Kevin O'Leary (SharkTank) badly beaten in GMO debate with 14 year-old girl

[KurtNYC]

The audio in the first segment is choppy but they only goes for 30 seconds or so. It is fine after that.

O'Leary condescends and uses bogus industry talking points but is blown out of the water by the unflappable Rachel Parent. O'Leary lies his ass off, saying he cares about feeding kids in 3rd world countries and that only GMOs could do it. He tries to bully her and talk down to her but she calmly has him in full retreat after the first exchange. She calls out his lies and he just switches to different ones without ever admitting his duplicity.

The full version:

Sam Seder's version with his play-by-play analysis:

[freedom fighter jh]

1. Go Rachel!

This is old but well worth a second watching!

[Dr Hobbitstein]

2. It's a good thing science isn't decided by debate...

Here's a link to 1,783 international independent studies proving the safety of GMOs...

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Ge-crops-safety-pub-list-1.xls

It's an Excel spreadsheet. I'm assuming neither the businessman nor the 14 year old "activist" are not geneticists.

[KurtNYC]

6. Science 101: Scientific theories can be disproven or supported but they can't be proven.

Science seeks to test hypotheses, such as the hypothesis that 'we can all eat lots of neurotoxins and bioaccumulating heavy metals with no impact on our health.'

Karl Popper probably wrote the most important book related to this concept, which was titled The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Interestingly enough, he originally wrote it in German and then rewrote it in English. As a result, it is one of the few books that is published in two different languages but was never translated. The author wrote both versions. In this book, he argues that science should follow a methodology based on falsification. He shows quite clearly that while science cannot prove anything, it can falsify ideas that are currently thought to be true. He therefore argues that the test of any real scientific theory is whether or not it can be falsified. If not, then it is not truly a scientific theory.

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=5725

But on the main issues here: Avoiding accurate labeling of what is in the food you sell is not science. It is lack of faith in what you sell.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

9. Acutally, scientific theories CAN be proven...

And when they're proven, they become scientific fact.

And labeling something for NO scientific reason is a bad idea in general. We put warning labels on things that are bad for you (and proven to be so), like cigarettes and alcohol. GMOs have been proven safe in study after study after study. So why label? Because it makes you feel good?

[KurtNYC]

21. So you reject Karl Popper?

You claim to champion science and the scientific method yet you reject Karl Popper. Even Albert Einstein called his theory of relativity, a theory, not a fact. Einstein would likely have said 'law,' not 'fact'.

Fact (noun) - something that has really occurred or is actually the case.

Law (noun) - a theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present.

Why do you hate science and the terms used by science?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

22. Scientific Fact is a term used.

Here's a quick refresher course for you...

http://ncse.com/evolution/education/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

[KurtNYC]

27. Thanks for the additional confirmation of what I have been trying to tell you.

Fact: ...for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

I'm glad we agree after all. This exchange might be more mutually informative if you cite a few things that prove YOU right and ME wrong.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

28. You stated there is no fact.

I refuted and backed it up.
You say you were right. Must be nice in that world of yours.

[KurtNYC]

34. In my post #21, I give the definitions of both fact and theory

so obviously I am not asserting: "there is no fact." Was trying to drill down to the difference between those two terms in the general context of the scientific method.

A different angle:

The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience. This is often epitomized in Wolfgang Pauli famously saying, of an argument that fails to be scientific because it cannot be falsified by experiment, "it is not only not right, it is not even wrong!"

Applying that to this issue at hand: you say "GMOs are proven safe" so according to scientific method, one exception to that rule/fact/theory disproves the rule/fact/theory. Take your pick:

1. Iowa farms could lose up to 66% of yields due to side effects of GMO ag methods:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2014/06/22/superweeds-choke-farms/11231231/

2. Starlink Corn recall of 2000 -- damages of over $70 mil were paid out by Aventis, Garst, Kraft Foods, Azteca Foods, Azteca Milling, and Mission Foods:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarLink_corn_recall

Fact: GMO is shown by these real world examples to drastically reduce yields and create health problems in the human food chain thereby disproving the hypothesis: GMOs are proven safe.

