking for information so that we can make a decision is not the same as questioning the cause of something.

    • Deborah Bogan

      For the record, I have a feeling some GMO will be safe to eat and some will not. We should be allowed to make that decision about each and every piece of food that goes into our mouths. We should be allowed to know what research is done and who funded it. Whether some pompous know it all believes we are too stupid to figure it out ourselves or not. Sense the large corporations that create GMO products don’t want me to know then I will use the opposite labeling to make my decision. If there is not a “not GMO” label on it, I wont eat it.

      • Buddy199

        You must be a real buzz kill at dinner parties.

        • Deborah Bogan

          Why? I don’t usually talk about this at dinner parties and I certainly don’t care what someone serves, if that is your point.

          • hyperzombie

            I certainly don’t care what someone serves

            Hmmm, so when eating at a diner party it is OK to consume GMOs? Or do you ask the host for proof of non GMO ingredients?
            Do you not eat cheese (90%+ made with GMO rennet), drink wine (GMO yeasts) at these dinner parties?

          • Buddy199

            Well played, sir!

          • Deborah Bogan

            You are asking about me, and I can only answer about myself. I usually eat what I am served. I don’t believe a small amount from time to time will have a huge impact on my health but I could be wrong. It is a risk I don’t mind taking. I am not sure what that has to do with any of this. Side point of distraction meant to devalue my point. So are you the drunken guy who throws up on other people?

          • hyperzombie

            I don’t believe a small amount from time to time will have a huge impact on my health but I could be wrong.

            Nope, there is no evidence of harm from any GMO, but there is evidence of harm with “Organic”.

            I am not sure what that has to do with any of this.

            Just trying to inform you that there are GMOs in wine and cheese, or products made from them.

            So are you the drunken guy who throws up on other people?

            Hey, that happened only once, and I was sick, not that drunk..

          • Deborah Bogan

            What is the evidence of harm with “Organic”. Glad to know my assumptions about your inability to handle alcohol is incorrect.

          • hyperzombie

            Wash your organic foods in Alcohol, it will do little to prevent E Coli poisoning, but at least you will have a buzz on.

            http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/10/e-coli-bean-sprouts-blamed

        • Deborah Bogan

          You know you make no sense, right?

      • FosterBoondoggle

        Well, you’ve got what you want then. There are already several certifications that give you what you want, including the Non-GMO Project and Organic. So what’s the problem? Just that you can’t find GMO-free versions of everything you want? Well, I can’t find Kosher pork, though I’m very fond of carnitas. Bummer.

        • hyperzombie

          Well, I can’t find Kosher pork, though I’m very fond of carnitas. Bummer.

          And there is no Halal pork either,, what kind of religion bans bacon, that is just mean. Oh, and there is no Kosher lobster, either.

          • Debbie Owen

            Silly pro-GMOers, you can’t come up with one good reason not to label GMOs and this is all you’ve got.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            We’ve come up several. You find them unsatisfactory because you don’t understand the comparison of risks across different breeding practices.

          • Debbie Owen

            No one is talking about labeling breeding practices and no, you haven’t come up with one good reason to keep people in the dark about food they pay for and feed to their families.

          • Skeptologist

            Details. The problem with all proposed examples of mandatory labeling laws is in the details. For example, what specifically constitutes a GMO? Can you tell me? Is it any plant containing transgenic DNA (i.e. DNA from another species)? If so, what about cis-genics? Is it any plant produced using Agrobacterium transformation or particle bombardment? If so, what about plants that result from cross-breeding between GE plants and non-engineered? Are the progeny GM? If so, what about plants that are produced using genome editing techniques and then backcrossed with wild-type plants to the point that there is no genetic evidence of the modification any more? Just a small deletion that is indistinguishable from natural mutation. How would we enforce labeling in cases like this?

            Labeling seems basic and simple until you get into the details.

          • Debbie Owen

            I thought the proposed GMO labeling laws, while not perfect, were a great start. Bills can be amended as the need arises, in fact I can’t think of any bill that hasn’t been. The thing to remember is that farmers already know what kind of crops they are growing and manufacturers already know what is in their products. In fact many of the major food manufacturers are already labeling GMOs for other countries, so yes, it would be simple for them to do it for us as well.

          • Skeptologist

            I’m not saying it can’t be done. Almost anything can be done. It’s a question of if it can be done well and whether doing it provides any actual benefit. What benefit is there to labeling GMOs?

          • Dominick Dickerson

            You are talking about labeling a plant breeding method. That you can not understand points to some critical deficiencies in your knowledge of this issue. And clinging to populism won’t shield you from criticism.

          • Debbie Owen

            Genetic modification is a plant breeding method, an organism is not.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Wrong yet again Debbie. All plant breeding is modification of genomes.

            Its genetic engineering that you don’t like.

            If our labeling only covers organisms derived from that breeding process how are you not labeling based on part of the breeding process.

          • Debbie Owen

            Who said our labeling would only cover genetically engineered organisms? Label it all organic, non-GMO or GMO.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            If by some misfortune mandatory labeling is adopted and millions of people continue to eat genetically engineered food and have no higher incidences of disease. Same as they do now. Would you change your mind then? Or how about when it’s shown there’s no greater chance of illness when consuming “gmo” vs. NonGMO/ organic. ( as an aside wasn’t it wonderful to see all the organic spinach products recalled because of listeria contamination, talk about a documented health risk) . Where is your threshold for satisfactory proof? Do you have one?

            And please tell me you understand that 2 of your labels directly relate to a plant breeding method and the third is a marketing term and doesn’t reflect a compositional difference in the product but a management practice.
            And understand that two of those labels already exist and are voluntary. And if the new legislation goes in you’ll have a third option as voluntary. I’m pretty sure that means if you really wanted a label you’ll probably end up settling for that because that means you’ll be able to avoid foods derived from genetically engineered crops by using up to three voluntary labels for you and those who agree with you, all without compelling the food industry to label information that confers no substantive information about the product other than the particularities of the plant breeding practice employed to induce the variation.

            And avoid clutching your pearls too firmly as you exclaim “states rights” . Because a patchwork of labels would indeed affect interstate commerce. I vaguely recall learning about enumerated powers of the federal government in high school and I seem to recall that’s federal jurisdiction. Maybe that applies here, maybe it doesn’t . But let’s see what the courts say after Vermont deals with its lawsuit and reconvene then.

          • Loren Eaton

            Because the rules set forth by the regulatory agencies (like them or not) indicate that labeling is not required. The labeling you’re proposing does not tell what the ingredient is, rather how it got there. You’re not entitled to that. If you WANT GMO free, go buy it. But you get to pay for the labeling and more importantly the cost of the testing involved in proving that the label is truthful.

          • Debbie Owen

            The rules will change eventually, like it or not, and everyone will have the freedom of an informed choice just like they have in so many other countries. The costs for labeling GMOs would be very minimal, don’t fall for the lies from the GMO biotech companies and their supporters. Farmers already know what they are growing and manufacturers already know what is in their products so there wouldn’t have to be any more testing than there already is. If crops get mixed the label can say “May contain GMOs”, very simple. Manufacturers change their packaging frequently anyway, we see it all the time on the grocery store shelves and it doesn’t raise the price of food. Besides, manufacturers are already labeling GMOs for other countries, they can do it for us as well.

          • Jason

            You have missed the point entirely. These crops and foods are not yours. They are owned by someone else. That someone else decides what they want to put on their label. If you want to mandate that they put something specific on that label then it’s up to YOU do demonstrate why it’s necessary.

            It doesn’t make one ounce of difference if there’s a good reason to or not to. It’s not your product to decide.

          • Debbie Owen

            Everyone should have the right to know what they are PAYING for with their hard earned money. Suppose you were going to purchase a car but you weren’t allowed to know what kind it was because the owner didn’t want to disclose that information? I doubt many people would buy it without knowing anything about it. Unfortunately most people don’t have a choice when it comes to food, unless they are able to grow their own, they have to buy it. Most people will agree that everyone should have the right to know what they are paying for so your argument is very weak.

          • Jason

            You were on the right track for a second… If the product owner isn’t giving you the information you want, buy someone else’s product. Don’t try to pretend that people don’t have choices. You know that’s B.S. If there are people that want to avoid these products, options exist that allow them to do just that. And if those options aren’t good enough, they are free to do any amount of research on the products they wish.

            IT DOES NOT GIVE THEM THE RIGHT TO DICTATE WHAT OTHERS MUST SAY ABOUT THEIR PRODUCTS!

            You may consider my argument weak, but the court system of our country doesn’t. That’s why there is a threshold on what the govt must prove in order to lawfully infringe on the rights of others.

          • hyperzombie

            Silly anti-GMOers, you already have 2 labels, do you not know how to read?

        • Deborah Bogan

          I didn’t ask for anything, I was stating that the comparison between the two was lacking. But I suppose you missed that first part. I was actually clarify that I don’t care. I only eat what works for me. I could care less what you label what. Your less than insightful reply assumes things that is never stated by me. In my opinion all the people that want labels are looking in the wrong direction, they should find their own solutions, since they can not get what they want from the government. Their mistake is thinking that because the government wont give them labels that they are powerless and have no alternative.

          • FosterBoondoggle

            I’ve read what you said about three times now and still can’t figure out what other points you think you’ve made. You expressed some feelings of generalized anxiety about GMO safety and a desire to avoid them, and I replied that your desire can be met right now, thanks to the organic and non-GMO labels.

          • Deborah Bogan

            So you are just repeating what I was already saying but in a condescending way? What’s the point?

            “Well, you’ve got what you want then. (Reaffirming what I am saying) There are already several certifications that give you what you want, including the Non-GMO Project and Organic. (Expanding on what I am saying.) So what’s the problem? (I never said there was a problem except in my original statement about the main point of the article being a comparison between GMO’s and Global Warming.) Just that you can’t find GMO-free versions of everything you want? (I never even said anything close to this, not only is it wrong but snarky) Well, I can’t find Kosher pork, though I’m very fond of carnitas. Bummer.” (I really could care less if you can find a kosher anything, but stuff that is Kosher is label so you wouldn’t being eating it by mistake so what is your point?)

    • Jason

      There’s nothing wrong with asking for more information. But nobody has the right to demand somebody comply with their request. Only the congress (with oversight from the courts) have ability to infringe on the rights of others. Courts hold them to the standard of demonstration a public need for this information. That’s exactly the reason that these labels are currently voluntary.

  • Skeptologist

    I think the real motivation behind labeling campaigns is a desire to ban genetic engineering all together, either through legislation or by driving them from the marketplace. This isn’t about information, it’s about creating doubt, uncertainty and fear among the public. This is about ideology. If this were simply a question of consumer choice, the issue could easily be settled by consumers buying products that voluntarily label themselves as being non-GMO or certified organic.

    I find it patently absurd that anyone who is strongly in favour of labeling is not familiar with the voluntary labels that already exist. I also find it hard to believe that anyone who spends any amount of time arguing in favour of labels is not aware of the major GM crops, and thus can identify products that are likely to contain ingredients derived from GM crops. The tools to identify food products containing GM ingredients are readily available, which begs the question, what’s the intent of mandatory labels? I think it’s try to scare people. I can imagine many people wondering, if something is safe why should it need to be labeled.

    • Debbie Owen

      Why are you so afraid of labels? Don’t you realize that many people still don’t know what GMOs are? Those of us who argue for labels are not only doing it for ourselves and those we love, we are also doing it for the unsuspecting public who have no idea what they are eating. Also, why should busy mothers have to spend a lot of time doing research before they go shopping just to find out if something MIGHT be GMO? It should be as simple as looking at a label. In the USA we have always had to fight for freedoms, now we have to fight for the freedom to know what is in our food and one day we will win that right. Don’t be afraid of a simple label, providing that information so that everyone can make an informed choice is a good thing.

      • Skeptologist

        I’m not afraid of labels. I have no horse in this race. I work with GM plants, but not in an agricultural setting. I’m simply not a fan of pointless bureaucracy.

        Don’t you realize that many people still don’t know what GMOs are?

        Oh I’m well aware of that. With all due respect, I think I’m talking to one such person.

        • Deborah Bogan

          But just because you feel it is pointless, why do they have to live by your standards?

          • Skeptologist

            No one does. If people want to buy non-GM products, they can look for products carrying voluntary labels that identify themselves as such.

            Why should you’re standards (i.e. mandatory labels) be forced on others?

          • Deborah Bogan

            How is a label forcing standards on anyone? How do the non GMO products afford such a costly process of labeling their foods?

          • Jackson

            How do the non GMO products afford such a costly process of labeling their foods?

            They charge more for said food. Or they label things as GMO-free that there is no GE variety on the market anyways.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            They charge a premium on their goods, and those people who want it can pay the extra cost.

            In mandatory labeling you’re shirking that cost and putting it on people who don’t want to pay for it. If its so important to you, buy products voluntarily labeled that align with your beliefs.

      • Nom de Plume

        Do you support labeling hybrids as well as GMOs? Should Red Delicious apples be labeled “This fruit is a mutation from previous apple varieties?”

        • Deborah Bogan

          A hybrid is not quite the same. But if a fruit started merging with other animals and plants that it didn’t normally, then it would be nice to know. An apple has been tested by nature. It’s new offshoot hasn’t been. Still our choice not someone else. But in a way this happens by default. The Red delicious apple gets new name. It is no longer Red Delicious. But I still don’t understand why it matters to anyone who does care. Why do you care if it is labeled?

          • Nom de Plume

            Because the point about labels is disingenuous, as illustrated by your response. In wanting to label GMO products as such but not label hybrids, mutations, and clones, you are treating GMO labels as warnings.

            You give hybrids as pass as “nature tested.” Yet nature doesn’t test for toxicity to humans. How do you know hybrids are safe? And what of mutations? You didn’t know that Red Delicious is a genetic mutation? Where was the testing, other than biting into it and finding it sweet?

            Be consistent. If we’re going to label GMO in the name of customer information, we need to label everything. This includes “This product is a clone” on every bag of potatoes.

          • Deborah Bogan

            Are you saying if everything is label you would be ok with it, because truthfully all food are hybrids, it just a matter of when it converted from its previous state. So you could have a label stating natural selection, cross bred hybrids, clones and Lab modified.

          • hyperzombie

            natural selection

            I dont think that there is any foods that would fall into this category. Some wild fish and nuts, maybe.

            cross bred hybrids

            Diploids, triploids, or hexaploids? Or just F1 hybrids?

            clones

            The fruit growers would hate this one. Apples, bananas, papayas, grapes, and dozens of other crops are made this way.

            Lab modified

            Wow, the organic growers would hate this one, over 50000 varieties of crops were made this way.

            This labeling system would never work, most varieties of modern crops, have been through all of these processes.

          • Nom de Plume

            This is why this old country boy find agriculture, silviaculture, and common gardening so fascinating. A surprising number of crops are genetically unstable, which is why if you plant apple seeds you tend to wind up with “spitters,” (which doesn’t seem to be a big issue if cider is the goal). Potatoes are another genetically unstable crop, which is why you cut the tuber into “eyes” instead of sowing potato seeds. Then so many variety of fruits are grafted to the root stock of related species for increased vigor. Then there are some citrus trees that put up three sprouts, and one or two are essentially clones while the other isn’t.

            “Lab Modified” raises all sorts of issues. A plant is hand pollinated in a green house to produce a hybrid. Does this count as lab modified?

          • hyperzombie

            Does this count as lab modified?

            And what about Atomic Gardens, they are outside, does it count as a lab?

          • Michael Phillips

            I’m a bit late to join, but your comment reminds me of grafting. Fruits derived from grafts are never labeled as such, but what could me more unnatural than grafting? Isn’t this what a ‘Frankenfood’ would really look like? Chopping up different species and forcing them to grow together? Yet the pro-labeling crowd sees nothing wrong with grafting, despite it being so obviously against ‘nature’s plan’. I know, I know, who is surprised by another example of pro-labeling hypocrisy…

          • Nom de Plume

            I have a strong tendency to apply the same sauce to goose and gander alike. If you’re going to call for labels for GMO and not for labels for hybrids, you’re not being consistent.

          • Skeptologist

            An apple has been tested by nature.

            No, it hasn’t. There is nothing “natural” about the apples you find in the grocery stores. Apple varieties are produced by grafting, which is definitely not a natural process.

          • Deborah Bogan

            Umm, that is true that cutting of the branch to grow on a different base is not a natural process but the apple that grows on the branch is. But common apples have been around a long time, they have been tested out long ago.

      • hyperzombie

        Also, why should busy mothers have to spend a lot of time doing research before they go shopping just to find out if something MIGHT be GMO?

