Faces behind the GMO labeling offensive

|

Organic activists claim 92 percent of consumers want genetically modified organisms (GMOs) labeled. It turns out the overwhelming majority of consumers support the status quo when you don’t ask a misleading question like, “Do want toxic pesticides genetically spliced into your food?”

But still, activists insist that proponents of modern, science-based farming surrender and “Give consumers what they want!” Biotechnology long ago gave consumers exactly what they wanted. After synthetic human insulin was genetically engineered to replace insulin from slaughtered pigs for people afflicted with diabetes, this field of science gave farmers the means to grow more food on less land with less fuel. And the overwhelming majority of farmers adopted GMO crops in every nation where they are not banned for political reasons.

But never mind the people who grow our food. Urban-based organic activists wanted GMOs banned! Realizing this was impossible at the time, a professional organic activist named Jeremy Rifkin founded The Pure Food Campaign to instead demand the labeling of genetically modified foods. But with scant support from organic farmers and consumers, he succeeded only in excluding GMOs from America’s National Organic Program.

With creative tax-sheltering, Rifkin’s movement morphed into The Organic Consumers Association, a group which today has even less to do with organic farmers than Rifkin’s group did. The director of the OCA, Ronnie Cummins, freely admits that labeling GMOs is not meant to provide consumers with free-market choice as so many claim, but rather to drive genetically engineered crops off the market, which was Rifkin’s goal as well.

Read full original articleRemind me again: Who wants GMO labeling?

  • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

    Superstition? I find that there are many valid reasons to not use genetic modification technology at this time–and fewer to do so.

    • Then perhaps you’d be willing to enter into an open debate with me. Name the time and the place Michael.

      • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

        Actually, debate is not especially my thing, right now. Sure, I’ll talk some online. But not much tonight. But you must know that many well-informed people have serious reservations about the use of GMO’s, currently?

        • Yes, of course I’m aware that many well-informed people have serious reservations about GMO’s; which is precisely why we should debate the issue.
          But not here. We should debate in print ,on radio, TV, or on Skype. If you’re interested, let me know.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            It seems to me that debating here is in print, which is what I would like to do–here. I will start with a quote from your paper, “Remind Me Again, Who Wants GMO Labeling?”–“According to both science and the law, GMOs cannot contaminate an organic crop.” I’m talking common sense. If pollen from genetically modified plants gets into an organic crop, by wind, insects, or other means, and participates in reproduction, and the organic farmer saves seed, their next oganic crop has been contaminated by a GMO. I do not mean legally. I mean in reality–in fact. This is no small issue. Through this means, genes from some virus or any living thing could become abundant in our food supply, where they did not formerly exist. Some of those genes could well have hugely deleterious effects. Can you deny this possibility? How?

          • You’ve hit upon the single most important distinction when it comes to the question of GMO “contamination” of an organic crop. But, as you’ll see, it’s very difficult debating this within the limitations of a comments section.

            So, here we go:

            Only an organic SEED crop can be contaminated by GMOs. This is because under America’s standards, an organic farmer cannot knowingly plant a crop that contains GMOs.
            However, as with all seed production, it is the seed grower’s responsibility to keep his seed stock distinct and pure, not only from cross-pollination with a GMO crop, but from cross-pollination with ANY type of crop that could pollinate his seed crop and undermine its genetic integrity. Cross-pollination between broccoli and canola, both of which are in the brassica family, is a case in point.
            It is always the seed grower’s responsibility to keep his seed genetically pure; not his neighbor’s.
            Organic food crops meanwhile cannot be contaminated by GMOs. It is – under current law AND science – impossible because the food crop is not being saved for seed, and no known effect occurs when it is consumed by humans or animals.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            First, you acknowledge that your statement that I quoted was not true (At least, implicitly you acknowledge this). Good. Second–it is the organic farmers responsibility to keep their seed pure–but by introducing unnatural genes into the pool of possible contaminants, genes which may have a quite substantial negative impact on consumers of the plant, the GMO farmer is doing real damage to the organic farmer–in an entirely unjust manner.

            Now, about organic food crops. What about when the seed of the plant is either the only harvested food part or is a component of the harvested food part? In those cases, that food may be contaminated, through pollination, by GMO’s. Is this not true?

            As for your statement, ” no known effect occurs when it is consumed by humans or animals”. that is wishful thinking, and untrue. Just in the few years since GMO’s have been around, numerous scientific studies have shown there to be many serious negative effects from growing GMO’s–effects in the lab, in animals, and in people. (This includes negative effects of the increased use of round-up and the increased ingestion of Bt, common results of the use of GMO’s.) See GMOevidence.com.

            Give it a few or several more years, and there will be many more studies demonstrating serious negative effects from GMO’s.

            Ever hear of the precautionary principle? It is well recognized in Europe. “When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”

            Many of us who have studied ecology, organic agriculture, chemistry, biology, the environmental movement, the history of science, pollution, the history of exploitation, etc. could clearly see the danger inherent in genetic engineering as soon as it was mentioned.

            That danger has been well established, now, to people who read the literature–but many people do not.

            Humankind will eventually learn–but how much irrevocable damage will have been done, before then?

          • There are no such thing as “unnatural genes” or “foreign genes.” Hate to break it to you but you carry genes from marigolds and dinosaurs and turkeys and birds and apes. They just express themselves differently from species to species. Genes are just genes. There is less “danger” in changing one or two targeted genes then in conventional breeding, which is untested or in mutagenesis, which has led to the creation of such things as organic ruby red grapefruits and the world’s best Italian wheat for pasta. (there are no real dangers in the above examples either, but comparatively there are more.) GMOevidence is a propaganda site, not a science site. The “precautionary principle”as you outlined it is not used by the science community, even in Europe, as it is ideology, not science. If it was used, we would ban all organic crops today, as they are inherently dangerous and their safety cannot be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. You would not fly in planes or drive in cars…they would be banned because of their danger. You can post all you want but the scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs (and the fact that they are more sustainable than organic products) is more established among independent scientific organizations that the consensus on evolution, climate change or the safety of vaccines.

          • Great response Jon.
            Notice where Michael refers to these “unnatural” genes, and says they “may have a quite substantial negative impact on consumers of the plant.” Well when exactly? After another 30 years of study? Maybe 50? As of today, there is still no known negative impact from GMOs. Except of course if you count higher yields, which some organic activists do.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The idea that “as of today, there is still no known negative impact from GMOs” is nonsense. Do you read relevant articles? I will site 11–

            Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods (Review article), — ARTEMIS DONA1 and IOANNIS S. ARVANITOYANNIS in Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 49:164–175 (2009).

            A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health Joël Spiroux de Vendômois, François Roullier, […], and Gilles-Eric Séralini in International Journal of Biological Sciences. (2009)

            Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Occupational Exposure to Agricultural Pesticide Chemical Groups and Active Ingredients: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis J. Schinasi and M. Leon in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. (2014)

            Detection of Glyphosate in Malformed Piglets– Monika Krüger1, Wieland Schrödl1, Ib Pedersen2 and Awad A Shehata in Environmental & Analytical Toxicology. (2014)

            Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors Thongprakaisang S, Thiantanawat A, Rangkadilok N, Suriyo T, Satayavivad J. in Food and Chemical Toxicology (2013)

            GMO Myths and Truths: An evidence-based examination of GMO claims from Earthopensource.org (2014)

            Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize
            Gilles-Eric Seralini1*, Emilie Clair1, Robin Mesnage1, Steeve Gress1, Nicolas Defarge1, Manuela Malatesta2, Didier Hennequin3 and Joël Spiroux de Vendômois in Environmental Sciences Europe (2014)

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Here are four more studies, making eleven–

            Answers to critics: Why there is a long term toxicity due to a Roundup- tolerant genetically modified maize and to a Roundup herbicide Gilles-Eric Séralini, Robin Mesnage, Nicolas Defarge, Steeve Gress, Didier Hennequin, Emilie Clair, Manuela Malatesta, Joël Spiroux de Vendômois in Food and Chemical Toxicology (2013)

            Adverse effects of field-realistic doses of glyphosate on honeybee appetitive behaviour have been observed Lucila H Herbert, Diego E Vazquez, Andres Arenas, Walter M Farina in The Journal of Experimental Biology (2014)

            Complete genes may pass from food to human blood. Spisák, S., Solymosi, N., Ittzés, P., Bodor, A., Kondor, D., Vattay, G., … Csabai, I in PloS one (2013)

            Ban GMOs Now–Health and Environmental Hazards by Institute of Science in Society (ISIS) (2013)

          • Guest

            I am going to repeat a comment that is contained in a larger comment above–because it is extremelyy important. One of you absolutely must address these studies (the 11 studies I cite above), and show them all to be totally discountable, or at least substantially discountable, for some very good reason(s), or else it is quite clear that GMO’s need much more testing, and should be withdrawn from market pending favorable outcomes of such tests.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I am going to repeat a comment that is contained in a larger comment above–because it is extremely important. One of you absolutely must address these studies (the 11 studies I cite above), and show them all to be totally discountable, or at least substantially discountable, for some very good reason(s), or else it is quite clear that GMO’s need much more testing, and should be withdrawn from market pending favorable outcomes of such tests.

          • Not one of those studies is from a mainstream peer reviewed journal showing serious potential dangers to health. But let’s assume all 11 were. That would make them, without hundreds of other supporting studies, of little meaning. Science is not about individual studies. Science is about testing hypotheses and then replicating the data. The conclusions of not one of those (lousy) studies has been replicated–NOT ONE. Which means they are useless as of now. We have more than two thousand studies showing GMOs are harmless and 6 trillion or so meals without any evidence of human harm and about 50 trillion meals with animals with no evidence of any increased incidences of any harm. So…science wins. Come back to me when there are multiple studies by independent scientists reinforcing a health danger. As of now? None.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Eight of the ten publications are peer reviewed–with the exceptions of Earthopensource.org and Institute of Science in Society (ISIS), according to my info. Why do you say that they are not?
            Assuming that they are, you are far wide of truth in saying, “That would make them, without hundreds of other suporting studies, of little meaning.” This is preposterous. At the minimum, it suggests that more and better studies are urgently needed. And it makes the idea that scientific studies have to date found no problems with GMO’s utterly false.

            Most of those studies supposedly showing the safety of GMO’s were extremely short term, and very many of them were carried out by people who have monetary interest in having GMO’s approved and widely used.

            The point that there have been some 6 trillion GMO meals without any evidence of human harm innacurate. It is much more true to say that not much evidence of harm has been noticed. But that is natural–epidemiological studies have not been done.

            There are multiple studies by independent scientists showing a clear health danger. Scientifically.

            When will people open their minds, and see this?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Do you have to have studies to show you that there could well be a problem, doing this? Many of us, when we look as the idea of putting any gene from any living thing into our food plants, can see that doing that is likely to cause problems–and that therefor it only makes sense to be extremely cautious before doing such a thing. If you scientists think that you have to have ironclad evidence that harm is being caused before putting a stop to an activity, I think that you are being like little children, morally. You are behaving in a spiritually bankrupt way.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I have just read the document, “A decade of EU-funded GMO research, 2001-2010.” Now there we have some responsible study of this issue. It puts to SHAME the notion, promulgated by the American Justice System–though I’ll bet conceived by the GM industry–that GMO crops are “substantially equivalent” to conventional crops, and hence need no further testing. The study finds no evidence of harm caused by GMO’s, but it does this in a context where rigorous scientific studies of the impact of GMO’s on various aspects of the environment are ongoing, and the labelling of Genetically Modified Organisms IS required. Were America to adopt an approach much much closer to the European approach, it would be a massive step forward for this hyper-rich (but only partly–the ruling part), undemocratic, plutocratic, very bloody bully of a country. And that is what I would like. You see, I do not have a problem with GM technology, if it is properly implemented. I have a big problem with it being shoved down the consumer’s throat.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            This peer-reviewed standard is utterly inadequate–ill-defined–inconsistantly used–based on phoney beliefs–abused–no fair determiner of truth.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Truth wins.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            7 of these studies are from 2013 or 2014–not old enough to be replicated.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Truth wins.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            “Not one of those studies is from a mainstream peer reviewed journal showing serious potential dangers to health.”–FALSE.