I would love to be wrong -- I would love to know that there is nothing wrong with GMO foods or ag but the evidence disproves that theory and good science never ignores evidence.

[pnwmom]

64. GMO's have been PRESUMED, not proven safe, since 1992.

This is when the FDA declared that henceforth, GMO products would be presumed safe, and the burden would be on anyone who thought a product was unsafe to prove that it was unsafe.

At the same time, the FDA allowed the GMO producers to control GMO seeds, so only approved researchers were allowed to use the seeds for research; and these researchers were required to sign confidentiality agreements in order to use the seeds. These agreements allowed the producers to ban the publication of any research they wanted to ban.

So all the research you see is favorable for GMO products because that is all the producers will allow to be published. And they got this power from the 1992 decision of the FDA. And we have Dick Cheney to thank for that.

[mother earth]

8. Source watch alert!!! Why do all roads for GMOs (Monsanto) among other shit stains on our

democracy all lead to Jon Entine? YOU really need to undertake due diligence before citing propaganda on DU. We do not suffer fools here with right wing propaganda ties to Syngenta, Monsanto & that just for starters. He's a POS branding BS artist & liar. The Genetic Literacy Project is nothing more than a front group for oligarchs bent on the hijacking of our gov't and major disinfo agents for profit.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Genetic_Literacy_Project

Exposing Jon Entine:

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/02/atrazine-syngengta-tyrone-hayes-jon-entine

http://propagandists.org/propagandists/jon-entine/

Further, and under a byline stating that he was the “Director, Genetic Literacy Project, Statistical Assessment Service, George Mason Univ.,”Entine authored a piece for The Huffington Post attacking atrazine critics and defending the chemical: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/frog-day-afternoon-choose_b_853776.html

And as noted here, Entine has a history of defending chemical use, GMO foods and other industry initiatives on behalf of the chemical/biochemical/biotech industries on behalf of ACSH: http://acsh.org/?s=jon+entine&cat=0&x=31&y=22

In an investigative piece, Mother Jones revealed how heavily financed ACSH is by the very industries the “independent”organization defends: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/american-council-science-health-leaked-documents-fundraising :


According to the ACSH documents, from July 1, 2012, to December 20, 2012, 58 percent of donations to the council came from corporations and large private foundations. ACSH’s donors and the potential backers the group has been targeting comprise a who’s-who of energy, agriculture, cosmetics, food, soda, chemical, pharmaceutical, and tobacco corporations. ACSH donors in the second half of 2012 included Chevron ($18,500), Coca-Cola ($50,000), the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation ($15,000), Dr. Pepper/Snapple ($5,000), Bayer Cropscience ($30,000), Procter and Gamble ($6,000), agribusiness giant Syngenta ($22,500), 3M ($30,000), McDonald’s ($30,000), and tobacco conglomerate Altria ($25,000).

See the document listing these donations here: http://www.motherjones.com/documents/809483-acsh-financial-summary#document/p4/a128808

More from the Mother Jones investigation:

Dr. Gilbert Ross, the group’s executive director, declined to answer specific questions about ACSH’s fundraising. He did not dispute the authenticity of the documents provided to Mother Jones. (Multiple corporations listed as donors on these documents confirmed they had supported ACSH.) Ross says the group doesn’t disclose its backers because “the sources of our support are irrelevant to our scientific investigations.”According to Ross, “Only science-based facts hold sway in our publications, even if the outcome is not pleasing to our contributors.”

As Mother Jones reported in 2005, Ross was previously convicted for defrauding New York State’s Medicaid program of roughly $8 million. His medical license was temporarily revoked and a jury sentenced him to 46 months in prison, of which he served 23 months. Ross currently has his license and is allowed to practice.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

10. Those studies were not made nor paid for by John Entine...

They may have been compiled there, but they aren't his studies. It is, however, a list of all the studies, who did the study, when it was released, where it was published, and any pertinent links.

Do you know how hard it is to find a list of all of those studies in one place? Especially with all the FUD and disinfo out there on the google? It's like trying to find solid info on vaccines or global warming. All the FUDers and denialists sites are top hits because people read them and ignore the science.