        They dont have to do any research, just buy Organic or certified non GMO. Simple.

        • Deborah Bogan

          This I agree with. If the government does not want to provide you with the information then you can choose to not buy anything that isn’t label. It is a great solution. More and more companies are labeling when their products are not GMO, and do not have certain things in them that some people are concerned about.

        • JOHN BISCIT

          You are correct and that is why it is essential for products to be duly labeled

      • jfowler

        You are ignoring that 1) mandatory labels are not simple to implement (e.g., what is the threshold for getting the GMO label?) and 2) mandatory labels add cost & hassle (e.g., GMO vs non-GMO products will have to be sorted, stored, tracked differentially). Furthermore, adding a label that only says ‘GMO’ would provide little useful information, given that GE crops are associated with many different traits – some herbicide tolerant, some insect resistant, some disease resistant, some ‘biofortified’. For example, the new Innate potato has no connection to Roundup or Bt – it has no gene from another species – it merely reduces the action of two potato genes that (among other things) promote browning and bruising . A consumer who sees ‘GMO’ on such a potato is likely to be misled into thinking it has something to do with Roundup…

        It seems to me that there is some bar where a label has to convey useful information to the consumer, otherwise a mandatory imposition is unreasonable. We use scientific approaches to assess safety as the primary such bar. At this time, the clear consensus of scientific studies strongly supports the contention that GE crops are not less safe than conventional crops. – http://tinyurl.com/nbvdqjr. Furthermore, folks who really wish to can avoid GE ingredients NOW – choose organic or the voluntary non-GMO label – easy! No need to go through all the hassle that mandatory labeling would involve.

        As to why industry fights against mandatory labeling, the first paragraph provides (I think) adequate explanation. But to help illustrate this, let’s imagine a couple of comparisons, wherein there is a demand for mandatory, specialized labeling of organic produce. Labels could be proposed based on fears that have some grounding in actual observations: 1) an outbreak of E. coli contamination in Germany originated at an organic farm (22 dead, thousands sick), likely due to using manure as fertilizer – http://tinyurl.com/6l3xjzb. Can someone demand a “Manure-fertilized” label on all such organic produce? 2) Copper sulfate is used as a pesticide in organic farming – e.g. http://tinyurl.com/qg7dm7v . It is also potentially toxic to other organisms, and it could be a meaningful water pollutant – http://tinyurl.com/p6kzcgp . Can someone demand a “Copper sulfate treated” label? I strongly suspect that the organic food industry would be against such labels, and would use financial resources to try to defeat legislation imposing such labels.

        The arguments that I am making here are not difficult to understand; the information I am providing is easy to find and verify. What I do not understand is how someone can legitimately say (in effect) ‘just label it – it’s so easy!’, and be incredulous about why anyone (or any industry) would be against mandatory labeling.

      • Buddy199

        Labels warning of scientifically unsupported superstitious belief? Labels for food goblins?

        • Debbie Owen

          No, just a simple label that says “May Contain GMOs” will do.

          • hyperzombie

            I thought you wanted to know if GMOs are in the food? May contain doesn’t tell you that.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            That’s called a warning.

          • hyperzombie

            Well how can it be a warning if it only says “May contain” it might as well say “may contain Ghosts”

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Let’s see if I can explain this in your level of understanding-
            If a package says contents include highly explosive ingredients are you going to buy it and consume it?

          • JoeFarmer

            Let’s see.

            Highly explosive ingredients haven’t been available to people like you since Nixon was President. What’s your point?

          • JOHN BISCIT

            They are readily available. Please check your sources.

          • hyperzombie

            highly explosive ingredients

            Ummm, Like refried beans?
            Once again, ingredients must be labeled, but not plant breeding methods.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            No your comment is not valid. However, again if you are allergic to nuts and continue to ingest products that warn of possible nut ingredient inclusion, then you are asking for trouble. Please reconsider your decision.

          • JoeFarmer

            So, should we consider your misspelling of the common word, “BISCUIT” as some kind of warning when it comes to taking your posts seriously?

            Or is, “BISCIT” some kind of thing like “Limp Bizkit”?

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Let’s see if you have been around the block or not-
            If a package says may contain nuts, do you really think that a person who is allergic to nuts and will possibly die from eating the contents, is stupid enough to consume the package?
            Hellllooooo

          • hyperzombie

            I guess you know no one with a nut allergy, they HATE the may contain labels. They want to know if there are nuts or not.
            Plus, not one person has ever died from eating GMO plants, so this argument is just stupid.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            our argument only bears true only if there is no potential danger to GMO
            presence in food products. Since this has not been proven to be
            conclusively true your argument is null and void and your conclusion is
            unfortunately premature and without validity.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Let’s put it this way
            If you had a nut allergy and you continued to hold the belief that your post just contained you would be dead by now!

          • JOHN BISCIT

            The mandatory labeling of “may contain traces of nuts or been packaged where nuts have been packaged” has been mandated by the insurance industry. As soon as GMOs produce empirically proven evidence of demonstrative health risks the insurance industry will force legislators to label and/or ban GMO ingredients.

          • hyperzombie

            Funny, because GMO is just a trait not a variety. And it has been tested for over 20 years…. Massive Fail…

          • JOHN BISCIT

            “Funny, because GMO is just a trait not a variety”
            This is an oversimplification and not germain to the discussion
            “And it has been tested for over 20 years”
            And this proves…….what?

          • hyperzombie

            It is not an oversimplification, GMO is just a trait, it is not a plant variety or an ingredient.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Your response does nothing to justify your last and similar erroneous comments. You have simply reiterated what you have already tried to unsuccessfully prove.

          • hyperzombie

            Nothing that I have stated is wrong, you just `believe`it is.
            So once again, Organic uses more insecticides than conventional farmers, they are mostly non synthetic.
            Organic uses synthetic pesticides for some applications, like to treat bees and apples and stone fruits

            So once again stop believing in their marketing bullshit, save it for the crops.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Well all I can say is if you continue to argue the point on your own terms then you will always win. If you decide to be more open minded and have a better understanding of what the real organic movement is about you will change your decision making process.

          • hyperzombie

            I am open minded, and I have done the research. I know many current and former Òrganic farmers, my Uncle was one. My Grandfather grows organic and conventional field crops. I know how actual organic farming is done in the real world, you don’t.
            Your the one that needs to open your mind.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Let’s see if I can help clear up this business about organic farming-

            Organic farming used to mean no ‘cides of any sort. This is what I mean by organic. Not how some people use the term today. This has come about because of loss of profits from mainly large concerns in an effort to keep up with the huge surge of organic products in the market place. So large farming interests continued to use ‘cides but then were able to use the very vague USDA interpretation of “organic to apply to their operations.

            This is what many pro GMO proponents and pedlers of pesticides, etc. use in place of real organics. This enables you to make such outlandish comments as ” Organic uses more insecticides than conventional farmers”
            This comment is completely using the term “organic” out of context and incorrectly.

          • hyperzombie

            Organic farming used to mean no ‘cides of any sort.

            Nope, it arose in the 20s due to the irrational fear of modern technology. Natural ‘cides have always been used in Organic farming. You cant farm on a large scale without insect and weed control, or you can loose your entire crop.

            very vague USDA interpretation of “organic

            The US and canadian USDA “Organic” regulations were written by Organic farmers and their associates. The USDA just implemented them.

            real organics

            This is Certified USDA Organic, or are you trying to define a different farming method?
            Organic is a trademarked and legally defined term.
            If you don’t like the way the Organic industry is run start your own, call it pesticide free farming, or whatever, but you can’t call it Real Organic.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            “Natural ‘cides have always been used in Organic farming.”
            define natural cides please

            And please read the following carefully. It will help clear up your misunderstanding of the term

            To make the issue of real organics even more tricky, some accredited certifying agents along with the USDA, have come under fire for certifying products as organic, when really the product doesn’t always follow USDA standards for organic certification. For example, a recent Inspector General report found that the enforcement of federal laws governing organics is abysmal.Poor certification standards seriously confuses the organic issue, because if organic consumers and the organic industry can’t trust the USDA Organic Seal or certifying agents, it mucks up the integrity of the organic industry altogether. This is why organic integrity among organic growers and producers is so important.”

          • hyperzombie

            Natural ‘cides

            pesticides made by nature or exist in nature. Rotenone, nicotine sulphate, etc.

            There is no field testing, or random inspections in Organic, that is why cheating is rampant. Over 40% of Organic crops test positive for banned synthetic pesticides.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            If you manipulate nature it is no longer truly organic

          • hyperzombie

            Ummm, we would have no food if we didn’t manipulate nature. Most crops cant and dont live in nature, corn, wheat , rye barley, broccoli and hundreds of other foods.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            “Ummm, we would have no food if we didn’t manipulate nature. Most crops
            cant and dont live in nature, corn, wheat , rye barley, broccoli and
            hundreds of other foods.”
            This comment shows me why you are having difficulty with this topic.

            We have had successful crop harvests for thousands of years. However when the big agricultural concerns took over from the family farm they started to dictate what would be grown and shrunk the number of consumable crop types drastically. This introduced the risk of crop failure exponentially. The old farming system had a much larger diversity of various crops so that if one crop failed then there was no threat to the consumer- it’s just like why a mutual fund is safer than individual equities.

            So now we have to severely manipulate nature and devise new non-organic means to deal with the mistake. We can’t utilize nature anymore to assist since the task is too overwhelming. So we pollute more and more down an never-ending road which we will never escape and will only continue to worsen and become more and more expensive. Many more farmers now are actually trying out different organic options since they are more sustainable and less expensive than non organic. The incresed soil pollution resulkts also in less productive crops.

          • hyperzombie

            We have had successful crop harvests for thousands of years.

            I think you better look that up… Famines were widespread in the old days.

            dictate what would be grown and shrunk the number of consumable crop types drastically.

            There are far more consumable crops nowadays.

            This introduced the risk of crop failure exponentially.

            Harvest variability has never been better, ever.

            So we pollute more and more down an never-ending road

            Pollution is way down.

            Many more farmers now are actually trying out different organic options since they are more sustainable and less expensive than non organic.

            Organic is far more expensive to raise and has a lower yield.

            The incresed soil pollution resulkts also in less productive crops.

            Record corn and soy again this year…

          • JOHN BISCIT

            I can see by your comments that you do not research much.
            There is way too much erroneous information in your comments

          • hyperzombie

            What? put up or shut up. Everything I posted is easy to confirm. What have you got.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Well go ahead and confirm it.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            In the mean time :

            Crop genetic
            resources are being wiped out at the rate of 1-2% every year. Since the
            beginning of this century, about 75% of the genetic diversity of
            agricultural crops has been lost.

            Livestock breeds are disappearing at an annual rate of 5%, or 6 breeds per month. In Europe,
            half of all breeds of domestic animals that existed at the turn of the
            century have become extinct, and 43% of the remaining breeds are
            endangered.

            Tropical
            forests are falling at a rate of just under 1% per annum, or 29
            hectares per minute. From 1980-1990, this is equivalent to an area the
            size of Ecuador and Peru combined. Marine
            fisheries are collapsing. About 70% of the world’s conventional marine
            species are fully exploited, overexploited, depleted or in the process
            of recovering from overfishing. One-fifth of all freshwater fish are
            already extinct or endangered.”

          • JOHN BISCIT

            he greatest
            factor contributing to the loss of crop and livestock genetic diversity
            is the spread of industrial agriculture and the displacement of more
            diverse, traditional agricultural systems. Beginning in the 1960s and
            1970s, the Green Revolution introduced high-yielding varieties of rice
            and wheat to the developing world, replacing thousands of farmers’
            traditional crop varieties and their wild relatives on a massive scale.
            The same process continues today. New, uniform plant varieties are
            replacing farmer’s traditional varieties – and the traditional ones are
            becoming extinct. In the United States,
            more than 7000 apple varieties were grown in the last century. Today,
            over 85 percent of those varieties – more than 6000 – are extinct. Just
            two apple varieties account for more than 50% of the entire US crop. In the Philippines,
            where small farmers once cultivated thousands of traditional rice
            varieties, just two Green Revolution varieties occupied 98% of the
            entire rice growing area in the mid-1980s.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Industrial
            agriculture requires genetic uniformity. Vast areas are typically
            planted to a single, high-yielding variety or a handful of genetically
            similar cultivars using capital intensive inputs like irrigation,
            fertilizer and pesticides to maximize production. A uniform crop is a
            breeding ground for disaster because it is more vulnerable to epidemics
            of pests and diseases. The
            same is true with livestock genetic resources. The introduction of
            “modern” breeds that are selected solely for maximizing industrial
            production has displaced or diluted indigenous livestock breeds
            worldwide.

          • GMO Roberts

            What crops have we harvested for thousand of years that we didn’t manipulate? Certainly not corn, wheat or broccoli as man created all of these.

          • GMO Roberts

            By that reasoning planting seeds and caring for them in any way would be manipulating nature. Everyone on here knows you don’t know what you are talking about.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Look up the derfinition of manipulate

          • GMO Roberts

            You look it up and get back to us just, while you are at it look up and see what type of government we have “little” johnny.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            No sorry wrong meaning -try again

          • GMO Roberts

            You obviously can’t do it. Thanks for conceding.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Keep on trying Bobo

          • GMO Roberts

            I don’t have to since you conceded. So just tell us what kind of government we have.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Sorry wrong-Try again

          • GMO Roberts

            Only wrong to you “little” Johnny, why don’t you tell us what kind of government we have in the mean time.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Sorry innapropriate comment

          • GMO Roberts

            Yes your wife said minuscule is better than little, but I thought I would give you a break.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Sorry no one is familiar with your peculiar form of gibberish

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Nope wrong again- but keep on trying

          • GMO Roberts

            Sorry, but many others on this page have already confirmed, so just tell us what kind of government we have, “little” Johnny.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            No wrong again – try later on. good luck with your therapy

          • JOHN BISCIT

            “Over 40% of Organic crops test positive for banned synthetic pesticides.”
            And therefore are no longer organic

          • hyperzombie

            Sold as organic, so they are cheaters. Save money and just buy conventional./

          • JOHN BISCIT

            So then you agree with my point?

          • Benjamin Edge

            Not organic only if the use of those chemicals was intentional or could have been prevented with proper precautions.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            I wasn’t aware that Mother “nature” had a factory. Has she set up shop in all states? How many employees has she working for her?

          • hyperzombie

            This may be the dumbest comment ever.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            No I think that yous actually was the dumbest since there is no pesticide made by nature

          • hyperzombie

            Really, nicotine is not made by nature. ? Better tell that to all the smokers.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            You had better show us how Mother Nature processes tobacco plants into a pesticide

          • FaunaAndFlora

            Pyrethins are organic pesticides that come from certain species of chrysanthemums such as the painted daisy.

            Rotenone is an organic pesticide that comes from the roots and stems of certain legumes.

            Neem oil is an organic pesticide the comes from the neem tree.

          • hyperzombie

            The most powerful toxins known to man are all made by nature, Ricin, Botox.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            There are indeed powerful toxins IN nature but it takes a human to turn it into a pesticide used to kill.

          • Benjamin Edge

            Oh really? Try munching on some castorbeans or jimsonweed pods, or nightshade seeds and see what happens. Not really. They will kill you, and I don’t call that “processing.”

          • JOHN BISCIT

            “This is Certified USDA Organic, or are you trying to define a different farming method?”
            No I am trying to explain how the term organic has now lost its true meaning and has been so corrupted that it results in those like yourself in stating that it can be attacked as having the same negative qualities as non organic.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Organic farming does not use ‘cides

          • GMO Roberts

            LOL, you want someone to be opened minded? Come on now “little” johnny that is the pot calling the kettle black. Why don’t you just tell us what kind of government we have.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Sorry nothing important to respond to here

          • GMO Roberts

            Funny, you say that everytime you are losing an argument. Maybe you should just tell us what kind of government we have “little” johnny.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Sorry nothing important to respond to here again
            try again

          • GMO Roberts

            Funny how you say that every time you are losing an argument.

          • GMO Roberts

            You must forgive “little” johnny, he lives in a fantasy world.

          • JoeFarmer

            Ummm…because some people are actually allergic enough to certain kinds of nuts that exposure will induce anaphlylaxis.

            Whereas all GM crops have been tested for allergenicity, genius.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Your argument only bears true only if there is no potential danger to GMO presence in food products. Since this has not been proven to be conclusively true your argument is null and void and your conclusion is unfortunately premature and without validity.

          • JoeFarmer

            OK, so now we know you know nothing about science.

            You can’t prove anything safe. All you can do is to examine possible means of harm and test for them.

