The organic industry’s GMO hoax

[ZombieHorde]

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/274069-the-organic-industrys-gmo-hoax

By Amanda Zaluckyj

~snip~

More than 1700 studies, conducted worldwide, have demonstrated genetically modified foods are safe for human and animal consumption. Their use has dramatically cut pesticide spraying, while simultaneously increasing yields and farmer profits.
To be considered organic, among other things, products must be free of genetically engineered ingredients. After recognizing the threat this new technology posed to its industry, organic product manufacturers began to insinuate GMOs were somehow dangerous and demand labeling.

Ronnie Cummins, director of the Organic Consumers Association, admitted that scaring consumers into buying organic food was a marketing ploy, saying the first step to growing organic market share is to change labeling laws.

Other leaders in the organic industry believe the same, and they put their money where their mouths are. GMO labeling organization, Just Label It, was initially funded by a “who’s who” of organic product companies, including Organic Valley, Clif Bar, Annie’s Homegrown Organic, and Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps. The head of the group is Gary Hirshberg, the chairman of Stonyfield Organic, who regularly implies that there is a link between GMOs and cancer or birth defects (there isn’t). Stonyfield Organic’s website claims, “There’s still a lot of work to be done to learn about the possible negative effects of GMOs on animal and human health.” Just Label It recently compared senators who voted against GMO labeling to Darth Vader, as though standing up for science based policy is the equivalent of being part of the Evil Empire.

~snip~

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/274069-the-organic-industrys-gmo-hoax

Personally, I believe government policy should be based upon science, and not superstitious beliefs.

[Socal31]

1. I just don't see how providing consumers with more information is bad.

So someone doesn't want to consume GMO food. Why should we care about the reason? They should have the choice.

I have a friend that swears MSG is poison. That is far from scientifically sound, but I believe in his right to know if it is in his commercially produced food.

[ZombieHorde]

3. Every law is a threat.

"Do this/don't do this, or we will hurt you." This is law. In my opinion, laws (threats) shouldn't be used against those who do not harm us.

[Socal31]

4. Food labeling laws aren't a threat to anyone except businesses.

In general, consumer protection and information laws aren't a threat to anyone.

Besides, if the People want the labels, as polls tend to show, then I have to question the motives of anyone who opposes them without a real argument. "Laws are threats" doesn't really pass that test.

[ZombieHorde]

7. If there's one thing the left and right agree on in the US,

it's prisons are awesome. They are truly the bee's knees in American thought. Nothing is better than punishment. I don't expect any American to understand my distaste for laws without a scientific reason. I am aware that I am in an extreme minority here.

If consumer protection and information laws weren't a threat to someone, then they wouldn't be obeyed. Someone is going to get hurt if they're not obeyed. Fast food places don't release the nutritional information about their products because they give a shit. They do it to avoid punishment. I have no problems with this because there is a scientific reason behind the policy. Some foods are harmful if eaten regularly, such as french fries.

My motive is to live in a more peaceful society, as opposed to a more violent society. Without violence, laws have no meaning, so I would like to see only laws that reduce violence. Sometimes fighting fire with fire makes good sense, in my opinion. I don't expect my fellow Americans to value nonviolence in nonviolent situations, but I will continue to advocate for this subjective value.

[Socal31]

8. So you admit that laws like nutritional information are OK.

You aren't against regulation, just regulation that you personally don't see a need for.

Prison and violence and such is quite a stretch here.

[ZombieHorde]

9. Nutritional information labels have a scientific reason.

GMOs do not have a scientific reason. My value system says there is a big difference between science and superstition.


I do think there is some corruption, so maybe some company owners can get away with criminal behavior, but that's not the ideal behind the proposed law. Most people bend to coercion, so few, if any, will get hurt, but the coercion is still there. Unless, of course, you are proposing we have a law with absolutely no punishment if broken.

[Socal31]

11. GMO labeling is coming to the US nationally.

When such large companies like General Mills state they support it, the writing is on the wall.

[womanofthehills]

90. So true & the good news is - Vermont wins manditory GMO labeling

Starting in July!!

http://www.inquisitr.com/2906258/vermont-wins-mandatory-gmo-labeling-will-start-in-july/

The tiny state of Vermont appears to have won a 2-year GMO labeling battle against the big food companies, despite the industry spending tens of millions of dollars to lobby Congress.

The state’s new law is only enforceable within its borders, but logistics make it too costly to provide labels for just the Freedom and Unity state. As a result, the country as a whole will get to see more information about what’s in their food – at least with General Mills and Campbell Soup products.

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/2906258/vermont-wins-mandatory-gmo-labeling-will-start-in-july/#K0WjZwLbtVUHL0QY.99

[Humanist_Activist]

95. Honestly, I'm neutral on the GMO labeling issue unless its a big, obvious "warning" label that...

shows an automatic bias, similar to Surgeon General's warning but without the evidence backing it up.

If its just a few lines included under the ingredients, like with soy, milk, peanuts, etc. I would think most people would just ignore it. It may be a good thing, remove the mystery and all that, its an added expense, but a small one, and when people realize how much of their food has ingredients that were genetically engineered, perhaps they will realize how safe GMOs actually are. Or we will have a rash of people with IBS claim the GMOs did it.

[Major Nikon]

118. One industry using the power of government to adversely affect another is a threat to everyone

Polls don't tend to show people want labels. The polls actually show most people don't even know what GMO is, and most labeling laws have failed.

[Socal31]

121. At least one does.

"A 2014 Associated Press-GfK poll found that 66 percent of Americans supported labeling of genetically modified food."

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/tiny-vermont-brings-food-industry-knees-gmo-labels-37775462

[Major Nikon]

122. ...

[MH1]

30. Requiring labeling enables choice. "Cancer!!!" isn't the only concern about GMO's.

Don't have time to get in a back and forth about it, but there are other concerns about GMO's besides what happens to me personally if I consume it.

[kcr]

50. Labeling laws informed by what corporations want aren't about giving consumers choice.

Corporations that sell organic food want you to think that because it's in your best interests. But labeling laws heavily lobbied by industry only enable making their products look better and scare customers into buying products from their companies. As a consumer I don't simply want choice. I want informed choice. I don't want mandatory labeling based only on want corporations feel is best. I want the facts. If a law claiming to be for the consumer doesn't have science backing it up and is heavily shilled by an industry, don't think they have your interests at heart.

[CentralMass]

48. It would allow people like you to buy those "superior" GMO food

Last edited Sat Mar 26, 2016, 01:05 PM - Edit history (1)

products without straining yourself to find them.

[SusanCalvin]

70. HA! Touche!

I was trying to find the Smothers Brothers routine where Tommy says "touchee, touchee," but I was not successful.

https://m.

[ZombieHorde]

146. I just want science-based policy. nt

[CentralMass]

166. Foods are either genetically modified or not. It's very simple. The public has a right to know.

[HuckleB]

168. The public has a right to not be disinformed.

Why labeling of GMOs is actually bad for people and the environment
http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2012/06/06/why-labeling-of-gmos-is-actually-bad-for-people-and-the-environment/

How Scare Tactics on GMO Foods Hurt Everybody
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/528331/how-scare-tactics-on-gmo-foods-hurt-everybody/

A Principled Case Against Mandatory GMO Labels
http://fafdl.org/blog/2014/08/16/a-principled-case-against-mandatory-gmo-labels/

[CentralMass]

169. Public opinion strongly favors labelling.

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/us-polls-on-ge-food-labeling

U.S. Polls on GE Food Labeling

The Mellman Group, Inc., 11/23/15
This poll of likely 2016 voters found that 89% said they favor mandatory labels on “foods which have been genetically engineered or containing genetically engineered ingredients be labeled to indicate that.” A mere 6% oppose such a requirement and another 6% don’t know. A 77% supermajority not only favored mandatory labeling but “strongly” favored the proposal. These views are widespread across demographic lines, with nearly all Democrats (92% favor, 2% oppose), independents (89% favor, 7% oppose) and Republicans (84% favor, 7% oppose) supporting a required label.
By similarly overwhelming margins, voters prefer that GMO labels on food products be printed on the package, with 88% saying they prefer printed labels (79% strongly favor), while just 8% prefer scannable bar codes. "

Its time corporations and their lobbyists and surrogates stop interfering with public policy .

[HuckleB]

170. Let's play "name that logical fallacy."

Propagandists promoted baseless fear in order to create this "want."

You can't justify promoting disinformation by pointing out the fact dishonest propagandists created baseless fear in others.

http://www.marklynas.org/2013/04/time-to-call-out-the-anti-gmo-conspiracy-theory/

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/7-propaganda-talking-points-against-gmos/

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top

[CentralMass]

172. Your corporate funded studies are irrelevant. Public opinion strongly favors labelling..

I don't understand why people like you who are obviously fighting labelling should care. If you feel so strongly about these products you should be pushing to have them labelled so like minded people can easy identify them so they can purchase them.

You seem to want to hide them. Why is that ?

[HuckleB]

230. Hundreds of them are not funded by any corporation. You are choosing ignorance.

Last edited Mon Mar 28, 2016, 02:31 PM - Edit history (3)

You don't even know that a label for GMO seeds tells you absolutely nothing about the food.

Why do you want to label one type of seeds, and not all them? Why is that? How is such a label not ludicrous disinformation?

[ZombieHorde]

175. Do you think we should use the scientific definition of gmo,

or the media definition of gmo?

[Recursion]

207. Well, no, that's precisely the issue

There's no one obvious place to draw the line between GMO and non-GMO, and where that line gets drawn can make a huge difference.

[lagomorph777]

235. WTF? Monsanto trolls

How can you possibly advocate keeping secrets from the people who are buying your products? You must work for Monsanto.

http://nutritionstudies.org/gmo-dangers-facts-you-need-to-know/

http://www.gmofreepa.org/compelling-peer-reviewed-studies/#.VvlSLOIrJhE

http://www.gmoevidence.com/

With GMO labeling, you will find it much easier to eat poison, and as far as I'm concerned, please help yourself!

[Humanist_Activist]

242. Conspiracy theory nutcases, yes, we are all paid by Monsanto, but the benefits suck.

The motivation behind the labeling is deception, ultimately, a marketing ploy, revealing that fact doesn't mean we work for Monsanto.

[lagomorph777]

243. Bullshit. Allowing me to know a food contains GMO is deceptive?

Typical GOP word-twisting. Like "Family Values" = homophobia, and "Low taxes" = tax breaks for billionaires.

[HuckleB]

244. You're allowed to know it.

Mandating that the food derived from one seed development technology be labeled with that seed development technology, but not mandating that all seed development technology types be labeled is deceptive. Also, not informing the consumer about what the seed development technology did to change the plant means the consumer has no idea how that technology affected the food.

So, yes, deception is what is happening with these labels.


BTW, calling people "Monsanto Trolls" is lame. It tends to show you can't discuss the issue from the start.

[lagomorph777]

245. "Seed development technology?"

The Sumerians and the proto-Incas created the only "seed development technology" we need; it's called "artificial selection." Any technology that goes beyond artificial selection is inherently risky because it is not possible to test all the potential problems it will cause, until mass-scale experiments are performed on the public. Which is underway now. Results will trickle in over the next few decades, if researchers are allowed to report the truth they observe.

So yes, any seed development technology that deliberately induces mutations should, at a minimum, be labeled. That would include GMO, chemical mutations, radiation, and CRISPR.

[HuckleB]

246. Oh, goodness.

That's quite the fantasy you have there. Artificial selection leads to far more changes in the genetics of the plant, and we don't know what those changes are, so we can't study them very well at all.

Parroting bad anti-GMO propaganda isn't going to get you far here.

http://grist.org/food/genetic-engineering-vs-natural-breeding-whats-the-difference/

[lagomorph777]

250. Now you just sound silly.

Shuffling whole chromosomes of two variants of the same species in no way compares to introducing completely alien genes.

Parroting Monsanto propaganda won't get you far on DU. Perhaps you would be more comfortable over at:
http://freerepublic.com/tag/*/index

[HuckleB]

252. In other words, you prefer to ignore the actual content of my posts, not to mention science.

Instead you make another baseless personal attack.

And I sound silly?



BTW, do you realize how many genes most living things have in common?
http://genecuisine.blogspot.com/2011/03/human-dna-similarities-to-chimps-and.html

[lagomorph777]

254. So I had a look at your posts, and I see you are pro-pesticide, pro-GMO, and anti-organic

I hope you enjoy all the pesticide-laden GMO foods you can get your hands on.