And GMO =/= Monsanto. Quit conflating the two. You want to have an honest discussion? Keep it fucking honest.

[mother earth]

14. That is pure BS, HE is The Genetic Literacy Project, and all studies there are pro-industry

propaganda! You are so busted!

It's so hard to find because long term studies of proven safety by independent entities do not exist. OTOH proven safety issues have been documented by squelched and discredited scientists.

You are on a sinking ship of a steaming pile of BS! YOU ignore science & the truth!

[Dr Hobbitstein]

20. What is your fucking disconnect?

They are NOT studies from the GLP. The GLP wasn't even in existence when a lot of these studies were done.

All the GLP did was COMPILE a list. Do you understand what compile a list means? They took the time to look up, and document studies on GMOs from the 90s to now. That's it. They wrote down the studies, authors, dates, publications, et al and put them on a list. You can then find a study on the list, google it, and then read it.

You are ignoring the science. You are clinging to a conspiracy that doesn't exist. There are long term studies. Many have been done and published.

And you were the one pushing a TM yogi from Natural News/Mercola as being a scientist last night.

[CSStrowbridge]

33. The only thing bullshit here is the anti-science.

There are HUNDREDS of independent studies that have shown GMOs are safe.

You don't give a fuck about science, because anti-GMO is your fucking religion.

[mother earth]

39. It has been stated far and wide, as always, the reason GMOs are in question is because there are no

long term studies that have been conducted. Most studies to date have been short term and when result s are not pro-GMO they are quickly discredited by the oligarchs. Studies that are funded by the corporation are not independent, nor can they be deemed as truthful.

We know the in climate denial, scientists were bought and paid for, the same is true of GMOs. There is a huge need for verifiable independent and long term studies that current with today's biotech advances and policies.

YOU are simply wrong, wrong, wrong, anti-science and GMO zealot.

[CSStrowbridge]

48. Bullshit

"...and when result s are not pro-GMO they are quickly discredited by the oligarchs."

Bullshit.

This is pure bullshit.

There have been hundreds of INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC STUDIES that have shown GMOs are healthy. They've been on the market for 20 years and none of been shown to cause harm. 20 fucking years. Is that not long term enough?

"We know the in climate denial, scientists were bought and paid for, the same is true of GMOs."

Sort of like when an Organic Federation of Australia funds bad science?

"There is a huge need for verifiable independent..."

There have already been hundreds of verifiable independent studies.

"YOU are simply wrong, wrong, wrong, anti-science and GMO zealot."

More projection from the person who considers Anti-GMO to be a religion.

[mother earth]

68. No, it is difficult to sift through any of the "available" studies. For one thing many of the so

called studies are not LONG TERM (more than 90 days), secondly, there's that disinfo blur that accompanies anything that is funded as self-serving when it's bought & paid for by the very entity it will side with given who's paying for it, even big pharma rolls that way & YOU know this. Afterall the climate denial "scientists" too were bought & paid for, YOU know this.

Projection? NO, it comes down to this: WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW OUR FOOD SUPPLY, it needs to be labeled.

We can go round and round, but there would not be such a money pitch by the Monsanto groups to defend not labeling if everything were so clear cut.

Lastly, the GMO's of yesteryear were probably safe, but the extent that genes and splicing has taken mixed with herbicidals and pharmaceuticals are of the utmost concern. This fact alone is why we can no longer rely on any studies done that are older than a few years...it's an ever changing game. What this GMO monster has evolved into is anyone's guess.

I don't fault you for wanting scientific study to back up any claim, hell, I join in you in calling for it. Independent studies that are long term and verifiable are exactly what anti-gmo'ers of today want. When we cannot get the transparency we want in the products we are buying, why would we continue to buy them? This is why the oligarchs stand in the way of scientists who have done short term studies that prove there are issues, this is why many scientists have been fired when they disclose their findings if they work for Monsanto or their entities.

Here are a few more facts:

President’s Cancer Report: Recommends food grown without pesticide, chemical fertilizer, antibiotics and growth hormones.

Journal of Pediatrics: Study Links ADHD to Pesticide Exposure. Recommends organic foods to avoid pesticide exposure.