            So now you belong in the dustbin of Disqus posters who have no clue.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            No I am afraid your comment here can be considered valid in the context of the material presented.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            “You can’t prove anything safe. All you can do is to examine possible means of harm and test for them.”
            No this the wrong interpretation of what I said. Please read more carefully again.
            Thanks

          • GMO Roberts

            There are no allergies to gmos so your logic is wrong again.

          • Skeptologist

            What is the purpose of such a label? What is the justification for requiring it?

          • Sally Blackmore

            Because the majority of the American people have stated quite clearly that they want labels.

          • Skeptologist

            That doesn’t answer my question.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            What’s the reason behind the Surgeon general’s warning on tobacco products?

          • Skeptologist

            Apples and oranges. There is demonstrable evidence that smoking cigarettes is a health hazard. Not so for GMOs.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            That didn’t answer my question.

          • Skeptologist

            Yes, it does. Your question basically asked, if tobacco products are labelled then why aren’t GMOs? The answer is simple, because there is demonstrable evidence that smoking cigarettes is a health hazard. In stark contrast, there is no such evidence with regards to GMOs. Do you need me to explain it a third time? Or is twice sufficient?

          • JOHN BISCIT

            The point that you have missed again for the fourth time is that originally there was a belief that smoking was safe even with evidence to the contrary. Then through public pressure the labels were applied. This is the same process we are going through again with GMOs. There are still many people like yourself who refuse to admit to the danger from GMOs. Therefore more public pressure is rerquired to adequately protect the consumer from the threat. Labeling (and education) is the starting point.

          • Skeptologist

            Come on John, you just admitted the difference!

            “The point that you have missed again for the fourth time is that originally there was a belief that smoking was safe even with evidence to the contrary…”

            There is no reliable evidence of inherent risks associated with GMOs. THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE!

            There are still many people like yourself who refuse to admit to the danger from GMOs.

            What dangers? Show me the evidence you have of these dangers.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            The point that you have missed for the fifth time is that your statement:

            “There is no reliable evidence of inherent risks associated with GMOs”.

            is in error.

            “What dangers? Show me the evidence you have of these dangers.”
            Let’s not be coy. Just because you don’t want to admit to what you have read about the dangers inherient in GMOs doesn’t mean they don’t exist

          • Skeptologist

            So…I’m in error in saying there is no credible evidence, but you don’t actually have any examples to demonstrate that I am wrong? Did I get that right?

            Ok. Good. So you’re all talk.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Yes you are in error because you do not understand credible DNA generational time lines

          • Skeptologist

            “DNA generational time lines”

            You’re right. I don’t understand that term, because I think you made it up.

            Still waiting on examples of this “credible evidence” you claim exists…..

          • JOHN BISCIT

            And I am still waiting for yours.

          • Skeptologist

            Oh. I didn’t know you were waiting. Here are two review papers I found useful for tracking down research studies.

            An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research
            Critical Reviews in Biotechnology March 2014, Vol. 34, No. 1 , Pages 77-88
            http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07388551.2013.823595

            Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review
            Food and Chemical Toxicology Volume 50, Issues 3–4, March–April 2012, Pages 1134–1148
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399

            Then if you’re a fan of government research, here is a summary by the EU:
            http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf

            Happy reading!

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Sorry nothing relevent here

          • Skeptologist

            And there’s the hypocrisy! Thanks for playing “I Pretend to Understand Science” John. Better luck next time.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            And there’s the brainwashing from Monsanto- I am sorry you have lost the capacity to think for yourself

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Dare to publish a scientific study against Big Biotech, and Monsanto will defame and discredit you. For the first time, a Monsanto employee admits that there is an entire department within the corporation with the simple task of ‘discrediting’ and ‘debunking’ scientists who speak out against GMOs.

            The WHO recently classified glyphosate,
            a chemical in Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup, as carcinogenic – news that is really heating things up with biotech. So Monsanto has been demanding that the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) retract their statements about the poisons’s toxicity to human health.

            The company demands this even though a peer-reviewed study published in March of 2015 in the respected journal, The Lancet Oncology, conducted an analysis proving that glyphosate was indeed ‘probably carcinogenic.’

          • Skeptologist

            Nice plagiarism. You didn’t write that.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            I didn’t say I did

          • Skeptologist

            No citation. No mention of the source. Not even quotation marks around the text. Sure looks like that was the impression you were going for. What else do you expect people to think?

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Who died and left you editor?
            Don’t try to evade the topic

          • Skeptologist

            Don’t be a hypocrite John. I discussing the topic with you. I provided you with two review papers examining over 1700 studies on GMOs as well as a document by the EU looking at the very same topic. You completely dismissed them without any rationale. Some (I bet you) would call that evasion.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            I guess you have difficulty seing reality while still wearing your rose colored glasses.

          • Skeptologist

            Such a hypocrite. You accuse others of evading and that’s exactly what you’re doing here.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            “What else do you expect people to think?”
            What people?-you mean you?
            Do you think by changing course to such a petty complaint can help you evade the topic.
            Let’s try to stay on course.

          • Skeptologist

            Haha right of course! Let’s just ignore your plagiarism and move on. Gotta stay focused on quoting mining and stealing others thoughts.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Can’t respond to the truth?

          • GMO Roberts

            You know “little” johnny, you seem to be getting up set and that usually happens when people either don’t understand the information or just don’t know the facts. So my question to you “little” johnny is which one are you?

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Oh you are still here. I thought you told me last week you had been admitted to the institution and you wouldn’t be available after Friday

          • GMO Roberts

            You lie again, but what to expect from a husband whose wife left him for “Tool shopping”

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Could you translate please- I don’t believe the readers really understand what you are getting at
            Thanks

          • GMO Roberts

            Basically “your tool” is unsatisfactory to your wife so she is out shopping for a better one. Is that clear enough for you “little” Johnny?

          • JOHN BISCIT

            The staff here are still looking for an understanding of your comment. I guess they have had a number of complaints from readers you think you are a bit strange and incoherent in your posts. Hopefully you can work this problem out with your therapist.
            Good luck!

          • GMO Roberts

            Funny, your wife has a problem with your staff, but she has worked that out with tool shopping. Thanks for playing “little” Johnny. Now tell us what kind of government we have.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Translation please

          • GMO Roberts

            Only you need one “little” Johnny, why don’t you ask your wife for one IF she makes it home tonight.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Translation please again

          • GMO Roberts

            Sorry, but I don’t speak you type of idiot, but you could tell us what kind of government we have.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            No sign of intelligent life in this post. Sorry someone else please?

          • JOHN BISCIT

            The staff will be able to help you with your problem in good time. Just try to relax and let the therapist do his work. Try to be patient

          • GMO Roberts

            My wife takes care of my staff, while your wife takes care of many other staffs from what I hear “little” Johnny. So tel, us what kind of government we have.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            I think you sholuld have that fantasy analysed at the institution. I here they can work wonders for those of yopur affliction.

          • GMO Roberts

            Sorry you think it is a fabtasy that your wife takes all those staffs, I’m sure it hurts “little” johnnys feelings. Instead try to think of what type of government we have

          • JOHN BISCIT

            I think it’s good therapy to type out your fantasies here Bobo. Keep up the fight for your sanity

          • GMO Roberts

            My only fantasy is that liars like you would disappear from the world. But then who would we laugh at? Tell us “little” Johnny boy what type of government do we have.

          • Jason

            Debbie – why isn’t the current system adequate for allowing you & your family to avoid GMO foods? Why can’t busy mothers simply choose the organic or non-GMO options that already exist and are very clearly labelled? It already is as simple as looking at the label.

            Why do you assume that the “poor unsuspecting public” wants your help? I always find this to be such a snobbish opinion. It’s as if you are assuming that the only people who wouldn’t share your concern about this issue are the poor, uneducated masses who haven’t reached your level of enlightenment.

            Isn’t it far more likely that they just don’t share your opinions?

          • Debbie Owen

            According to several polls the majority of people want GMOs labeled, it is about the freedom of an informed choice. What I find to be a very snobbish opinion comes from those that want to keep the public in the dark. They believe that people are too stupid to decide for themselves and they think that others should decide for them what they are allowed to know about the food they pay for and consume. Not only snobbish, but unethical as well.

          • Jason

            “According to several polls the majority of people want GMOs labeled…”

            You’re not getting it. That doesn’t matter. Not in the least. It’s not “the majorities” products. These products are owned by other people. There are no laws that give “the majority” the right to tell them what they must print on it if you can’t demonstrate a public need. WANTING IT DOESNT MATTER! Regardless of how many want it. If you want it, you show that with your purchase decisions. Buy products that label the way you like.

            As is typical of the elitist mentality, you assumption is that others think the public too stupid… People that don’t agree must be being mislead by someone. When in reality, I think others understand the situation just fine and just don’t agree with you.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            By your reasoning there is no reason to label the amount of sugar or salt in foods either.
            Also your comments regarding the public need comes back to bite you since if the public decides not to buy a product because there is no GMO label information then the company loses sales and profits. It would be in the best interest of companies to label GMO ingredients.

          • GMO Roberts

            There is actually a medical reason to label sugar and salt content. You have nothing but your desire to label gmos. You do no better on here “little” johnny than on the other sites you troll.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            OMG you just can’t resist me GMO troll. Well I would like to say I am flattered but I guess some trolls just don’t get the hint.
            Since you are here late and need time to catch up on the subject, I will cut you some slack to talk to your other buddies here and get back to this subject when you are more prepared.

          • GMO Roberts

            Any second semester kindergarten kid would be prepared to take on your reasoning. Why don’t you catch up and tell all of us what kind of government we have here “little” johnny.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Sorry nothing important to respond to here

          • GMO Roberts

            Strange how you seem to do this in all the conversations you are losing. by the way “little” johnny what kind of government do we have?

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Still nothing important to respond to here

          • GMO Roberts

            Strange how you never add anything to the conversation. Is that because you don’t know what kind of government we have?

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Sorry Bobo again wrong response- keep trying

          • GMO Roberts

            Your typical comment when losing, if you thought otherwise you would expand on it, but you can’t. So just tell us what kind of government we have “little” Johnny.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Nothing of importance here to respond to

          • GMO Roberts

            Your typical comment when losing, if you thought otherwise you would tell us what kind of government we have.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Still, siorry Nothing of importance here to respond to

          • GMO Roberts

            Sorry, “little” Johnny, the word is sorry. Not siorry. Try to get the simple things right. No wonder you miss the big points like what kind of government we have.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            No wrong again- keep on trying and listen to what your therapist tells you to do.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            No wrong try again Bobo

          • GMO Roberts

            Don’t have to as others on this page have already confirmed.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Comfirmed what Bobo? Your affliction?

          • GMO Roberts

            That you don’t know what you are talking about, especially when it comes to what type of government we have.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            What was I talking about Bobo? Were you paying attention? Let’s do a test. And go!

          • GMO Roberts

            Sorry “little” Johnny but I don’t play your wierd games. Maybe that is why your wife goes out as well. Tell us “little” Johnny what kind of government we have.

          • Sally Blackmore

            How about — it’s what the public wants. That should be enough.

          • Jason

            So your opinion is that the pubic should be able to infringe on the rights of others just because they want to? That’s F’d up.

            The public demonstrates what it wants by exercising purchase decisions. Not by lobbying the govt to pass new laws.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Sorry buddy you are way off line and don’t understand business. It’s nothing to do with infringing on rights. The companies that do not respect the consumer choice will lose their business and lose profits. That’s business 101 my friend. That’s why even Monsanto is embarking on organic products because they know it is just a matter of time before the consumer turfs GMOs in favour of organic no pesticide

          • Jason

            You clearly dont understand the issue. Yes, business that don’t offer what their ciustomers want lose business BECAUSE customers choose other providers.

            Customers DO NOT let baby the govt. To pass a law forcing the company to provide what they want.

            We’re not talking abou a customer choice issue. We’re talking about a legal issue. And if you don’t think that forcing anything onto a label is an infringement on the product owners free speech rights, then I’d suggest you read even one product labelling court case.

            Monsanto isn’t embarking on anything organic. They make seeds… And they don’t grow them organically. Some seeds are GMOs. Some are not. They’re making what they’re customers are asking them to make.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            “Monsanto isn’t embarking on anything organic.”

            You need to buckle down on the facts -this came straight from Monsanto.

            “Yes, businesses that don’t offer what their customers want lose business BECAUSE customers choose other providers.”
            You have just proved what I and other pro GMO labeling have been saying- If companies don’t label and the consumer buys only unlabeled GMO products then the companies will be forced to change the laws FOR mandatory labeling.

          • Jason

            Perfect… Then we agree. No labelling law is needed because the free market will handle the situation just fine.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            No we don’t agree- you may not understand my point and do not follow the logical conclusion that the consumer pressure will bring.

          • JoeFarmer

            No one understands your point because you showed up with zero knowledge.

            Now go refill the slurpee machine and check the TP and towels in the John like you’re getting paid to do.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Translation please.

          • JoeFarmer

            With or without expletives?

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Hopefully, but not expectantly, with some intelligent thought.
            Thanks

          • JoeFarmer

            Lonely chatbot is lonely.

            I have better things to do.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Translation please

          • John Zohn

            Better things to do like be a troll on Disqus 18 hours a day?

          • Jason

            I understand exactly what consumer pressure will bring. I completely agree that consumer pressures will force business to react. That is why there is not need for a law to do the same thing.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            It is just a matter of time before complete GMO labeling is mandatory. What you seem to be missing is that this can happen in two ways.

            The consumer pressures the government to mandate labeling or the consumer does not buy the product because it has no label either way.
            Now let’s see what this means.
            In the first case the mandatory labeling comes into force and all is even across the board and there is no unfair treatment to the producer.
            In the second case the companies that have voluntarily decided to put the label “contains no GMO ingredients” will enjoy higher demand for their product and invariably enjoy higher profit margins because of increased sales.
            The companies that do not choose to label risk the consumer avoiding their products and will have their sales drop and lose potential profits.
            The latter is an unfair advantage to one manufacturer so what you propose will only hurt certain manufacturers which of course is not good for business.

          • Jason

            In the 2nd case, that’s the very definition of voluntary labelling. If that’s what the consumer wants, then fine. That’s how it should be. The govt need not get involved for this to happen.

            But your assumption about increased demand isn’t really playing out in the real world. Both Grape-Nuts and Cheerios changed their formulas and advertised the fact that they are now gmo free. Neither saw even a blip in their sales volume. Gen. Mills has already said that they will not be changing the formulas of any of their other cereals.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            “Both Grape-Nuts and Cheerios changed their formulas and advertised the
            fact that they are now gmo free. Neither saw even a blip in their sales
            volume.”
            First point -this should be your first clue that public pressure is working. Secondly, this is only one factor in sales and does not mean that this had any effect or not since it is combined with other variables.

          • Jason

            You’re not very good at this, are you? When did I say public pressure wouldn’t work? In fact, I recall saying that public pressure works so well that govt regulation isn’t needed. Get it?

          • JOHN BISCIT

            “When did I say public pressure wouldn’t work?”
            You’re mincing words-
            Lobbying = Public pressure = Mandatory labeling

          • Jason

            Nice try… Not only are they we 3 thing not the same, they’re not even close.

          • JoeFarmer

            But teh activists say teh Bt don’t work no more! So only the dumb farmers are buying it!

          • JOHN BISCIT

            translation please

          • Sally Blackmore

            Are you having a brain seizure?

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Yes, could you please translate this for people who are not familiar with the language of gibberish

          • Jason

            They sell seed. Seeds can be used for conventional or for organic farming. That has always been the case. It is nothing new and is not “embarking on organic”.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            I am sorry I can no longer respond until you have done more research from this company.

          • Jason

            Well, I compete against their seed brands in the marketplace and and I sell seed with their traits in them. I have done this for about 20 years plus I get an investors report from them annually. Is that enough research for you?

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Unfortunately since you can not prove this, your comment is unqualified and null and void

          • Jason

            I’d be happy to send you both, our seed catalog and last years investors report.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            I am afraid this would not serve the interest and intent of this board and would not serve to prove anything.

          • Jason

            Of course not. (Eye roll)

          • hyperzombie

            Really, If you would have purchased 10,000dollars of Monsanto stock in 96 when GMOs first came out it would be worth 190,000 dollars now. Where is the consumer backlash?

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Consumers and traders are two different entities and cannot be compared.