          • If any of this could be proven Michael, there’d have been a lawsuit by now. Pharmaceutical companies have been sued for far less.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Meticulously conducted scientific studies, published in leading, peer reviewed journals, which clearly find that GMO’s have multiple very serious problems, can not be dismissed with a speculation. Your statement,”as of today, there is still no known negative impact from GMOs” has been clearly, scientifically demonstrated to be false. Since the entire rational for using GMO’s depends on there being no, or limited, “negative impact from GMOs,” but in fact they have been rigorously shown to have multiple, serious negative impacts, it clearly does not make sense to continue the unfortunate experiment that we have been conducting, which has turned most people on Earth, willing or not, into experimental subjects.

            It only makes sense to withdraw the use of GMO’s, pending considerable attempts to understand genes and possibly their manipulation, through multiple rounds of experiments and theorizing.

            I will reiterate, because many people have proven themselves to have extreme resistance to the humble idea that we must study GMO’s much more before we possibly use them on a large scale. And because many people have demonstrated that they will do anything, even seriously degrade the health of millions, yea billions of people, if by so doing they can corral huge amounts of money and power for themselves.

            Genetic Modification technology is a vastly radical technology. It introduces the large scale transfer of genes from one organism to another. (With the exception bacteria to another bacteria–this occurs naturally.) It makes changes in the bodies of living things that are arguably much deeper and more subtle than anything humankind has ever done.

            Is doing this, moving genes from one organism to another, safe? It only makes sense to do this thing if doing it is not going to have large or huge or astronomical negative effects.

            At this early stage in the scientific study of GMO’s, it has already been proven that they have serious negative impacts. It is irresponsible to the highest degree possible to continue using them, exposing literally many millions of people, maybe billions of people, to a range of deleterious effects that no person should wish on their worst enemy.

            The following negative impacts of GMO’s on human health are just some of those that have been found in rigorous scientific studies, among many others–inflammation, diarrhea, killing beneficial gut bacteria, alterations in the liver, chronic kidney deficiency, hepatic, pancreatic, renal, and reproductive effects, liver congestion, liver necrosis, toxicity to liver and kidneys, stomach erosion and necrosis, DNA damage, general toxicity to cells, sex hormones modified, non-hodgkins lymphoma(blood cancer), human breast cancer, miscarriage, spontaneous abortion, birth defects, endochrine disruption, autism, neurotoxicity, death. (This list includes health problems caused by the herbicide glyphosate, whose use has been massively increased by the use of crops Genetically Modified to be resistant to Round Up (glyphosate). About 4/5 of the Genetically Modified crops used are crops that have been Modified to resist Round-up (which is made by Monsanto–the largest creator and seller of Genetically Modified Organisms in the world).

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Look, if because of your genetic engineering, my food crop is exposed to genes, maybe originally from some sea mollusk, that it wouldn’t normally or otherwise be exposed to, I am justified in calling them unnatural genes–they would not be in that environment, at that time, if not for your genetic engineering. I am not saying that the gene itself is inherently unnatural–I am saying that gene at that time and place, in that plant, is unnatural. If a gene is found in a plant due to human intervention, it is, by a common meaning of the word, an unnatural gene–used to describe something that does not happen or exist by itself without being controlled or changed by someone.

            You say, “There is less “danger” in changing one or two targeted genes (as in GMO’s) than in conventional breeding.” That certainly is unfounded speculation. Do you know of widely used conventional varieties that have been shown to have harmful qualities? I do not. However, the studies I list above show many serious health effects of GMO’s.

            You say, “GMOevidence” is a propaganda site, not a science site.” They cite many scientific articles that I found on the web in other places, sourced both from them and from others. You do not like their take on things, but they do share much good science.

            The “precautionary principle” is the law in Europe. It has been invoked by the U.N. General Assembly, and in international treaties. If the scientific community does not use it, even in influencing public policy and action, this is not because of their advanced understanding of reality and truth–it is because, as a community, they have large deficits in humility, carefulness, and in the extent to which they are in reality and intent supportive-of-life.

            You badly misunderstand the precautionary principle. The idea that, if we used the precautionary principle, “we would ban all organic crops today, as they are inherently dangerous and their safety cannot be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt” is insane. Humankind has relied on Organic Agriculture for over ten thousand years. “Their safety cannot be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt” is certainly not part of the precautionary principle.

            As for the so-called scientific consensus on the safety of GMO’s, when you mean the GMO’s that are used today, hogwash. The paper before me, “No Scientific Consensus on GMO Safety as of 30 October 2013”, was signed by 296 people, all PhD’s or MD’s with a few DVM’s and JD’s thrown in, most in relevant, very relevant, or extremely relevant fields. Then, there are the several studies I cite above, which show that however much there is a consensus that GMO’s are safe, it is mistaken.

            One of you absolutely must address these studies, and show them all to be substantially discountable for some good reason(s), or else it is quite clear that GMO’s need much more testing, and should be withdrawn from market pending favorable outcomes of these tests.

          • Hate to tell you about you have sea mollusk genes inside you already. DNA is DNA.

            Changing one or two genes is less dangerous than changing hundreds or thousands of genes through conventional breeding or mutagenesis. That’s not not speculation but scientific fact. (Neither is really dangerous though)

            GMOEvidence is a propaganda site. The fact that it might link to a science study does not make it a science site. Get back to me when you can link to the National Academy of Sciences or the American Academy for the Advancement of Science or the European Commission or the European Food Safety Authority or the World Health Organization—real science organizations–all of which have publicly concluded that GMOs are as safer OR SAFER (and more sustainable) than conventional/organic agriculture: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/08/27/glp-infographic-international-science-organizations-on-crop-biotechnology-safety/

            You are wrong about the precautionary principle. First, it is a guide not a mandate of how or when to act. Specifically, according to the EU: “the precautionary principle may be invoked when a phenomenon, product or process may have a dangerous effect, identified by a scientific and objective evaluation, if this evaluation does not allow the risk to be determined with sufficient certainty.” There is no evidence that GMOs have a dangerous effect, which is why the European Food Safety Authority and the European Commission have endorsed the safety of GMO crops…so it’s irrelevant in this case anyway.

            The fact that 296 people–not one a distinguished mainstream geneticist–has said they contest the ‘consensus” on GMOs does not make it so, anymore than the fact that 30,000 scientists contest the consensus on global warming and tens of thousands of scientists do not believe in evolution.

            There are no mainstream studies in a peer reviewed independent (not pay for play/open source) journal that documents any human related dangers from GMOs.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            You need to take some courses in genetics, biochemistry and plant breeding. Did you know that there are some 6000 genes that are NOT found in all corn lines. So, breeders have been adding (unknowingly until recently) and subtracting unknown genes since the beginning of corn breeding. Also, there are systems termed transposable elements that are actually synthesizing new genes in plants. (Would you call these natural or unnatural?) This is going on all the time. So, take some courses bud. It will do you good.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            “Did you know that there are some 6000 genes that are NOT found in all corn lines”–uninterpretable statement. “Also, there are systems termed transposable elements that are actually synthesizing new genes in plants. (Would you call these natural or unnatural?)”–if that process happens in nature, without human input, it is natural. /////// I would say that the debate about the use, regulation, and testing of GMO’s very much needs the input of other fields and concerns–like ecology, agroecology, environmental science, chemical pollution, history, plutocracy, capitalism, propaganda, and ethics. Without a good understanding of ecology, when people strongly influence the natural world, like through the use of GM technology, they are bound to have large negative or extremely negative effects.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            Did you also know that some plants naturally produce cyanide? That is the stuff that we used to use to kill people. So natural is not necessarily safe. You really need to get a grip on biology before you go around talking about things you don’t understand. I assume you grow organic produce.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Were those plants that contain cyanide ever sold as vegtables? Or grains? Many GMO’s tthat have been shown to have serious deleterious effects, by numerous scientific studies, are being sold to eat. Yuck!

            Ssre, I would like to know more biology. But you “biology experts” say some ridiculous stuff. Like ” If it (the precautionary principle) was used, we would ban all organic crops today, as they are inherently dangerous and their safety cannot be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt”. Looney tunes. Or, “There is no such thing as contamination of an organic crop by GMOs.” Give me a break. Or, “The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops.” Blahoney. See Seralini–studies, criticisms, defenses, criticisms of the critics, etc. This is far from clear–but Seralini’s studies, and many others, make the idea that science has not detected multiple health issues with GMO’s highly questionable, and likely false.

            I used to grow organic vegtables. Not now.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            You raise a number of points. First, you asked if cyanide producing plants
            have ever been sold? Answer: everyday.

            Likely the most famous one is cassava. This is the starch source in many countries,
            including lots of African countries and Brazil. Cassava has to be soaked in water or boiled to rid the edible portion of the toxin. This goes on today. Potatoes produce cyanide as well. If you want to read up on this, there is a very large literature (for example: Ames BN, Profet M, Gold LS (1990) Dietary
            pesticides (99.99% all natural). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 87: 7777–7781. Morant
            AV, Jørgensen K, Jørgensen C, Paquette SM, Sánchez-Pérez R, Møller BL, Bak S
            (2008) b-Glucosidases as detonators of plant chemical defense. Phytochemistry
            69: 1795–1813. Seligman PJ, Mathias CGT, O’Malley MA, Beier RC, Fehrs LJ,
            Serrill WS, Halperin WE (1987) Phytophotodermatitis from celery among grocery store workers. Arch Dermatol 123: 1478–1482. Rymal KS, Chambliss OL, Bond MD,Smith DA (1984) Squash containing toxic cucurbitacin compounds occurring in
            California and Alabama. J Food Prot 47: 270–271. Rymal KS, Chambliss OL, Bond
            MD, Smith DA (1984) Squash containing toxic cucurbitacin compounds occurring in
            California and Alabama. J Food Prot 47: 270–271D’Mello JPF, Duffus CM, Duffus
            JH (1991) Toxic Substances in Crop Plants. Royal Society of Chemistry,
            Cambridge, UK

            I will come back to the middle points if you want to discuss them, but let me skip to
            the Seralini paper. As you know, the paper was published, retracted and then published again. The criticism of this paper is that the rats used were genetically selected to develop tumors, rats fed the non-GMO diet also developed tumors and the rate of tumor production between the test and the
            control groups was not statistically significant. Rather than debate the
            validity of these studies, assume Seralini et al were right. If so, farm animals in this country would have exhibited high rates of tumors, premature death, etc when GMO came on the market in 1996. Monsanto would have gone bankrupt from all the law suits, the USDA, EPA and FDA would have undergone extensive investigations and the rules for deregulation would have been
            massively rewritten. None of that happened!! GMO feeds for farm animals have been around for a long time and rates of tumors in farm animals haven’t
            changed!! . I can only conclude that the
            claims of Serelini et al are without merit.
            There is no credible study showing a health effect of GMOs but there are nearly 2000
            studies that went looking for a problem but did not find it.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            OK so cassava people have learned how to deal with. We have not learned how to deal with GMO’s. No one has.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            GMOs have been around since 1996. The main stream farmers not only have learned how to deal with them but also love them as evidenced by the fact that nearly 90% of all corn, soybeans and cotton in this country are GMOs. Society has figured out what to do with them and have no problem with them. It is only the organic cult that has issues and their only motivation is to increase their market share.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Baloney. How many people want GMO’s labelled? I think, the large majority. They have been repreatedly stymied by huge expenditures on pure propaganda–That is what advertising is. It has little connection to reality. But when you repeat any trap long enough, lots of people will buy it–a fact that rich corporations exploit endlessly. You know what? Many of us have learned not to buy that scit, no matter how often they repeat it. Who owns your mind? Your heart? Your soul?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The sad truth about our society is, lots of people have no idea that they eat as much GMO as they do. And that is related to why, when they want to, the big money interests can get away with, not just murder, but mass murder of innocent people–which, I hate to break it to you brilliant scientists and dedicated teachers, who know mountains about scientific details, in fact the USA is heavily involved in. Study that!