When the pro-GMO'ers here start at least acknowledging there's no reason NOT to label, and they should be, perhaps I'll start believing there isn't a money trail they've got their thumb in. Since to date the only ones on the GMO bandwagon about not labeling as such are those who tremble with fear that the consumer won't be buying them once the label is attached.

Why would anyone be against truth in labeling? Unless they are against TRUTH, and fear being exposed.

[mother earth]

11. More about Jon Entine's "Genetic Literacy Project"

http://therefusers.com/refusers-newsroom/meet-jon-entine-pro-monsanto-gmo-activist-and-pro-bill-gates-activist/#.U-egFSx0yM8
Meet Jon Entine: Pro-Monsanto GMO activist and pro-Bill Gates activist

Jon Entine has made a career out of flacking for GMOs, Monsanto and Bill Gates. Entine appears to be the public face of Bill Gates and Monsanto’s media campaign to present GMO food as the holy grail. He writes hit pieces in Forbes Magazine against real (non corporate) GMO studies that show health risks.

Entine’s lucrative empire includes a media consultancy (clients: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and formerly Monsanto), a pro-chemical book deal with the Monsanto-funded American Council On Science And Health (Paul Offit is on the Board), a GMO media lobbying outfit called The Genetic Literacy Project, a relationship with STATS (George Mason University ‘advocate scientific and statistical methods as the best way of analyzing and solving society’s problems’), Senior Research Fellow with the Center for Health and Risk Communication (George Mason University) and he is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (with a focus on anti-environmental issues).



With all these seemingly professional and academic positions you might assume Entine has ironclad scientific credentials.

You would be wrong.

Science degree? No.
Statistics degree? No.
Medical degree? No.
Media communications degree? No.

Paid activist flack? Yes.
His degree? BA in philosophy.

So what is Entine doing advising the public on medical, statistical and health issues? What is Entine’s meal ticket? Why would Bill Gates and Monsanto finance his empire?

Answer: Mainstream media access. Entine was a producer for Tom Brokaw (NBC News) and ABC News. Entine’s empire is based on tapping his media background to counter consumer resistance to genetically modified products.

The mainstream media laps it up, Entine is one of them. That’s why he gets such big exposure.

But you know what? Entine and the mainstream media are on the wrong side of this issue. Polls show 82% of Americans support GMO food labeling (GMOs are currently hidden ingredients in most prepared foods). Industry opposes this because they fear labeling will be a skull and crossbones mark of the devil that will destroy their GMO markets. And they are probably right. They are running scared.

So let Bill Gates and Monsanto throw their GMO money around like drunken sailors. Let Entine soak up their big bucks with his cavalcade of mainstream media pro-GMO activism.

You know what? They’re gonna lose.

When you see Entine’s byline on mainstream media pro-GMO hogwash, you know who paid for it.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

12. What part of "those studies are not from John Entine"

do you not understand? The list was compiled on his site. I found a handy list of 1,783 studies compiled in one place. They are actual studies that were done by actual scientists, dating from the 90s to now. They have been published in major science journals, and have been peer-reviewed.

They have NOTHING to do with John Entine. Would you rather me copy all the studies off the list and paste them here? I figured it would take up a lot of space.

[mother earth]

15. HE is running a front group paid for by his clients, i.e., MONSANTO. There is no credibility to any

thing you are offering. I'd rather you just acknowledge the propaganda for what it is.

Take up a lot of space? No, there's really nothing to list, independent long term studies provided by the GLP are bogus.

The studies you could provide by actual scientists, were done by scientists on their payroll. That's how this works. That's why we want truth in labeling. When you have no credibility left, you have nothing to offer.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

18. They aren't studies from the GLP.

They are INDEPENDENT studies. Many of them from before the GLP was founded. Not corporate funded. I'm sorry that they were compiled by the GLP, but they have no associating with the GLP. It's just a list of independent studies from all over the world by actual scientists.

Dismissing all science proving the safety of GMOs, and clinging to discredited studies and a conspiracy of scientists to cover up harm is akin to the anti-global warming crowd. And you don't even see it. Your confirmation bias is in the way.