          • hyperzombie

            Sales have grown at over 6% per year on average..Monsantos consumers obviously love the products that they sell.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Unfortunately again there is no correlation between your assertion that just because sales have increased there is a “love” of Monsantos products. The patent process that Monsanto enjoys for the moment ensures sales regardless of whether the farmer wants it or not. Since the end consumer does not know which products have GMO ingredients included completely precludes whether they like them or not.
            For the last year sp has declined .63% This would not indicate a continuing successful company. Investors have soured amid future earnings estimates and targets are not looking favorable. Therefore Monsanto is looking at alternatives to a growing consumer backlash.

          • hyperzombie

            You people are funny, I mean you have no idea what you are talking about, yet claim to speak the truth..
            Look it is easy to stop buying seed from Monsanto, all you have to do is not buy seed from them. Buy seed anywhere else, there are dozens of other seed suppliers, it is not even difficult. Canceling a Netflix/ or cable Tv service is more difficult. The simple fact is if Monsanto or any other big Ag corp did not sell products that farmers wanted, they would be out of business fast.
            Monsanto has always sold Non GMO seed, in fact most GMO seed you can get with or without the the GMO traits. Monsanto also owns Siemens seed, the largest veggie seed company.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            “Canceling a Netflix/ or cable Tv service is more difficult.”
            It is important so that you do not lose credibility here that you refrain from proposing exaggerations

          • JOHN BISCIT

            The challenge to Roundup adds to a pile of other woes. Monsanto’s
            stock is roughly flat over the past 12 months)—lagging behind the
            S&P 500 index’s 11% rise and far underperforming its own 65%
            increase from 2009 to 2014. Back-to-back bumper harvests in 2013 and
            2014 in the U.S. have also been bad for Monsanto, as prices of corn and
            soybeans are down to their lowest level in years, prompting some farmers
            to choose cheaper seeds and skimp on other farm supplies. Currency
            shifts have also made seeds and chemicals more expensive for farmers
            abroad in agricultural countries including Brazil, analysts said.

            Monsanto
            and other biotech seed companies meanwhile have spent heavily to combat
            efforts to label foods made with genetically modified ingredients, part
            of a movement that has fueled sharp growth in sales of non-GMO food
            products. Meanwhile, farmers are battling hard-to-kill weeds and bugs
            that have evolved to resist sprays of glyphosate and the insect-killing proteins produced by some biotech crops.

          • Jason

            So?

          • JOHN BISCIT

            I am sorry you don’t understand the market. If you do some more research you will be in a better position to adequately respond to these facts.

          • Jason

            I think I understand completely. My question to you is, what do these market factors say about the longer term health of the company?

          • JOHN BISCIT

            You tell me – you are the expert on Monsanto.

          • Jason

            Exactly what I thought you’d say. Thanks for playing.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Wrong answer

          • hyperzombie

            favour of organic no pesticide

            Organic farmers use even MORE pesticides, they are just non synthetic for the most part. Not less harmful or more environmentally friendly.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            If they use pesticides they are not organic.

          • hyperzombie

            Wow, Jeepers, do you really believe that?

            Here is a link for common Organic pesticides and their effect on bees.

            http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/xerces-organic-approved-pesticides-factsheet.pdf

            And once you read this check out USDA approved Organic pesticides, they even allow some antibiotics and synthetics.

            Stop falling for their Marketing bullshit.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            “USDA approved Organic pesticides”
            This is an oxymoron

          • hyperzombie

            Yeah no kidding, Organic should have more accurate labels and advertising. “Organic Meat Free from antibiotics, but Apples and Stone fruit not so much” “Organic Honey Bees free from synthetic pesticides, well except for the 3 that are approved to treat bees”
            Total Hypocrisy.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            “Organic foods are foods produced by organic farming.
            While the standards differ worldwide, organic farming in general
            features cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster
            cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve
            biodiversity. Synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers are not allowed”

          • Sally Blackmore
          • hyperzombie

            Ha ha funny, any other crazy conspiracies that you want to share? Got any Chemtrail blogs, HAARP blogs, Crystals cure cancer blogs? Aids caused by aliens? Come on keep the nuttyness coming.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            You are actually one of those who is contributing to this “total hypocrisy” by trying to include non organic in true organic.

          • hyperzombie

            Nope, you just don’t understand the rules.

          • Jason

            “True organic”… I actually laughed out loud at that.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Was that a nervous laugh? Maybe you have difficulty at understanding what “true organic” means

          • hyperzombie

            I don’t think anyone knows what true organic means. 100% carbon?

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Just because you don’t understand what true organic means doesn’t mean that others don’t. Your first three words may be a clue.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Could you please so kind as to explain the “rules” and how they were developed and arrived at?
            Thanks

          • hyperzombie

            All the rules are on the USDA web site. The rules are all written by the NOSC a group of Organic growers, producers and wholesalers.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Just checking; although I really didn’t believe you knew.
            I find the pro GMO forces, whatever their agenda is don’t really understand what is actually taking place and are therefore not familiar with the rules and how they have been arrived at.
            Thanks

          • Sally Blackmore

            So you want to go on the attack of organic pesticides instead of addressing the issue?

          • GMO Roberts

            He won’t go there he trolls around sites spreading lies.

          • JoeFarmer

            Wow, you seem to be determined to prove you have know clue!

            Congrats, maybe you can get on the next season of the Kardashians as the guy-girl who washes the sheets and dishes on the private matters. Best of luck to you!

          • JOHN BISCIT

            No comment required here. I think the readers here can see your level of understanding.
            “you have know clue!”- translation please

          • GMO Roberts

            Seems like people on this site know you pretty good “little” johnny.

          • GMO Roberts

            There are a whole list of pesticides approved for organic production. By the way “little” johnny what type of government do we have?

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Organics = no ‘cides

          • Jason

            Silliness. Every single plant on earth produces lots of pesticides. Those can’t be used?

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Well now I can understand your failure to comprehend this issue

          • Jason

            Well, of course. LOL

          • GMO Roberts

            Yet another person that knows you are full of crap.. Strange how you have to defend yourself from everybody “little” johnny.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Nope wrong again Bobo. It’s only one

          • GMO Roberts

            Yes one at a time that knows you are an idiot, but a lot total.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            I was thinking that maybe you could have a shred of credibility but after this comment I must change my mind and reconsider based on your apparent lack of knowledge in this area.

          • Jason

            Not only does every plant produce its own pesticides but they’re just as likely to be dangerous as synthetics. Virtually all pesticides you consume are 100% natural.

            http://www.pnas.org/content/87/19/7777.full.pdf

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Well OK maybe you are right – I think I heard not too long ago of a fatal lettuce poisoning. Plus there was the horrible toxic cherry plague in the early 90s. Don’t quote me on this though.

          • Jason

            Now who’s showing their lack of knowledge? There’s no “maybe”. I am right.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Don’t you recognize sarcasm?

          • Jason

            When it’s used well.

          • GMO Roberts

            EPA issued the Final Guidance on Labeling Pesticide Products Under National Organic Program on January 31, 2003. The guidance describes how registrants can obtain EPA approval of label language indicating that all ingredients (active and inert) in a pesticide product and all uses of that pesticide meet the criteria defined in the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Organic Program (NOP) Rule.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Wrong aagin Bobo

            To make the issue of real organics even more tricky, some accredited certifying agents along with the USDA, have come under fire for certifying products as organic, when really the product doesn’t always follow USDA standards for organic certification. For example, a recent Inspector General report found that the enforcement of federal laws governing organics is abysmal.Poor certification standards seriously confuses the organic issue, because if organic consumers and the organic industry can’t trust the USDA Organic Seal or certifying agents, it mucks up the integrity of the organic industry altogether. This is why organic integrity among organic growers and producers is so important.

          • GMO Roberts

            So you admit there are already problems with the organic label, and now you expect the non gmo label to be trust worthy with no cost or no oversight? Thanks for admitting that a non gmo label comes with a price “little” Johnny.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            You know this time you really made so little sense that an immediate interpretation is required.
            I checked this out with the sponsors on this board and no one can figure out what you are saying.
            Good luck

          • GMO Roberts

            List the sponsor “little” johnny.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            I asked the sponsor but I gather from their comments that they are concerned from previous repercussions that if they divulge their company they will be subject to the same abuse from you as before.
            Sorry.

          • GMO Roberts

            So you lied, that’s ok “little” Johnny we understand, just as your wife did until she found out for herself why you are called “little” Johnny.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            I would if I could but I can’t. Sponsors won’t go for it. They told me you were just too much of a liability

          • GMO Roberts

            Gosh “little” Johnny how can fantasy people hurt you? Just admit your sponsors are just in your dreams. Everyone else on here knows you are by yourself.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Sorry Bobo there is really nothing anyone can do for you in your present condition. Hopefully the therapists will work some wonders

          • marcbrazeau

            1. You just made the market based argument for the voluntary system that we already have. What you didn’t do was provide a justification for a new mandatory system of state enforced bureaucracy.

            2. Organic doesn’t mean “no pesticides”. Sometimes it means “older more toxic pesticides, because we aren’t allowed to use the newer less toxic pesticides”.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            No system is yet in place

          • Jason

            Of course there is a system. If a company wishes to specifically produces gmo free foods, they are free to advertise as such. If they don’t, they don’t have to. It’s a voluntary labelling system. You know…the type of system that allows the buying public to exercise the purchasing power that you described in other posts.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            That is not a true system for the health and safety of the consumer. I think if you understand the system of food safety you need to better understand how insurance and risk the kind of system that is effected.

          • Jason

            Wow… What a bunch of utter nonsense. Seems to work for organic food. Why not this?

            You really oughta stop before you start believing this garbage yourself.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            What organic system is in place for organic food?

          • Jason

            USDA Cert Organic labelling. Possibly it’s you that needs to read up a bit?

          • JOHN BISCIT

            No that’s wrong. That is not a system for organic labelling since the products that the USDA approves as being “organic” also includes non organic foods. Therefore you cannot call it a truly organic label. The system fails the test for true “organic”

            To make the issue of real organics even more tricky, some accredited certifying agents along with the USDA, have come under fire for certifying products as organic, when really the product doesn’t always follow USDA standards for organic certification. For example, a recent Inspector General report found that the enforcement of federal laws governing organics is abysmal.Poor certification standards seriously confuses the organic issue, because if organic consumers and the organic industry can’t trust the USDA Organic Seal or certifying agents, it mucks up the integrity of the organic industry altogether. This is why organic integrity among organic growers and producers is so important.

          • Jason

            I kinda expected that would be a lunching point for some nonsensical “true organic” tirade.

            It is a system that works for those who it’s targeted toward. If that’s not you, then fine. But that doesn’t mean it’s not a functional system.

            Your true organic platform is just one man’s opinion. Everybody has an opinion and nobody really cares. So, save it.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            You should probably do some research on how the term organic has changed over the years in the context of high pressure tactics from big AG.
            Although I suspect you have been brainwashed by Monsanto into believing that this is what the original intentions for the classification were.

            To make the issue of real organics even more tricky, some accredited certifying agents along with the USDA, have come under fire for certifying products as organic, when really the product doesn’t always follow USDA standards for organic certification. For example, a recent Inspector General report found that the enforcement of federal laws governing organics is abysmal.Poor certification standards seriously confuses the organic issue, because if organic consumers and the organic industry can’t trust the USDA Organic Seal or certifying agents, it mucks up the integrity of the organic industry altogether. This is why organic integrity among organic growers and producers is so important.”

          • Jason

            You kinda already said that and I knda already ignored it.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Not much I can do when you refuse to accept the truth

          • Jason

            S’pose so.

          • Benjamin Edge

            Evidently, JohnBoy is an organic “purist.” Only his way is the right way.

          • Benjamin Edge

            Why would enforcement be necessary if there aren’t organic producers trying to game the system? Must be some organic producers that are in it only for the profit.

          • GMO Roberts

            Ask him what type of government we have in this country, because he doesn’t have a clue on that as well.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Wrong that’s not true organic

          • GMO Roberts

            Then tell us what is oh great one as we all await your lies. You can also tell us what kind of government we have as well.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            They say imitation is the most sincere form of flattery- so I’ll take that as a compliment
            But you should start composing your own lines instead of using mine Bobo

          • GMO Roberts

            Don’t really see any of your lines wrong again , thanks for playing. Now tell us what kind of a government we have “little” johnny.

          • JH

            Debbie, can you identify a single documented case of a human being injured or suffering harm from a GM food? No. Then why should we label?

          • Sally Blackmore

            Can you identify a single human study that has been conducted on the safety of GMO’s? Let’s start there. Once that has been done we will be able to answer your question quite easily.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Before lung cancer from smoking was proven, cigarettes were deemed safe. This was unfortunately short sighted, but however, quite correct since the correlation was not established. Your point that “a single documented case of a human being injured or suffering harm from a GM food? No.” is unfortunately short sighted and does not prove your assertion since much more research needs to be done before GMOs are considered safe or not.

          • hyperzombie

            The link between cancer and tobacco was first discovered in 1903, well before cigarettes. Cigarettes were never deemed safe by anyone but the tobacco companies.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Incorrect- doctors deemed them safe and agreed with the placement cigarette vending machines in hospitals

          • GMO Roberts

            Name the doctors that “deemed” them safe for all to see.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            “injured or suffering harm”
            Please define (fully)

      • JohnDoe
        • Debbie Owen

          Interesting. I take that to mean you think of a label saying “contains GMOs” is a warning label. Actually it is just a label that contains information for the consumer and everyone can decide for themselves whether or not they believe it is a warning.

          • JohnDoe

            No. I take a label of “Contains GMOs” to be an arbitrary, nonscientific label. People will point to labels as a reason for the product to be banned, along the lines of “if it is so safe, why do they need to label it on the box?” The anti-biotech crowd couldn’t get an outright ban, so they’re trying to get a de facto ban by poisoning public opinion with manufactured doubt to drive consumer choice to more expensive food choices.

        • Buddy199

          Exactly, JohnDoe

          It’s step 1 toward the ultimate goal of legally banning a food source and scientific technique that a vociferous anti-corporate, conspiracy-minded group are superstitiously afraid of.

          It’s as laughable as if some group tried to put warning labels on sparkling water because they claimed it makes you gay. (Hey, look at the evidence. Lots of gays drink sparkling water. Most started drinking it around the same time in their lives they came out of the closet. Coincidence?)

          • Sally Blackmore

            Wow — do you have something against gay people?

      • FosterBoondoggle

        Those busy mothers seem to have a lot of time for emotion-driven argumentation on websites…

        • Deborah Bogan

          How is any of this emotion-driven? Can you only contribute with smug putdowns? Are you PMS

    • JOHN BISCIT

      I think the real motivation ( besides the brainwashing tactics exercised on you by Monsanto) is your desiire to keep the consumer’s wishes silent. It is a characteristic of big thinking people who seem to thgink they are more important than others mainly due to the “Ivory Tower” mentality.
      “I find it patently absurd that anyone who is strongly in favour of
      labeling is not familiar with the voluntary labels that already exist.”

      There is no such thing as a mandatory labeling. If what you say is true about the safety of GMOs why would any consumer even care about GMO labeling. So mandatory labeling is not actually a real thing- it does not exist and will never exist or work.

      ” I also find it hard to believe that anyone who spends any amount of time arguing in favour of labels is not aware of the major GM crops, and thus can identify products that are likely to contain ingredients derived from GM crops.”

      But you said there is no desire on the part of consumers to want GMO labels so that means that very few consumers care or know about GMOs. You are all mixed up and confused

      • Skeptologist

        My motivation is simply to point out how little people like you understand about this issue.

        It is a characteristic of big thinking people who seem to thgink they are more important than others mainly due to the “Ivory Tower” mentality.
        I don’t think I am any more important than you. I think we’re both equally insignificant. However, I do think that my point of view on this matter carries more weight than yours, as I actually work in a field that involves genetic engineering of plants.

        If what you say is true about the safety of GMOs why would any consumer even care about GMO labeling….there is no desire on the part of consumers to want GMO labels so that means that very few consumers care or know about GMOs
        Precisely. Which is why anti-GMO activists and bloggers continual drum up fear and misinformation. Otherwise, no one will care.

        • JOHN BISCIT

          Ad hominem remarks won’t help you here skepty
          You don’t obviously understand what’s at stake. One day you will understand your folly- I hope

          • Skeptologist

            John, I don’t think you understand what constitutes an ad hominem remark. I didn’t make any such remark in my comment. If you think I did, please point out the exact wording.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            To humor you I will provide you with your exact words
            “little people like you”
            The fact that you don’t realize what you are saying is even worse.

          • Skeptologist

            John, you can’t seriously be that blatantly dishonest, can you? Is English your second language or something? If so, that’s ok.

            Here’s the full sentence: “My motivation is simply to point out how little people like you understand about this issue.”