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            I guess you are questioning my statement that farmers want GMOs. People of the organic cult want to spread the misinformation that farmers are forced to buy these seeds. I come from a farm, I actively participate it its operation today (even though my day job is a professor of
            Plant Molecular Biology). I know the
            decision of which seed to buy is made entirely by my nephew. So, don’t believe me. Before you continue to spread misinformation, go ask a mainstream farmer if she/he is forced to buy seed from Monsanto. Also, tell me what you find out.

            We finally get to the “labeling issue”. I
            know we would get here. I think all the
            facts are on the table. This is an
            agenda pushed and paid for by the organic cult. This is not about a right to know but rather a way to increase market share. If the organic cult can get a label on foods, then it implies there is an intrinsic danger. That there is a (not so) hidden agenda is evident when one realizes that members of the organic cult would not buy conventional foods regardless of a label. Why should they care if conventional foods are labeled?

            The question of whether you want a GMO free label on your food is really not relevant. The real question is “are you willing to pay
            extra for your food to have it tested for the presence of transgenes?” I wish your group would poll on that one. My unscientific survey tells me that what people really want is inexpensive, safe, nutritious food. They don’t want to pay extra for a test that
            is not needed.

            The cost here is not for printing labels. The
            cost is for doing the tests. My lab monitors plants for transgenes and I can tell you from experience that it is an expensive, sometimes slow process. The costs to set up labs, hire personnel and supplies and be able to turn around samples in a very short time are huge. Also, no test can guarantee zero percent transgenes. I will explain this if you want me to.

            So, it is clear that the cost of our food would go up. I have heard estimates of hundreds of dollars per year for the average family. One really can’t calculate that until society determines the confidence limits they want on the tests and the low level of GMOs they will accept. I can run through all of this, but it is all about probabilities.

            Also, society would have to determine which transgenes to test for. Is it only the ones deregulated, it is the ones for which permits have been issued or is it all transgenes scientists have put into plants? This makes a huge difference.

            And what about for the grower? So do we really want to set up a government system that comes out, takes samples and tells us we cannot harvest or sell our produce until they run the tests and certifies that we have been tested? What about road side stands? What about home gardens? I know on our farm, we grow about an acre of sweetcorn and then let neighbors and friends come in and pick all they want. Some load up pick-up trucks and sell it on the road. That is fine with us. So, with mandatory testing, we will have to call the local agency and
            they will have to test it before we call the neighbors. What if it takes 10 days and by that time, the corn is too old. And to add insult to injury, we would have to pay for it.
            Rest assured, we would quit being such good neighbors. Do you really want to set up systems like that? Think about it.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            First, your ideas about the labs, money, and time required to label GMO’s is wild. Labelling GMO’s could easily require ZERO testing–Just require farmers who have purchased G.M. seed to inform their buyers (of grown plants) of this–and require that information to be passed, all the way to the consumer. This would not be without cost–but it could be minor.—–Second, a label certainly does not imply harm. On processed food, every gram of protein, carbohydrate, fat, salt, and every additive is labeled!!! Third, many people are unaware how much GMO food they are eating. People have the right to choose for themselves! When and if you are really sure that GMO’s are safe to eat, and for the environment, then you can convince people of that, and people will buy them! But until then, you cannot convince people of that safety–because you yourself are not sure of it. Denying people the right to choose, for themselves, is a notion dreamed up by PLUTOCRATS, nothing else–people who do not believe in democracy, but who think that, “WE ARE RICH. WE KNOW BETTER. WE RULE. I want none of this–I think that the rich are, as a group, as selfish as sin. And it is rich people, manifestly, who are really the greedy ones.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            Thanks for clarifying that for me. If our seed source says no GMO, then it is no GMO. No muss, no fuss, no test. OK, so why is the organic cult so uptight about inadvertent pollen contamination? Google “Starlink” and tell me we don’t need tests. Google “Inadvertent GM rice accidentally shipped to Europe” and tell me we don’t need tests. If labeling becomes the law of the land, there will be tests. I don’t think the organic cult really knows what they are getting into or asking for. Clearly they do not want government inspectors taking their produce and telling them they can’t sell it until it is GMO certified.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            There are plenty of good reasons to be concerned about pollen contamination. Labeling and tests are two separate issues. It is GMO’s, themselves, that require tests, not just labeling of them.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            You wrote, “Google “Inadvertent GM rice accidentally shipped to Europe” and tell me we don’t need tests.” I would think labeling, without testing, could hugely decrease this type of problem.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            Labeling but no testing is like speed limits on our roads but no police to patrol them. Without enforcement, laws, labels and limits are meaningless

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            They are not. A good part of that information is easily shared–and doing so gives people basic information, to which they are totally entitled.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            Your message is loud and clear Mike. You want the label on GE foods to scare people but you don’t want the organic food tested because you are afraid of what is going to be found. You really think you can pull that off?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I am not trying to scare people of. GE technology makes a fundamental change in peoples food. I know you say that it does not, but I have spelled out the difference several times, and apparently you just dismiss it. (You did make one substantial attempt to refute my argument, but I correctly pointed out that I had never aserted what you refuted.) Since then, I have had nothing more on this from you. So, since as I say GMO’s are radically different, and their safety remains in dispute (do you doubt that?), people have the natural right to eat whatever they choose, and avoid GMO’s, if they wish.
            We can test organic food–this bothers me zilch. That would likely show how often GMO’s contaminate organic crops, thus eliminating another argument that I find bonkers–that GMO’s do not contaminate other crops. How this can possibly be asserted, considering pollen flow, I do not understand.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            You have a point of view (religion in my view) and facts do not seem to matter. Enjoy your organic food. (The latter point is all about legal limits of the levels of genetically engineered foods that are allowed in organic foods or shipped to Europe, etc.)

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Common that is stuff! I am close to facts–as close as you!………………………………..
            I wish that more organic food was available!

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Many of those 2000 studies are worth–not much. When talking about the health impacts of GMO’s on people, we are talking about 20? 50?80+ years, even multiple generations. And what are the long term effects of consuming massive amounts of Bt? What are the long term effects of consuming massive amounts of Roundup? I’ll bet they are not at all good–and many scientific studies support this concern. Go ahead-brush away All of these studies. I find it irresponsible in the extreme–and dangerous, arrogant, and ignorant.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            Please be specific as to which reputable study from an independent group showing no adverse heath effects you have issue with. Also please describe a test you would accept if you don’t accept any that have been published. Also, do you think we need long term studies concerning the safety of such things as cell phones?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            All of them that study 90 days (or less) through one year of exposure time. And all of them that were funded by that industry (Genetic Modification) or people who have financial interest in that industry. Tell me if you would, how many, or approximately how many, studies would that leave, in your count/estimation?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Mobile phones, I use. But only about 4 minutes a day. And I generally use a speaker phone, and hold the phone away from my head.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            Check this out:

            Citation: Van
            Eenennaam, A. L., and A. E. Young. 2014. Prevalence and impacts of genetically
            engineered feedstuffs on livestock populations. J. Anim. Sci. 91(10): published
            ahead of print. http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/early/2014/08/27/jas.2014-8124.abstract

            Prevalence
            and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock populations1

            1. A. L. Van Eenennaam2 and

            2. A. E. Young

            + Author Affiliations

            1. Department of Animal Science, University of
            California, Davis, CA 95616

            1. ↵2Corresponding author: [email protected]

            Abstract

            Globally, food-producing animals consume 70
            to 90% of genetically engineered (GE) crop biomass. This review briefly
            summarizes the scientific literature on performance and health of animals
            consuming feed containing GE ingredients and composition of products derived
            from them. It also discusses the field experience of feeding GE feed sources to
            commercial livestock populations and summarizes the suppliers of GE and non-GE
            animal feed in global trade. Numerous experimental studies have consistently
            revealed that the performance and health of GE-fed animals are comparable with
            those fed isogenic non-GE crop lines. United States animal agriculture produces
            over 9 billion food-producing animals annually, and more than 95% of these
            animals consume feed containing GE ingredients. Data on livestock productivity
            and health were collated from publicly available sources from 1983, before the
            introduction of GE crops in 1996, and subsequently through 2011, a period with
            high levels of predominately GE animal feed. These field data sets representing
            over 100 billion animals following the introduction of GE crops did not reveal
            unfavorable or perturbed trends in livestock health and productivity. No study
            has revealed any differences in the nutritional profile of animal products
            derived from GE-fed animals. Because DNA and protein are normal components of
            the diet that are digested, there are no detectable or reliably quantifiable
            traces of GE components in milk, meat, and eggs following consumption of GE
            feed. Globally, countries that are cultivating GE corn and soy are the major
            livestock feed exporters. Asynchronous regulatory approvals (i.e., cultivation
            approvals of GE varieties in exporting countries occurring before food and feed
            approvals in importing countries) have resulted in trade disruptions. This is
            likely to be increasingly problematic in the future as there are a large number
            of “second generation” GE crops with altered output traits for improved
            livestock feed in the development and regulatory pipeline. Additionally,
            advanced techniques to affect targeted genome modifications are emerging, and
            it is not clear whether these will be encompassed by the current GE process-based
            trigger for regulatory oversight. There is a pressing need for international
            harmonization of both regulatory frameworks for GE crops and governance of
            advanced breeding techniques to prevent widespread disruptions in international
            trade of livestock feedstuffs in the future.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            This paper says nothing about the mutiple, serious effects of the massively increased use of Roundup that has been caused by the use of crop plants genetically modified to not be affected by Roundup. I have read that 80% of genetically modified plants so far have been modified to be resistant to Roundup. This is an extremely important issue, affecting not just the (direct or indirect) consumers of GMO’s, but affecting every person (and organism) on Earth.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Indeed, this issue is absolutely crucial to my critique of GMO’s. But it does not encompass all of the reasons that I think that today’s use of Genetic Engineering technology is a big problem.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            You are correct. This is the most extensive survey ever done. It literally involves billions of animals. And they found no negative effects of GM crops. That is the point.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            This study was only of Farm Animals–It did not cover detrimental effects on any other part of the biosphere.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            In other words, it is huge, but extremely incomplete.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            This study was only of Farm Animals–It did not cover detrimental effects on any other part of the biosphere.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            In Seralini’s most famous study, which was retracted, then reprinted, the most significant finding was not increased tumors– it was “very significant chronic kidney deficiencies,” and “the pituitary was the second most disabled organ.” In short, it was an extremely sophisticated study, much much better than the 90 day tests that are generally used to supposedly show safety.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            So,we agree that GMOs don’t cause cancer!!

            Actually, if you read the paper and most of the hype around it, you will see that people
            claim the Seralini study does show that GMOs cause cancer in animals. I pointed out the very serious scientific criticisms
            and fatal flaws of this paper in a previous posting.
            But my original argument still stands. If there were adverse health effects of GMOs on farm animals, why haven’t people found these in the hundreds of millions of livestock that have been fed GMOs since 1996?

            Our family farm produces about
            13,000 hogs per year. Our farrowing rate
            has never been higher, our weaning rate has never been higher, our weight gain
            rate has never been higher and our dress-out has never been better. We have been raising hogs for at least 70 years, so we have done the “before – and – after GMOs experiment in a very large way. Again, The Seralini et al study is without merit.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            There is huge support for the Seraline et.al. study from scientists as qualified as you. That being the case, it seems to me it is a huge mistake to discard it. What I ask for is more long-term, better studies–and an end to that phoney mantra–Scientific studies have never found a problem with GMO’s. That is false. ——–And tell me, what effect do you think that the many tons of Glcophosphate that have been released into the environment to grow the food that your hogs eat has had on the bees-the amphibians-the lightening bugs-the fish-the birds-the mammals? Do you realize how important this is? People do not only need food–we need a flourishing biotic community, in which to live. This is absolutely essential. But people are fouling their nest at a dizzy, increasing rate! If humanity does not stop this, and global warming, you can kiss any loved ones, you can kiss your University, you can kiss your hogs goodbye–because toxic pollution, like Glycophosphate, and lead, and mercury, and PCB’s, and DDT, and Depleted Uranium, and and and and and will send us to CHAOS quick. I suggest that we do what we can do so that we do not get sent into more complete chaos. Are you with me, in this?