Now, if you would like to discuss ANY of the findings of these studies, I'd be glad to talk. Otherwise, you are just spouting nonsense and ignoring the subject.

[BKLawyer]

31. Its kind of like ...

A Republican putting together a list of books he considers good ... and you're going to dislike everyone of the books he listed, just because he listed it (and you don't particularly like him), without actually reading the books and assessing whether the books are good or not on your own.

Your point should be well taken.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

46. If because a Republican likes a book, and tells you it's good...

You would automatically dislike it?

Not everything is black and white. Not everything is politics.

One of my best friends is a RWNJ. We don't discuss politics, because we disagree greatly. We do, however, share the same love for music, movies, and literature. If he called me up and told me to read/watch something because he enjoyed it, I would probably do just that.

[BKLawyer]

49. No ...

I didn't say that ... I was comparing what you said to the attitude that was being displayed ... "we're going to discount anything that person says or cites .... because ... because he's a Republican!" Never mind actually reading the studies.

You were correct ... I was merely giving another example of a ridiculous notion.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

52. I see...

Disregard what I said before...

[mother earth]

37. The GMOs of today are far different than what once might have been utilized by "independent"

scientists of yesteryear. Biotech is an evolving "science" and NO LONG TERM studies have yet to be conducted.

You have proven NOTHING.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

43. You have refused to read the studies. and have formed your own opinions.

These studies stretch from the late 90s until last year. These aren't the "GMOs of yesteryear". There HAVE been long term studies, and there are longterm studies in this list.

It's actually compiled nicely, by category.

By the way, it's not MY job to prove anything. It's the scientists who wrote these studies. And they have. You're just too willfully ignorant to even read them.

[DhhD]

16. An old saying; put your money where your mouth is, noting personal. You content there is

no harm in GMOs then let the consumer have a choice of products. Label the food as either wild type produce/product or company designed produce/product, placing them side by side in a grocery store.

I would like to see the Wild Type Corn bar code vs. Designer Corn on the price bar code attacked to the grocery store shelf. It could be a city ordinance that the two species be separated. Green and Yellow Squash have different bar codes as do types of pears. Tangerines have a different bar code from oranges and the other fruit species that the tangerine is grafted from. Mixed flower seeds have one bar code and the separate seed have another. Mixed nuts have one bar code and single tree nuts have another.

This reminds me of designer drugs, by changing the molecules you chance the drug and must have a new bar code and patent if you will it.

When is the next city counsel meeting?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

19. You wouldn't want wild corn...

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/selection/corn/

Also, you are confusing species with cultivar. Keeping in mind that the plant itself is what is changed, not the resultant fruit.

[drynberg]

3. "Broadcaster" jumps on to gang up on Rachel several times, adding to the Kevin Effect

Kevin says repeatedly to stop talking about choice, he'll grant choice...right. Then he patronizes Rachel repeatedly acting like he cares about her...please. The adults were worse than lame, and Rachel did kick asses and take names.

[bahrbearian]

4. Most Excellent

I Love me some Sam Seder

[RufusTFirefly]

5. Pretty ironic that HE accuses HER of being the shill!

From my perspective, there was only one cheap-shot artist in this particular debate. And it wasn't Rachel Parent.

[KurtNYC]

7. He is very condescending to her (as he is to most people)

and she stays right on message.

[chervilant]

13. So very glad

I've never watched that patronizing puddle of putrefaction named O'Leary. Does he know what it means to be a lobbyist?!? Is Ms. Parent channeling money to anti-GMO groups? Does she "lobby" politicians to vote in ways that support environmentalists?

Ick, ick, ick, Mr. O'Leary.

[KurtNYC]

23. Good point. The girl clearly is not making a living lobbying government officials for changes to

laws that would benefit her investments or give her advantages in the marketplace. So of course she is not a lobbyist, Mr. O'Leary.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

17. This guy is such a bastard....

On Shark Tank they call him "Mister Wonderful" because he screws over everyone. He's STUPID too and doesn't know a success when he sees one. Their most successful product is what he called "that stupid sponge". I saw an episode where he demanded 70% of the profits from someone and then said, "You are so lucky that you met me." as the others looked at him in astonishment over his blatant attempt to not even TRY to be anything other than a thief. He made all of his money as a hedge fund manager using money from rich people to leach from people smarter than him until he became rich himself.