            I never referred to anyone as “little people” like you insinuated. “Little” referred to the amount of understanding of this issue and was not a reflection of people. I really hope this was just a mistake on your part, but I have a hunch that it wasn’t. My hunch tells me you really are that dishonest and deceptive.

            And no, that’s not an ad hominem either. It’s an observation based on the fact that you appear to have deceptively and selectively quoted what I said in a pathetic attempt to score cheap points.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            I apologize – I misread it

          • GMO Roberts

            I bet that hurt. You might just be on your way to recovery Johnny. Skeptologist nailed you to a T and you finally realized it. Way to go.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            The only thing you accomplished with your comment here was to show how childish you really are.

          • GMO Roberts

            Takes one to know one “little” johnny boy.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            I see you just proved my point.
            Thanks!

          • GMO Roberts

            You have never made a point in any conversation “little” jonny. Now tell us what kind of government we have.

          • Skeptologist

            No problem. I’m glad it was just a misunderstanding. Mistakes happen.

          • GMO Roberts

            Strange how you haven’t been heard since your admission? You must be rethinking all of your positions. Good for you for finally coming go your senses. Maybe you can even figure out what kind of government we have.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            What is point. You are a very sick individual. Do you ever ask yourself what this is all about. I know the evil that is Monsanto. You are either a naive fool or a very sadistic follower. Do you and your sick friends here really think you can marginalize and sweep these poisons under some hidden carpet. These poisons don’t just dissapear. They will be here continually polluting the earth until it reaches the point whereby the earth is no longer able to withstand the pressure. Then you will be forced to look at yourself and say what a fool you were for not seeing the inherent danger. You have only one chance. Don’t screw it up. It’s time to come to your senses. Wake up and smell what is left of the roses.

          • GMO Roberts

            Did we strike a nerve little johnny? My my but do you ever sound upset. Are you upset because you are losing or because you don’t understand? Nothing lasts forever “little” Johnny, although at one time your wife would wish you would last a minute or so, even plastics eventually decompose you really need to think about what you say. No wonder no one takes you seriously. Why don’t you try a new assignment and give us the half life of some of these chemicals you are so worried about, but first tell us what kind of government we have “little” Johnny boy.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            In regards to nerves it seems you have struck a nerve with everyone. You are just one of those trolls that people love to hate. I am not sure really why I bother responding to you. You are such a loser and know so little. You think you impress people with your foolish jabs but no one is impressed.
            “even plastics eventually decompose ”
            This is just such a foolish statement it doesn’t even need a response.

          • GMO Roberts

            Yes most of you statements do not need a response because they are foolish. Thanks again for admitting that “little” johnny. Once again you have only took a small slice of the comment and twisted it. You also seem unwilling or unable to actually find the facts. Seeing you correspond with others it is plain that you are the one that now serious person can stand (including your wife obviously). So “little” jonny tell us what kind of government we have.

          • Mommieslittleboy

            I see…

    • SageThinker

      Different people who want labeling have different specific motivations. I would personally want a label on food products to state what herbicides they contain, such as what level of glyphosate is present in a food like soy, corn, sugar, wheat, etc. My concern over glyphosate is evidence-based.

      • Skeptologist

        I agree. I think a label indicating which sprays have been used on the crop would be more useful. But let me qualify that by also saying this should be relevant to detectable residues remainin. if there is no residual left then there isn’t much need to indicate that a particular spray was use. It should also apply to organics.

        • SageThinker

          I would agree. If that were practical and could be implemented, it would be ideal, for people to be fully informed about what they are ingesting in their food.

  • Jeffn

    “Cruz, in case you didn’t know, denies global warming.”

    That aside, in case you didn’t know, isn’t true. Trust is one of the reasons the apparently conscious decision of AGW activists to hyper-politicize AGW creates more skeptics than it converts.
    http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/24/the-stupid-party/#more-18191

    • Sterling Ericsson

      Please take your climate change denialism out of here. The science on anthropogenic climate change is as solid as that on GMOs, which really is as solid as the science on evolution.

      • Jeffn

        I have no idea why you posted that. I pointed out that the claim that Ted Cruz “denies global warming” is false. I gave a link to a climate scientist Keith normally respects parsing Ted Cruz’s comment on global warming and finding nothing wrong with it.
        Then I noted that falsely accusing people of denial for partisan purposes creates a trust issue that creates more skeptics than it converts.
        But, hey if lies an innuendo are the only way you know how to debate, please feel free to keep it up. You should even get the Koch bros to pay you for it.

  • Deborah Bogan

    GMO food is like a new Technology. You know that will be bugs so I’ll let someone else go first. Let me know when all the issues are worked out

    • hyperzombie

      30 years is new? Hmmmm, I am almost new…

      • Deborah Bogan

        Good for you. Grab a GMO food and celebrate. Please, enjoy lots of it.

        • hyperzombie

          I do and thanks,, and the bonus is I have extra money for party hats.

      • Deborah Bogan

        You do understand that new phones come out every year and new GMO comes out regularly. If you manage to live until you are 80 then you aren’t that old, but you are old enough that a 20 year old would probably be grossed out if you hit on her

        • hyperzombie

          If I was 80 why would I hit on a 20 year old…. Gross.. You have a sickmind.

          • JoeFarmer

            LOL! Like ex hockey players can open with their smile!

            “Wanna see my bridge? My teeth got knocked out in a hockey game.”

          • hyperzombie

            How did ya know, never had a bridge for long though.
            Modern dentistry is awesome.

          • JoeFarmer

            “How did ya know, never had a bridge for long though.”

            But long enough to win the watermelon seed shooting contest at the county fair, right? Or the beer bong competition, depending on how many teeth were lost…

            “Modern dentistry is awesome.”

            Ya, and if you hand a hockey player a broom the,first thing he’ll try to do is hi-stick someone! You can’t hide your roots…

            Which one are you? Left or center?

            http:www.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DIUbn5ss8j9c&ei=losgVbyhNMm-sAWp-oCwBQ&psig=AFQjCNFPHJ3KI1DYaOMIhTiH2T6xx6L2dA&ust=1428282646943928

          • hyperzombie

            depending on how many teeth were lost…

            I am fairly proud that I still have one of my original front teeth, it has been chipped, bent back, laminated and reinserted, but hey still almost 100% OEM equipment. Worst was in Columbus, took a puck to the teeth, knocked me unconscious and swallowed 3. No dentist can fix that.

            Ya, and if you hand a hockey player a broom the,first thing he’ll try to do is hi-stick someone!

            No. that is lacrosse players. And they are just trying to say hi.. It is all fair play we just want the other player know that we are close… :)

          • Deborah Bogan

            Oh no. I was saying she would be grossed out by your current age. sorry for the confusion.

          • hyperzombie

            I think both would be grossed out. well unless you are super rich.

          • JoeFarmer

            I dunno. Her hubby/bf looks pretty old in that avatar pic.

            Pick her up at a bar with a walker, you don’t know what could happen!

          • hyperzombie

            Well I hope when I get to that age i can still get the younger chicks, even if they are 70 and I am 90….

          • hyperzombie

            What 36 is too old???

  • patzagame

    Take your substantial equivalence and stuff it! Objective of this study was to determine the safety and quality
    parameters of transgenic corn (Ajeeb YG) compared with its near isogenic
    (Ajeeb). The PCR analysis showed the presence of 35S promoter and
    Cry1Ab gene sequences in the transgenic corn resulting in presence
    infectious CaMV35S which can cause disease, carcinogenesis, mutagenesis,
    reactivation of dormant viruses and even generation of new viruses.
    Also, the results revealed some differences in the compositional
    analysis and physicochemical properties between the isogenic and
    transgenic samples as some of them were positive and other negative.
    Moreover, existent of adverse histopathlogical changes in rats fed on
    transgenic corn compared with that fed on isogenic corn. Therefore, we
    recommend to not cultivate or import this corn variety and the subject
    deserves further investigations.

    • Jackson

      ^This right here is why the anti-GMO position gets labeled as anti-science. The quality and accuracy of what you post is several steps below that of what the Discovery Institute publishes. Whatever legitimate concerns one might have over the implementation of GE technology, posting garbage that you don’t understand and is completely and laughably wrong completely torpedoes the credibility of all those associated with your views.

      • Cletus DeBunkerman

        The Discovery Institute offers nothing but fringe pseudo-science. They are more about ideology than science.

        The corrupt GMO pesticide industry disinformation operatives always refer to any science that doesn’t support their GMO pesticide industry junk pseudo-science agenda “anti-science”.

        Why don’t you address the substance of her post instead coming up with all the GMO pesticide industry disinformation BS to try and distort the truth and deceive the public?

        • Jackson

          The Discovery Institute offers nothing but fringe pseudo-science. They are more about ideology than science.

          Bingo.

          Why don’t you address the substance of her post instead coming up with all the GMO pesticide industry disinformation BS to try and distort the truth and deceive the public?

          I’ve already addressed some large blocks of coppy/paste from patzagame elsewhere in the thread.

          This could be a good exercise for you. Can you critically analyze a statement that agrees with your ideology? Does it make sense to you that the presence of a 35S promoter sequence can produce new whole viruses?

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            You are a flaming joke.

            Deflection and back peddling is what you are doing.

            Now your try and cover your cowardice with BS.

            LOL!!!

    • Dominick Dickerson

      This sounds like one of those poorly designed studies from that Egyptian researcher, wasn’t this like his thesis for his PhD or something? I can only hope that it didn’t go well for him.

      • patzagame

        and your credentials are what?

        • Dominick Dickerson

          A degree in environmental studies,an academic and personal focus on botany and agriculture, basic science literacy and an internet connection.

          What are yours?

          It’s no surprise that there were promoter genes used as part of the gene cassette used for the transformation event.

          • Jackson

            What are yours?

            They can copy/paste incoherent gibberish that they don’t understand from anti-GMO activist sites. I think they might have a PhD in it.

          • patzagame

            Sorry if this is over your level,perhaps a little less crack would help with your coherency.

          • Jackson

            It is not over my head. I assure you I know much more about the biology than you do. I know this because you copy and paste large chunks of obviously factually wrong things from activist websites, who in turn get their information from junk journals with impact factors around the level of the creationist or agw denialism journals.

            When I explain why your copy/paste blocks are wrong, you ignore the response and copy/paste 3 more blocks of text from natural news or mercola.

            You are the reason critics of GMOs get dismissed out of hand as know-nothing numpties. Any legitimate criticism that might be offered is drowned out by your scientific illiteracy.

          • patzagame

            You are hilarious! Nothing I posted came from Natural News or Mercola.In fact they weren’t even from activist web sites,they were taken directly from conclusion of published studies. And YOU are taking your responses straight from the GLP troll handbook!

  • patzagame
    • Dominick Dickerson

      Well since these “researchers” didn’t control for environmental factors their comparison is kind of bunk. They did the right thing in so far as comparing a transgenic line to its isogenic counterpart, but they don’t seem to indicate under what conditions these plants were grown in. As the literature is very clear that geographic/edaphic factors and Agronomic management influence composition greatly these need to be accounted for. Without controlling for those, which doesn’t appear to have been done according to the authors, it’s simply impossible to conclude the differences in composition were due to the transgenic insertion. Indeed the data presented in table 2 discussing mineral content seems to vary so wildly between Bt and nonBt maize that I would venture there are definite edaphic/ management differences between the two crops. Approximately 3 times the K and P found in Bt vs nonBt tells me something is going on here.

      • patzagame

        Funny how you got all that information as to growing conditions from the study I posted.I didn’t see any reference to geographic/edaphic factors,that you claim “according to the authors” is so…..Oh wait,I see you were “venturing” an opinion based on the K & P content,so therefor you know this is bunk.REALLYYYYY???

        • Dominick Dickerson

          That’s precisely the point, the authors don’t note those factors. They simply state ajeeb and ajeeb with the transgenic trait. No discussion or consideration indicating they controlled for edaphic or geographic variation. I think you have a comprehension problem.

          I tend to think the elevated P and K levels in the Bt crop are indicative of at the very least a difference in management practices if not also a potential difference in the soil quality. I can’t possibly know absolutely, but that would be my educated guess.

          • patzagame

            Conjecture on your part,that’s all you have. BTW, that wasn’t the only study to show compositional and nutritional differences of GE plants and their isogenic counter parts.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            I have indicated a flaw in their methodology, their failure to control for confounding variables. That’s not a higher order scientific assessment. Its a rather basic one that should be readily apparent to anyone who ever took 8th grade biology. And its a rather simple deduction to posit that the 3 fold difference in two major plant nutrients is probably on account of different fertilization regiments.

            Oh please drag out the Bøhn paper on soybeans. That ones even more of a doozy.

          • JoeFarmer

            Yeah, that Bohn paper was awesome.

            They didn’t even know about the USDA PDP. Nice work…not.

            Zooming out, it’s interesting how the anti-GM bunch relies more and more heavily on obscure studies.

            It used to be, “GMOs are dangerous because Seralini!” Then when Seralini got the scientific smackdown, the argument became, “It’s our right to know!”. And after 4 states voted down labeling, they’re back to really obscure studies. Basically, they’re just flailing to support their agricultural creationist views.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            These I’ve seen pop up a few times, also trumpeting the same pronouncements, always wrong.

            You’re a farmer, would you concur with my hypothesis that such exaggeratedly elevated levels of potassium and phosphorous in the Bt crops is probably indicative of a difference in fertilizer applications or am I like 100% off base here.

            Its table 2 I believe in the study our good friend linked

          • patzagame

            I’m not your good friend,lol.You are still conjecturing,and now you want a known pseudo pharmer troller to substantiate your hypothesis.ROFLMAO!

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Sorry friend, but I’m not.

          • Captain Moonlight

            psst- I just read a study that warns of the dangers carotatoxin in the humble carrot. How about we get this deadly poison off the streets?

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040402001833305

          • Jason

            If they don’t state how they controlled for significant variables, then it can’t be replicated. It really is of no use and is a very likely indicator that they didn’t at all.

            Besides… Assuming their results are legit, the Bt variety, having higher protein, crude fat and carbohydrates and less of the nutritionally void starch would make a much better food source.

          • patzagame

            AND THEREFORE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT!! Bingo,Jason wins a prize! as far as a much better food source,not so sure,BUT assuming they were a much better food source as you claim,why wouldn’t you want them labeled?

          • Jason

            If a company felt they were producing a product that was a much better feed, I would think they would want to label it to capture value. But I support the companies right to decide whether they want to or not.

            The fact that no company using gmo ingredients is touting nutritional advantages such as shown in your paper tell me your paper is very likely bogus.

          • patzagame

            you are an idiot!

          • Jason

            I’m not that one that posted something supposedly damning to gm corn without really reading what it said.

          • patzagame

            I read it…the values are conflicting,therefor not significantly equivalent.Are you daft?

          • Jason

            If you think the results are legit, then you must also agree that GM corn is nutritionally superior. If I were you I’d be taking these results to animal feed manufacturers with a golden marketing plan.

          • Skeptologist

            No, the study is garbage. It doesn’t matter what the values are.

          • Skeptologist

            You’re the one who doesn’t understand the topic.

          • patzagame

            I do,that’s your problem. Conclusion: significant equivalence is bogus and the premise should be taken completely out of the reasoning for allowing GE crops on the market.

          • Skeptologist

            No Patz, you really don’t. That’s ok though. I wouldn’t expect anyone without a graduate level education in molecular biology or plant biology to understand this issue in detail. But be honest with yourself and others about the limitations of your knowledge. And don’t start calling people names.

          • patzagame

            Your joking,I need letters after my name to be educated to your standards,lol and I suppose you would like evidence of college loan payments too. Get a reality check.

          • Skeptologist

            You don’t need the degrees, just the equivalent level of understanding. However, to get that level of knowledge without going to school is pretty difficult but it can come through job experience. Do you have either education or relevant job experience? Frankly, I doubt it. I don’t need to see someone’s degree to know that they’ve studied this issue in depth. It’s evident from people’s comments if they have a significant depth of knowledge or not.

          • Jackson

            I suppose you would like evidence of college loan payments too

            A bit of trivia for you: PhDs in biochemistry don’t cost you any money, only opportunity cost.

          • Skeptologist

            What you don’t seem to understand is that you can grow seeds from the SAME PLANT under different conditions and produce two “sibling” plants with different nutritional compositions due to differences in growing conditions. To make the conclusions that you are attempting to, you have to first control for environmental growth conditions.

          • Jackson

            I would add to your comment, that you could take genetically identical clones and grow them in a greenhouse with the same soil, and same watering regiment. The ones near the edges of the bench will be a little different. If there are other plants that are taller near some plants, they will be a little different. The ones closest to the door will be a little different. That is why you space out your test and control plants in random locations, so you eliminate those variables. In this study they might be comparing plant material grown on different fracking continents!