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            I just sent to you a paper that covers livestock in this country before and after the introduction of GMOs It puts the Seralini paper in its proper position.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            That paper says nothing about the mutiple, serious affects of the massively increased use of Roundup that has been caused by the use of crop plants genetically modified to not be affected by Roundup. I have read that 80% of genetically modified plants so far have been modified to be resistant to Roundup. This is an extremely important issue, affecting not just the (direct or indirect) consumers of GMO’s, but affecting every person (and organism) on Earth.

          • Other than the discredited review published in the ‘pay for play’ open source start-up journal Entropy by non expert scientists who did no original research but misrepresented other research, no research has shown glyphosate to be harmful. It’s toxic profile (LD 50) is less than salt. You can even read Seralini’s study: rats fed it actually improved! It’s not an endocrine disruptor, it’s not carcinogenic and it’s biodegradable. It’s actually used sparingly per acre. And thankfully it’s replaced more toxic chemicals. Yep, it’s an important issue–the environmental and health benefits of glyphosate are actually quite amazing, and widely recognized by the EPA, USDA and independent scientists around the world.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            See–Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and occupational exposure to agricultural pesticide chemical groups and active ingredients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Published in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            And what is the relevance of this to genetically engineered plants?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            That this study finds serious problrms with glycophosate, an herbicide whose use has vastly increased due to GMO’s. “B cell lymphoma was positively associated with… the organophosphorus herbicide glyphosate.”

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            Didn’t you read that paper I sent you of a survey of literally tens of billions of farm animals before after after the introduction of GMOs. There was no difference in the health of these animals. You are beating a dead horse!!

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            That study was only of Farm Animals–It did not cover detrimental effects on any other part of the biosphere.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            People claim anything. I wrote something that Seralini, et al. said.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Studies done by the G.E. industry–I bet they were objective. 90-day studies–I bet they were penetrating.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            Which studies?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Studies done by the G.E. industry–I bet they were objective. 90-day studies–I bet they were penetrating.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Were those plants that contain cyanide ever sold as vegtables? Or grains? Many GMO’s that have been shown to have serious deleterious effects, by numerous scientific studies, are being sold to eat. Yuck!

            Ssre, I would like to know more biology. But you “biology experts” say some ridiculous stuff. Like “If it (the precautionary principle) was used, we would ban all organic crops today, as they are inherently dangerous and their safety cannot be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt”. Looney tunes. Or, “There is no such thing as contamination of an organic crop by GMOs.” Give me a break. Or, “The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops.” Blahoney. See Seralini–studies, criticisms, defenses, criticisms of the critics, etc. This is far from clear–but Seralini’s studies, and many others, make the idea that science has not detected multiple health issues with GMO’s highly questionable, and likely false.

            I used to grow organic vegtables. Not now.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Actually, the idea that science has not detected multiple health issues with GMO’s is not highly questionable–it is the purest, most uninformed garbage. Go ahead–dispute that.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            See below.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            So what tests have organic produce undergone to show that they are safe. Clearly some of them were not; people have died from eating organic produce.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The test of time. Organic farming has been used for many thousands of years.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The basis approach has certainly proven itself good. There can be mishaps with it, as anything.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The basic approach has certainly proven itself good. There can be mishaps with it, as anything.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            I agree. Organic farming has been used for a long time. It is used in developing countries now and people are not doing well. Many are starving to death.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            People are not doing poorly because they have been practising organic agriculture (which everyone who farmed did do, until less than 200 years ago.) Do you know that India was flourishing–before the British raped them? Do you realize the extent of the travesty, of the devastation, brought to Africa by the European countries? Do you have a clue how much our country has stolen from South America? Or the Phillipines? Or Indonesia? if you want to stop people from starving to death, this country could make a huge contribution by respecting people properly, and not selfishly drawing all the wealth to this country.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I never said “natural is better.” You are talking about things you do not understand, making at least 2 errors in doing so. We all have to learn.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            One–go ahead taunt me for not understanding your statement, “Did you know that there are some 6000 genes that are NOT found in all corn lines” It is poor English. Two–Your statement, “there is no fundamental difference between conventional breeding and genetic engineering.” Right.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I continue to find the statement “there is no fundamental difference between conventional breeding and genetic engineering” perplexing, at least.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            After studying the issue some more, I see that establishing the idea that, “there is no fundamental difference between conventional breeding and genetic engineering,” is extremely important to the G.M. industry, because that idea supposedly being true was crucial to the establishment of the claim of “substantial equivalence,” a claim that made it possible IN THE U.S. to avoid the rigorous testing of each GMO for safety before it was released. In most of the developed world, each particular GMO has to be well tested for safety before it is released. Not in the U.S. Is this because of some virtue or valuable insight that the U.S. has? Not at all. It is because, in the U.S., we have a plutocracy, not a democracy. Defend it if you will.

            Edit

            Reply

            Share ›

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            I am confused.

            This conversation was started by your
            statement that GMO pollen should be banned because if it pollinated organic
            plants, the value of organic foods went down. I asked why and you said because GMO is ‘unnatural’. So, if natural is not necessarily better, why is there a problem with inadvertent pollination by a GMO crop.

            Regardless, you raise a very interesting point: Should people be held legally responsible for their pollen? If so, if I suffered from an allergy from oak pollen, could I demand that my neighbor cut down his oak trees? Were I allergic to ragweed pollen, could I sue my local organic grower who has ragweed and his pollen makes me sick?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The value of organic crops will go down, if they are contaminated by GMO’s, because they now contain genetic material from God knows where, not from just that plant, whatever it is. Most people will not detect (or know about) the contamination, so the monetary value may not change, but because organic consumers do not want “foreign” genes in their food, genes that have unknown effects, the true value of the crop goes down. Not “because it is unnatural,” but because it contains “foreign” genes (that is, genes that would not be there, in that plant, were it not for GM techniques.) “Should people be held legally responsible for their pollen?” In the cases you cite, I’d say no. But if pollen from your GM crop contaminates my organic crop, causing real lose of value, I’d say yes. Because you, in your greed, have released a not completely tested, not fully understood technique into a vital food production system that has been functioning for thousands of years, causing potentially very serious problems, in spite of the fact that multiple scientific studies have shown that their may well be serious problems. This court finds the creator of the seed, Tomato Corporation, guilty of criminal irresponsibility–to be levied a fine of 75 billion dollars–and compensatory payments of 100 billion dollars.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            So I take it that your economic loss is more important than my adverse health effect. That is what you told me.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            No. That is your idea, not mine.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            There is no evidence that the GM crops on the market harm people. If there were, those crops would not be on the market. Again, I stand by my argument. Your hypothetical (philosophical ) but money-driven argument that GM crops are evil takes precedent over documented health effects (allergies) caused by conventional and organic plants. You expect people to believe that?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            There is evidence that GMO crops on the market harm people. See “Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and occupational exposure to agricultural pesticide chemical groups and active ingredients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” I never said or implied that GM crops are evil. Money driven? Get real! Allergies? Ban all the crops! (Right.) I heartily, with zero hesitation, recommend that people seek the truth.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            One–go ahead taunt me for not understanding your statement, “Did you know that there are some 6000 genes that are NOT found in all corn lines” It is poor English. Two–Your statement, “there is no fundamental difference between conventional breeding and genetic engineering.” Right.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            What do you not understand from the statement: Did you know that there are some 6000 genes that are NOT found in all corn lines”– These genes are in most, BUT NOT ALL corn lines. Hope you understand that.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Now a complete, interpretable statement. Cultivars differ. Yes.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            The point I am making is not that cultivars differ (they do and that is why we call them different cultivars) it is that they differ by plus/minus genes. Hence, there is no fundamental difference between conventional breeding and genetic engineering. The only difference is that we did not know that conventional breeders were adding genes until only recently.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            There is a fundamental difference. In conventional breeding, you only add genes that were already in other varieties of the same plant. Or, with hybridization, you only add genes that were in the donor plant. In genetic engineering, you could theoretically add any gene that exists on Earth–from plants, bacteria, or people. That is one HUGE difference. How could you fail to notice it?

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            Some facts about plant breeding and
            plant agriculture are relevant here.
            First, large plant breeding programs (which are usually located in the private sector) use germplasm collected all over the world in their breeding programs. The same plant species, if used in agriculture, can be used in very different ways, depending on
            location. For example, some people make
            silage from corn and feed it to cattle. Some use corn to produce ethanol, most is used to feed livestock whereas a small percentage is used to feed people. The point here is that humans are not always exposed to the same genes. In this country, they are exposed to the genes coming out in the new varieties every year.
            The other assumption you are making is
            that all of these genes were around from the beginning. In the case of corn, your assumption is that the genes that exhibit plus/minus polymorphism were all present in teosinite, the plant the American Indians genetically modified through selection to
            produce modern maize.

            As I noted in a previous posting,
            plants have the ability to produce new genes. A particularly clear example of that was published from my lab (I am a
            professor of Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology at the University of Florida
            since 1974) and can be found in the following paper: Lal, S. K, Giroux, M. J. Brendel, V. Vallejos, C. E. and Hannah, L. C. 2003. The Maize Genome Contains a Helitron Insertion. Plant Cell 15: 381-391. We estimate that there are at least 13,000
            new genes in corn produced by this system: Barbaglia, A., Klusman, M., Higgins,
            J. Shaw, JR. Hannah LC, Lal, SK. 2012 Alternative Splicing and Read-Through
            Transcription Dramatically Augment the Diversity of Expression of Genes
            Captured in Helitrons. Genetics, 190:965-975.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            You did not at all dispute my assertion that
            there is a fundamental difference between conventional breeding and genetic engineering. I do not assume that “humans are () always exposed to the same genes,” and I do not assume “that all of these genes were around from the beginning,” (In the case of corn–teosinite). I do say, and will again, that conventional breeding is vastly different than Genetic Engineering. Is it true, or not, that conventional breeding uses only different varieties of the same species (with the exception of hybridization, which uses, I believe, closely related species)? Genetic Engineering can use, theoretically, any gene on Earth–is this not right?

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            Yes, I did dispute your assertion. I gave you two compelling reasons why your assertion is wrong. Perhaps I was not straightforward enough in my comments.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The facts that “large plant breeding programs … use germplasm collected all over the world in there breeding programs,” and “plants have the ability to produce new genes” do not, by themselves, dispute my assertion. I will ask you again, is it not true that conventional breeding always uses genes that were present in different varieties of the same plant? Except hybridization, which I believe uses only similair organisms–not bacteria or viruses or something.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            The point I was trying to make is if you use a germplasm source, say of maize, for silage and now you incorporate that germplasm into food corn, you have now exposed people to corn genes they were not exposed to before. This disputes your assertion. The fact that plants have the ability to synthesize brand new genes clearly disputes your assertion.

            BTW, commercial hybrids involve crossing two inbred of exactly the same species

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            This is an important point. I did not dispute that through conventional breeding, people are exposed to genes that they were not exposed to before. I did assert that only through GM technology are people exposed to genes in their food that, until very recently, were living in some particular micro or macro organism, not some variety of the same plant species. And that is one large difference.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            After studying the issue some more, I see that establishing the idea that, “there is no fundamental difference between conventional breeding and genetic engineering,” is extremely important to the G.M. industry, because that idea supposedly being true was crucial to the establishment of the claim of “substantial equivalence,” a claim that made it possible IN THE U.S. to avoid the rigorous testing of each GMO for safety before it was released. In most of the developed world, each particular GMO has to be well tested for safety before it is released. Not in the U.S. Is this because of some virtue or valuable insight that the U.S. has? Not at all. It is because, in the U.S., we have a plutocracy, not a democracy. Defend it if you will.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            Not all genes inserted by man come from microbes. We put modified corn genes back into corn but that is considered “GMO”. The BT gene put into some plants for insect resistance is the very same gene that is in bacteria that organic growers spray on their plants. So the gene is there from the start. The gene in Round-UP crops does the same thing as a gene in all green plants do. Biology is universal. We share the same code. Gene transfer is natural.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            So then, isn’t it true that in the yast majority of GMO’s, genes are added from other species-orders-even kingdoms. Very much unlike conventional plant breeding. Come on–admit it.