Personally, I don't like the taste of pesticides, let alone the long-term well-documented effects on my health. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask your industry not to lie about the toxic "food" you are selling.

But I guess that's just silly.

[HuckleB]

255. I am pro-science, pro-environment, pro-earth.

You seem to prefer deforestation and pretending that organic foods do not use pesticides.

You seem to think demonizing foods with deceptive commentary is ok. I don't.

Yes, what you are promoting is silly, and that's being very kind.

The anti-GMO movement is funded by corporations, btw.
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2016/01/the_greatest_hyopcrises_of_the_anti-gmo_moviement.html

[Major Nikon]

269. This is entirely too fucking funny

First you claim someone else sounds silly and then you claim gene splicing involves "Shuffling whole chromosomes". Just so you can have some hope of understanding just how silly you sound, you should know that gene splicing involves a single gene and a single whole chromosome (let alone multiple chromosomes) contain hundreds of thousands of genes. But I guess pointing out basic facts in hopes that you can someday find a solitary clue about what you're discussing makes me guilty of "Parroting Monsanto propaganda".

[ZombieHorde]

259. Is Neil deGrasse Tyson a Monsanto troll?

[Major Nikon]

267. Sure

Just like anyone who calls bullshit on "vaccines cause autism" are big-pharma trolls, anyone who calls bullshit on government mind control is a NSA plant, anyone who calls bullshit on 9/11 "truth" is working for the CIA, on and on it goes. The vapid paranoia just isn't that hard to spot.

[Humanist_Activist]

14. Yeah, MSG is one of the most prolific amino acids that is present in foods, if its poison...

its a very poor one. Also note that its naturally occurring and also a food additive, like table salt(NaCl).

Warning your friend that there is MSG in his food is about as helpful as telling him that it may have protein in it, since there's no evidence of any reactions to it from people, there's no need for a special label, is there? Its not like they are peanuts or another type of ingredient that can cause severe reactions in some people. List them among the other list of ingredients, no special label is required to point them out.

GMOs are similar, providing people with more information is bad if that information is unhelpful, incorrect and/or out of context. Not to mention the push for the label is simply another example of poisoning the well. The organic industry is banking that customers are not going to buy foods with GMOs in them because they deliberately spread misinformation about the non-existent negative health effects of GMOs. They poisoned the well, which would make the label an example of misinformation.

If I were to keep saying that MSG was a poison, that can, hell, I don't know, cause strokes or something, even though its not true, it will spread around the web, spread among the alt-reality crowd until its believed by millions, and then those millions go out and sign petitions calling for a warning label on all food that contains it. Would it be reasonable to cede to their demands based on their irrational and frankly made up fears?

[Hugin]

45. If it's already in the food. Then why add more?

Unless, it's to make a buck or some unmentioned tertiary reason which adds to once again, making a buck.

[Thor_MN]

49. Why add more? For the taste, maybe?

Why make up vague, fearful conspiracy theories when the obvious is right there?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monosodium_glutamate
Monosodium glutamate (MSG, also known as sodium glutamate) is the sodium salt of glutamic acid, one of the most abundant naturally occurring non-essential amino acids.[Manuf. 1] Monosodium glutamate is found in tomatoes, Parmesan cheese, potatoes, mushrooms, and other vegetables and fruits.[1][2]

MSG is used in the food industry as a flavor enhancer with an umami taste that intensifies the meaty, savory flavor of food, as naturally occurring glutamate does in foods such as stews and meat soups.[3][4] It was first prepared by Japanese biochemist Kikunae Ikeda, who was seeking to isolate and duplicate the savory taste of kombu, an edible seaweed used as a base for many Japanese soups. MSG as a flavor enhancer balances, blends, and rounds the perception of other tastes.[5][6] It is particularly popular in Korean, Japanese, and Chinese cuisine.

[Hugin]

54. Taste is subjective.

Flavor enhancer? Even more subjective.

Sounds like it's #1. Making a buck selling MSG.

For a second there, I thought you were going to try to tell me it is an essential nutrient.

[Thor_MN]

56. In other words, you don't understand it, so you fear it.

For a second there, I thought you might actually read the wiki article and learn something.

[Hugin]

57. No, no fear at all.

If you choose to believe that a magic white powder can make food "taste better" or that ground rino horns can give you "harder hard-ons". That's your business.

Except, don't try to claim it's anything other than making money selling stuff to add to food.

[Thor_MN]

58. So you don't use salt, or sugar, or any of a hundred spices then?

[Hugin]

60. I see nowhere in my replies that I've said or even implied such a thing.

I typically use those things with a full understanding of what they taste like and even more importantly, what they do in terms of nutrition.

In scanning through the sources in the Wiki article you cite, I don't find a single reference to a single study supporting the "flavor enhancing" abilities of MSG. Curious. However, I do find several articles from magazines and periodicals like the Financial Times talking about making money off of MSG by selling it to add to food.

[Thor_MN]

61. Your selective reading due to your bias will never let you see anything you don't agree with.

You believe in the taste of salt, but you don't believe in the taste of umami.

I get it, you are a binary thinker, everything is 100% right or 100% wrong. Black, white. And if you don't understand it, it should be feared and shunned.

I'm never going to be able to convince you otherwise, although there are literally hundreds of references to umami, which you can't read about MSG without seeing. You probably still believe that there are only 4 tastes and nothing I say will change your mind.

So feel free to make another unsubstantiated comment about how MSG is only about money. I'm not wasting any more time on wild conspiracy theories.

[Hugin]

63. Yes, I am biased. I'm just not into woo. n/t

[Humanist_Activist]

69. What woo? Seeing this little conversation thread...

And I'm fucking puzzled as to what the fuck is your argument? I mean, if you want to believe MSG doesn't have an Umami taste, fine its really easy to test, get some, sprinkle it on your Wheaties and see if it adds a savory characteristic to your cereal. If not, boom you are a genius and you should warn many food producers because they are wasting millions adding a food additive that does nothing.

[Hugin]

108. Funny you should bring that up... Because, I've done that very thing.

With a name brand MSG "flavor enhancer".

I don't doubt "Umami", because with proper cooking methods, I'm routinely able to achieve it.


Oh, yeah... MSG and my test. Nothing. It provided nothing to the taste. Even dipping my finger in it a few moments ago. Nothing. It did not make my finger at all savory.

So. What do I think now? I'm even more firmly convinced MSG is totally a product meant to sell with no other purpose.

I'll send you some for the price of Shipping & Handling if you'd care to duplicate my experiment yourself.

[Humanist_Activist]

112. I'd prefer to buy it locally if possible, I am curious if your observations are accurate...

I really don't understand your assertion that its a product to sell that does nothing, I mean, the largest customers of it are the large food producers themselves, you would think they wouldn't want to waste money on an additive that doesn't do anything for their product. Even if they just passed the cost of it off to their customers, they could possibly take a hit in having fewer consumers of their products due to the increase in price. Either that or you think the spice industry is a lot larger or more deceptive than it really is.

[Hugin]

147. The spice industry INVENTED deceptive marketing centuries ago.

To understand the whole depth and intrigue read the history of the spice road. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spice_trade

Pay particular attention to the history of pre-ground "black pepper" (aka floor sweepings) and in modern times tea and coffee. I know they aren't spices, but, they are not technically staples required for life. It'll make you realize that sometimes Government Regulation on food and water quality is a necessary evil.

While you're out buying your MSG. Pay particular attention to the fact ONE company in the US has the license to produce and sell all of it. Both, retail and wholesale. The cylinders containing this magic powder right now are emblazoned with their current claims, "60% less sodium than salt" (at 5x the cost of salt, but, they don't tell you that.) Oh, and you have to use much more of it 1/2 tsp / lb of meat, than I would ever in my most crazed imaginings use of salt.

I've wondered why the processed and fast-food industry dump MSG in their slop with wild abandon. I've come up with a couple of hypotheses; The first being that somehow the MSG sales people have convinced the decision makers at the manufacturers of said slop that somehow it makes their bland pulp taste better. They might buy that due to the fact they never personally eat what their various outlets serve, so they believe it. I'm doubtful of this for the reason you cite on cost. Secondly, they've been sold on some secondary effect that MSG may allegedly produce in consumers. What it is, I don't know. Maybe, it makes them thirsty and sodapop is a profit leader in the fast-food industry. But, it's only necessary to look as far as the tobacco industry infusing their products with ammonia as a precedent for this type of supply side behavior.

So, there you have it. The totality of my thoughts on MSG.

Please, let me know how your duplication of my experiment turns out.

Thanks for the rational discussion, Humanist.

[womanofthehills]

197. True - dump MSG into low quality food

so it has some kind of taste. Or you can spray MSG on the weeds in your yard - it appears to also be a weedicide.

Good wholesome fresh food does not need flavor enhancers.

[Hugin]

200. +1

[Thor_MN]

73. Sorry, denial. You are precisely spouting woo.

Not a shred of evidence to support what you say. Only a lame "Follow the money!!1!!!1!" CT argument.

My comments in this thread are because I will always argue against ignorant, unsubstantiated woo.

[Hugin]

109. It's amazing to find that some people are so emotionally invested in defending MSG. n/t

[Humanist_Activist]

110. There's nothing to defend really, you are just being silly. n/t

[Thor_MN]

111. I'm not defending MSG. I'm arguing against woo.

It is amazing the lengths that people will go to to defend their fears.

[jeff47]

65. It adds a 'savory' flavor to food. Vaguely equivalent to adding meat. (nt)

[womanofthehills]

198. It adds a flavor to food that has no flavor

Only low quality food really needs MSG - onion, garlic and salt are not enough flavor for you.

[womanofthehills]

85. MSG will close up my throat

MSG is poison to me.

[Humanist_Activist]

88. So you don't eat tomatoes, most Cheeses, mushrooms, etc.

I mean, it is a prolific amino acid that is most likely present in some form in quite a few foods you eat. The question is, if you aren't aware of it, does your throat still close up?

Oh, and one other thing, all the reports about MSG reactions, which were never verified, were related to headaches and palpitations, not throat closings.

Are you "gluten sensitive" as well without being diagnosed with celiac disease?

[womanofthehills]

98. By the way - glutamate has nothing to do with gluten

It could be something in the fermentation process in producing msg that I am allergic too - maybe because it's probably made in a chemical company in India. Also, a small amt that would be naturally in a tomato has nothing to do with the larger amts in commercial MSG. Are you inferring that I am not intelligent enough to know what makes me ill?

N Engl Reg Allergy Proc. 1987 Jan-Feb;8(1):39-46.
The restaurant syndromes.
Settipane GA.
Abstract
The Restaurant syndromes can be caused by five major factors: food allergens, sulfites, monosodium glutamate (MSG), tartrazine, and scombroidosis (and other seafood poisoning). A history of atopy and ingestion of known food allergens such as peanuts, egg, fish, and walnuts, together with positive results of skin tests or RAST to these foods, will favor a diagnosis of food allergy. Allergic reactions to peanuts have produced fatalities in minutes through an IgE mediated reaction. An extremely rapid onset (minutes) of symptoms consisting of flushing, bronchospasm and hypotension is consistent with a sulfite reaction. Burning, pressure, and tightness or numbness in the face, neck, and upper chest following ingestion of Chinese food favors a diagnosis of adverse reaction to MSG. Also, development of late onset bronchospasm (up to 14 hours) may be related to MSG reactions. Bronchospasm and urticaria in a patient with a history of aspirin intolerance suggests tartrazine sensitivity. If everyone ingesting a fish meal develops flushing, urticaria, pruritus, gastrointestinal complaints, or bronchospasm, this implies scombroidosis, ciguatera, or other seafood poisoning. Finally, severe headache or hypertension can result from ingestion of naturally occurring amines, such as tyramine (cheese, red wine) and phenylethylamine (chocolate). A double-blind oral challenge test may be the only way of confirming the diagnosis for most of the etiological factors of the Restaurant syndromes. The treatment of choice for acute reaction is epinephrine followed by antihistamine. Proper labeling and avoidance of these ingredients in sensitive individuals are the best preventive measures.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3302666

[Humanist_Activist]

103. Nothing to do with intelligence, just education, there's nothing in MSG to cause the symptoms...

you describe, they have never been described in another person on the planet. So its either something else, or a nocebo effect. You cite a study from 1987, when all studies since have NOT linked MSG to any adverse effects in humans.

[Blecht]

127. When I found out that the fear of MSG was based on nothing, I was pissed off

I have recently started using it in my own cooking, and I love it.

I resent all those years I spent not having the flavor of my food enhanced!