          • Skeptologist

            Yes! All excellent points! This study sounds like it was done by a bunch of chemists who have absolutely no knowledge about plants.

          • Skeptologist

            If this isn’t the only study, then why did you choose such a bad example?

    • Skeptologist

      I checked the materials and methods. There isn’t any information about how or even where the GM and non-GM corn was grown. This can make all the difference in the world. This study can’t make any conclusions without controlling these factors.

  • patzagame

    http://www.i-sis.org.uk/CaMV_35S_Promoter_in_GM_Feed_that_Sickened_Rats.php GMOs are once again found to be deleterious for health in a feeding trial that last no longer than 90 days. And within that time, the most widespread piece of transgenic DNA found in the GM diet, the CaMV 35S promoter, was found transferred horizontally into the animals’ tissues at high frequencies. The CaMV 35S promoter is not the only hazardous piece of transgenic DNA, there are similar aggressive promoters designed to make genes express out of context, as well as genes coding for antibiotics and other dangerous functions, together with numerous recombination hotspots that enhance horizontal gene transfer; all of which contribute to making all GMOs unsafe. That is indeed the conclusion from research carried out by scientists independent of the industry up to now, which fully corroborates what farmers have been witnessing in their livestock and doctors in their patients for years [14]. People need to take immediate action to ban GMOs from their own home and local communities. Governments should recall all GMOs from the market. And companies and regulators should face prosecution for causing damages to health and criminal negligence.

    • Skeptologist

      That’s not a peer-reviewed article. It’s effectively a blog post by an anti-GMO group. The “report” doesn’t even list it’s references.

      Furthermore, this report doesn’t actually discuss horizontal gene transfer. It pretends to. What the report is goes on to describe is the detection of 35S DNA in rats tissue, not within the rat genome. That’s a world of difference to anyone who understands molecular biology.

      Chalk up another pseudoscience “report” for the anti-GMO campaign.

      • patzagame

        Not so fast,that “report” provides a link to a fully reference article. However I’ll do your homework for you…http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/AJB/article-abstract/BE5331948800

        • Skeptologist

          I’ve seen that paper. It does not show any evidence of horizontal gene transfer (HGT). HGT involves the incorporation of a foreign DNA molecule into the genome. What this paper shows is that foreign DNA can be detected in tissues of the animal that consumed the DNA. That is not HGT. I just finished eating an apple. Based on this paper and others I have read, it is likely that in about an hour apple DNA will be detectable in my blood. And since my blood perfuses my organs, it wouldn’t be surprising if apple DNA is found in my liver. But that does not mean that the genome of my liver cells now has apple DNA incorporated into it. That is a completely different thing.

          • patzagame

            The 195 bp segment
            amplified from DNA samples of liver and brain in rats fed GM diet was subjected
            to DNA sequencing, and comparison with GenBank database revealed 100 % identity
            with the CaMV whole genome at the same nucleotide coordinates 7190-7384 for the
            35S promoter.HGT! You don’t know what the hell you are talking about!

          • Skeptologist

            Patz, that is not the same thing as genomic incorporation. I know very well what I am talking about. I have a PhD in biochemistry and specialize in plant molecular biology. I have made transgenetic plants myself and know how to properly screen for the presence of transgenes.

            What the authors of this study did was identify the presence of CaMV DNA in rat tissues, NOT in the rat genome. HGT involves incorporation into the genome, not mere presence in the tissue. There’s a very good reason this study was published in an obscure journal and not a widely read one. What the authors showed is not that surprising or interesting. It’s research that’s been done before (see link below).

            Ingested foreign (phage M13) DNA survives transiently in the gastrointestinal tract and enters the bloodstream of mice
            Mol Gen Genet. 1994 Mar;242(5):495-504.
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8121408

            You’re overestimating your competency in understanding this material. It’s complex and requires a reasonably high degree of technical fluency, which you don’t seem to have. That’s not a bad thing at all. The problem is your attitude about it.

          • patzagame

            DNA sequencing,nucleotide coordinates is not tissue with presence of CaMV DNA.

          • Skeptologist

            Yes, the nucleotide sequence of CaMV DNA proves that it’s CaMV DNA, but not that it’s incorporated into the cellular genome of the rats. The coordinates refer to the position within the CaMV genome, again not the rat genome.

            Patz, you have no idea what that African J. Biotech paper actually says, do you? Yet you’re so confident in your interpretation that you are unable to see just how wrong you are. That’s an interesting cognitive disconnect known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. Look it up.

          • patzagame

            Done arguing w/ you,keep twisting it,honey.You didn’t read the study. The only thing I’m disconnecting with is you.

          • Skeptologist

            Are you talking about the African J. Biotech paper? I read it a while back after another person linked it to me in a comment claiming the very same thing you are. Another person who, like yourself, had no background in molecular biology.

          • patzagame

            Get off your high horse.Did you really just post the link to the study,that completely blew the lid off the argument that transgenetic DNA didn’t survive digestion? Perfect.

          • Skeptologist

            I never claimed transgenic DNA didn’t survive digestion. Based on studies from over 20 years ago, this isn’t exactly a surprise.

            But the key difference that you don’t understand is that the presence of foreign DNA in the blood versus incorporated into the cellular genome is totally different. To the best of my knowledge, the latter has not been demonstrated to occur with any significant degree of frequency. In fact, I’m not even sure if it’s ever been demonstrated.

          • patzagame

            you didn’t even read the study did you?

  • Lucy7

    Written by Keith Kloor? Well that just ended my desire to read this crock of crap article!

    • Captain Moonlight

      I hope that chip on your shoulder wasn’t made from a GM potato.

  • JOHN BISCIT

    Huge Hedge Funds are starting to dump Monsanto completely!

    Example:

    Blue Ridge Capital Exits entire Position in Monsanto

    By Adam Rogers • Mar 26, 2015 12:52 pm EDT

    Blue Ridge Capital and Monsanto

    Blue Ridge Capital has exited its position in Monsanto (MON). The
    investment represented 4.06% of the hedge fund’s overall portfolio. The
    fund sold all 3,050,000 shares

  • Ray Del Colle

    Divest from fossil fuel; decarbonize your portfolio by Dropping Kentucky Coal First. Read Merchants of Doubt or see the film coming soon to a local cinema. Repeal Citizens United by visiting Move to Amend.org and sign the National and your state’s resolution to amend the U.S. Constitution. Switching to renewable, sustainable CLEAN energy will stimulate the economy, create jobs, save us some money, improve our health, clean up our environment and reduce our carbon footprint. “97 percent of top climate scientists and every major National Academy of Science agree that man-made carbon pollution is warming our climate.” http://clmtr.lt/c/Whv0cd0cMJ

  • JOHN BISCIT

    Dare to publish a scientific study against Big Biotech, and Monsanto will defame and discredit you. For the first time, a Monsanto employee admits that there
    is an entire department within the corporation with the simple task of
    ‘discrediting’ and ‘debunking’ scientists who speak out against GMOs.

    The WHO recently classified glyphosate,
    a chemical in Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup, as
    carcinogenic – news that is really heating things up with biotech. So
    Monsanto has been demanding that the World Health Organization (WHO) and
    the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) retract their statements about the poisons’s toxicity to human health.

    The company demands this even though a peer-reviewed study published in March of 2015 in the respected journal, The Lancet Oncology, conducted a analysis proving that glyphosate was indeed ‘probably carcinogenic.’

    Monsanto’s vice president of global regulatory affairs Philip Miller told Reuters the following in interview:

    “We question the quality of the assessment. The WHO has something to explain

    It has already been explained, Mr. Miller. The study states:

    “Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide, currently
    with the highest production volumes of all herbicides. It is used in
    more than 750 different products for agriculture, forestry, urban, and
    home applications. Its use has increased sharply with the development of
    genetically modified glyphosate-resistant crop varieties. Glyphosate
    has been detected in air during spraying, in water, and in food. There
    WAS limited evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of glyphosate.

    Glyphosate has been detected in the blood and urine of
    agricultural workers, indicating absorption. Soil microbes degrade
    glyphosate to aminomethylphosphoric acid (AMPA). Blood AMPA detection
    after poisonings suggests intestinal microbial metabolism in humans.
    Glyphosate and glyphosate formulations induced DNA and chromosomal
    damage in mammals, and in human and animal cells in vitro. One study
    reported increases in blood markers of chromosomal damage (micronuclei)
    in residents of several communities after spraying of glyphosate
    formulations.”

    • JOHN BISCIT

      In a recent talk attended mostly by students hoping to get decent
      paying internships in their field, a student asked what the company was
      doing to negate “bad science” concerning their work.

      Monsanto’s employee, Dr. William “Bill” Moar, who gives talks on
      Monsanto’s products to reassure everyone that they are safe, perhaps
      forgot the event was public when he openly revealed that Monsanto had:

      “An entire department” (waving his arm for emphasis) dedicated to “debunking” science which disagreed with theirs.”

      Likely, this is the first time a Monsanto employee has publicly
      admitted that they have immense political and financial weight to bear
      on scientists who dare to publish against them. Of course they don’t
      list this discrediting department anywhere on their website.

      The company will stop at nothing to discredit and devalue the contributions of unimpeachably respected Lancet and the international scientific bodies of WHO and IARC, among others.

      The stakes are high – after all, an entire industry of GMO seed (for
      which they currently hold more than a three-fourths monopoly share) is
      based on being Roundup ready. Glyphosate is their hallmark product, and
      it accounts for billions in sales when you account for the seed they
      sell to go with their best-selling herbicide.

      In a single publicly made phrase, Moar has admitted that the
      Monsanto-funded science is sheer propaganda – essentially that they
      indeed have dozens, if not hundreds of employees out making sure that no
      science which tells the truth about their cancer-causing products ever
      garners any credibility whatsoever in the information age.

      Monsanto has also held up the findings of regulatory bodies,
      particularly in the United States where the revolving door between
      agrochemical corporations and government seems never ending.

      • Jason

        You’ll seeminlgy believe any nonsense you read so long as it’s got an anti business angle to it. Good luck with all that.

        • JOHN BISCIT

          Exactly what I was going to renark aboiut your comments too

          • Jason

            One of us is copy/pasting activist nonsense and one of us is formulating their own thoughts. I’d leave it to you to determine which is which but I’m pretty confident you couldn’t do that without somebody printing for you first. So here….

            The second one is me.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            One of us is trying to save our children and grandchildren from having to live in a polluted, toxic and unsustainable environment and the other has been brainwashed by big AG to believe a pocketful of lies and deceit.

            The first one is me

          • Jason

            Umm. Ok. You believe what ever it is that you want to believe.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            you too bud

  • JOHN BISCIT

    “In March, 2015, 17 experts from 11 countries met at the
    International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC; Lyon, France) to
    assess the carcinogenicity of the organophosphate pesticides
    tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate
    (table). These assessments will be published as volume 112 of the IARC
    Monographs.”

    • GMO Roberts

      What “little” johnny forgot to mention was that working 3rd shift and drinking alcohol is in the same category as glyphosate.

      • JOHN BISCIT

        Then why do you enjoy them both?

        • GMO Roberts

          Yes I do like my bourbon and third shift means less interruptions. Why don’t you tell us what kind of government we have little John boy

          • JOHN BISCIT

            You mean you get shift work at the institution?
            Cool- you must be pretty important patient on your ward!
            Congratulations!

          • GMO Roberts

            Johnny, I realize you are jealous of my life, helping to feed the world, while you are trying to starve people o no avail, but really just give it a break, and tell us what kind of government we have.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            I have to admire your tenacity in the face of the great adversity you have encountered. Stick with it and have faith in your therapist.
            Good luck Bobo!

          • GMO Roberts

            I know you admire my johnny, thanks for admitting it. Of course your wife admires.larger toolsm so I understand we all understand your inferiority complex.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            There is nothing wrong with your fantasies as long as they don’t control you. Good luck at the institution Bobo!

          • GMO Roberts

            You mean the feed the world institution, “little” Johnny? I know it is one that you don’t believe in, as you don’t think most oeople deserve to eat. Why don’t you tell us what kind of government you believe in.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            I think fantasies like the feed the world illusion you have maybe contrary to your recovery . You should reconsider and move on to a proper kind of realism. Your therapist can help you through this one I am sure

          • GMO Roberts

            You are right “little” Johnny, not only do we feed the world we help power it with ethanol and bio diesel! Thanks for pointing that out! Now why not tell us what kind of government we have.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            I didn’t actually point anything out but I am sure your therapist can cure almost anything if he gets the proper specialist for your condition.

          • GMO Roberts

            You said a mouthful there “little” Johnny. You have never pointed anything out in any discussion. Thanks for finally telling the truth.

  • JOHN BISCIT

    Monsanto is the world leader in GM crops, and their Web site would
    have you believe that they are the answer to world hunger. Thanks to
    their heavy PR campaign, if you’ve been primarily a reader of the
    mainstream press, you’ve probably been misled into thinking GM crops
    are, in fact, the greatest thing since sliced bread, that they provide
    better yields of equal or better quality food, pest and weed resistance,
    reduced reliance on pesticides, and more… But thankfully, the truth
    is unfolding and the tide is finally beginning to turn.

    The Organic Prepper4 recently highlighted 10 GM myths that Monsanto wants you to believe … but which are actually far from the truth.

    Myth #1: No one has ever proven that GMOs are harmful to people

    The truth is that studies of GM food have shown tumors, premature
    death, organ failure, gastric lesions, liver damage, kidney damage,
    allergic reactions, and more.

    Myth #2: GM crops are the only way to solve world hunger

    The reality is that GM farming practices are not sustainable, which
    virtually guarantees future crop collapses and subsequent famine. Nor
    are farmers able to save their seeds due to patent infringement and poor
    fertility in the seeds. Sustainable agricultural practices are the
    answer to world hunger.

    Myth #3: GM crops need less pesticide spraying

    The truth is that after the first couple of years, the use of pesticides and herbicides on GM crops has increased dramatically.

    Myth #4: GM technology is comparable to the cross-breeding that our ancestors did to create hardier versions of heritage crops

    Cross pollination of different varieties of the same plant (what our
    ancestors did) is low-tech and can occur naturally. Genetic modification
    of seeds is done in a lab and often crosses different biological
    kingdoms, such as crossing a bacteria with a plant the unintended
    adverse effects of which may be incalculably large and impossible to
    ascertain before they are released into the biosphere.

    Myth #5: If the FDA and the USDA allow them, they must be safe

    Monsanto has close ties with the US government, such that, despite
    the obvious conflict of interest, Monsanto executives have been given
    policy-making positions in Bush, Clinton and Obama administrations.

    Myth #6: There is no nutritional difference between GM food and non-GM food

    A 2012 nutritional analysis of GM versus non-GM corn
    showed shocking differences in nutritional content. Non-GM corn
    contains 437 times more calcium, 56 times more magnesium, and 7 times
    more manganese than GM corn. GM corn was also found to contain 13 ppm of
    glyphosate, a pesticide so toxic that it may be carcinogenic in the parts-per-trillion range, compared to zero in non-GM corn.

    Myth #7: GMOs are impossible to avoid

    GM ingredients are found in more than 70 percent of processed foods,
    but you can largely avoid them by avoiding these processed foods. By
    switching to whole foods like vegetables, fruits, grass-fed meats and
    other basic staples, you can control the GM foods in your diet.

    Myth #8: Monsanto has our best interests in mind

    Monsanto has spent over half a million dollars on hiring a firm to
    help ‘protect the Monsanto brand name’ from activists. There is
    speculation that they have placed trolls on anti-GM Web sites, hidden
    posts from social media, and even possibly hacked researchers computers
    days before they were set to release a damaging study. There’s even
    speculation that the US government is spying on anti-Monsanto activists.

    Myth #9: GMOs are not harmful to the environment

    On the Hawaiian island of Molokai, where a nearly 2,000-acre test
    facility for Monsanto sits, air and water quality are horrendous and
    there are reports of deaths, infertility, uncontrolled
    cross-pollination, bloody skin rashes, asthma and pesticide
    contamination in the groundwater.

    Myth #10: GMOs are here to stay

    Biotech wants you to believe that GM crops are here to stay, but a
    war is being waged against GMOs, and the resistance is gaining
    significant ground. By sharing information like this, we can fight back
    against biotech and the poisons they’re releasing into our environment.

    • Skeptologist

      1) Where’s the evidence to support claim #1?

      2) No one has ever said GMOs are the “only” way to solve world hunger. GMOs are just one tool. This is a strawman fallacy.