He was recently on CNBC and the subject of income inequality came up and he's all for it because he thinks it's an incentive for EVERYONE to become rich. Bottom line, he doesn't understand why EVERYBODY doesn't do what he did because he's stupid and he knows it but he got rich and it was EASY for him so WTF is your excuse for being poor? Must be because you're lazy or stupider than him or both.

[KurtNYC]

25. His MO seems to be to use insults to throw you off your gamre and then

offer some crappy deal that gives him royalties forever. He plays his arrogance as expertise; it isn't.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

30. His favorite is the desperate person who doesn't know that have a gold mine....

He's the kind of guy you read about in a story of someone murdering their business partner.

[Archae]

24. Funny thing about all this...

Back in the days of "Fidonet," there was a forum called "Holysmoke."

It was described as a "religious food fight."

There were a select group of people, almost entirely conservative "Christians," who would say the most stupid things imaginable.

There's a collection of them here, along with replies from the "WOA's."
(Wicked Old Atheists)

http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/quotes.htm

We "WOA's" called the idiots, "FTB's."

"Fucking True Believers."

I see the same tactics used by the head of the Flat Earth Society:

http://americanloons.blogspot.ca/2014/08/1139-daniel-shenton.html

The anti-vaccination loons like Jenny McCarthy and RFK Jr.

And these anti-GMO hysterics.

This debate is worthless, they picked a total idiot to be "pro-GMO," and a hysteric to be "anti."

[eShirl]

26. All that being true,

ARE YOU NOT INFOTAINED?

[alp227]

29. What does SHE know at age 14 about science?

Children are easily impressionable, and she's being fed a pack of junk science without knowing it.

[KurtNYC]

35. and yet she beat O'Leary, a 52-year-old self-crowned genius

What do make of this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarLink_corn_recall

[alp227]

36. So? That doesn't mean GMO's are harmful.

And anyone can win a debate by way of semantics and style, not substance.

[RufusTFirefly]

41. Fun fact: Europe is made up entirely of 14-year-old anti-GMO hysterics n/t

[Dr Hobbitstein]

45. Fun fact: Countries in Europe

banned certain vaccines because of a 13 year old discredited science article.

[pnwmom]

65. The GMO lovers are being fed a pack of junk science without knowing it.

The 1992 FDA under Reagan decreed that henceforth, without any further research, all future GMO products would automatically be deemed safe. The burden would be on anyone alleging any dangers to prove the dangers with research. At the same time, the FDA allowed the producers to limit access to the seeds needed for research to certain approved investigators; and they allowed the producers to require "independent" investigators to sign confidentiality agreements which banned them from publishing results except with the permission of the GMO producers. What a sweetheart deal the Reagan FDA gave to the GMO producers.

Virtually all of the "science" produced since then has been conducted under these restrictions. With truly independent research being suppressed, these studies cannot be relied on.

[alp227]

66. "The 1992 FDA under Reagan"

You mean George H.W. Bush?

I'm not sure of that story, but c'mon the scientific consensus not just in America is that there is no evidence GMO's are harmful.

[pnwmom]

67. Yes, I meant Bush/Cheney. And the "scientific consensus" is meaningless when the research

is under the control of the producers, who decide who gets the seeds and which studies get published.

[wyldwolf]

32. which goes to show she knew her talking points better than he knew his.

Doesn't mean she was right. I've seen conservative pundits put a beat down on someone because they had a better handle on their 'facts,' even though those facts were wrong.

[KurtNYC]

38. Why don't people have the right to know how their food is produced?

Individual consumers may avoid gluten, pork, salt, HFCS, phosphoric acid, bromated flour, GMO foods, conventionally-grown apples, all meat, all animals products and by-products, etc. for reasons and beliefs that range from genuine acute health issues to religious restrictions to self-imposed/moral concerns and the courts have consistently said that consumers have the right to know what is in the food being offered for sale to them in the USA.

Those who are against truth in labeling may be to the Right of the SCOTUS (if that is possible):
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-court-fruit-drinks-20140422-story.html

[wyldwolf]

42. for a variety of reasons.