[womanofthehills]

190. Did you know MSG is a good weed killer

too and it's coming to your table after being fermented in 3rd world countries! Enjoy!

[Major Nikon]

270. I didn't know that because I'm pretty sure it's complete nonsense

You could also certainly use most any other salt like what's probably on your table as a weed killer if you wanted, but I would hardly characterize it as "good".

Most of the spices in your spice rack along with many other commodities are processed in 3rd world countries as is the coffee I'm drinking right now. I suppose one could certainly eliminate all such things from one's diet in the interests of ridiculous irrational fear, but it would certainly make life far less enjoyable.

[ZombieHorde]

248. I believe some people have nasty allergies to MSG.

I don't and I enjoy MSG.

[Major Nikon]

271. I believe some people claim to have nasty allergies to MSG

But I also believe that science has been unable to reliably replicate their symptoms via double blind placebo controlled testing despite decades of trying.

Descriptions of MSG-induced asthma, urticaria, angio-oedema, and rhinitis have prompted some to suggest that MSG should be an aetiologic consideration in patients presenting with these conditions. This review prevents a critical review of the available literature related to the possible role of MSG in the so-called ‘Chinese restaurant syndrome’ and in eliciting asthmatic bronchospasm, urticaria, angio-oedema, and rhinitis. Despite concerns raised by early reports, decades of research have failed to demonstrate a clear and consistent relationship between MSG ingestion and the development of these conditions.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2222.2009.03221.x/abstract;jsessionid=8173D20BC1305F39FD84DD47BBA722FC.f03t01

[ZombieHorde]

278. Huh, that's interesting.

I may have been living a lie...again. Thanks for sharing this with me.

[womanofthehills]

192. They don't seem to like MSG in Sri Linka

Addressing a press conference held in Colombo on March 8th Dr. Palitha Mahipala, the Director General of Health Services in Sri Lanka stated that the government is to take steps to remove all Monosodium Glutamate stocks from the local markets within next two weeks.

Monosodium Glutamate or MSG is used in the food industry as a flavor enhancer with an umami taste that intensifies the meaty, savory flavor of food, as naturally occurring glutamate does in foods such as stews and meat soups. It was first prepared by Japanese biochemist Kikunae Ikeda, who was seeking to isolate and duplicate the savory taste of kombu, an edible seaweed used as a base for many Japanese soups. MSG as a flavor enhancer balances, blends, and rounds the perception of other tastes and particularly popular all around Sri Lanka from roadside stalls to star hotels.

And also MSG occurs naturally in many foods, such as tomatoes and cheeses.

Even though there’s no any scientific evidence in Sri Lanka MSG it is widely believed to be causing many adverse health problems. In some recent reports, this chemical is said to be very much effective as a weedkiller and becoming popular among local farmers.

After years of research U.S. Food and Drug Administration also recognizes MSG as safe.

http://srilankanscientist.com/sri-lanka-to-ban-mono-sodium-glutamate-msg-from-the-markets/

[Recursion]

208. Well, what they "don't like" is East Asian cuisine taking over traditional Sinhala and Tamil cuisine

That's a very specific nationalist move from Wickremesinghe's administration

[womanofthehills]

193. MSG is a weedicide in Ceylon because glyphosate is banned

Ajinomoto turns weedicide

Farmers in the North Central Province, especially Medirigiriya are using monosodium glutamate/sodium glutamate (MSG) also known by the trade name Ajinomoto as an agrochemical, in particular, as a weedicide, Manager of the Nenasala Computer Centre in Diwurankadawala K.G.A.S. Weerasinghe, who works with families with chronic kidney disease of unknown etiology victims, said.

He added that for every acre the farmers would use 200 grams of MSG in eight tanks full of agrochemicals to be sprayed in the fields including in paddy fields.
Now that glyphosate under the trade name Roundup is no longer available in the market due to a ban, the farmers are purchasing MSG from shops which sell it in the area, shops which also sell them to eateries of all sorts, he noted.

https://www.ceylontoday.lk/90-109439-news-detail-ajinomoto-turns-weedicide.html

[Humanist_Activist]

209. And? Its interesting that it has more than one use. Not relevant to the argument...

That its poisonous or dangerous, which it is not.

In fact, if its as effective a herbicide as glyphosate, I say replace it with MSG.

[Major Nikon]

272. Hydrogen hydroxide is a commonly used food additive that's also used as an industrial solvent

In most instances, the FDA doesn't even require it to be labeled even though it can be lethal even in small doses. It's what killed Andy Warhol.

[meaculpa2011]

17. Then you should only buy foods that...

are labeled "GMO Free."

There is nothing preventing anyone from labeling their products. If it does not say "No GMOs" on the label then you shouldn't buy it.

[mythology]

36. Define genetically modified

Here's a hint, everything you eat is genetically modified. From the specific breeds of cows we've encouraged to provide more milk, to the strain of broccoli we eat.

Some of that modification is natural, but much of it was human driven, both in and out of a lab. What I think you mean is modified in a lab, but why is that different?

[jeff47]

64. If providing more information was the goal, they'd be pushing a GMO-free label.

That would be very fast to implement, and the people producing GMO-free food would happily apply the label.

Just like the original Organic label was created by the industry, and organic producers happily applied the label. It later became a USDA standard.

They could do the same thing with GMO free. Instead, they're pushing for a lengthy battle over "Contains GMOs" label. During that battle, consumers are only left with the much more profitable-per-acre Organic label.

As for information, you're not really getting any information with a "Contains GMOs" label. You don't know if it was engineered to avoid a blight, or engineered for RoundUp resistance.

I have a friend that swears MSG is poison. That is far from scientifically sound, but I believe in his right to know if it is in his commercially produced food.

There are people who specifically react to MSG, including fatal reactions, and a "Contains MSG" label actually gives them the information they need to make a decision.

A "Contains GMOs" label tells you as much as a "Contains DNA" label.

[Blecht]

128. Can you provide a source for your claim?

There are people who specifically react to MSG, including fatal reactions

Everything I have read from non-woo sources claims that MSG is not harmful to anyone.

[jeff47]

135. Not conveniently.

There's a very, very, very, very, very, very, very small number of people with a heart defect that can cause arrhythmia in the presence of large quantities of MSG. One of my former co-workers happened to have this defect.

In her case, it was a problem with some sort of defect in one of the chambers of her heart. The nerves in the defect responded to excess MSG, triggering arrhythmia. And this wasn't some self-diagnosed crap - doctors actually triggered arrhythmia via MSG in order to diagnose the problem, and then corrected it with surgery.

But like gluten intolerance, the vast majority of people who claim to be affected by MSG aren't.

[womanofthehills]

195. Actually it will also kill you weeds

Yea, I really want to eat something that kills weeds too!

[Major Nikon]

277. So I take it you don't eat salt or vinegar

Both of which are more toxic and less effective than glyphosate, BTW.

http://homeguides.sfgate.com/use-vinegar-salt-weed-killer-49329.html

[womanofthehills]

91. I need to know if MSG is in my food

it gives me bronchospasm and that is very very scary!

[Humanist_Activist]

93. You do realize that foods with MSG in it aren't all labeled as such, correct?

Its only on the list of ingredients if its included as an additive.

Unless you only buy food labeled "MSG-free" its may not actually be MSG free.

http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/FoodAdditivesIngredients/ucm328728.htm

[womanofthehills]

99. I eat mostly fresh foods

very few packaged and know all the other names for MSG.


Glutamic Acid (E 620)2
Glutamate (E 620)
Monosodium Glutamate (E 621)
Monopotassium Glutamate (E 622)
Calcium Glutamate (E 623)
Monoammonium Glutamate (E 624)
Magnesium Glutamate (E 625)
Natrium Glutamate
Yeast Extract
Anything hydrolyzed
Any hydrolyzed protein
Calcium Caseinate
Sodium Caseinate
Yeast Food
Yeast Nutrient
Autolyzed Yeast
Gelatin
Textured Protein
Soy Protein Isolate
Whey Protein Isolate
Anything :protein
Vetsin
Ajinomoto

plus:

Names of ingredients that often contain or produce processed free glutamic acid

Carrageenan (E 407)
Bouillon and broth
Stock
Any flavors or flavoring
Maltodextrin
Citric acid, Citrate (E 330)
Anything ultra-pasteurized
Barley malt
Pectin (E 440)
Protease
Anything enzyme modified
Anything containing enzymes
Malt extract
Soy sauce
Soy sauce extract
Anything protein fortified
Seasonings

[Humanist_Activist]

104. Uhm, those aren't all other names for MSG, MSG is Monosodium Glutamate...

some may be similar chemically, but they aren't the same. Just an FYI.

[HuckleB]

251. What if it doesn't?

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/msg-myth-versus-science/

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-10-03/science-suggests-msg-really-isnt-bad-your-health-after-all

[longship]

2. Yup!

And the inevitable response is usually the same crappy retracted studies by Seralini or other fraudulent science.

When all one has is junk science, one has no other leg to stand on.

And then there's the Round-Up gambit, as if genetic modification is only about that. Of course, that is wrong.

And then there's the Monsanto shill gambit. Like thousands of scientists worldwide are all on Monsanto's pay roll. Ha!

Maybe that's because the science is on their side. It seems to me that would be a good side to be on.

[nationalize the fed]

5. You disagree with Obama

at least until he got sworn in. But then, he "changed his mind" about a lot of things

"We'll let folks know whether their food has been genetically modified because Americans should know what they're buying" -Candidate Barack Obama in 2007

Over the next few years, many Americans are going to find out that this GMO garbage has infested the entire food supply. And many of them will not be happy about it. I see it every time I go to a market and let people know what they're buying. If someone snuck something you didn't want into your food you'd be rightly upset. It's a crime to do that.

GMO infested foods are going to be labeled. Period. End of story.

Like 64 other countries do.



Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: GMO's are the biggest scientific fraud of our lifetime
http://www.amazon.com/Altered-Genes-Twisted-Truth-Systematically/dp/0985616903/

The GMO Truth hasn't begun to be told. Stay tuned.

[Humanist_Activist]

15. See, this belies what should be the purpose of labeling, you want GMOs banned, for no better...

reason than because you don't understand them, so they must be bad.

Your own wording betrays your bias, using terms like "infested" and "GMO Garbage". It doesn't help that you are hawking an anti-science propaganda book as well.

Frankly speaking, I feel we have been too patient with people such as yourself, purveyors of lies, we try to give you the benefit of the doubt, perhaps you simply don't know the process, or the science involved. But given the fact that this information is easily obtainable from multiple, verifiable sources, leads me to believe that you have ideological reasons for sticking to your erroneous beliefs.

[rjsquirrel]

27. Candidate Obama was pandering

to the hippies.

GMO hysteria belongs with gluten panic and homeopathy and creationism and belief in nutritional supplements and anti-vac nuttery as woo of the highest order.

[Geronimoe]

6. Personally

I think food should be labeled and people can make up their own minds about what they eat and feed their family members.

[ZombieHorde]

145. Should the label include soil content?

The route the food traveled to the store? The time of delivery? The cycle of the moon during seed time and harvesting time? The religious, political, and astrological makeup of the workers?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

150. You want to keep people from getting information they say they want. It's as simple as that.

[ZombieHorde]

173. The information they want isn't the information they would be getting from a gmo label.

I don't care what religion people are, but when people's faith makes the rest of us put stickers in science books or on food items, then they are infringing on us, in my opinion.

Lets have science in the government and faith in the church.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

174. I disagree with the basis of your argument.

One, I don't consider GMO labelling to be in the realm of religion. Two, I don't think you or anyone else can show that you've been harmed by GMO label requirements.

[ZombieHorde]

176. GMO labeling in the US isn't currently mandatory, so of course there's no harm there.

I don't know if anyone was harmed with anti-evolution stickers in science text books, since I think everyone complied with the law, but I suspect those stickers contributed to anti-science beliefs, which has the potential to harm us all, such as inaction on climate change. GMOs, evolution, and climate change are three very different subjects, but they are connected by anti-science beliefs.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

179. I meant that I don't believe you or anyone could show harm if this became a law.

And the label needn't take a side, as with the example you're trying to use. It can simply say that the food product was GMO.

[Major Nikon]

184. The exact same labeling argument can be made for "fertilized with cow shit"

Actually a better argument can be made because unlike GMO, cow shit actually manages to sicken and kill people.

Undoubtedly the organic industry would be harmed by such a labeling requirement, which would serve no other purpose than to stoke irrational fear.

See how that works?

Meanwhile this is what the public actually knows about GMO...