      3) Bt crops have led to significant reductions in insecticide use. That’s a fact.

      Widespread adoption of Bt cotton and insecticide decrease promotes biocontrol services
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11153.html

      4) Genetic engineering is comparable but also different. It’s similar in the sense that humans are creating genetic combinations that don’t exist naturally. It’s different because we’re working with a larger tool set than ever before.

      5) Safety is based on scientific evidence, not on what an organization says.

      6) Source for this? There are many reasons for nutritional differences between plants. Even plants of the exact same species. You need to examine the materials and methods sections of such studies very carefully.

      7) No one that matters has ever said that. It is easy enough to avoid GMOs by buying products labelled as Non-GMO or organic. This is yet another strawman fallacy.

      8) And another strawman. Of course Monsanto doesn’t have our best interests at heart. It’s a corporation, and like any corporation it’s motivated by profit. But that doesn’t mean I am going to stop using every product produced by a corporation.

      9) GMOs and chemical sprays are not the same thing. This is a red herring.

      10) GMOs are here to stay. Do you eat cheese? Then you’re consuming a product produced using enzymes produced by GM bacteria. Are you diabetic? If so, your insulin probably came from GM bacteria. GMOs are far more than just crop plants.

      Oh and John, at least have the decency to cite the source you’re stealing this list from. These aren’t your own thoughts.

      • JOHN BISCIT

        Well I guess every one is entitled to their point of view and you have made an attempt to get around the truth but in the end you will lose big time.

        • Skeptologist

          “Well I guess every one is entitled to their point of view”

          Sure. But not their own facts. I don’t see much in the way of facts in that little list you copied.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            I and others have already spent many hours posting facts that you have seen and ignored which is your prerogative. But don’t tell me I haven’t given you any facts and expect me to send you more when you have had plenty of opportunity to read them.

          • Skeptologist

            You haven’t provided any reliable peer-reviewed studies that support your claims. Sure, you have linked a bunch of blog articles, but there’s a very good reason scientists don’t turn to bloggers for the latest research in their field.

      • JOHN BISCIT

        estimates show that each year, millions of acres of land are being lost that would support Monarchs, either by farmers converting dormant land for crop use – mainly to herbicide tolerant corn and soybeans – or the overuse of herbicides and mowing. Milkweed is the key plant because it’s the only plant where the female will lay her eggs.”
        Chip Taylor, director of Monarch Watch at the University of Kansas, estimates that 100 million acres of land have already been lost that previously supported Monarchs.
        Use of neonicotinoids increased in the mid-2000s, driven almost entirely by the use of corn and soybean seeds treated with the pesticides, according to researchers in Penn State’s College of Agricultural Sciences.

        “Previous studies suggested that the percentage of corn acres treated with insecticides decreased during the 2000s, but once we took seed treatments into account we found the opposite pattern,” said Margaret
        Douglas, graduate student in the Penn State Department of Entomology.

        “Our results show that application of neonicotinoids to seed of corn and soybeans has driven a major surge in U.S. cropland treated with insecticides since the mid-2000s,” Douglas said.

        • Skeptologist

          John, I don’t see what any of this has to do with GMOs themselves. This is more about modern farming methods and the scale at which it’s occurring. Neonicotinoids have nothing to do with GMOs.

          And where did you copy and paste this from?

        • GMO Roberts

          Gee johnny, you had no clue that we were planting millions of more acres until I pointed it out. Good to see you paid attention. Sad you went on ahead to put all the other false information with though. I bet you even looked up what kind of government we have, but are to ashamed to admit it. Come on “little” jonny,tell us the truth.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Sorry wrong again Bobo. Keep trying

          • GMO Roberts

            Johnny, your line is getting old, people see you can’t even put up an argument anymore. Maybe you should just tell us what kind of a government we have and start over.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Neonicotinoid pesticides tied to crashing bee populations, 2 studies find

            AAAS / Science

            A
            bee with a transmitter glued to its back was one of the specimens in a
            study that used the radio technology to track what happened to bee
            colonies exposed to a widely used pesticide.

            A widely
            used farm pesticide first introduced in the 1990s has caused significant
            changes to bee colonies and removing it could be the key factor in
            restoring nature’s army of pollinators, according to two studies
            released Thursday.

            The
            scientists behind the studies in Europe called for regulators to
            consider banning the class of chemicals known as neonicotinoid
            insecticides. In the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency told
            msnbc.com that the studies would be incorporated into a review that’s
            currently under way.

            A pesticide trade group questioned the data,
            saying the levels of pesticide used were unrealistically high, while the
            researchers said the levels used were typical of what bees would find
            on farms.

          • GMO Roberts

            Yawn, you are boring Jonny. There are a lot of theories out there with the bees and no conclusive proof. Strange how the bee farmers keep having enough hives to get the job done every year. None of my vegetable customers seem to have any trouble renting bees. So Jonny just tell us what kind of a government we have and let’s get on with it.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            A new study out of Harvard University, published in the June edition of the Bulletin of Insectology puts the nail in the coffin, neonicotinoids are killing bees at an exponential rate, they are the direct cause of the phenomenon labeled as colony collapse disorder (CCD). Neonicotinoid’s are the world’s most widely used insecticides. (1)

            “The results from this study not only replicate findings from the previous study, but also reinforce the conclusion that the sublethal exposure to neonicotinoids is likely the
            main culprit for the occurrence of CCD.” (1)

            For this study, researchers examined 18
            bee colonies at three different apiaries in central Massachusetts over the course of a year. Four colonies at each apiary were regularly treated with realistic doses of neonicotinoid pesticides, while a total of six hives were left untreated. Of the 12 hives treated with the pesticides, six were completely wiped out.

            Neonicotinoids insecticides, persist in “extremely high levels” in planter exhaust material produced during the planting of crops treated with these insecticides. This runs contrary to industry claims that the chemicals biodegrade and are not a threat. These pesticide components are found in soil, they are also found in fields where the chemicals are not even sprayed. Bees also
            actively transfer contaminated pollen from
            primarily pesticide treated corn crops and bring it back to their hives. Furthermore, bees transfer these pesticides to other plants and
            crops that are not treated with the chemicals, which goes to show just how persistent these chemicals truly are in the environment.

          • GMO Roberts

            Strange you spout off claims, even footnotes, but don’t list any at the end. Once again you take only sections. If you wish anyone to actually believe you or look at your evidence you must at the very least put the date and name of the study. Of course with your track record the study probably has totally different conclusions. Just tell us what type of government we have Jon boy.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Not only have these pesticides been
            linked to various health ailments, they are killing bees all over the
            world. It’s not just bees, the disappearance of Monarch Butterflies has
            also been linked to Monsanto’s roundup herbicide. It’s time we
            completely ban something that has absolutely no reason to exist, we can
            do better than this.

            As we continue to take actions like this
            we continue to see that how we are currently doing things simply cannot
            be sustained. This type of issue does not just reflect how we treat
            nature but also reflects how we operate as a whole. If money wasn’t so
            important, we wouldn’t be finding unnatural ways to do everything on
            this planet. If we weren’t so concerned with maintaining an economy,
            issues such as these wouldn’t affect us. This is all a perfect lesson
            for us to ask “what the heck are we doing to our planet?” We are at a
            point where our very survival is now threatened because we are fighting
            so hard to maintain a system we all don’t like anyway.

          • GMO Roberts

            Funny Jonny, you say you don’t like our system, but in reality you don’t even know what kind of system we have.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            The U.S. is losing millions of dollars a year
            to corporations around the world for the rental of bees, mainly Australia. A
            handful of commercial beekeepers in the U.S. rent out their bees for
            pollination purposes such as David Hackenberg, a beekeeper who sends pods of
            honeybees across the country from Maine to California to pollinate almonds and
            blueberries, but in many cases, the U.S. resorts to renting freights of bees
            from Australia to keep their agriculture farms producing a healthy, profitable
            amount of product. A single pod, or hive, of bees is generally rented for
            pollination at $90 per day with increasing prices each year on account of
            higher demand. In the United States, beekeepers are facing bankruptcy from
            vanishing bees, and farms are not producing food.

          • GMO Roberts

            Where do you get such fantasies? I know plenty of bee keepers, none have the trouble you describe and not getting nearly as much as you claim in rent. Amazing with those prices we are able to keep food as cheap as it is, must be thanks to commercial ag. No tell us “little” jon boy, what type of government we have.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            A controversial agricultural insecticide
            that has been implicated in the collapse of bee colonies around the
            world also appears to be causing bird populations to drop, according to a
            new study. The insecticides known as neonicotinoids
            are designed to attack the central nervous system of insects that
            devour crops, but only about 5 percent of the chemical compound stays on
            the plant. The rest leaches into the soil and water, where it does its
            magic on other bugs, the researchers said.

            In areas with high loads
            of the pesticide, “insects in general are dropping dead, and therefore
            there is less food for the birds available to feed their offspring,”
            said Caspar Hallmann, an ecologist and lead author of the paper published this week in Nature.
            Whatever the cause, bird populations are dropping at about 3.5 percent a
            year in farmland areas where surface-water concentrations of the
            neonicotinoid imidacloprid are high. At that rate, in 10 years bird populations could decline more than 30 percent.
            — John Roach, NBC News
            First published July 9th 2014, 2:05 pm

          • GMO Roberts

            Let’s see out of one side of your lying mouth you claim bt isn’t working anymore as the insects eat it and live, then out of the other side you claim it to be so good that it actually zaps an entire area of ALL insects so well that the birds starve. Gee Jonny which is it? Does it work or not? While you decide tell us what kind of a government we have as well Jonny.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            WASHINGTON, DC, April 5, 2015 (ENS) – The
            neonicotinoid insecticide clothianidin is a likely contributor to monarch butterfly declines in North America, finds new research by a team from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.Theirs is the first report of neonicotinoids affecting monarchs or any other butterflies.

            The research, published on Friday, identifies concentrations of clothianidin as low as one part per billion as harmful to monarch
            butterfly caterpillars. These concentrations of clothianidin were found in the populations of milkweeds sampled by the researchers.

            The research by Jacob Pecenka and Jonathan Lundgren was conducted in
            Brookings, South Dakota and is published in the journal “Science and
            Nature.”

          • GMO Roberts

            How can it be found in milkweed, you said we done killed em all with our roundup? Jonny, make up your mind, quit flip flopping. Settle down and tell us what kind of government we have.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Meanwhile, a Texas A&M University researcher says reports by the World Wildlife Fund, private donors and Mexico’s Michoacan state show that Monarch numbers will be down almost 30 percent in 2012 as they make
            their annual trek from their breeding grounds in Mexico and move acrossTexas.

            Craig Wilson, a senior research associate in the Center for Mathematics and Science Education and a long-time butterfly enthusiast, says the figures show an alarming decades-long decline in their numbers.

            “The latest information shows that Monarchs will be down from 25 to 30 percent this year, and that has been part of a disturbing trend the last few years,” Wilson warns.

            “Last year’s severe drought and fires in the region no doubt played a part, resulting in less nectar for the Monarchs as they migrated
            south,” Wilson said. “But estimates show that each year, millions of acres of land are being lost that would support Monarchs, either by
            farmers converting dormant land for crop use – mainly to herbicide tolerant corn and soybeans – or the overuse of herbicides and mowing.
            Milkweed is the key plant because it’s the only plant where the female
            will lay her eggs.”

          • GMO Roberts

            Gee Jonny, a second ago it was the insecticides killing them, now back to glyphosate? What’s next? The Easter bunny doing them in? When one of your arguments does fly you just come up with another. So Jonny why don’t you just tell us what kind of government we have.

          • JOHN BISCIT

            Karen Oberhauser of the University of
            Minnesota says that the use of Roundup has destroyed the monarch
            butterfly’s primary food source, which is a weed called milkweed that is
            found across North America. Oberhauser has been able to catalog a
            parallel decline in the butterfly population with the elimination of the
            weed. You can read the full article posted by RT news here.

            Monsanto has come under a lot of
            opposition within the past few years. As a result, many countries are
            completely banning GM products and the pesticides that come with them.
            Russia also recently announced that they are considering a complete ban
            on GMO food products, you can read more about that here.
            As mentioned and illustrated earlier, Monsanto’s agriculture-oriented
            chemicals are responsible for various cancers, autism, Alzheimer’s,
            Parkinson’s and more. It’s completely mind boggling to think that the
            Environmental Protection Agency raised the permissible level that could
            be sprayed on crops, also mentioned earlier.

            Pesticides are not needed, we have the
            potential, ability and resources to grow completely non-GMO, organic,
            pesticide free food and feed the entire planet doing so. Roundup
            herbicide is absolutely unnecessary, and the continual justification of
            it by big bio-tech corporations and the Environmental Protection Agency
            is making many people scratch their heads.

            Why do we continue using these
            pesticides if they aren’t necessary? Why are we continually made to
            believe that they are necessary? This is one thing, out of many, that we
            must stop in order to protect our health as well as our environment,
            and the others that we share this planet with – such as bees and monarch
            butterflies.

          • GMO Roberts

            Why don’t you name the countries that are completely banning them if there are so many.

  • JSC1227

    These pro gmo, pro non labeling trolls, should move back to their rush limbaugh, fox news fairy tale website. If you dont believe in whole food , non chemicalized produce why even jump into the discussion. There is a forum for those that love toxic food and poison. That cheer when the glaciers collapse, that lick the boot of monsanto and the koch brothers, why argue a point that will never win over the opposing group, I wish these these paid monsanto/koch brother prostitutes would stay to their own groups and leave Bill moyers and nation magazine alone already. There is a genetic engineering climate denial website that will welcome your viewpoint, why not spew your poison and lies somewhere else.

  • JOHN BISCIT

    The words “methyl bromide” went mainstream this week (April 7, 2015),
    with the news that a Delaware family had been poisoned by the pesticide
    while on vacation in the Virgin Islands. In its report
    on the
    story, NBC news pointed out that the U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA) doesn’t allow exterminators to use methyl bromide in the
    U.S.—but the agency does grant a “critical use exemption” to certain
    farmers, including strawberry farmers.

    What better opportunity to
    call on Driscoll’s, the largest organic and “natural” strawberry company
    in the world, to stop using methyl bromide on strawberry seedlings that
    the company then sells to organic farmers, so they can raise “organic”
    strawberries.

    Driscoll’s uses toxic fumigants, including methyl
    bromide, on all of the company’s strawberry seedlings. The company then
    sells those seedlings, to, among others, organic farmers, who raise the
    plants organically and sell them under the organic label.

    How
    does Driscol’sl get away with this scam? The company has convinced its
    organic certifier, California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF), and the
    USDA National Organic Program (NOP),
    that there are no “commercially available” sources for legitimately organic strawberry seedlings.

    But that’s just not true.

    TAKE ACTION! Tell Driscoll’s to stop using toxic
    fumigants on organic strawberries, and start growing seedlings for their
    organic farmers organically!

  • JOHN BISCIT

    Buying organic eggs is a good way to fight factory farming—but only
    if you buy eggs from organic farms that raise their hens on pasture.

    Unfortunately, there are a lot of so-called “organic”
    eggs on grocery shelves that come from farms that operate more like
    factories, than farms—despite the pretty pictures on their labels.

    Which national organic brands are the worst
    offenders? Egg-Land’s Best® and Land O’ Lakes® brands, along with many
    organic private-label store brands, according to a recent Cornucopia Institute investigation of the organic egg industry.

    Based on animal welfare issues, and the fact that
    these brands come from farms that feed their chickens synthetic
    methionine, we’re calling on all consumers to boycott Egg-Land’s Best
    and Land O’Lakes organic eggs. We also advise consumers to steer clear
    of store brand organic eggs.

    Check out our action alert on how to avoid
    these brands, and also for a detailed exposé on the big organic
    producers that own the brands—their crimes against animals, and their
    dismal track records when it comes to following the USDA’s National
    Organic Program’s rules for organic egg production.

    TAKE
    ACTION: Tell Egg-Land’s Best and Land O’Lakes you’re boycotting their
    “organic” eggs until they stop producing them on factory farms.

  • JOHN BISCIT

    The main cause of the monarch butterfly’s decline is the loss of
    milkweed — its food — in its U.S. breeding grounds, a new study has
    found. That all but confirms that the spread of genetically modified
    crops is indirectly killing the monarch.

    This past winter, the number of monarch butterflies wintering in Mexico
    fell to its lowest since 1993, when records first started being kept,
    the World Wildlife Fund and Mexico’s Environment Department reported in
    January. That report blamed the loss of milkweed owing to genetically
    modified crops and urban sprawl in the U.S. and illegal logging in the
    butterflies’ Mexican wintering ground.