            As for your point about Bt–“So the gene is there from the start”–there is this vast, though maybe only microns, difference–only with GMO’s is that gene actually part of the crops DNA. There, it WILL AFFECT the growth and development of the plant. The trouble is, we do not know what affect that gene will have in that place.

            “The gene in Round-UP crops does the same thing as a gene in all green plants do.” Sounds doubtful. Sure–biology is universal. But it is also true that biology is specific.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            Where do I begin? First divisions of living organisms along the lines you describe have absolutely no bearing on gene function. The EXACT SAME CHEMICAL reaction catalyzed by the EPSPS enzyme of RR occurs in plants and microbes.
            Effect plant growth? Do you have a clue how many yield trials these plants go through before they are submitted for deregulation? If there were adverse effects on plant growth, the companies would not go forward with them.
            “Sounds doubful” To whom? Perhaps to people who are pushing organic produce. Not to the scientists who understand the science. Do some reading man.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            “The EXACT SAME CHEMICAL reaction catalyzed by the EPSPS enzyme of RR occurs in plants and microbes.” O.K.–but what makes you think you understand ALL of the effects that inserting a given gene into a given organism will have? I don’t see how you could. I do see how you might think that you do–forgive my saying so, but it is extremely common for prople to think that they understand things that they don’t really understand.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            We don’t understand all the effects of the genes that are already there. Yet we still eat it.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Our food has proven itself oved thousands of years.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I have been reading plenty of GE stuff.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Don’t genes express themselves differently in different plants? They would have to.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            And the idea that it makes no dltterence where genes come, or how they got to where they are, from is just that–an idea. Speculative. Ideological. May be true. Maybe not.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Not one Gung-Ho GMOer has ever disputed this point of mine, which I have raised repeatedly. Why? Because you can’t.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I recognize that 300 PhD’s disagreeing does not really dispute the claim that “there is scientific consensus that genetically modified foods and crops are safe”. However, the shining eminence of many of those signers does lend strength to this dispute. (Check the article “No scientific consensus on GMO safety,” in Earthopensource.org, for an enumeration of these credentials.)

            But here is an important point–though the technology may be safe in general, that does not mean that any particular genetic modification is safe. The American doctrine of “substantial equivalence” is pipe dreams. The European, indeed the Worldwide (other than the U.S.) approach of studying each genetically modified organism before it is introduced into the world is required by the reality of our situation. Any stopping of doing the needed testing is a shortcircuiting of governments proper role–to protect and enhance the health, safety and well-being of all the people–not only, or mostly, of the rich people.

            Almost all other developed countries in the world require safety testing of all genetically engineered crops before they are put on the market–but not the United States.

            “As Vice President Dan Quayle explained in (a) 1992 press conference, the American biotechnology industry would reap huge profits “as long as we resist the spread of unnecessary regulations.” (from “Why You Can Thank Dan Quayle for 20 Years of Policy That Keeps Americans in the Dark About Their Food,” posted on alternet.org)

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            So the biotechnology industry is reaping huge profits–and the American people are eating, every day, tons of foods that are deeply altered at the molecular level, but not well tested for safety (at least before release). And since new GMO’s are likely to be released continually, the American people will be consuming tons of untested food every day from here to eternity–unless the crazy, worthless notion of “substantial equivalence” is withdrawn. I think you supporters of the current GMO’s and their (lack of) regulatory scheme are hugely lacking in soundness, and should be ashamed of your actions.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I have to, and will, study more about ” “substantial equivalence.”

          • Michael, I’ll be brief for both of us:
            There is no such thing as contamination of an organic crop by GMOs.
            Full stop buddy.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Just two comments above, you wrote,”Only an organic SEED crop can be contaminated by GMOs.” Now you say, “There is no such thing as contamination of an organic crop by GMOs.” It is difficult to see the sense here.

          • If an organic seed crop becomes contaminated with undesired DNA, it is the seed growers fault and no one else’s. This is why for the purposes of enforcement, labelling, banning and mapping, it must be clearly understood that there is no such thing as contamination of an organic crop by GMOs. Never has been, and unless politicians do something really stupid, there never will be.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I am talking about the real world. For the purpose of understanding, and sharing, reality. When you wrote, “There is no such thing as contamination of an organic crop by GMOs,” you did not unclude the caveat, “for the purposes of enforcement, labelling, banning and mapping” Please look the word up. My dictionary, and most, say nothing about enforcement, labelling, banning or mapping. The word does not refer to only those areas, unlless you so specify–which now you have done.————————There are thousands of organic farmers in this country. GMO’s certainly have the potential to CONTAMINATE them with genes from only God and Monsanto know where, and probably in fact are doing that now. (And they also potentially can contaminate, in reality, every conventional farmer who is not already growing the same GMO’s but is growing the same cops. And in many cases, this is ocurring.) Trying to dodge the reality of the contamination of other farmers crop’s by GMO’s is just dishonest. You are trying to deny the messy aspects of this technology–which are multiple, serious, and long term.—-Some of the serious effects of this technology are detailed in the studies that I sight below. Those are, of course, only preliminary studies, caried out in the mere 18 years that GMO’s have been operationalized.

          • There is no caveat. There is no such thing as contamination of an organic crop by GMOs. Full stop.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            So you still stand by the statement, “There is no such thing as contamination of an organic crop by GMOs”? Astonising. You might as well sat that the moon is made of green cheese.

          • Tell you what Michael. If you’re so convinced GMOs contaminate organic crops, please show the evidence.

            Surely an organic farmer somewhere in these United States will have sued his neighbor for such an infraction if it has occurred.

            Go on now. We’re all waiting.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Most organic farmers are busy doing other things–like trying to earn an honest living. Pollen travels. This is totally understood. For you to deny that pollen travels from GMO to organic crops is ludicrous.

          • Rest assured Michael, I know very well that pollen travels. The question you have to ask yourself is, so what?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            So obviously when the pollen from a GM crop travels to an organic field, and enters into reproduction, then the organic crop has been contaminated by the GMO’s. Because people who eat organic food, as a rule, want healthy food. GMO’s have repeatedly been shown to not be healthy. I cite 11 good scientific studies below in this argument that clearly indicate this–GMO’s cause a range of extremely serious deleterious effects.

          • If organic stakeholders agreed with you, then why didn’t they put what you just wrote into their standards for organic production when they had the chance during the Clinton Administration?

            Organic stakeholders wrote, edited and finalized their own standards. And they never saw fit to include any mention of GMOs contaminating organic crops.

            Where you aware of this Michael?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Maybe because if they had, they would have been crushed by the much larger, more powerful, and several times as vicious GMO interests. Just a speculation.

          • Quite to the contrary. Organic stakeholders quite literally got everything they wanted fro the Clinton Administration. And that’s how such rapid growth was experienced in the organic sector after decades of obscurity.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Neither you nor I can be sure why they did what they did.

          • I was there my friend.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            But you are far from them, personally, ideologically, and by choice (yours and theirs.)

          • Only according to you.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            It is true that i do noy know how close you were to them personally. I doubt close. You cannot claim to know why others did what they did.

          • I don’t claim to know why they did anything. But I know exactly what they did, and they got everything they asked for.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            And they did not ask for overly problematic things.

          • Let’s pose the question this way Michael: Why did it take organic stakeholders a decade to demand GMO labelling, banning and mapping?

            The organic industry has grown by leaps and bounds over the last ten years. Why pretend GMOs pose a threat all of a sudden?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Maybe, though they didn’t like them, they weren’t clear how to respond.

          • They responded by setting up a whole separate food system which grew exponentially. So whether they were clear or not, what they came up with worked marvelously.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Here is my prediction. I predict that the irresponsible way that people, Americans in particular, are deploying GM technology is going to prove to have some huge negative consequences. How large, we do not know.

          • So a spotless record for GMOs over thirty years isn’t been enough for you?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Spotless? Did you see this–”
            Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and occupational exposure to agricultural pesticide chemical groups and active ingredients: a systematic review and meta-analysis”? How about the numerous other studies that find problems with glocophosate?

          • Farmers have lower cancer rates than the general population. They’re the ones handling chemicals like glyphosate. But they’re healthier than the public at large.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Cancer is one illness. There’s endochrine disruption, neurological effects, reproductive effects, etc. And not just among people are these other effects important–among every part of the biosphere they are important.

          • And what does the evidence say about these other health disorders Michael? You still run-up against the fact that the farmers who use ag-chemicals and GMO crops are healthier than the public at large.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Tell me about unjustified conclusions! How many variables are in your –study–?

          • You deny that farmers in America are healthier and live longer with fewer ailments than the population at large?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I did nothing of the sort. To attribute said health status to GMO’s is quite the stretch.

          • You’re the one attributing the consumption of GMO foods to the rise in various diseases. Meanwhile, the people who grow our food suffer far less from these diseases. Thus we must conclude that GMOs are NOT causing these diseases.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I never made that attribution. Your conclusion is unjustified.

          • If GMOs caused any harm to health, it would show up more prominently in the farmers who handle GMOs. But it doesn’t. Therefore your “attribution” that there might be some unknown health effects caused by GMOs is unjustified.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Epedemiological studies are not done.

          • Why not make this your life work Michael? Get some funding from the organic industry, and do such a study on GMOs. I’m quite serious.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            That is a whole art I havn’t learned.

          • Then team up with someone who has.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Actually, that is not my life work. My life work is to put things together–the best that I can.

          • Fair enough Mike.

            A lot of good people like you have been drawn into the whole organic v. GMO debate. You’ve been led to believe that we can’t trust science, but you trust science every day, whether it’s your cell phone, the air bags in your car, or clean drinking water. You also trust professionals from all walks of life, like plumbers, lawyers and doctors. So why not trust farmers who have overwhelmingly embraced GMOs?

            Don’t you think it’s possible – just maybe – that farmers and scientists have it right that GMOs are safe and beneficial, and the activists are wrong?

            Maybe?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            And how many persistent, toxic pesticides do farmers embrace–poisoning the Earth, the biosphere, humankind, the generations. In many respects, farmers have acted, and act today, in very misguided ways………………
            I’ll bet that I have studied more science than threee-quarters of Americans………………
            I deeply appreciate the search for truth….. Science is a great thing! It has pressing limits!

          • Most of the persistent, toxic pesticides are in the organic sector. And don’t even get me started on fecal coliforms.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Do you have any idea of how many tons of toxic-to-the-biosphere pesticides have been and are being spread over the earth by conventional agriculture?

          • Pesticides are all derived from nature, and when they’re used on farms they return to nature. This is true whether the pesticides in question are synthetic or organic.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Have you heard of persistent pesticides? Toxic pesticides? Biological integrity? The misuse of chemistry? Cancer? Extinction?

          • Never heard of them. What are they?

          • Warren Lauzon

            One of the persistent pesticides I see for sale at Home Depot is Plutonium. I hear it is also quite toxic. But personally for clearing weeds I prefer Cesium, just sprinkle a few pounds in the weed patch, and water it…
            And I know from reading Natural News that Roundup is at least as toxic as Plutonium.

          • All claims made by environmentalists turn out to be the opposite of the truth.
            But in Mike’s case, I truly believe he has been duped by activists at the top. Poor guy.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Are you unable or unwilling to recognise that poorly thought out activities of humanity have cost us dearly? Where is your mind?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            It is ridiculous to think that, because pesticides are “derived from nature,” their misuse has not presented a severe problem.