[ZombieHorde]

205. Ah. I should have guessed your intent, but I was posting right before leaving for work and

I wasn't thinking your reply through. Your intent now seems obvious and I should have recognized that you slightly misspoke. I kind of feel like a dick now. I'm sorry.

And the label needn't take a side, as with the example you're trying to use. It can simply say that the food product was GMO.

There are different definitions for GMOs. The scientific definition is an organism that has been modified, such as cows. All cows are GMOs. All of the long, yellow bananas we see in stores are GMOs. Both of these products have organic versions, and even these organic versions are GMOs. You can buy non-GMO bananas, but they look different than the bananas we usually see. You cannot buy non-GMO beef, because cows are a human invention. We made them by modifying ox genes. The non-scientific definition of GMOS is an organism that has been modified using certain modern techniques. We figured out how speed up the process. This faster process is what some people are against. The sped up process creates the same results, and most geneticists don't differentiate between the two because the end product is the same. People who want labeling only want the sped up process to be labeled, because of the false belief that the end result is different. It's not worse, it's not better, it's just faster. Therefore, the label would actually give misinformation. The GMO label would be a lie because it would encourage people to think it was different. The label promotes anti-scientific beliefs.

[nationalize the fed]

210. Examples from Europe

where they take labeling seriously, and the people know what they're eating

[Humanist_Activist]

211. I would say I have less of a problem with those labels, most people will end up ignoring them as...

they do now. More interested in the nutrition facts and, for those with food allergies, ingredients that can cause problems, such as peanuts, soy, lactose, etc.

[Major Nikon]

275. There's also a good chance in Europe your hamburger contains horse meat

Not to mention water bottlers were banned from claiming water helps with dehydration.

[womanofthehills]

187. GMO labeling is about to be mandatory in Vermont

How Little Vermont Got Big Food Companies To Label GMOs

You'll soon know whether many of the packaged foods you buy contain ingredients derived from genetically modified plants, such as soybeans and corn.

Over the past week or so, big companies including General Mills, Mars and Kellogg have announced plans to label such products – even though they still don't think it's a good idea.

The reason, in a word, is Vermont. The tiny state has boxed big food companies into a corner. Two years ago, the state passed legislation requiring mandatory labeling.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association has fought back against the law, both in court and in Congress, but so far it's been unsuccessful.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/03/27/471759643/how-little-vermont-got-big-food-companies-to-label-gmos

[rpannier]

10. I think food should be labelled

I think we should know where it came from - including the region
How it was produced: GMO, organic whatever
I see nothing wrong with that
Here in Korea food is labelled.
I know where my rice was grown, I know where my vegetables come from, where my beef and chicken are raised, etc
People have the option of buying US beef or not. Boseong rice or rice from somewhere else (I live in Boseong - I buy Boseong rice)
I don't buy American beef (though I'm an American)
I prefer to pay the extra for Australian beef
They've not had a case of mad cow disease and so I choose to pay the higher price

I like to know as much possible about what I'm eating

[AxionExcel]

13. Hah! The magazine writer got suckered into parroting a standard GMO industry lie. Foof.

What a joke the article is. There flat-out is no scientific consensus at all on the alleged "safety" of GMOs and their toxic synthetic chemical Mother's Milk herbicide, glyphosate (used on over 80% of GMO crops).

You can almost feel sorry for the writer who got suckered into parroting the corporate party line. This bald-faced lie has been trotted out thousands of numbing times by the cabal of PR wonks in the employ of the GMO-Chemical-Pharmaceutical Industry, Inc.

Talk about a HOAX. This is PROJECTION onto the organic growers by GMO-Chem Corps -- and as is plain to one and all now, projection is a standard Republican-Corporate technique for mass mindf*ckery. We are seeing a lot of it these days.

Media Reports That GMO Science Is Settled Are Flat-Out Wrong

"More than 300 scientists, physicians and scholars have asserted there is "no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs." It's time the media accurately reports on the science of GMOs, which has been misleading, contradictory, unsettling..."

http://www.nationofchange.org/scientists-say-no-consensus-gmo-food-safety-1382450730

[mythology]

41. And only 97% of scientists believe in climate change

Just because you can get somebody to dissent, doesn't actually mean that the dissent is valid.

[yurbud]

52. the author is a conservative, so her facts come straight from her ass

[ZombieHorde]

260. Is Neil deGrasse Tyson a sucker on the subject of science?

[Eko]

16. I think they should have to label

non GMO food with "may kill you" since it has actually killed lots of people before.

[Humanist_Activist]

18. Certified Organic vegetables, particularly low to the ground ones, should have a...

"may be contaminated with e coli" label attached considering the source of their fertilizers.

[Eko]

20. If we are going

to a blanket gmo warning then we should do a blanket non gmo warning.

[WDIM]

181. Organic does label itself organic

GMO hides what their food is made out of or what is put in it.

[Eko]

194. Non GMO doesnt mean organic at all.

I was rushing off to work and forgot to put I think we should label non GMO's with "may cause death", and if and when GMO's do actually kill someone we can add that label to them also. I mean, there are actual, reported, verified cases of non GMO food actually killing a lot of people, including organic. There is not a single case of a non-GMO killing someone. If this is about safety seems reasonable to want that.

[ZombieHorde]

257. Some organic food is also GMO.

For example, 100% of beef is GMO, and always has been, since cows are a human invention, but some beef is also organic.

[WDIM]

264. Selective breading is not GMO

GMO uses viruses to change DNA on a molecular level it is not the same thing as selective breading of animals like cows and dogs

[ZombieHorde]

265. Let Neil deGrasse Tyson explain GMOs...

[WDIM]

266. Thanks for the after school special.

GMO is changed on a dna level using genes from other animals and other plants and using viruses to make these DNA changes. It is not the same thing as selective breeding.

[Major Nikon]

276. Neither is hybridization, cell fusion, mutation breeding, polyploidy, or several other methods

Many of which have been in practice for over 100 years and all of which are eligible for organic certification. Selective breeding also relies exclusively on mutagenesis, which means that rather than tightly controlling and restricting mutations in a laboratory, you simply wait for them to appear spontaneously and then breed for those desirable characteristics in hopes that they outweigh any undesirable characteristics that came along for the ride. So yes, you are absolutely correct, it is not the same thing as selective breeding. It's a far more advanced method of accomplishing genetic modification that has a far less chance of producing undesirable consequences, because instead of rolling the dice with tens of thousands of genes, you are only doing so with one.

[womanofthehills]

188. I only eat organic

and have never had e coli poisoning. Give me a break.

[HuckleB]

236. The plural of anecdote is not data.

You are no healthier than anyone else because you have fallen for bad marketing. You simply have less money in your pocket.

[LuckyLib]

19. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, real energy going to GMOs should be harnessed to

address the 60,000 unregulated chemicals used everywhere in our lives. There is the true poison. Big Chem/Big Pharma loves all the attention on GMOs -- keeps the light away from their profit-making poisoning of humans on the planet.

[Humanist_Activist]

23. How does that work? We are living longer and healthier lives than...

At anytime in history. Violence is down, hell even cancer incidences are down. So who is being poisoned again?

[yurbud]

33. that could be because of or in spite of any one particular factor

Forty years ago, life expectancy was up even though a lot of people smoked.

That doesn't mean smoking made them live longer.

Correlation is not causation.

[Humanist_Activist]

74. Uhm, non-smokers live longer than smokers, generally due to complications from smoking....

COPD, lung cancer, emphysema, etc. have established causal relationships with smoking. In fact, the great reduction in the popularity of smoking is linked as one of the reasons why cancer rates have declined. Note, this decline is overall, some cancers have remained steady or increased, but overall cancer rates and diagnoses has declined in that time period. The cancers that haven't are generally linked to obesity, which is greater than it was 40 years ago though the jury is still out on that.

The point being that if someone claims there are "too many chemicals" in the environment "poisoning" us, they would have to demonstrate two things, what those chemicals are, and how they are poisoning us. Needs to be more specific, if you want to talk about mercury exposure near coal mines and power plants, that's something to be concerned about and the people there need warnings, and support. If that chemical is sucrose and its derivatives/other variants, then you would also have a point. We would be much healthier if we listened to our doctors and cut the sugar and exercised more.

The fact is though, in the population at large, there is a negative correlation, an inverse relationship between a claim that we are exposed to more "poisons" in the environment and actual health outcomes. These seems to indicate that those "poisons" aren't being very good poisons.

[LuckyLib]

114. Lots of communities. Here are a few.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html?_r=0

And I think this is the tip of the iceberg.

[Humanist_Activist]

212. Of course, but these are, generally, localized events affecting few people...

they are also acute, when noticed, and evidence for malfeasance or negligence is rather easy to spot. These events, when spotted, need to be dealt with, the guilty parties made to pay, etc. That's obvious, preventative measures and regulations also need to take place. However, the fact is that, on the large scale, national and international, we are not, as a population being poisoned. These examples of poisoning and pollution, dumping etc. apparently don't happen often enough or are widespread enough to reverse the effect that we are in better health now than in the past.

[womanofthehills]

102. Agreed - Check this recent report on France banning neonicotinoid pesticides

France moves towards full ban on pesticides blamed for bee losses

French lawmakers approved plans for a total ban on some widely used pesticides blamed for harming bees, going beyond European Union restrictions in a fierce debate that has pitched farmers and chemical firms against beekeepers and green groups.

The EU limited the use of neonicotinoid chemicals, produced by companies including Bayer CropScience and Syngenta , two years ago after research pointed to risks for bees, which play a crucial role pollinating crops.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/france-pesticides-idUKL5N16Q2BM

[ellennelle]

21. well....

first, tho, i'd like to know who funded each and every one of those scientific studies before i go following that congo line.

remember, the tobacco companies funded hundreds and hundreds of such studies. we saw how that turned out, and that's just one example.

people tend to use info that suits them, esp. when the profit motive is in play.

still, it's not clear to me we should ignore the premise behind the resistance to GMOs. we have, for all our existence as a species, co-evolved with whatever substances we consume. the franken-foods we're concocting now not only did not "evolve" in the natural sense (about which we still don't know all the details), but they're often mixtures of totally unrelated and unnatural combinations, such as - oh - resistance to a certain petrol-based chemical pesticide injected into corn.

it's not entirely clear to me the effects would necessarily be observable, at least at the phenotype trait level, for generations to come. we therefore should proceed with great caution, esp. as these seeds can completely invade and infect the planet thru natural pollination, etc.

as for science, as a practitioner, i recognize the limits of the enterprise. the skepticism we apply to our experiments and the conclusions we draw should also be applied to our own endeavors and motives.

that profit thing again; there is so much money at stake here.

the monsanto mindset is pure evil. no getting around that. i want to keep that foot out of my door as much as possible.

[druidity33]

32. I'd like to Rec your post...

because it appears to be the closest aligned to my POV in this thread.

Cheers...

[lagomorph777]

268. Well said

One can also look at the junk science funded by the fossil fuel industry to deny climate change. While they have managed to recruit hundreds of scientists, 97% of scientists have resisted the easy money and continue to tell the truth.

[HuckleB]

273. And that's why the vast majority of scientists also understand that GMOs are safe.

Yet, you keep pretending otherwise.

Anti-GMO activists are the ones practicing “tobacco science”.
http://fafdl.org/blog/2015/05/19/anti-gmo-activists-are-the-ones-practicing-tobacco-science/

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/the-solid-gmo-scientific-consensus/

[HuckleB]

274. Anti-GMO activists are the ones practicing “tobacco science”.

http://fafdl.org/blog/2015/05/19/anti-gmo-activists-are-the-ones-practicing-tobacco-science/

It's time to wake up, and stop parroting the fictions of the anti-GMO crowd.

[WestMichRad]

22. This debate is not about science

It's about government policy that has been hijacked by corporate interests.

The promise of GMOs in agriculture is they'll provide desirable traits such as improved nutrition, but the reality is they're being used to help corporations sell more herbicides, and only for that purpose. The other potential uses of GMOs are, at least so far, not in commercial production.

I would prefer to buy foods grown in soils that have not been drenched in glyphosate or other toxins and would like to know that from labeling on the food. This is really no different than wanting to buy a car or appliance made in the US instead of who knows where.

Large agricultural corporations don't want us to have that choice because they want to force the consumer to buy products produced using their chosen commodity production techniques so they can dominate the agricultural marketplace. It's as simple as that. The thousands of published scientific reports that conclude they are safe for consumption are not relevant.

[U4ikLefty]

80. ^^^THIS!!!