1. The anti-science crowd has whipped up a small frenzy with their fundamentalism
2. Forcing food to be labeled adds to that frenzy - not to mention it could adversely affect people's livelihoods - from the manufacturers of the food to the stores that sell it to the employees of those stores.

Would you like it if the Federal government forced clinics to tell patients that immunizations caused autism or that abortions lead to breast cancer? Because those claims have about as much validity as the "GMOs are dangerous" claims.

[RufusTFirefly]

44. So much for the free market, eh?

First of all, you are disingenuously conflating GMO labeling with "GMOs are dangerous." The labels would not say that GMOs are dangerous. They would simply provide transparency when it comes to a product's ingredients. This is an expansion of a feature that consumers already rely upon when making buying choices.

Second of all, if food is labeled GMO and that prompts consumers to change their buying habits, isn't that the beauty of the market at work?

And finally, how do you explain the far more stringent GMO regulations in Europe? Are they simply dominated by the "anti-science crowd"?

[wyldwolf]

47. Amazing how you keyed in on ONE point.

But believe it or not, the free market is important to you, to.

First of all, you are disingenuously conflating GMO labeling with "GMOs are dangerous." The labels would not say that GMOs are dangerous. They would simply provide transparency when it comes to a product's ingredients. This is an expansion of a feature that consumers already rely upon when making buying choices.

Really? So, up to this point, forced labeling of products have only happened when the government believes there is inherent danger with the products or that the label is in the public's interest. If you don't believe there is any problem with their safety, why the labels? It's you that is being disingenuous.

And finally, how do you explain the far more stringent GMO regulations in Europe? Are they simply dominated by the "anti-science crowd"?

Quote for us studies that haven't been retracted or governing science bodies that agree with you. And as someone pointed out, countries in Europe banned certain vaccines based on a one discredited and retracted study.

[montex]

40. Science is true wether you believe it or not.

First, Monsanto is an American corporation that behaves exactly the way American laws demand it behave. If you have a problem with Monsanto, you have a problem with the system (which I do, btw). However, Monsanto does not equal GMO's. They use GMO's to make money, but that does not make everything GMO somehow evil.

I'm not going to point out all the 14 yr/olds logical fallacies. No will I acknowledge that everything Kevin O'Leary said is a lie. I simply accept that while the right wing has the TeaBaggers and their Birth Certificate/Benghazi/Fast and Furious/Muslim/Kenyan bullshit, our side has the anti-GMO, anti-vaccine contingent. Both groups are deeply misinformed and anti-science and no amount of evidence or proof will change their minds.

[Ruby the Liberal]

50. That was great!

She is awesome sauce.

[Eko]

51. Waiting for the

multitudes of independent, peer reviewed studies that say GMO's are bad. Otherwise you are just pissing in the wind.

[Quixote1818]

53. That is exactly on point.

Some GMO's could have problems, a few probably have already been shown to have issues and perhaps were kept off the market, but so far the science shows them to be "as safe" as traditionally grown foods which are not always safe themselves. Until science shows differently none of this matters other than pressure for labels which the two of them already agree upon. I also don't see how the young girl won as everyone seems to be suggesting. The Monsanto lover (who seems like an ass) got her to back-track several times away from her more hard core beliefs to simply labeling. Then the lady pointed out that those labels are going to be on 90% of all foods and people would just start ignoring them. I see the whole debate as a big wash. The young girl did present herself very well and will probably be someone to watch in the future however. A very strong debater by any standard but the science to put GMO's in a really bad light just hasn't materialized yet.

[bahrbearian]

54. We are the Lab Rats,

[KurtNYC]

55. Peer Review this and let me know your thoughts:

http://ccr.ucdavis.edu/biot/new/StarLinkCorn_new.html

[Eko]

56. I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

"The FDA received approximately 34 reports of adverse reaction to corn products which may contain StarLink. Of the 34 reports, 20 were very unlikely a result of an allergenic reaction. The U.S. Center investigated 7 people who experienced symptoms that are consistent with an allergenic reaction. The people showed no reaction to the Cry9C protein. This does not mean people could not develop an allergic reaction in the future." " Aventis submitted a new evaluation of the corn to EPA and requested a temporary approval for human consumption. The new information demonstrated the consumption of corn based foods that contain StarLink would expose consumers to Cry9C many times smaller than needed to cause sensitivity. Subsequently, Aventis voluntarily withdrew registration for StarLink corn. It will no longer be grown.