          • Warren Lauzon

            Heard of them? Well yes. I have also heard of Godzilla, Sasquatch, and Mickey Mouse. What is the point?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            1) False. There are other factors involved.
            2) (Statement)–False. Epidemiological studies, which is how we determine how it is that diseases have occured, and whether or not specified factors have or have not contributed to the occurence of diseases, have not been done regarding GMO’s. Or so I read.

          • What other factors Mike? Farmers handle GMOs and pesticides, and live around them all year long. They also consume the food they produce. So they’re far more “exposed” to any risks that may exist. And yet, farmers are MORE healthy than consumers.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Factors: plenty of exercise. Plenty of food. Plenty of work. Fresh air. Space. Family. Good Friends. Etc.

          • So you’re saying that if there are any adverse health effects from GMOs, they are minor, and can be overcome by exercise and fresh air. All right. I can live with that.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            We need epidemiological studies.

          • That’s just be a tax-funded fishing expedition.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            30 whole years? A drop in the bucket, on humanities time scale.

          • I strongly advise you to stop using light bulbs Michael. We still have no way of knowing they’re safe after just 100 years. And Good God man! Don’t even get me started on the microchip!!

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Putting genes from any living or almost living thing into our food plants, where they will express themselves by HUGELY modifying the growth and development of those plants (in unknown ways), is a vastly more significant and consequential change than the mere presence of some low-power electronics in our environment. My God, man, you are changing the world in much bigger and deeper ways than the vast majority of human actions have ever done–and under the current vastly inadequate regulatory scheme in the U.S., you are doing that with no prior testing required! This is insanity!

          • But Michael… “changing the world in much bigger and deeper ways than the vast majority of human actions have ever done” is what science and technology is all about. Did you want us to continue changing the world the way we used to?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Before making deep, long-lasting, unpredictable changes, it behoves us to realize how much that we do not understand, to be extremely careful in our actions, and to seek democratic participation in guiding actions that will hugely affect everyone.

          • Sorry Michael, but the founders of the organic movement don’t agree with your overly-precautious approach.

            “If we waited for scientific proof of every impression before deciding to take any consequential action we might avoid a few mistakes, but we should also hardly ever decide to act at all. In practice, decisions about most things that really matter have to be taken on impressions, or on intuition, otherwise they would be far too late…. We have to live our lives in practice, and can very rarely wait for scientific verification of our hypotheses. If we did we should all soon be dead, for complete scientific verification is hardly ever possible. It is a regrettable fact that a demand for scientific proof is a weapon often used to delay the development of an idea.”
            (Source: Lord Walter Northbourne, Look to the Land, 1940, p. 31.)

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            That statement, I agree with. It does not contradict mine. In fact, in important respects, that statement explains the precautionaey principle.

          • The statement warns against being overly cautious for no good reason.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            It also warns about not waiting for scientific verification of our hypotheses before we act on our concerns. When our hypotheses is that there is a danger in some possible course we could take, that is the precautionary principle.

          • No Mike, you’ve got it backwards.

            When the organic industry was in its infancy, many people worried that it might prove to be a highly problematic, even dangerous approach to food production. Northbourne’s contention was that until someone actually confirmed that organic farming was problematic or dangerous, we should proceed with it.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Organic agriculture has been around for a long long time…………………………………………… It seems to me that the essence of the statement from Northbourne that you quoted could be summarized, “scientific proof can not always be waited for.” I agree.

          • Glad you agree Mike.

            We didn’t wait for scientific evidence that the light bulb was safe. People were so overwhelmed by its efficiency that they couldn’t wait to adopt it.

            But when it came to GMOs, a small group of activists decided to make a big deal out of the unknown for purely self-serving reasons. We should not let their challenge to this new technology go unchallenged.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Spotless? Epidemiological Studies do not exist. They are badly needed.

          • Can you show me all the Epidemiological Studies that were done on crops developed through chemical and nuclear mutagenesis?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I think Canada has it right–those plants should be extensively tested for safety, before release.

          • What plants? GMOs or plants developed through mutagenesis?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Thru mutagenesis. ………………And, both.

          • Plants developed through chemical and nuclear mutagenesis are subject to the same level of testing as plants developed through conventional breeding. And they’re all allowed in organic production.

            Meanwhile, GMOs are tested the most of all of those plants, and they’ve been rejected by organic activists.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Doesn’t make sense, does it?

          • No it sure doesn’t. That’s why President Clinton tried to get organic stakeholders to at least consider the possibility of allowing GMOs into organic production on a case-by-case basis.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            More to the true point, perhaps the reason they did not mention GMO’s contaminating organic crops is that they are fearful that their crop might lose organic certification.

          • No. I was there Michael. Organic stakeholders did everything they could to try to claim GMOs were unsafe, but couldn’t come up with a single compelling example. So that was the end of that.

            These same stakeholders did manage to get threshold tolerance levels instituted in America’s organic standards for synthetic pesticides because they were able to prove harm. But here we are, 20 years later and no one has yet proven any harm from GMOs.

            And that, my friend, is why GMO labelling is a complete waste of time.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The science on the safety of various GMO’s is far from clear. The people have to make their own decision about this. Are you totally anti-democratic?

          • Science is not a democratic process Michael.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I am not saying science is or should be democratic. Society would better be democratic, than run by a few, for a few.

          • The first GMOs were developed in public universities.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Typical.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            It is not like GMO’s are one thing–every particular one is different from every other one. Some, maybe even all used so far, will prove to be safe. But others will prove to cause big problems, of some kind or other. We can Never predict that a new GMO is going to be safe–it has to be tested–extensively. That is the real world. Imagining something different is wishful thinking on the part of the management and share-holders of Monsanto, Dupont, Dow, et al. Please grow up!

          • I’ll agree wholeheartedly with you Michael that the executives at Monsanto, Dupont, Dow, et al. need to grow up. But suppressing technology in the name of safety is counterproductive.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I have not suggested suppressing technology. I suggest that we stop using the phoney doctrine of “substantial equivalence,” that we require testing extensively each and every GMO before it is released, and that we let the people decide for themselves what they will eat–by labeling all GMO’s (like most of the world does now)–and putting an end to this tyrannical practise of letting some corporations and investors decide (in practise) what people eat.

          • When it comes to lighting a city street at night, wouldn’t you agree that gas light and electric light are “substantially equivalent”? One is just far cheaper than the other, and safer. Can you guess which?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I wouldn’t call them substantially equivalent. They are, in some respects, and are not, in others. Overall, they are not substantially equivalent. Electric is safer, and cheaper.

          • And, likewise, GMOs are also safer and cheaper. But to the consumer they have the exact-same result.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Speculation. Questionable, shoddy speculation.

          • Evidence Mike. Three decades of evidence.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Some people think that they are so smart and informed, or rich, that they should choose for everybody. I think that is bloody self-righteous compost!

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            By the way, there are at least some cases documented in the literature of contamination of other crops by GMO’s.

          • hyperzombie

            Pollen goes the other way as well, so what.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Your second sentence is pure supposition, which I do not agree with. Most organic farmers are busy trying to earn an honest living.
            Pollination is well understood. Of course GMO’s can cross with organic crops. Corn is open Pollenated! Bees fly from plant to plant!

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            There are at least some cases documented in the literature of contamination of other crops by GMO’s.

          • hyperzombie

            Really name them??? And How many GMO crops have been cross pollinated by conventional and Organic crops?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            See–Survey: Organic Farmers pay the price for GMO Contamination–FOOD & WATER WATCH.

            See–GM Contamination Register

            See-0-The Economic Impacts of GM Contamination Incidents on the Organic Sector–IFOAM

          • hyperzombie

            The only case is see is Steve Marsh, and he lost in court. No contamination, try again.
            It doesnt happen.

          • There is no such thing as contamination of an organic crop by GMOs. And that’s why there has never been a case where an organic farmer sued a neighbor for contaminating his organic crop with GMOs.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Sounds wild to me. If he did sue, and won, then I guess his crop would no longer be considered organic? They would like that.

          • Organic activists would LOVE it if an organic farmer would sue his neighbor for “contaminating” his crop with GMOs. Such a farmer would have all of his legal fees paid, and would get the best lawyer money could buy. But… it has never happened here in North America.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            So you still stand by the statement, “There is no such thing as contamination of an organic crop by GMOs”? Astonising. You might as well have said that the moon is made of green cheese.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            You should check out how people are able to produce hybrid corn seed in the middle of the Midwest where there is lots of corn pollen. Neighbors make personal agreements of when they will grow corn, soybeans, wheat, etc to minimize accidental cross pollination of the hybrid. Good natured, reasonable people (farmers) work things out. They don’t go around yelling about the crops their neighbors plant and try to get them banned. They understand that pollen flow is just biology (Nature). They live in harmony. Organic growers have a lot to learn from conventional farmers.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            “Pollen” flow from bacteria to plants is not natural. Good natured, reasonable people do not put genes from any living thing into Your crop plants, where they have never been until some selfish corporation or individual had them inserted into their cropplants, thereby changing the growth and development of your crop in unknown ways–at least, they wouldn’t if they knew what they are doing. But because of the insane adoption of the doctrine of “substantial equivalence,” which will pass the smell test, but which is shortsighted, farmers do not understand what they are doing. What if, down the road a ways, some gene is introduced into some crop, because it has some good effects. It spreads, and becomes common. But, due to some biological process that people do not understand (of which there are very very many), maybe involving viruses, bacteria, people, and/or whatever, a toxin is produced. A serious toxin. We might have a huge catastrophe on our hands.—-Or what if the process of moving the genes itself has some affects that only express themselves over a long time? What if 2 companies, operating independently, make changes that somehow have synergistic effects? What if it turns out that, yes, certain GMO’s are devastating bees–as some studies have suggested? What if there are subtle neurological or hepatological or hormonal effects that we do not understand? What if mixing genes from different kingdoms is not healthy? What if the new, GM crops cause some kind of serious problems in the social systems? The problems of GMO’s are multiple. They should be developed–carefully. But it is pie-in-the-sky to think that they are going to solve our problems with poverty and hunger. To do that, we need to work together. And put a stop to our habits of blowing one another into little pieces, of over exploiting the environment, of poisoning the environment, of thinking only of our own selfish interest, and of denuding the Earth.

            We can do these. But to do them, much more is required of us.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            First, pollen does not flow from bacteria to plants. Second, your statement that farmers do not know what they are doing symbolizes the view of many of you “city experts” who seem to think you know more about farming than the people who do it productively. Have you ever seen a modern farm except from 35,000 feet? Telling a farmer how to grow his food is like telling a brain surgeon how to operate on your head. Such a beautiful blend of ignorance and arrogance.

            Third, when was the last time you did not have enough to eat? And you are an expert of feeding people in developing countries. Have you ever been to a developing country?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            “Pollen does not flow from bacteria to plants.” RiGHT! But genes do–but only when people, making GMO’s, cause them to. How then do you insist that GMO plant creation is just like conventional plant breeding? Genes going from bacteria, or snakes, or any living thing, straight into our food plants–that seems a huge difference, to many of us.…..So how many farmers do you think have a good or excellent understanding of genetics and molecular biology? Because that is what they are working with, when they grow GMO’s.…..So, because I am not a farmer, I can not debate, and criticize, GMO’s? I am a member of the human race, a global citizen, a U.S. citizen, a concerned citizen, a tax payer, a consumer, an eater, and a highly educated person. Tell me that I have no standing!………Ignorance. Sure, I have my ignorance. But I feel that I have done very well in this debate, with you and others. I have made numerous strong points, that were to the point, that no one ever answered–either they were left totally unanswered, or answered weakly. Your points, I have been working on answering–but there have been three of you raising many points to me, plus others–so I have not gotten to them all. You stand by your experience, education, understanding, and motivation. I will stand by mine.
            I do not mean to be arrogant. But I do intend to question many even widely held beliefs and ideas. Because I believe that is appropriate, helpful, and needed.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            Where do I begin?