+1

[HuckleB]

237. Actually, based on the content of your post, for you, it's about the propaganda of some marketers.

You are parroting organic company marketing nonsense.

You don't realize that organic foods are also "drenched" in pesticides and herbicides, and that non-GMO foods are often drenched in pesticides and herbicides that are far more toxic than their GMO counterparts.

You might want to learn more about the topic before you pontificate again.

[ZombieHorde]

249. Maybe labeling soil content would give more information than a GMO label.

What do you think?

[lagomorph777]

256. Monsanto's Zombies and Hucklesters

are selling pseudoscience in the wrong forum. Peddle it to the gullible, dudes. Not here.

[ZombieHorde]

258. Your subject line made me smile.

[Autumn Colors]

24. Also included with those foods ...

... is all the pesticides they've been drenched in. Isn't that the whole point of most GMO foods? Making them "Round-Up ready"?

Thanks, but no thanks.

[Thor_MN]

37. One of the problems is: what exactly does "GMO" mean?

"Round-Up Ready" seeds are but one type of genetically modified organism. Modern science allows precision gene splicing, but it has been done for over 50 years by a random method. Plant scientists using a blender to chop up the cells of plants and seeing what they could get to grow out of the mess have been creating "GMO"s from the time DNA was understood. Technically, cross breeding plants could be considered a method of creating "GMO"s, so virtually everything you eat is, or has been fed "GMO"s.

It seems to me the main consideration of "GMO" labeling has revolved around "Scarey Science!!!" Unless one can prove their product to have never been domesticated and altered by selective breeding, it could be considered a GMO.

They will need to decide what exactly "GMO" means before they can start slapping labels on things. It has to mean something other than "My competitor's product" to be useful.

[katsy]

115. Science isn't "scary"

Nor is science static.

It evolves as our knowledge base grows and as theories get tested and tested again and tested again.

There are thousands of examples of good science later tested that turned out to be bad products or invalid theories etc. it's the nature of science to self correct as knowledge grows.

So spare us the insults that by wanting to know what is in what WE INGEST, the most personal of choices, we are anti science.

Information is power. It belongs in consumer's hands. Everyone has the right to reject eating something even based on an "ewwww yucky" factor. Do you understand that? If it's about taking my money for food that I will eat, it's about me.

Stupid insults about anti-vaxxers is ignorant. Public health demands that children get their vaccines. There should be no opt-outs except medical at all. That's science. Diseases have been eradicated. Children saved. Done deal.

What I choose to eat is not about public health. It's about me and I want to know where my food comes from. And fuck Monsanto. I will boycott anything they're involved with that I know about. I want the power to say ewwww no.

[Thor_MN]

134. Do you understand that most people don't know what a GMO is?

Spreading fear with a "GMO" label that doesn't mean anything is simply a scare tactic, called for by people who will profit by it and supported by people that have no clue what it means.

I'm not against labeling things, but it has to actually mean something more than the current meaning. "GMO" does not mean "Round-Up Ready". "GMO" is not the opposite of "Organic". If you want to know if what you are eating has genes to resist glyphosate, call for labeling to indicate that, not an ignorant "GMO" label.

Information is power. And current calls for "GMO" labeling have no meaning. Certainly not the meaning you called for, which is "glyphosate has been used on this product."

[katsy]

148. I don't care if corporations suck at effectively

communicating with consumers. Don't care at all. No corporation is "entitled" to business. let them make their fucking case... or not. People won't fucking die if they don't eat roundup ready gmos. So all's good. Fuck monsanto crybabies.

My thing is I'm big on buying in sync with my values. I want clear information on the label so I can be an informed consumer. What I eat is my fucking choice and anyone who wants me to know less... Is undemocratic. Is paternalistic. Is suspect.

The customer is always right. And the majority want info. That's democracy in action.

Here's a marketing idea for the assholes at monsanto... "Buy our shit because we're fucking scientific and science is set in stone like religion so fucking anti-science stupid people should STFU and eat our shit".

Ummm no.

[Thor_MN]

149. Required labeling is not corporations communicating, it's the goverment communicating

I understand, you really don't like Monsanto. So push for a label for "Round-Up Ready", a label that actually means something, rather than a meaningless label that would have to go on nearly every food product, as nearly everything we eat is a "GMO".

Give the consumer info, instead of a meaningless label.

[HuckleB]

154. If the communication isn't supported by a science-based justification, it's meaningless.

And it is a waste of government resources. Meaningless information is disinformation.

http://fafdl.org/blog/2014/08/16/a-principled-case-against-mandatory-gmo-labels/

[katsy]

156. It's their fucking products

Last edited Sun Mar 27, 2016, 01:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Let THEM communicate it effectively.

The onus is not on the consumer and should not be.

And I'm actually good with a "round-up ready" label. GMO label alternatively.

And these posters using words like "woo" and "anti-science" against fellow du-ers should be ashamed.

Science is not dogmatic. It's not religion. It evolves. It self-corrects. It's disprovable. It's a process.

The people flinging around those terms are about as stupid about science as can be. They are like good technicians but never getting the scientific process.

The labeling issue should be a human right imo. Peddlers need to label clearly. They profit it's a cost of doing business.

Good on the organic community and their social skills bwa ha ha ha. Monsanto will never overcome the ewwwww factor of their poisons. Ever. People understand. Kids understand. Poison kills. No matter how you sugar coat it. No matter how they science the shit out of studies, the mountain is too steep to climb.

Good.

[Thor_MN]

182. I'm one of the people speaking out against woo and anti-science...

Like I said, I get it, you fucking hate Monsanto and are absolutely blind to anything other than your hate, unless it is your fear of the dreaded "GMO"s.

People don't understand. The letters "GMO" have been defined as "poison" by the woo spouters.

I AM a scientist, please don't try to lecture me on science while spreading woo.

[katsy]

183. And I repeat

monsanto is responsible for its message. I don't care if they can't close the deal as I'm for weakening large conglomerates regardless of their products. I don't like corporations wielding so much power. I'm for strong, pro-consumer regulations. End of story.

Woo... Scientists would present facts not call people childish names or ridicule people for personal choices. maddening isn't it? Ya love that democracy thingy until you can't play dictator. If the public demands labeling... Well, that's democracy.

Scientists don't call the shots as to what people must consume. You don't dictate personal choices. I don't eat dog or bugs. And that's about as an unscientific choice as anyone can make. Believe me, I really want to try these things! That icky "ewwww" factor keeps overriding my brain. I even stopped eating red velvet cake! So unless you are for stripping people of their right to make personal choices that affect no one but themselves... back off.

Science also self corrects. History has shown that what was once thought safe, maybe not so much as our knowledge grows. Roundup ready should be labeled. And society, communities should dictate regulations, not corporations. If roundup ready products are offensive to consumers, then science be damned, monsanto doesn't have carte blanche to force it on consumers in a sneaky manner. Unless you can pass legislation making it a crime to not consume roundup ready crap... Tough shit. We don't have to buy what's peddled. And we want it labeled so we can reject it.

i like the idea of specifying roundup ready crops tho. That would make everything right as I am not against gmos per se. I just want the ability to quickly identify what doesn't make sense for me.

I'm a vegetarian until such time as cloned beef is cost effective. It's scientifically sound so far as I know.

Cheers! And plz stop being insulting to people for making choices that are none of your business and don't affect public health.

[Thor_MN]

185. You don't get to play both sides of the coin.

Pushing for a "GMO" label is woo, because it doesn't mean anything.

You are clearly against Monsanto. And have a huge chip on your shoulder that blinds you to actual science.

I'm all for people making informed choices, a "GMO" label doesn't inform.

I'll insult purveyors of woo, because they deserve scorn.

[katsy]

204. Childish.

[Thor_MN]

217. Yes, you are being childish, trying to quote science while adovcating woo.

[womanofthehills]

222. I also am so sick of DU'ers using the word Woo

Give us a break please!!

[HuckleB]

231. Stop using woo, and others won't point it out.

[Humanist_Activist]

240. No, no breaks, you use arguments from ignorance, discredited studies, and cognitive bias...

as you go to against the actual evidence, and then, when confronted by it, you use more dishonest rhetoric to the point of invoking conspiracy theories.

The problem is that you expect perfection where none is promised, you fail at the most basic of cost-benefit analysis, you fail to understand the scientific process and all that is involve with that, and you fail to comprehend what conclusions can be derived from it. You don't understand it, so you fear it.

You bias shows when this radical denial ism isn't reflected in your blind faith of the organics industry, which is completely puzzling.

[Thor_MN]

262. Woo is an appropriate label when one can not support an argument.

If the only reason is fear and "I fucking hate xxx" then Woo is correct.

[GreatGazoo]

25. You say you wants science yet you seem to believe that there is a mass conspiracy against GMOs

or perhaps 38 countries, including Germany, France, Scotland, France, Italy, Austria, Greece, Poland, and Belgium, are all basing their laws on "superstitious beliefs" ?

93% of the US population believes in the efficacy of vaccines.
93% of the US population wants GMO foods labelled.

GMO food is a system that pairs GM seed with pesticides, usually gyphosate therefore GMO foods show much higher levels of pesticide residues. People have the right to know how much pesticide is on their food -- THAT is science.

[ZombieHorde]

261. I think it's a marketing ploy by big organic.

Companies want to make money. I don't think that's a conspiracy. Companies use propaganda to make their product seem superior. It's marketing.

[classykaren]

26. Do you work for Monsanto or are you just paid by them?

[monicaangela]

28. Is this argument about Organic vs. GMO

Or is it about $$$$$$$$ and who is or isn't going to be able to capitalize on growing food? If some people feel safer not eating GMO grown foods for whatever reason, why is there an argument when it comes to telling them the food they are about to buy is a Monsanto product or whatever company has scientifically modified the food? I continue to see this argument here over whether producers of and sellers of food products need to label their products or not. If the customer wants the product labeled, who is it that feels they need to conceal the facts regarding genetic modification and why? Are we really talking about someone trying to capitalize on these genetically modified products that may or may not be hazardous to our health? If that isn't the reason then what is the problem with just going ahead and labeling the products? I see many products when I shop for food that are already labeled non GMO. Are these companies that are trying to capitalize on the fact that many people fear these products?

If there is nothing to worry about, and if scientist and farmers and corporations producing this food are sure their product is not harming anyone, then why don't they just label the food and be done with it? Again, is it the minimal cost to changing the label by adding a GMO product label or Non GMO product label? If there are benefits, prove it, if it isn't harmful prove it. We already no the pesticides used to sustain their growth are harmful.

[Scuba]

29. If GMO foods are so good for us the industry should be happy to label them.

[yurbud]

31. Did she cite these 1700 studies?

[randr]

34. GMO modifications only serve one purpose

They allow the increased applications and sales of dangerous herbicides and pesticides developed by the very same corporations who are pushing their Frankenfood on the entire world.
Let them push their poison, just let me have the choice not to consume what I deem harmful to my person.

[Thor_MN]

38. You seem to not understand what "GMO"s are.

Making absolute statements such as "only serve one purpose" are seldom true.

There are "GMO"s that have absolutely nothing to do with herbicides. Suggesting that one would splice genes into a plant to resist pesticides, which only work on animals, is rather silly. Virtually everything one eats has been modified by man, or fed plants that have been modified by man. Plants that have been altered to produce more protein or vitamins are "GMO"s. Plants that have been altered to simply produce more are "GMO"s. Should they be banned as well? Should we go back to gathering wild plants for food?

I would see no issues with labeling "Round-Up Ready" products, but words like "Frankenfoods" are bred out of ignorance.

[randr]

39. We have been selectively altering plants and animals to our benefit

for centuries. We have only begun to alter nature for profit recently.
Food sources that have increased levels of pesticides and herbicides are a well documented fact.
Let the people know what their choices are and let the free market settle this debate.

[Thor_MN]

47. Are you kidding?

We have altered plants and animals for profit for centuries. Why do it otherwise? You are deluding yourself if you think that the profit motive is recent.

We have not altered plants for pesticides. Pesticides, by definition, don't affect plants.

So, are you proposing to slap a "GMO" label on everything that has been selectively altered? Because that would be just about all foods. What information does that confer, other than "this food is domesticated"?

To let people know what their choices are. you first have to have a label mean something. If it only means "scary food" for the profit of "natural" food producers, you aren't really letting people know anything.

Like I said, label for a reason, such as glyphosate was used in the growth of this, don't label for fear and ignorance.

[jeff47]

66. No, we have been altering nature for profit for centuries.

"High yield" crops are not a new invention. We've used other techniques to produce higher-yield versions of everything.