    Monarch migration said to be in trouble as numbers fall

    Now, an analysis combining all the known data about monarch
    populations and the factors that influence them shows that the monarch’s
    biggest threat is in the U.S., not Mexico.

    The leaves of the milkweed plant are the only place that monarchs lay
    their eggs and the only food that monarch butterfly caterpillars will
    eat. A large proportion of monarchs east of the Rocky Mountains breed in
    the U.S. corn belt, stretching from Kansas in the west to Ohio in the
    east, and south to north from Missouri to North Dakota.

  • JOHN BISCIT

    It’s been almost a year since the OCA organized a protest at the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) meeting in San Antonio,
    Texas, to voice our opposition to a September 2013 change made by the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Organic Program (USDA NOP) to the program’s “sunset” process for reviewing non-organic materials allowed in organic.
    This week, we joined about a dozen other groups in a lawsuit against the USDA to overturn that change and restore the original “sunset” process.

    What did the NOP do that triggered our protest and launched a lawsuit?

    Since its origins, the sunset provision has been interpreted under the USDA organic rule to require allowed synthetic materials to cycle off the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances every five years unless the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) decisively votes by a two-thirds majority to relist them. In making its decision, the NOSB is charged with considering public input, new science, and new information on available alternatives. In September, 2013, without public comment, and in a complete reversal of the customary public process, USDA announced a change in the rule it had been operating under since the inception of the organic program, now allowing synthetic materials to remain on the National List unless the NOSB votes them off.

    Why does it matter?

    We are deeply concerned that the decision-making process on allowed synthetic materials in organic production and processing is being undermined by USDA. The lawsuit we are filing challenges the unilateral agency action on the sunset procedure for synthetic materials review, which represents a dramatic departure from the organic community’s commitment to an open and fair decision making process that is subject to public input. Legalistically, the agency’s decision represents a rule change and therefore must be subject to public comment. But equally important, it is a departure from the public process that we have built as a community.

    It all comes down to this: As consumers, and consumer advocates, we have to protect the integrity of organic standards. If we don’t, if we allow industry to pressure the USDA’s NOP into allowing weaker and weaker standards, we risk the loss of consumer confidence in a label we have worked for, and relied on, for decades.

  • JOHN BISCIT

    The EPA has issued a moratorium on use of a type of pesticide
    theorized to be responsible for plummeting bee populations.
    Neonicotinoids are a class of common pesticides that recent research has pointed to as being harmful to birds, bees and other animals. The EPA previously approved their use, but outcry over the damage being done has caused the agency to reverse course while more studies are done. On Thursday, the EPA sent letters to people and companies that have appliedfor outdoor use of the pesticide, saying that new use permits won’t be issued.

    New uses of neonicotinoids will no long be approved “until the data
    on pollinator health have been received and appropriate risk assessments completed,” the EPA letter reads.Existing permits to use them, however, will not be rescinded — something wildlife and environmental advocacy groups are unhappy with.

  • JOHN BISCIT

    Fallout continues from the World Health Organisation’s classification of glyphosate herbicide as a probable carcinogen.
    Following is a collection of comments on the story. In item 3, Senator Ed Markey calls for the US EPA to quickly complete its planned review of glyphosate, taking into account the new information from the WHO.

    However, unless the EPA reforms its evaluation processes, it will not take the WHO report into serious consideration.

    This is because the EPA, in common with regulatory authorities
    worldwide, routinely ignores or dismisses the independent studies that
    the WHO examined in order to reach its conclusion. Instead regulators
    base their evaluations on data from outdated tests conducted by
    industry, the details of which are kept secret from the public and
    independent scientists.

    This has led to diverging scientific streams of thought, in which
    independent studies frequently find harm from a substance that
    regulators insist is safe.

  • JOHN BISCIT

    With Monsanto’s Bt corn, the corn itself is registered as an
    insecticide. This is because every cell has the poison. The prediction
    that the huge amount of Bt in the corn will lead to the increase of
    “super insects” has come true. These insects mutate to develop a
    resistance to the continuous onslaught of Bt toxin and won’t respond to
    it anymore, thereby requiring more pesticide to be applied.

  • JOHN BISCIT

    (Reuters)
    – Oregon’s biggest city on Wednesday banned the use of an insecticide
    on city lands blamed by conservationists as a factor in the decline of honey bees in recent years.

    Despite
    protests from farmers who argued the insecticide was crucial for crop
    production, the Portland City Commission voted unanimously to
    immediately suspend use of products that contain neonicotinoids.

    Such pesticides are widely used on crops and on plants as well as trees in gardens, parks and commercial nurseries.

    Portland
    brings to at least eight the number of U.S. municipalities, including
    Seattle and Spokane in neighboring Washington state, that have banned
    the chemicals amid what conservationists say is mounting evidence the
    insecticide is a culprit in the decline of bees and other pollinating
    insects.

    Portland Commissioner Amanda Fritz successfully sought
    approval of the measure on Wednesday as a public health issue requiring
    emergency action that would immediately outlaw use of neonicotinoids in
    such areas as municipal parks, streets and gardens.

    “I think we’re doing another good thing for the city of Portland, Oregon … and maybe the entire world,” Fritz said.

    Opponents
    like Oregonians for Food and Shelter, a coalition of farmers, foresters
    and other pesticide users, said findings by some scientists suggesting
    honey bees have been severely harmed by the insecticide have been
    refuted by other researchers.

    Scott Dahlman, the group’s policy
    director, said the decision by Portland leaders was based on “fear and
    ideology” rather than sound science about bees and other pollinators,
    which are vital for food production.

    “Farmers have a huge investment in honey bees but they also need
    insecticides to protect their crops from destructive pests,” he said.

    Aimee Code, pesticide program coordinator for the Xerces Society for
    Invertebrate Conservation, said momentum was building among local
    governments to prohibit use of such chemicals even as the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency mulls restricting or curtailing their use.

    Eugene,
    Oregon, and Shorewood, Minnesota, are among eight municipalities that
    have passed bans similar to the one in Portland, said Code.

    The federal Fish and Wildlife Service is to prohibit neonicotinoid use at national wildlife refuges by next January.

  • JOHN BISCIT

    This post is to help Bobo understand about the birds and the bees:

    A controversial agricultural insecticide that has been implicated in the collapse of bee colonies around the world also appears to be causing bird populations to drop, according to a new study. The insecticides known as neonicotinoids are designed to attack the central nervous system of insects that devour crops, but only about 5 percent of the chemical compound stays on the plant. The rest leaches into the soil and water, where it does its magic on other bugs, the researchers said.

    In areas with high loads of the pesticide, “insects in general are dropping dead, and therefore there is less food for the birds available to feed their offspring,” said Caspar Hallmann, an ecologist and lead author of the paper published this week in Nature.
    Whatever the cause, bird populations are dropping at about 3.5 percent a year in farmland areas where surface-water concentrations of the neonicotinoid imidacloprid are high. At that rate, in 10 years bird populations could decline more than 30 percent.

  • JOHN BISCIT

    Adoption of neonicotinoid insecticides by seed companies and farmers
    has been very rapid and does not appear to relate well to a
    corresponding risk from insect pests,” said John Tooker, Penn State
    associate professor of entomology. “This pattern suggests that
    neonicotinoids often are being used as an ‘insurance policy’ against
    uncertain insect attack, rather than in response to a documented pest
    threat.”

    In February, the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council accused
    the Environmental Protection Agency of dragging its feet on efforts to
    save the imperiled monarch butterfly and filed a lawsuit to force the
    agency to act.

    EPA’s failure to respond to an urgent petition that sought to limit
    the use of another chemical, the herbicide glyphosate, that has been
    destroying monarch habitat, filed more than a year ago by NRDC, has
    resulted in “significant ongoing harm” to the vulnerable butterfly
    population, claims the suit, filed in the U.S. District Court in New
    York City.

    “The longer EPA delays, the greater the risk we could lose the
    monarch migration,” said Dr. Sylvia Fallon, an NRDC scientist and
    director of its Wildlife Conservation Project.

    The monarch butterfly, an iconic North American species that makes a
    unique 2,500 mile annual migration from the mountains of central Mexico to Canada and back, has been in decline for 15 years.

    Once numbering as many as a billion butterflies, only 56.5 million
    Monarchs were counted in January at their Mexican refuge, the second
    lowest total ever.

  • JOHN BISCIT

    Dare to publish a scientific study against Big Biotech, and Monsanto
    will defame and discredit you. For the first time, a Monsanto employee
    admits that there is an entire department within the corporation with the simple task of ‘discrediting’ and ‘debunking’ scientists who speak out against GMOs.
    The WHO recently classified glyphosate,a chemical in Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup, as carcinogenic – news that is really heating things up with biotech. So Monsanto has been demanding that the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) retract their statements about the poisons’s toxicity to human health.

    The company demands this even though a peer-reviewed study published in March of 2015 in the respected journal, The Lancet Oncology, conducted a analysis proving that glyphosate was indeed ‘probably carcinogenic.’

    Monsanto’s vice president of global regulatory affairs Philip Miller told Reuters the following in interview:

    “We question the quality of the assessment. The WHO has something to explain
    It has already been explained, Mr. Miller. The study states:

    “Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide, currently with the highest production volumes of all herbicides. It is used in more than 750 different products for agriculture, forestry, urban, and home applications. Its use has increased sharply with the development of
    genetically modified glyphosate-resistant crop varieties. Glyphosate
    has been detected in air during spraying, in water, and in food. There
    WAS limited evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of glyphosate.

    Glyphosate has been detected in the blood and urine of
    agricultural workers, indicating absorption. Soil microbes degrade
    glyphosate to aminomethylphosphoric acid (AMPA). Blood AMPA detection after poisonings suggests intestinal microbial metabolism in humans. Glyphosate and glyphosate formulations induced DNA and chromosomal damage in mammals, and in human and animal cells in vitro. One study reported increases in blood markers of chromosomal damage (micronuclei) in residents of several communities after spraying of glyphosate formulations.”

  • JOHN BISCIT

    OCO Mar.9

    COLUMBIA, S.C. — With the demand for certified organic foods rising
    steadily among health-conscious consumers, more farmers are taking the
    time and making the effort to seek organic certification.

    Once
    officially certified, farmers can use the U.S. Department of Agriculture
    organic seal with their products, which include crops, livestock and
    even processed items, such as packaged soups.

    The certification
    process has a reputation as being daunting and expensive, but Clemson
    University, a USDA-accredited certifying agent, is working to make it
    more accessible and affordable for South Carolina farmers, food
    processors, greenhouse operators, coffee roasters, restaurants owners
    and a variety of other clients. Here are several reasons Clemson wants
    these clients to have access to the organic marketplace:

    Organic products generally sell at prices 20 to 50 percent higher than their non-organic counterparts;

    Consumers respect organic products and those who produce them; and

    The
    practices used by organic farmers tend to build healthy soils, recycle
    farm nutrients and reduce pollutants, all of which is good for the
    environment.

  • JOHN BISCIT

    CONSUMERS HAVE THE POWER!

    Today,
    Lowe’s announced that it’s making a public commitment to phase out
    neonicotinoid pesticides – the most significant public commitment so far
    for a retailer of its size.

    So what does this mean?
    Here’s what Lowe’s had to say in their just-released 2015 Corporate
    Social Responsibility Report1:

    Lowe’s is committed to regularly reviewing the products and information we offer customers and we’re taking the following actions to support pollinator health:

    Including greater organic and non-neonic product selections

    Phasing out the sale of products that contain neonic pesticides within 48 months as suitable alternatives become commercially available

    Working with growers to eliminate the use of neonic pesticides on bee-attractive plants we sell

    Encouraging growers to use biological control programs

    Educating employees and customers through in-store resources such as brochures, fact sheets and product labels

    CFS members sent thousands of emails, prodded Lowe’s on social media, and even rallied in front of Lowe’s stores to urge the company to protect our pollinators. While this is not a silver bullet solution, this is a major step and you should be very proud of your role in this fight.

    This progress would not have been possible without the thousands of emails and calls from members like you, and the hard work of our allies like Friends of the Earth and others.

    Thank you for all that you do for bees,

    Center for Food Safety
    ————————————————–

    (Lowe’s Home Improvement, 2014 Corporate Social Responsibility report http://responsibility.lowes.com/2015/wp-content/uploads/Lowes_2014_SR.pdf, page 27)

  • JOHN BISCIT

    The GM crops on the market today are not designed to address hunger

    In 2013, 57% of the world’s GM crops were engineered to be
    herbicide tolerant, 16% were engineered to be insect resistant (Bt), and
    27% were “stacked” with both these traits. This means that 84% of all
    GM crops are tolerant to some groups of herbicides. Other traits, such
    as virus resistance and drought tolerance, account for less than 1% of
    global GM crop acres.
    Four GM crops account for almost 100% of worldwide GM crop acreage:
    soy, corn, cotton and canola. All four have been developed for
    large-scale industrial farming and are used as cash crops for export, to
    produce fuel, or for processed food and animal feed. There are very few
    GM fruits and vegetables on the market, or GM grains that are used for
    direct human consumption.
    Just three countries – US, Brazil and Argentina – account for over
    77% of the world’s GM crops. Ten countries account for 98% of the total
    GM acreage.

  • JOHN BISCIT

    When chemical agriculture blankets millions of acres of genetically engineered corn and soybean fields with hundreds of millions of pounds of glyphosate, it’s not a surprise babies are now consuming Monsanto’s signature chemical with breast milk and infant formula,” said Ken Cook, president and co-founder of Environmental Working Group. “The primary reason millions of Americans, including infants, are now exposed to this probable carcinogen is due to the explosion of genetically engineered crops that now dominate farmland across the U.S.”
    “Through their purchasing power, the American consumer is fueling
    this surge in GMO crops and the glyphosate exposure that comes with it,” added Cook. “It’s time the federal FDA require foods made with GMOs be labeled as such so the public can decide for themselves if they want to send their dollars to the biotech industry that cares more about profits than public health.”

    According to a report by Carey Gillam of Reuters, laboratories are receiving a surge in requests to have everything from food to urine samples tested for glyphosate in the aftermath of last month’s announcement by the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer that the weed-killer is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

  • Benjamin Edge

    The Dunning-Kruger is running rampant with JohnBoy. I would almost say he is a troll, in that he shows way too much ignorance for the average person. You have to be trying to act this stupid. Otherwise he would stumble across the right answer every once in a while just by chance.

  • SageThinker

    Science is good when it’s good. But it can be used as a smokescreen, and the genetic engineering industry has been using science as a propaganda tool and to drown would-be critics in a sea of words and so-called research. One example is the response to the question of whether glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup) in our food supply might be affecting the human gut microbiome, as seems likely to me given the basic science of glyphosate, and the nature of microbial community shift under selective pressure.

    “They” — meaning industry proponents — continuously tell me that “thousands of feeding studies have been done to test the safety” but when i ask them to show me one single feeding study that shows little or no effects on the mammalian gut microbiome, they fail to do so and say again “thousands of feeding studies have been done!”

    When i do look into meta-level reviews of feeding studies, i find *nothing* relevant to whether glyphosate has an effect on the gut microbiome.

    First of all, most of the studies on Roundup Ready maize or soybean feed the study subjects the GM plant *without* glyphosate! How can the effect of the product be tested when it’s not fed to the study subjects as it would be ingested by humans?!

    Secondly, *none* of them look at the gut microbiome in terms of population balance or functional integrity. They could easily assay species balances of experimental and control groups, but they have not done so, *ever*.

    So, be very cautious when you reference a so-called “scientific consensus” because (1) that’s a complex question, as different GM products are different and accompany different chemicals, and (2) when you look closely, the alleged “consensus” is in some aspects completely fake.

    They would send you off looking for a non-existent needle in a manufactured haystack.

    It’s scientific propaganda by bulk — they want to overwhelm you in a sea of words.

  • John Mclaren

    Logical fallacy: you reduced the GMO debate to an artificial argument based solely on food safety. You made a straw man and destroyed it, proving nothing.

  • Heather Abeita

    Hello everyone, GMOs are one of the hot topics right now. And it is understandable to want to know where your food comes from and what you are eating. But did you know Genetically Modified Organisms have actually been around for a long time such as thousands of years. If you like Seedless Watermelon then that is a fruit that was actually made by crossing genes or what you know as “GMOs”. It goes back to crossing genes (DNA) to get for example seedless. 😊

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

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

Collide-a-Scape

Collide-a-Scape is an archived Discover blog. Keep up with Keith's current work at http://www.keithkloor.com/

About Keith Kloor

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

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+