As a result of this episode, the Aventis Company and others in the biotechnology industry will seek approvals for both human and animal consumption before marketing genetically enhanced seeds. "

[KurtNYC]

57. You said there as no evidence that GMO crops are unsafe for human consumption yet

the company that made Starlink and the EPA agreed that Starlink (Bt Corn) should be kept out of the food supply for humans, thus be only used for animal feed and ethanol. Aventis admitted that Cry9C, which Starlink produced, could cause harm to humans if the dose was high enough:

The Cry9C protein was degraded by moisture and heat, Aventis argued, so cooking would destroy most of the protein. People who ate StarLink corn products would be exposed to extremely small amounts of the protein, not enough to cause any harm.
...
But the EPA's scientific advisory panel found the evidence insufficient. Panel members suggested that the testing procedures developed by Aventis might not accurately measure the amount of protein in food. They decided that no safe limit for StarLink could be determined from the data submitted. The government should be more aggressive about collecting information on possible allergic reactions, they suggested. Relying of the opinion of the scientific advisory committee, the EPA refused to allow StarLink in food.

http://cls.casa.colostate.edu/transgeniccrops/hotstarlink.html

Once Starlink was found in human food, the industry and the government spent jointly over $100 million dollars to address the error. Taxpayers footed part of the bill. Avantis fired their CEO,VP and marketing director in the aftermath of the fiasco that made humans into lab rats and hurt US corn exports, costing far more than $100 mil.

[Eko]

58. Actually what I said was

"Waiting for the multitudes of independent, peer reviewed studies that say GMO's are bad. Otherwise you are just pissing in the wind."
As for Starlink, "But the EPA's scientific advisory panel found the evidence insufficient." "They decided that no safe limit for StarLink could be determined from the data submitted." The key words are "evidence insufficient" and "from the data submitted". Nowhere did they say it was bad for humans in the amounts found in the food only that they weren't sure and did not have enough evidence to say it was safe. Big difference.

[KurtNYC]

59. Prior to GMO Starlink, was there ever an issue regarding how much plant-made toxin that corn might

contain?

The phrase "safe limit" is key. There is no limit to how much organic corn one should eat, either raw or cooked, but there is with GMO corn. That's the difference, and the evidence that GMO corn, improperly handled or uncooked, is unsafe.

Even the makers of GMO organisms don't say what you asserted, eg. that GMOs are completely safe. The debate now is whether pre-market testing of GMOs is adequate.

Outside of human consumption issues, there is this -- drastically reduced yields from GMO farming:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2014/06/22/superweeds-choke-farms/11231231/

[Eko]

60. First off

I never asserted that GMO's are completely safe, I would never do so as I also would never assert the organic food is completely safe http://www.techtimes.com/articles/10937/20140721/trader-joes-costco-recalls-ruit-listeria.htm.

[Eko]

61. have to paste the link in your address bar or it redirects, sorry.

[Eko]

62. From that article

"Hartzler and other scientists say herbicide resistance in weeds was inevitable. "You've heard of this guy called Chuck Darwin and evolution?" Owen said.

"If we use one single system, one tool to control a pest, Mother Nature will find a way around that tool," said Brent Wilson, DuPont Pioneer technical services manager. "That's just the law of nature.

"It's too bad that glyphosate is developing resistance, but it shouldn't surprise us," Wilson said. "We don't know of any herbicide that won't develop resistance over some time.""

[Eko]

63. Organic food that killed 30 people.

http://www.belch.com/blog/2013/09/26/organic-farmers-arrested-for-cantaloupe-listeria-outbreak/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_listeriosis_outbreak
Now I am not against organic food, nor GMO's. I could wave my hands and scream that organic foods needs more pre-market testing and until then we shouldn't eat it, but that would be silly wouldn't it?