For example, every single apple in the supermarket is produced by grafting a tree that produces better apples to a rootstock tree that produces better roots. That is done only to produce more apples per acre....also known as "altering nature for profit".

[Odin2005]

78. ROFLMAO

"We have only begun to alter nature for profit recently."

[mopinko]

46. you mean like

golden rice, which prevents vit a deficiency blindness, non-browning apples which cut food waste, high lycopene tomatoes, like that?
virus resistant papaya, foods which will incur disease immunity, i could go on.
roundup ready is a small part of the picture.

[womanofthehills]

189. the last thing on earth I would want to eat

is a non-browning apple.

[mopinko]

199. well the last thing i want to see is wasted food. especially food that is fine to eat.

and the apple isnt all that modified. they just found the gene for the browning, and added a second copy, which causes it to shut off.

wasting food is terribly damaging to the environment. if we can make it last a little longer, it is good for everyone.

[womanofthehills]

223. Your definition of "fine to eat" is

obviously way different than mine. I would not even give an apple that doesn't brown to my chickens.

Gee - maybe an apple browns to tell you it's getting to old to eat - and it's nutrients may be fading!!

[mopinko]

239. that's just bull.

apples rot to release their seeds. a little surface browning has zero to do with the nutrition of the apple.

if you dont get what i am saying, you apparently dont have a clue about the impact of agriculture on the environment. food waste is a serious issue.

[yurbud]

35. This bit about science for hire sounds like something only a bigger industry than organics could do:

Besides the marketing, the organic industry has funded anti-GMO scientists who regularly perform poorly designed experiments that they claim “prove” GMOs are somehow problematic. Charles Benbrook, formerly a Washington State University research professor, indicated he was a “scientist for hire” in recently released emails. He offered to author an anti-GMO study for an Australian trial lawyer in exchange for a six figure payout.

The pay-to-play revelation was no surprise to those in the agriculture community. The organic industry funded his position at Washington State University from 2012 to 2015 and, in turn, he published numerous studies claiming to demonstrate the dangers of conventional agriculture and the benefits of organic. Those studies have been widely discredited and debunked by the scientific community for their “inaccurate claims,” “biased assumptions” and “misleading uses of official data.”

Maybe someone could look into this.

[Trajan]

40. I'm tired of this righteousness

Let the people have their silly labels, and eat the 'organic' foods they prefer ... No sweat ...

And now, because I now use ignore so extensively, I find it much easier to just cast the scientific extremists who exhibit a pro-Monsanto slant into the same dark hole as the others ...

[AxionExcel]

42. Yeah, but they are out there polluting the Intertubes relentlessly

...and many will be continued to be suckered by the well-funded PR war against clean food, and in support of the synthetic life-form GMO Chemical Pharmaceutical crap rations.

[Hoyt]

43. If I'm concerned about GMOs, I assume anything without the label "100% Organic% has GMOs.

But, I'm fine with labeling requirements if it makes some folks happy.

[Thor_MN]

113. "Organic" is not the opposite of "GMO"

That's part of the problem, there is no precise definition of "GMO" that can be used to label. Ironically, this push for labeling could backfire on the "Organic" crowd, forcing them to label their produce as "GMO". Almost everything we eat has had its genes altered by human intervention, which makes "Contains GMOs" virtually meaningless, as everything would have to be labeled as such.

[Major Nikon]

119. Organic is nothing more than a marketing term

As such it isn't constrained by logic or reason.

[dembotoz]

44. wow this could rank up with should we declaw our cats when they get circumcised

[petronius]

62. I've noticed that 'GMO' threads in GD look an awful lot like 'gun' threads

Some different words and usernames, but the tone, structure, and signal/noise ratio is basically identical...

[SusanCalvin]

51. A) I don't care what anyone thinks, I still want the information.

B) If it's not the GMOs, it's sure the Roundup they've been modified to tolerate being drenched in.

[meaculpa2011]

53. You have the information...

If the foods you eat are NOT labeled "GMO Free" then you should not buy them.

After all these years of discussion I still don't get it. If you don't want GMOs then buy foods labeled "GMO Free."

Problem solved.

[SusanCalvin]

59. Nope. I also want it labeled if is GMO.

If Monsanto thinks it's so great, label it proudly!

[meaculpa2011]

71. Okay then...

What's your definition of GMO?

[SusanCalvin]

72. I'm not writing the law, so I hadn't thought about it in depth.

Examples, then:

Roundup-ready, for sure.

This salmon for sure, although I don't eat farmed salmon anyway.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/12/01/fda-approves-genetically-engineered-salmon.aspx

[meaculpa2011]

81. How about Tangelos...

Blood Limes, Clementines...

BTW: I eat farmed salmon. And every summer I dig up a few hundred clams which have been farm raised by my town's conservation and waterways program. Each year they distribute 1 million seed clams into our local waters and I do my best to dig up my fair share.

I understand completely that many people don't want to eat farm-raised or genetically modified foods. Make yourself happy. But there is no law preventing marketers of non-GMO foods from placing "NO GMO" labels on their products in big red letters.

Personally, I rarely eat food products that have labels. I eat apples and oranges and lettuce and squash and potatoes and avocados and onions and peppers........

Gin has a label, but I consider that a vegetable.

[SusanCalvin]

83. Are you telling me tangelos were created in a lab, by directly manipulating DNA?

No, I didn't think so

Thanks for clarifying my thinking. Lab-created by directly manipulating DNA = labeled.

I'm not against all farmed fish. You can look these things up. Farmed salmon? Eeeeeeeew.....

http://www.seafoodwatch.org/

[Humanist_Activist]

92. Directly manipulating DNA means more control, unlike with mutation breeding, where the effects...

are largely uncontrolled and we try to select for traits we like, but very little safety testing is done on those crops and whether they have undesirable traits or possible side effects and they go straight to market. Why shouldn't they be labeled? GMOs are and have been tested.

[SusanCalvin]

100. Tested?? TESTED?? By the corporations pushing them??

[Humanist_Activist]

105. Uhm...

http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/GEPlants/ucm461831.htm

http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/GEPlants/ucm461805.htm

http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/GEPlants/

[SusanCalvin]

106. Don't particularly trust them either.

But in any case I'm not asking for them to be banned. All I want is a label.

[meaculpa2011]

94. I've been on feedlots, poultry breeders...

and when I was a kid I worked at the Hunt's Point Market in the Bronx unloading trucks filled with fruits, vegetables, meats, chicken...

If you saw how most of your food gets to your table you'd become a Breatharian.

It's fine to eat locally-grown produce or whatever you can grow in your backyard. I do it now. I catch fish, dig clams and grow vegetables and berries out back. But that's now. I grew up in NYC where there isn't one square yard of unpaved ground. It's great to go to the Union Square Green Market on Saturday, but for most of New York's 8 million working people it isn't practical or affordable. My father worked in a sweat shop on 8th Avenue for 40 years. When he dragged himself out of the Subway every night he was in no mood to tend the garden. Now, at 94, he grows tomatoes and basil in his four-square-foot garden.

And yes, hybrid fruits probably started in a laboratory.

Why aren't producers of non-GMO foods shouting it from the rooftops and pasting giant labels on their products?

[Humanist_Activist]

96. I think a lot of this push for not just GMO labeling but food denialism in general is due to...

ignorance as to what's involved in producing the food that's on our plate. 99% of the population is no longer directly involved in food production, and only a few percent more in food processing or manufacturing. The rest are, more or less, completely ignorant of the steps involved, and when they hear about them in a vacuum that is typical suburban life, it horrifies them.

[meaculpa2011]

97. I grew up in NYC where most people think that...

strawberries come from Gristede's.

We had live poultry and game markets in Manhattan until the 70s. Still have a few in the boroughs. I used to go to market with my grandmother where she would pick out the poor condemned fowl herself. When I worked in a supermarket in the 60s the beef and pork would come through the back door on the hook. Now it's all pre-cut and prepackaged. What part of the chicken is its "Nuggets?"

I have yet to hear a coherent answer to the question: "How do we provide abundant, safe and nutritious foods for 6 billion people?"

I ain't comin' from urban gardens.

[SusanCalvin]

101. I see your point.

I'm sure hybrids started in a lab, but not by direct manipulation of DNA.

I do not trust corporations, at least the monsters they have been allowed to become.

I'm pretty much a Breathatarian right now, at least to the extent time and money affords. I wish everyone could afford it.

[X_Digger]

124. How about those produced by exposing seeds to mutagens including chemicals and/or radiation?

And then they grow those seeds that are still viable, and see what, if any, effects are produced.

Hey, maybe this seed will now produce arsenic as well as sugar. Who knows? We just randomly introduced mutations to see what happens..

But oh, it's not "GMO" because we don't actually know what we did to it, heh.

[SusanCalvin]

151. You're right - I don't like those either. nt

[HuckleB]

158. Link us to your advocacy for labels for MBOs, then.

[SusanCalvin]

160. What's this "us," Bub?

Is there a cabal on this thread? (I hadn't really read the whole thing, just some of the posts.)

No, I'm out of here now, thank you. I have only a finite amount of time, and I've spent quite enough on this thread. I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me.

[HuckleB]

163. Us = DUers. ... So, you admit your claim is false.

Thank you.

[jeff47]

67. There are more GMOs than RoundUp resistant GMOs. (nt)

[SusanCalvin]

68. I am aware of this. I still want them labeled.

If they are so great, there should be no problem with that. What, facts must be kept from the peons....? We don't know what's good for us....? Label 'em. Then we'll buy 'em if we want and not if we don't. Seems democratic to me.

[HuckleB]

143. You have no justification for this "want."

Last edited Sun Mar 27, 2016, 01:22 AM - Edit history (1)

Thus, your "want" is just a preference that is meaningless.

http://www.itsmomsense.com/oppose-mandatory-gmo-labeling/

[SusanCalvin]

153. OK, but I'm far from the only one with the "want."

And companies should certainly know if their products contain GMOs, and could easily provide the information on the label. Therefore a reluctance to do so is also a "want" - or is it a "need," considering the number of people who would like to avoid GMOs.....? (Yep, it's a need.)

As with so many things, if Europe has it I don't see why we can't as well.
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/regulation/labelling/96.labelling_gm_foods_frequently_asked_questions.html

[HuckleB]

155. Europe has nothing like the labels proposed for the US.

And it still gives the consumer no actual useful information. Thus, it is only marketing/disinformation. Why do you want a label that only serves to give disinformation?

[SusanCalvin]

161. Whatever.

I have only a finite amount of time, and I've spent all I care to here. I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me.

[HuckleB]

164. You are promoting something that can't be justified by logic or science.

Thus, you have failed. It was quite predictable.

You have a preference that equates to the religious desire for Halal or Kosher food. You have no good justification for a mandatory label for such a preference.

http://fafdl.org/blog/2014/08/16/a-principled-case-against-mandatory-gmo-labels/

[womanofthehills]

224. It's a start in the US - Vermont will soon be labeling GMO's

More states will follow!!

[HuckleB]

232. And you won't know any more about your food than you already do.

So what's the point of such labels?

[Deadshot]

130. Um, the whole point of GMOs is to use less Roundup, not more.

[SusanCalvin]

152. No, they use more.

They engineer the food crop to be resistant to Roundup and then soak the whole field, which, theoretically, kills the weeds but not the food crops.

Trouble is, the weeds get resistant as well - I know this both from reading and from my own experience back when I was using Roundup ( ). I eventually quit using it not because I knew better at the time but because it stopped working.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1997/01/no-way-around-roundup

Oh, yeah, and how about "terminator seeds".....? Lovely (profitable) concept.

Interesting - Monsanto claims they don't sell such. If so, good.

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/terminator-seeds.aspx

[HuckleB]

157. So you want harsher herbicides?

http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.php/2015/06/02/about-those-more-caustic-herbicides-that-glyphosate-helped-replace-by-credible-hulk/

[SusanCalvin]

159. Don't want 'em at all.

That's why I buy organic whenever I can, and am grateful I can afford to.

[HuckleB]

162. That's not going to help you.

http://www.caes.uga.edu/topics/sustainag/documents/flameweeding236313-WEBBER.pdf

And it will lead to more deforestation, because organic farming needs more land to produce food. That's not good at all.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/26/world/organic-food-yield/

http://www.science20.com/agricultural_realism/six_reasons_organic_not_most_environmentally_friendly_way_farm-110209

And organic food can include mutation bred organisms. You said you didn't want those, remember? You are out of luck.

[womanofthehills]

191. Growing organically keeps all those pesticides

out of our waterways!! Keeps the poor farmers families from getting cancer!

[HuckleB]

233. No, it doesn't.

You seem to think that you can create a fantasy world where organic farmers don't use pesticides just as poisonous as others, and often more so, and they often need to use far more because the products they use are often not as effective.

You are promoting the harming of the environment. It's time to realize that the organic industry has conned you. Wake up, and fight back!

[phylny]

171. I echo your dislike of Roundup

We need help with our lawn and we live on a lake, which limits what we can and can't do for the lawn due to runoff into the lake (i.e., no weed & feed). I had a discussion with the contractor and gave my ideas, and he suggested using Roundup to kill everything, including the grass and I said "NO!" He was a bit taken aback

We're using clover seed for the areas that are hard to mow, and he's found some other ways to deal with the weeds, one of which is just over-seeding so the grass chokes out the weeds eventually.

I would have done all small-leafed clover, but Mr. Phylny wasn't having it.

[yurbud]

55. a big part of the modifying is to make it "Round Up ready" & that stuff is bad for you

[Humanist_Activist]

75. What is bad for you? And how? n/t

[yurbud]

79. Round Up? Google Round Up human health effects. NIH has one study that says it messes up embyos

after 18 hours exposure.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257596/

[Humanist_Activist]

82. Gilles-Eric Seralini is a fraud who has been on an Anti-GMO crusade since 1999...

his studies have been heavily criticized because of poor statistical analysis, poor controls, and their conclusions/results can't be replicated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles-%C3%89ric_S%C3%A9ralini

Being biased isn't a problem, everyone is biased, but don't make up conclusions in your own studies and claim they are factual.

[yurbud]

116. I wonder why NIH would post his article then...

[Humanist_Activist]

117. Because they publish everyone with only minimal oversight, anyone can get published....

Having what is published stand up to scrutiny, thats the challenge.

In fact, this created a small controversy with some publishers because they allowed Serallani to have a platform with a veneer of legitamacy. Wakefield was also published, in the Lancet of all places.

[Major Nikon]

142. He also gets financed and paid by the organic/supplement industry

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gilles-Eric_S%C3%A9ralini#CRIIGEN

Yet we MUST write off hundreds, if not thousands of studies that say GMO is safe along with the opinion of virtually every scientific advocacy organization on the planet because of bias or something.

[HuckleB]

165. You might want to know more about the story.

About those harsher herbicides that glyphosate helped replace:
http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.php/2015/06/02/about-those-more-caustic-herbicides-that-glyphosate-helped-replace-by-credible-hulk/

[Odin2005]

76. People are idiotically scared of GMOs in general when the actual issue is the fucking Glyophosate...

...being dumped on the plants. THAT is the real problem.

And note to anti-GMO nuts, if you have diabetes your injected insulin comes from GMO E. coli.

[Humanist_Activist]

84. Not sure why glyphosate would be the problem, the problem is with...

the occurrence of glyphosate resistant weeds and, you cold argue environmental damage from killing plants. But its a broad spectrum herbicide, that's to be expected. Unless you want to get rid of farming altogether, not sure how you can farm reliably without the use of herbicides or pesticides. And no, organic farms are not herbicide or pesticide free.

Am I saying glyphosate is the end all, be all of herbicides, no, and research should be done to find and create a replacement, but most of the hysteria surrounding it is complete bunk.

[womanofthehills]

87. Cuba farms without pesticides

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/cuba-can-teach-america-farming/

Tonight, Jeffrey Brown reports about an industry where Cuba has been a leader, organic farming. Its growth was born out of necessity. But now its approach is attracting attention in the U.S. and other places. It’s part of our stories on The Cuban Evolution.

[Humanist_Activist]

89. And they import 84 percent of their food as of 2007, not exactly a model for sustainability...

but that is to be expected from an island.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/future_tense/2012/04/agro_ecology_lessons_from_cuba_on_agriculture_food_and_climate_change_.html

[Major Nikon]

133. Nonsense

http://cabweb.org/PDF/BNI/Control/BNIRA47.pdf

[Major Nikon]

120. Actually that's not the issue that drives the irrational fear

The actual issue is the fear of "Big-Agra" conspiracy theories and chemophobia.

[womanofthehills]

225. A little "chemophobia" might protect our waterways

Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: their benefits and hazards

Impact on environment
Pesticides can contaminate soil, water, turf, and other vegetation. In addition to killing insects or weeds, pesticides can be toxic to a host of other organisms including birds, fish, beneficial insects, and non-target plants. Insecticides are generally the most acutely toxic class of pesticides, but herbicides can also pose risks to non-target organisms.

Ground water contamination
Groundwater pollution due to pesticides is a worldwide problem. According to the USGS, at least 143 different pesticides and 21 transformation products have been found in ground water, including pesticides from every major chemical class.

Surface water contamination
Pesticides can reach surface water through runoff from treated plants and soil. Contamination of water by pesticides is widespread. The results of a comprehensive set of studies done by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) on major river basins across the country in the early to mid- 90s yielded startling results. More than 90 percent of water and fish samples from all streams contained one, or more often, several pesticides (Kole et al; 2001). Pesticides were found in all samples from major rivers with mixed agricultural and urban land use influences and 99 percent of samples of urban streams
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2984095/

[Major Nikon]

227. Actually your link encourages more data, not more bullshit

Had you bothered to actually read it, you might have noticed it points out the successes of the US with protecting "our waterways" through better understanding and describes how those lessons can be applied to 'their waterways'.

[Lancero]

144. Some anti-gmo groups actually tried convincing diabetics...

To stop taking insulin because 'something something, deadly gmos'.

[HuckleB]

167. Umm.

About those harsher herbicides that glyphosate helped replace:
http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.php/2015/06/02/about-those-more-caustic-herbicides-that-glyphosate-helped-replace-by-credible-hulk/

http://thefoodiefarmer.blogspot.com/2015/06/spraying-isnt-dousing.html

http://www.nurselovesfarmer.com/2014/08/how-much-glyphosate-is-sprayed-on-our-crops/

http://www.foodinsight.org/pesticide-food-safety-farmer

[Marrah_G]

77. I prefer organics from small local farms

or from my own garden. I find there is a different taste to them and most importantly they aren't destroying the environment.

[Humanist_Activist]

86. Yes they are, farming is one of the most environmentally destructive things we can do...

and have done, thousands of acres of land reshaped so we can grow our crops, destroying habitats, dumping fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, and yes, I'm sure the family farms use all 3, humans have for centuries. Just because the land now is unrecognizable from what it was hundreds or thousands of years ago doesn't mean there wasn't a wild ecosystem there that wasn't plowed under before living memory. The fact that its invisible now gives you the illusion that its "environmentally friendly", when it is anything but. This type of destruction goes back about 10,000 years, if you want to be truly environmentally friendly, start a hunter-gatherer society. No wait, a lot of them may have hunted some species to extinction. Scratch that.

I will agree that sourcing food locally, or as close to locally as possibly is less environmentally damaging than it being far away, but that's more due to transportation pollution, etc. That's fine, it may also be fresher, which makes some foods tastier, no argument there, but the fact is that industrial farming is a necessity in this world of 7+ billion people. The days of being able to feed the population with oxen driven plows are over.

[OZi]

107. Personally, I believe consumers should be provided with as much information as possible.

Why not put "Science Approved" along with "This is a GMO product?"

I'm old enough to remember when putting nutrition information labels on food was a controversy. I never did understand the aversion to that. Knowing what I am buying is more important to me than protecting someone else's profit margins. If you truly believe that you have the superior product, then own up to it. Spending money on keeping consumers in the dark only reinforces people's suspicions, well founded or not, that there might be something that you are trying to hide.

[Major Nikon]

123. If it's such a great thing to fertilize food with cow shit, why not advertise that fact?

Unlike GMO, cow shit actually does manage to sicken and kill people, yet strangely there's no movement to label foods fertilized with cow shit. Why do you think that is?

[womanofthehills]

203. So you prefer to poison the environment - sounds like a Republican thing to me

Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: their benefits and hazards

Impact on environment
Pesticides can contaminate soil, water, turf, and other vegetation. In addition to killing insects or weeds, pesticides can be toxic to a host of other organisms including birds, fish, beneficial insects, and non-target plants. Insecticides are generally the most acutely toxic class of pesticides, but herbicides can also pose risks to non-target organisms.

Ground water contamination
Groundwater pollution due to pesticides is a worldwide problem. According to the USGS, at least 143 different pesticides and 21 transformation products have been found in ground water, including pesticides from every major chemical class.

Surface water contamination
Pesticides can reach surface water through runoff from treated plants and soil. Contamination of water by pesticides is widespread. The results of a comprehensive set of studies done by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) on major river basins across the country in the early to mid- 90s yielded startling results. More than 90 percent of water and fish samples from all streams contained one, or more often, several pesticides (Kole et al; 2001). Pesticides were found in all samples from major rivers with mixed agricultural and urban land use influences and 99 percent of samples of urban streams

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2984095/

[Humanist_Activist]

213. Not sure of your argument, you do know the Organic industry uses pesticides as well, right?

A whole host of them, some synthetic, most natural, and many of the natural ones are more toxic than the synthetic ones.

There's more info here:

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/06/18/137249264/organic-pesticides-not-an-oxymoron

[Major Nikon]

214. If you are going for the non sequitur award, you have my vote

[Deadshot]

132. The label is going to tell you absolutely nothing.

[pnwmom]

125. Until the law requires that ALL GMO research be published, not just that favorable

to the producers, the industry has no credibility.

[Major Nikon]

126. Is there some other industry where such a requirement exists?

[pnwmom]

131. There should be such a requirement for the pharmaceutical industry, too, and any other industry

producing novel products that humans ingest or breathe into their lungs.

Recently, U.W. has admitted to the large amount of pharmaceutical research that is going unpublished because it isn't favorable to the drug companies.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/study-uw-is-among-medical-centers-with-poor-clinical-trial-reporting-rates/

Leading academic medical centers across the U.S. — including the University of Washington and the Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) — have a poor record of reporting results from clinical trials, leaving patients and doctors with a potentially skewed view of the safety and benefits of treatments, a new study finds.

Nationwide, only about two-thirds of results from more than 4,300 studies completed between 2007 and 2010 were published or reported — and only about one-third were released to the public within two years of completion.


Northwest institutions fared either about the same or worse, according to a new analysis published Wednesday in the journal BMJ.

“Once you realize that human experiments are being done and the results are not being reported, you realize that the entire scientific enterprise is being threatened,” said Dr. Harlan Krumholz, the Yale School of Medicine cardiologist and health-care researcher who led the study.

SNIP

[Major Nikon]

136. You didn't answer the question

[pnwmom]

137. It does for some drugs and biologics, but researchers apparently have been lax

about following the requirements.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/study-uw-is-among-medical-centers-with-poor-clinical-trial-reporting-rates/

In the BMJ study, only 13 percent of academic medical centers nationwide posted study results on the federal website. At the UW, just 18.4 percent of studies were reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, but at OHSU, the figure was nearly 51 percent.

“This paper brings to light that the institution has a responsibility,” said Dr. Deborah Zarin, director of ClinicalTrials.gov. “They used to leave it to individual investigators.”

Part of the trouble is that there have been few incentives to encourage reporting or consequences for failure to do so. Under the federal Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, results of certain trials are required by law to be reported within a year of completion, and researchers can be fined up to $10,000 a day per trial for lapses. But, so far, no fine has been levied.

New rules are expected soon aimed at strengthening reporting of clinical trials funded by the National Institutes of Health and regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/manage-recs/fdaaa#WhichTrialsMustBeRegistered

Results Deadlines

In general, results of an Applicable Clinical Trial of a drug, biologic, or device that is approved, licensed, or cleared by FDA must be submitted by the Responsible Party no later than 12 months after the Completion Date (see Primary Completion Date data element on ClinicalTrials.gov).

See the statutory provision for Completion Date (PDF).

FAQ: How do I submit results information if the trial is terminated (that is, stopped prematurely) and no data were collected for one or more Outcome Measures?

[Major Nikon]

139. No such requirement can be found in your link

It specifically talks about registered trials, which is no different than the requirements for GMO.

[pnwmom]

140. I added another link. And it talks about how researchers conducting registered trials have NOT been

properly posting results that they are required to report.

[Major Nikon]

141. Neither can the requirement be found there

You do realize companies that produce GMO are also required to conduct field trials and report the results, yes?

[Deadshot]

129. Follow the money.

Organic companies thrive on the ignorance of anti-GMOers. Only suckers pay twice, three times as much for produce because it's "organic" even though there is no evidence that organic is better for you.

Spot-on article. Too bad people will attack you with their ignorant beliefs.

[Major Nikon]

138. From the USDA website:

The National Organic Program (NOP) is a regulatory program housed within the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. We are responsible for developing national standards for organically-produced agricultural products. These standards assure consumers that products with the USDA organic seal meet consistent, uniform standards. Our regulations do not address food safety or nutrition.

http://www.ams.usda.gov/about-ams/programs-offices/national-organic-program

[womanofthehills]

201. Prices from Whole Foods this week

You must be really really poor or you have never shopped for organic vegetables if you think organic vegetables are expensive.

[Major Nikon]

219. I'm sure you consider Consumer Reports a shill for the industry, but here's what they said...

"On average, organic foods were 47 percent more expensive..."
-- Published: March 19, 2015

[womanofthehills]

226. I only shop organic

and have for most of my life. I prefer my experience over Consumer Reports. Here in NM, there are so many natural food stores, the prices are really good because of competition.

[Major Nikon]

228. Sure, because anecdotal "evidence" always trumps data

Meanwhile keep giving even more money to John Mackey - sounds like a Republican thing to me. Just sayin'.

[tymorial]

177. Grab your fire retardent clothing

The pseudoscience believers are about to flame you.

[tymorial]

178. Oh wait, its already happened.

Probably should have scrolled down first.

[WDIM]

180. Label it then if its so great!

I dont believe organic foods are any better or safer. Organic foods are labeled GMO of it was something great it would be labeled too. But they are trying to hide it.

[womanofthehills]

196. Actually organic foods are better for the planet/waterways

Herbicide and Pesticide end with CIDE which means act of killing

Contamination of creeks, rivers, and oceans

California creeks, rivers, and oceans are being contaminated with pesticides and other chemicals commonly used around our homes and gardens. These garden chemicals are not only a threat to aquatic life, but they can also affect the quality of our drinking water.
Contamination of creeks, rivers, and oceansToxicity to living organisms

All pesticides are toxic at some level, but each varies in their toxicity to humans and other animals. Organophosphates, including diazinon and chlorpyrifos, are insecticides that contain phosphorus; they are nerve poisons and act by inhibiting important enzymes in the nervous system in animals. Pyrethroids are another class of insecticides that are not as toxic to humans and other mammals, but are quite toxic to fish and invertebrates. Both the organophosphates and pyrethroids pose serious threats to aquatic invertebrates in California waterways.

http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/WATER/U/watqual.html

[Major Nikon]

215. Evidently you didn't even read your own source

Not only does your source not prove your assertion, it's completely irrelevant to food production whether it's organic or conventional. The article is referring to home and garden pest control which you could have derived from reading the very first paragraph.

"Organic" is nothing more than a marketing term that doesn't guarantee safety, nutrition, or better environmental impact. Furthermore, copper sulfate is one of the most commonly used organic pesticides. It's highly toxic, carcinogenic, is very slow to break down, and pollutes waterways all over the world, yet it is regulated just as a general use material by the EPA because it's considered "organic" and doesn't require rigorous environmental impact studies like synthetic pesticides do. It's a high use fungicide that's one of the few available to organic farmers who can't use synthetic options that are far more effective, require much less, break down almost immediately, and do not accumulate in the environment like copper sulfate.
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/carbaryl-dicrotophos/copper-sulfate-ext.html

[Rex]

186. Never trust a huge conglomerate to have the clients best interest at heart. That is universal.

That being said. What you go by is what most informed scientists say is the TRUTH. If they agree with GMOs or Organics, whatever the majority opinion is going to be will be what most layman go by. FACT.

[Blue Meany]

202. THERE HAVE NOT BEEN 1700 STUDIES ON GMO SAFETY

This a piece of propaganda circulated by a shill for the industry as part of a campaign to propagate a myth about a scientific consensus that GMO's are safe. The truth is, there have been few studies of GMO safety. In a literature review done a couple of years ago there were, as I recall, fewer than 200. The conclusion of the review was that about half of the studies raised concerns about the safety of the specific products and felt that more extensive testing was needed, but large-scale studies have almost never been done because of a lack of funding for them. And about half the studies--almost all of which conducted by or funded by the GM industry--concluded that the products were safe. Among independent scientists, the consensus is that we do not know whether GMO's are safe--or that in specific GMO is safe--but for some them there are reasons for concern about their safety. Probably some are safe and some are not; how can a category like this be declared by anyone--it's like saying all plants are safe to eat, when we know some are poisonous.

So where did that list of 1700 studies come from? It has been floating around the internet for quite some time, so you can probably find a copy and look for yourself. It includes a hodgepodge of articles -- some peer reviewed some not-- as well as industry publication and publications in popular magazines, etc. Few of them have anything to do with safety. But how many people are going to go through the list to check? Of course, there are lots of studies about the effect of one product or another on agricultural productivity or pest control. But these pertain to profit not human or environmental safety.

[nationalize the fed]

206. "The biggest scientific fraud of our age"

A bold statement.

This book is written by a lawyer who sued the FDA for GMO files.

4.5 stars on Amazon, 200+ reviews. It's excellent,

Altered Genes, Twisted Truth
http://www.amazon.com/Altered-Genes-Twisted-Truth-Systematically/dp/0985616903/

This book uncovers the biggest scientific fraud of our age. It tells the fascinating and frequently astounding story of how the massive enterprise to restructure the genetic core of the world's food supply came into being, how it advanced by consistently violating the protocols of science, and how for more than three decades, hundreds of eminent biologists and esteemed institutions have systematically contorted the truth in order to conceal the unique risks of its products–and get them onto our dinner plates.

Altered Genes, Twisted Truth provides a graphic account of how this elaborate fraud was crafted and how it not only deceived the general public, but Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Barack Obama and a host of other astute and influential individuals as well.

The book also exposes how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was induced to become a key accomplice--and how it has broken the law and repeatedly lied in order to usher genetically engineered foods onto the market without the safety testing that's required by federal statute. As a result, for fifteen years America's families have been regularly ingesting a group of novel products that the FDA's own scientific staff had previously determined to be unduly hazardous to human health.

[Major Nikon]

218. Actually I'm surprised it took this long for someone to channel Seralini in this thread

A self-published book from a lawyer citing widely discredited Seralini pseudoscience.
http://academicsreview.org/2015/07/steven-druker-twisted-truth-in-altered-genes-book/

[nationalize the fed]

220. Perhaps you should...

...notify these people immediately. You can save their careers, because if the word gets out about this Seralini chap they'll be finished if they don't retract their endorsements.

Richard C. Jennings, Ph.D., Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, UK

David Schubert, Ph.D. molecular biologist and Head of Cellular Neurobiology, Salk Institute for Biological Studies

John Ikerd, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Missouri – Columbia

Joseph Cummins, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Genetics, Western University, London, Ontario

Stephen Naylor, PhD CEO and Chairman of MaiHealth Inc., Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, & Pharmacology Mayo Clinic (1991-2001)

Frederick Kirschenmann, Phd Distinguished Fellow, Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University, Author of Cultivating an Ecological Conscience

Belinda Martineau, Ph.D., a co-developer of the first genetically engineered whole food and author of First Fruit: The Creation of the Flavr Savr™ Tomato and the Birth of Biotech Foods

Allison Wilson, PhD molecular geneticist, Science Director, The Bioscience Resource Project

Ralph Bunker, PhD

http://www.amazon.com/Altered-Genes-Twisted-Truth-Systematically/dp/0985616903/

It should be easy enough to find contact information for everyone above - except maybe Ralph Bunker, PhD. I'll even help if you want. It is JUST THAT Important, isn't it. Imagine how silly they will feel after being informed that they have endorsed a fraud. But You're here to save them! Be a hero.

Chop Chop- Time's a wasting

PS: Care to share your credentials? It would help establish your own credibility when it comes to GMO's. You can still remain anonymous, there are loads of PhD's and Doctors in the US. TIA!

[Major Nikon]

221. So does this mean the book doesn't rely on Seralini's pseudoscience?

[Major Nikon]

216. You have no idea what you're talking about

For one thing, it's very telling that you didn't include any cite for this nonsense, which leads one to believe it possibly came from someplace like OCA or Mercola which are most definitely, "a shill for the industry".

For another, the claim was never "1700 studies", and the claim never was "GMO's are safe", but rather there is no credible consensus claiming otherwise. This makes your entire line nothing more than a steaming pile of strawman.

The claim was 1783 "original research papers, reviews, relevant opinions and reports", which certainly includes relevant studies, show the overwhelming scientific consensus is there is no credible safety threat from GMO. Furthermore it wasn't just a claim, it was most certainly a peer reviewed meta-analysis published by a well respected academic publisher that's been in business over 100 years, unlike the typical pseudoscience trotted out by anti-GMO shills published in predatory pay-to-play journals that aren't fit to line bird cages.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/07388551.2013.823595

[immoderate]

229. I went through it. It's a "hodgepodge of articles," like Blue Meany says.

There is no claim of safety. A few of the articles suggest ways of testing it.

--imm

[Major Nikon]

234. You are correct, there is no claim of safety, which is why Blue Meany's assertion is strawman

Here is what the claim actually is...

Abstract
The technology to produce genetically engineered (GE) plants is celebrating its 30th anniversary and one of the major achievements has been the development of GE crops. The safety of GE crops is crucial for their adoption and has been the object of intense research work often ignored in the public debate. We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety during the last 10 years, built a classified and manageable list of scientific papers, and analyzed the distribution and composition of the published literature. We selected original research papers, reviews, relevant opinions and reports addressing all the major issues that emerged in the debate on GE crops, trying to catch the scientific consensus that has matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide. The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops; however, the debate is still intense. An improvement in the efficacy of scientific communication could have a significant impact on the future of agricultural GE. Our collection of scientific records is available to researchers, communicators and teachers at all levels to help create an informed, balanced public perception on the important issue of GE use in agriculture.

[ZombieHorde]

247. Shit, you asked a really good question, in my opinion.

I googled it, but what source do we listen to? Glancing at the links, most sources have an obvious agenda, one way or another. You and I don't have the time or resources to conduct 1000+ studies ourselves, so we can't listen to ourselves. We can't come to our own conclusions; we can only form an opinion based upon the work of many other people. Do you have any advice for me on this?

[eniwetok]

238. I have no problem, in theory, with GMO crops

GMO crops, in theory, may become a lifesaver on an overpopulated planet undergoing rapid global warming. I don't want to rule out genetic engineering in this case.

What I object to is the use of such genetic engineering to meet the needs of Monsanto. They genetically engineered crops to be resistant to Monsanto's own Roundup and as a result these crops contain high levels of glyphosate or the metabolite AMPA. Then there was Monsanto's creation of the "death gene".

If we have to resort to GMOs, I'd rather see GMO seed development under the control of a UN agency rather than a sociopathic corporation.

[HuckleB]

241. Umm.

Last edited Mon Mar 28, 2016, 03:34 PM - Edit history (1)

About those harsher herbicides that glyphosate helped replace:
http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.php/2015/06/02/about-those-more-caustic-herbicides-that-glyphosate-helped-replace-by-credible-hulk/

http://thefoodiefarmer.blogspot.com/2015/06/spraying-isnt-dousing.html

http://www.nurselovesfarmer.com/2014/08/how-much-glyphosate-is-sprayed-on-our-crops/

http://www.foodinsight.org/pesticide-food-safety-farmer

Also, one should note that the organic industry funds the anti-GMO movement
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2016/01/the_greatest_hyopcrises_of_the_anti-gmo_moviement.html

[ZombieHorde]

253. I share your prejudice.

I generally respect people, and they have to "earn" my disrespect, but I generally disrespect the social construct of companies, and they have to "earn" my respect. Both are biases, but I won't lie about my feelings.

[Dont call me Shirley]

263. Eat only gmo foods and you will become a zombie.

[ZombieHorde]

280. Shirley you don't mean that. nt

[So Far From Heaven]

279. Evolution = GMO food = GMO people

Not saying mass dna splicing is good, but EVERYONE loses sight of the fact that ALL organisms are genetically modified organisms by definition.

The REAL problem is future effects like loss of variability, loss of habitat and increased use of herbicides to control environments. That shit is bad.

[HuckleB]

281. If I Were a Food Activist

http://www.nurselovesfarmer.com/2014/11/food-activist/

[ZombieHorde]

282. Some good points in there. nt