            First, goggle horizontal gene transmission. While not common, it occurs naturally. The “granddaddy” of them all was the uptake of an entire bacterium into a cell. This is the origin of the chloroplast, the “green thing” in plant cells. That was originally a bacterium!! So do not tell me it does not occur naturally. Look up Agrobacterium tumefaciens and tell me that genes passing from bacteria to plants is not natural.

            If you look back, you will see that I have answered every question you have had. You just haven’t liked the answer and ignored it.

            Everybody can practice their own religion. However when a person’s “religion” causes starvation and suffering, they must be called on it. Norman Borlaug said that if we switched to organic agriculture, 1/3 of the people on this earth would die. But I suppose you know more than the Father of the Green Revolution and winner of the Nobel peace prize.
            Unless you have some hard scientific data you want to bring to the table, I think we are done.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            In an earlier (temporally) post in this discussion, I did mention (in different words) that bacteria are naturally involved in horizontal gene transfer. However, horizontal gene transfer does not happen in traditional plant breeding, while it does happen in GMO’s…….. I was not just asking you questions I was making points, which frequently contradicted your points. Many of these went unanswered…including quite serious contradictions. But you no doubt feel that many of your points went unanswered. A large part of the problem was, I was getting comments from three through about eight people (and I am also working elsewhere full time, though at first I was on vacation)…….Norman Borlaug had his view–it is very controversial (See–Norman Borlaug: Saint or Sinner? at Resilience.org) He was extremely biased against organic agriulture–no surprise.
            ………………Well Sir, I thank you much for your contributions to this discussion. You have made an extremely valuable contribution, and I thank you very much for your time, energy, and consideration. That you are, I am sure, very very busy makes your sharing of your understanding more valuable yet–a real pleasure. Thank You. ———Michael Prior

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            Good morning, If you feel I left some of your counter points unanswered, please let me know what they are. I thought I addressed all of them that had to do with GMO’s. I am not an expert in political sciences, so I did not think I had any professional insight into them.
            Norman Borlaug believed, as I do, that organic agriculture simply will not feed the world. (There is not enough animal manure for example). I am not sure that makes him controversial; perhaps in the organic circle but clearly not in main stream agriculture and the biological sciences. Curt Hannah

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Genes flowing from biologically distant organisms into our food crops is not normal.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            The value of organic produce goes down from GMO pollen flow simply because the organic growers associations say it goes down. This is simply a man-made distinction that is not based on science. Why on earth should anybody outside the organic movement have to pay attention to this?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Contamination drives the value way down, because we no longer have a natural crop.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            First, natural is not necessarily better as I have shown below. But, I assume that mutagenic breeding is “natural” since it is not banned by organic growers (it does not occur in Nature). Also, plants coming from protoplast fusions (that make a huge number of novel genetic combinations and does not occur in Nature) is natural since it is not banned by organic growers. This makes no sense. Admit it. All of this anti-GMO BS is simply a ploy for the organic growers to increase market share. It is pure greed. And you don’t care about people in developing countries starving because the new gene technology cannot be used. I find this morally reprehensible.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            “Not banned by organic growers” does not make something natural. “All of this anti-GMO BS is simply a ploy for the organic growers to increase market share.” Garbage. There are totally justified concerns. “Greed.” Ha! Will the truly greedy please stand up! As for developing countries–more later. I got to leave.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            There are many more effective, cheaper, better ways to feed starving people in developing countries than by using GMO’s.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            This is not one or the other. Starving people need all the help they can get.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            GMO’s, as currently deployed, are of no benefit for starving people.Developing organic agriculture is many times as promising.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            So why hasn’t the development of organic agriculture solved the problem?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The fact that we have starving people is not due to the insufficiency of the farming system–it is due to political problrms–exploitation, murder, tyranny–man’s inhumanity to man. That is where attention is needed.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            I work in the area of helping feed people in developing countries. I have seen corn plants in Africa that are yellow instead of green, 1/2 the height they should be with an ear smaller than a hot dog. I have watched African children the ages of my grand-children and worry about what they will have to eat. If I could flip a switch and magically turn all the African politicians into Mother Theresa the problem i describe will still be there. It is biological, virus induced. I know of some GM approaches that potentially could help, but because of the misinformation people like you spew, there are huge barriers to this approach. You should google Mark Lynas. He was originally very anti-GMO. I believe he coined the term “frankenfoods.) He finally read the literature and realized he was all wrong. He now publicly apologies for standing in the way, leading to the unnecessary loss of life in Africa. I find the actions of the antis like you morally reprehensible. The irony in all of this is that the best hope these people in Africa presently have (absent new gene technology) is coming from non-GMO approaches by — you guessed it — Monsanto (as well as other US based seed companies.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Are you aware that Europe and America devastated Africa? And still are? That is the primary reason much of Africa is impoverished. The land needs proper cultivation–GMO’s are no panacea. That Monsanto does good work developing new varieties–cheers for them. That Monsanto does questionable work developing new varieties (and chemicals)–they got to be more conscious and conscientious.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I repeat, “Some of those genes could well have hugely deleterious effects. Can you deny this possibility? How?

        • Guest

          I gotta go now. But perhaps we can continue another time.

      • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

        I gotta go now. But perhaps we can continue another time.

    • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

      I am responding to a subtitle of the original article “Remind me again: Who wants GMO labeling?”–i.e., “Science surrendering to superstition, pro-GMO activist argues.”

    • Larkin Curtis Hannah

      Come on, all you want to do is sell more of your organic produce.

      • Sadly you’re right Larkin. The organic industry used to stand for a lot of things. But it now stands for one thing and one thing only: being anti-GMO.

        • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

          Bulloney. GMO is a big issue today, huh? But organic food is about health–of the person (physically and spiritually,) and of the planet.

          • Organic farming is far harder on the planet than conventional and biotech farming. That would be fine if the organic industry delivered on its promise of purer, more nutritious food. Sadly, three-quarters of all USDA-certified-organic food is imported, and half of it tests positive for prohibited pesticides.

            So much for the planet and all that spiritual stuff.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            “Organic farming is far harder on the planet than conventional and biotech farming.”–Tripe. There you go again. Insane.

          • Can you prove otherwise?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Pray tell, what are you talking about?

          • Organic farming uses more fuel per-acre and per-bushel of food. This is because organic farmers have to use tillage to kill weeds since they aren’t allowed to use synthetic herbicide.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            That depends on your farming technique.

          • Possibly. But since they can’t practice min-till, or zero-till, the overwhelming majority of organic farmers use far more fuel than their conventional counterparts.

          • hyperzombie

            Organic farmers also flame weed, a horrible waste of propane.

          • Not only that, but flame weeding can be dangerous, something the organic industry doesn’t like to talk about.

          • hyperzombie

            Oh, come on. What could be dangerous about driving around with 50 flame spewing burners torching everything. It is perfectly safe.

          • You’re hilarious hyperzombie. I miss your rapier wit and sarcasm.

            Average life-expectancy for a trained soldier carrying the flamethrower in combat was less than 10 minutes in WWII. But organic activists think it’s fine to let a farm worker handle one.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I am losing interest in discussing with you. Rapier wit–Ha. Spurious ugly personal insult.

          • Loss of interest is a sure sign that you’re wrong.

            Sayonara Mike. You will be missed. (I’m quite serious about that by the way.)

          • JoeFarmer

            Setting aside the potential hazards and the very real issue crop injury from flame weeders, let’s look at fuel consumption:

            Flame weeder: 5 gal. of propane per acre plus tractor fuel.

            Modern high-clearance sprayer applying herbicide: 0.07 gal. of diesel fuel per acre. 0.07 gal. of diesel is equivalent to 0.1 gal. of propane.

            So the modern equipment is 50 times more fuel efficient than a flame weeder, and that’s ignoring the fuel the organic farmer used to run his/her tractor towing the flame weeder.

          • Wow! some excellent stats there JoeFarmer. Great stuff!

            Please contact me through my website so we can get the word out on this: http://www.isitorganic.ca/home

          • JoeFarmer

            To make a completely fair comparison, we need to get the fossil fuel usage in the production of a unit of modern herbicide. I would pick glyphosate, since that’s the one that most people wring their hands about.

            I’ll see what I can find out in my spare time.

          • Yes, but then it gets very complicated because you then have to take into consideration the fact that something like natural gas (used in the making of synthetic ammonium nitrate for instance) is far cheaper to produce and far easier on the environment than diesel fuel or gasoline. In any case, I look forward to hearing back from you on this. It’s very interesting.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Yea. Fracking? What’s to worry?

          • I’ll let you in on a little secret Mike. All farmers, even organic farmers, support the oil and gas industry. Without oil and gas, we can’t farm. It’s that simple.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            We better learn to use much less–because, if we keep on using it anywhere near the rates at which we have been doing so, we will experience disintegration on a massive scale.

          • The best way to farm with less fuel is to adopt min-till or zero-till practices, and that requires the use of broad-spectrum herbicides.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Ever hear of the developement of resistance? It is one huge problem.

          • Herbicide-resistance isn’t even a small problem Mike.

            When doctors discovered bacteria were developing resistance to penicillin, they didn’t abandon antibiotics; they came up with more varieties of antibiotics, over 100 more over the decades.

            And that’s how scientists make our lives better. They keep moving forward instead of backward.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Herbicide resistance is a huge problem! Antibiotic resistance is a huge problem! Study!

          • How do you think we dealt with antibiotic-resistant bacteria over the last century?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Do you think they will continue finding new antibiotics forever? I’ve heard that we face a huge problem with antibiotic resistance–do you deny this?

          • We started with one antibiotic called penicillin. We now have over 100 antibiotics. And there’s no reason to believe we won’t someday have 200… or 1,000 antibiotics.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I certainly what not recommend using flame-throwers for weed control.

          • You’re finally starting to make sense Mike.

          • hyperzombie

            Well if you listen to the video, he states that flame weeding is great for the broadleaf weeds, but not so good with the grasses. He says that he will still have to make another pass with his cultivator to finish off the grasses, burning even more fuel.

          • JoeFarmer

            One big potential downside to flame weeding is you may not kill the root of the weed.

            If you have to make a second pass with the flame weeder, you’ve just doubled your propane consumption…

          • hyperzombie

            you’ve just doubled your propane consumption…

            But you would get 2x more organic popcorn……

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Right. Our food system is in dire need of BIG change.

          • Organic researchers tried coming up with a min-till system for organic farmers, but they failed.

          • hyperzombie

            Is flame weeding great for the planet?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            “Half of it tests positive for prohibited pesticides.” That is the fault of the conventional farmers, who spread their poisons throughout the biosphere–it is not the fault of the organic farmers. Clearly.

          • Can you prove that Michael? Because no one from the organic industry has ever proven that, and the science indicates that overwhelmingly what we’re dealing with here is rampant fraud.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            What science?

          • I’ll give you a hint that any agronomist or P.Ag can confirm. Spray dissipates logarithmically.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Science?

          • Pesticide drift dissipates logarithmically.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            They find pesticide deep in the arctic.

          • It’s the dosage that makes the poison.
            Where do you think the ingredients for pesticides come from? Mars?

      • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

        I’ve got no produce to sell.

  • Carolyn Dunow

    I need GMO labeling. I have severe reactions to GMO’s. I am a health care consultant and it still took me 8 years to figure it out and another 8 years to manage it and its still is unbelievably difficult to get rid of GMO’s in my life. I need a label!!
    I am also not getting anywhere by reaching out to the FDA, USDA, WHO, and CDC to both report my reaction and to develop a mechanism for others to report such reactions.
    The claim that they don’t hurt anyone is unfounded. There is simply no mechanism to report it and it is not being studied. The research in which their negligent health claim is founded is based on “substantial equivalence”. That is not medical science, that is marketing and how products get through the FDA. I know I used to work with them.

    • hyperzombie

      I need a label!!

      You have 2 already, NON GMO and Organic. If you cant read or if you are too mentally impaired to understand, one more label will not help you out.

      • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

        The many millions of eaters of non-organic food that is not included in the Non-GMO labeling campaign deserve to know if the food they are buying includes new varieties that contain genes that are having in that plant unknown, untested, unpredictable, and possibly unhealthy effects.

        • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

          And the availability of food that is either Organic, or is covered by the Non-GMO labeling campaign, is extremely limited. Especially in some places.

          • hyperzombie

            That is crazy, you can get Organic foods everywhere, or you can grow your own.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Tommyrot.

          • hyperzombie

            What???? People cant grow food themselves? Or you can’t buy Organic foods everywhere?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            It is crazy to tell people “grow your own organic food.” People have their lives, which of course vary hugely. I should think it is people’s choice what they do–within all kinds of limits. No one can “buy organic food everywhere.” It is not sold everywhere.

          • hyperzombie

            First of, if you are crazy and believe that conventional food is somehow dangerous, grow your own or use the label that exist now,,,, No biggie.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The point is, Genetic modification technology is extremely controversial–and not just because of scientific ignorance on the part of the public. Also because of extremely untrue statements that are repeated ad nauseum by the GE industry, and the (captured) U.S. Government–statements like, “There is no such thing as contamination of an organic crop by GMOs,” or “there is no fundamental difference between conventional breeding and genetic engineering,” or, “There is no evidence that the GM crops on the market harm people.”

            Since Genetic Engineering our food is extremely controversial, and many people do not want it, when it is done, this should be indicated on the label. So that people can exercise their right to control their own lives.

            Denying people this right is unjust, arrogant, and pigheaded.

          • Warren Lauzon

            It is not controversial to scientists, only to fear mongers and people that are basically ignorant of science.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            So you think that scientists understand it all, do you? Well I don’t–and most people agree with me. People are not clear about what it is that scientists do not understand, but believe that there is something–and I agree.

          • Warren Lauzon

            Only non-scientists think they understand it all. None of them ever claimed that. But there is a point at which you move onto more important things and bigger problems – like things that are have more than 1 in 10 billion chance of being harmful. This whole anti-campaign reminds me very much of the anti-vaccine and anti-fluoride movements – lots of rhetoric and fear mongering, zero actual science.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Non-sense.

          • Warren Lauzon

            “The less people know, the more sure they are of their opinions” – Plato or some such guy.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Ditto.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            “Zero actual science.” And do you read English?

          • kurzweilfreak

            I bet scientists understand their field of study a lot, lot better than the layperson does. Yet you think that we should be listening to the ignorant because their opinion counts just as much as the experts. There’s a name for this:

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

            Here’s a great article on it. And it’s not even from Monsanto so that should make you feel better.

            http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            OUR LIVES is no more the province of scientists than it is of anyone else. These are not just scientific questions at issue–It is public policy, community policy, money and power issues, form of government issues, and ethics, morality, and related issues.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            “Many well-informed people have serious reservations about GMO’s.”

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Brilliant.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Eat what you choose. Allow others that possibility.

          • hyperzombie

            you have the possibility, there are 2 labels already. Organic and Non GMO.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Eat what you choose. Allow others that possibility.

          • hyperzombie

            others have the choice now, they can buy Organic or NON GMO. Wow so simple.

          • hyperzombie

            Duh, they have the choice now, it is called ORGANIC or NON GMO

          • hyperzombie

            I am not stopping anyone one from eating anything. What is stopping them from eating what they choose now?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            And many foods are impossible to find grown organically–and impossile to grow.

          • hyperzombie

            Well, suck it up princess, if you want to buy only halal or kosher foods, they are not available everywhere either. We don’t see Jews and moslems dropping dead of starvation everywhere, so it can be done.
            If you want foods that cater to your religious nut baggery, you will have to work at it just like the other religious nut bars.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            What an IDIOT!!!!!

          • hyperzombie

            Well I am glad that you finally admit that paying way more for the same foods, is totally IDIOTIC.

          • hyperzombie

            LOL,,,,

          • ForGMOEducation

            Even Walmart has an organic section now.

          • Warren Lauzon

            I even see some in the local Circle-K store. Mostly limited to stuff like instant noodles though.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Some.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            If more people wanted them, they would be available. Apparently they are not very popular.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Partly organic agriculture is not more popular because people face the misinformation about it, and the mis-characterization and lousy assessment of it, that you and others put out! “A cult’–what a phoney smear. Say, would you please study some agricultural ecology? Earth ecology? Nature? The univese? Religion?

            And there is another important issue. Artificial fertilizers and pesticides are made from Fossil Fuels. You may not realize this, most people do not, yet (they will)–but we have to leave most of the fossil fuels in the ground! Putting carbon into the atmosphere is ruining the climate. Don’t believe it? Tell me about ignoring science!

            Leaving fossil fuels in the ground is going to be a daunting test of our moral fiber and intellectual insight–I am not sure we will pass this test. But practising organic agriculture, and only organic agriculture, would be a large step in the right direction–for many reasons.
            In other words, practise organic agriculture–that we might live, and know wholesome life.

        • hyperzombie

          contain genes that are having in that plant unknown, untested, unpredictable, and possibly unhealthy effects.

          Well that is not GMO food because they are tested and they know what genes have been changed, so you want a label for new crop varieties that are not GMO??

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I did noy say that they do not know what genes have been changed, I said the added genes have “unknown, untested, unpredictable, and possibly unhealthy effects.” At least, testing is not required–“Under this paradigm (substantial equivalence), GMOs and non-GMOs are the same; therefore, no compulsory safety testing is required by the regulatory agencies.” from gmoinside.org><Unknown effects–TRUE. Unpredictable effects–TRUE. Possibly unhealthy effects–TRUE. That is GMO's.

          • hyperzombie

            no compulsory safety testing is required by the regulatory agencies

            well it is true that there is no compulsory testing required, if you want your crop approved you have to test it to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies standards.

            Just like there is no compulsory testing required to drive, but if you want a driver’s license you have to pass the tests provided by the regulatory agency.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Testing should clearly be mandatory.

          • hyperzombie

            it is mandatory if you want your crop approved for sale.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The regulatory agencies use the so called principle of substantial equivalence–which is TomFoolery.

          • hyperzombie

            It costs over 100 million dollars to test and go through the regulatory requirements to get a GMO approved for consumption. Only Monsanto and other large Ag cos have that kind of cash on hand to get approval. For only a few hundred Euros you can GMO your own plants (buy a kit on Ebay), but you could never afford to get approval for them.

          • Warren Lauzon

            Do you even know what the term means?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            –I have to study this more.–

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            At least contracted by the government.

          • Warren Lauzon

            But according to anti-GMO activists, the government is owned by Monsanto…

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The regulatory agencies use the so called principle of substantial equivalence–which is TomFoolery.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            What test would you use?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Tests like the European Union–they are light years ahead of us.

          • hyperzombie

            The European Union supports GMOs, read there report here. Over 10 years worth of GMO studies.

            http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Gee, aren’t I an idiot.

          • Warren Lauzon

            Definition: Substantial equivalence is a concept, first described in an OECD publication in 1993, which stresses than an assessment of a novel food, in particular one that is genetically modified, should demonstrate that the food is as safe as its traditional counterpart.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I have to study this more.

          • Warren Lauzon

            There is so much bad, wrong, and total misinformation on that site that it is pretty much a joke. Please provide a cite from an actual science site.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            You know where the really pure propaganda is? Advertising. Tell me, how much money do Monsanto, Dupont, Dow, Bayer, and Syngenta spend every year on spreading there lousy propaganda? How much money does corporate America spend defeating labeling initiatives?
            Tell me about propaganda. Big money has the rest of us totally, ridiculously outgunned.

          • Warren Lauzon

            In the current Hawaii campaign, the organics cartel donated 3x as much money as the evil chemical corporations.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            There are concerned citizens, and there is big money. We know who is on which side.

          • Warren Lauzon

            I find it interesting that there is almost no support from farmers themselves.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Organic Farmers?

          • Warren Lauzon

            Even some of the organic farmers are jumping off the bandwagon according to some of the Hawaii newspapers.

          • Many organic farmers would welcome the opportunity to grow certain GMO crops under organic management.

          • Warren Lauzon
          • The majority of ORGANIC farmers DO NOT support GMO labelling, banning or mapping. They know it’s none of their business what their neighbors choose to grow on their own side of the fence, and they don’t appreciate it when urban organic activists who’ve never worked a day on a farm try speaking on their behalf.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            If “The majority of ORGANIC farmers DO NOT support GMO labelling”-that is because that would be bad for business. I do support it.

          • In other words, you want to hurt organic farmers?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I believe that GMO’s, more specifically GEO’s, should be labeled. And to not do so is plutocracy–which we are so buried in, no one notices it.

          • More labelling, more regulations, more government, more bureaucracy.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            MORE WEALTH–more freedom to abuse people, more ownership of media, more ability to surround people in propaganda, more ability to own and run schools the way you want, more reach to exploit the entire world, more syncophants, more control of the judiciary, more ownership of the communities mind, more automatons working for you, more politicians working for you, more thinktanks working for you, more ability to pass unjust laws, more ability to force your will on people, more sham democracy, more plutocracy, less justice, less health, less compassion, more force, more violence, more self-righteousness—I would choose more regulations, more laws, more democracy, more government, more equality, more fairness, and more bureaucracy any day at all.

          • Show me a single example of where more bureaucracy resulted in more equality.
            Russia? China? Cuba? North Korea?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I didn ‘t say that.

          • I know you didn’t mean to say that Michael. But that’s what you’re saying, whether you realize it or not.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Consider the U.S. Social Security System. Massive burocracy. A big step providing the poor with some–security. Equality.

          • Right…

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Republicans dislike The Social Security Administration–because they are selfish as sin.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            In California, the Go,Go,GMOers heavily outspent their opposition.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            They have spent well over 100 million dollars total defeating labeling initiatives in just four states–California, Oregon, Washington, and Colorado.

        • Larkin Curtis Hannah

          So says the members of the organic cult. Let the people who do not eat organic foods speak for themselves

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Have you looked at the relevant polls?

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            Science is not determined by popular vote

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            When public policy is at issue,the wishes of the public should count heavily.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            Once people know what will happen to the cost of their food they don’t want the label. And there is no scientific reason for the label.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Once many millions of dollars is spent propagandizing people to oppose labeling, they do.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            The fact that it cost to label GMO food is not propaganda. How on earth do you think there will not be a cost involved if this becomes the law of the land? I just don’t understand how you can say these things.

      • Carolyn Dunow

        I was caught in the middle of a food desert without a car for a week (the middle of Washington DC). I drank milk for a week because there was nothing else I could access that I knew was safe. Organic and Non-GMO are not readily available in rural areas either. I’m not sure that I would so readily throw around the mentally impaired projection. One more label would definitely help me. If you haven’t walked in my shoes who the heck are you to judge.

        • hyperzombie

          What,, no stores had bananas, peaches, cherries, nectarines, cabbage, or any other fresh fruit veggie with the exception of papaya and corn? No raspberries? Nothing but milk, seems weird for the center of a big city.

          • Warren Lauzon

            He probably believes those stories about GMO strawberries and carrots.

          • hyperzombie

            Yep. everything is GMO to these people… It is so sad, public education has failed all of them>

    • Aidan Benelle

      The ‘theory’ of ‘substantial equivalence’ serves industry profits not the health and safety of the American consumer.

      • Warren Lauzon

        Do you know what the term means?

        “..Definition: Substantial equivalence is a concept, first described in an OECD publication in 1993, which stresses than an assessment of a novel food, in particular one that is genetically modified, should demonstrate that the food is as safe as its traditional counterpart.
        ..”

    • Warren Lauzon

      And exactly WHICH GMO foods do you have reactions to? I would be really curious because it seems that nobody else in the world has experienced that.

      • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

        We don’t know, do we?

        • Warren Lauzon

          No we don’t that is why I am asking. I have seen claims before from people that they got sick from GMO strawberries, GMO wheat, and GMO tomatoes. None of which exist on the commercial market, unfortunately for the claimants.

  • Aidan Benelle

    93% of Americans support GMO labeling

    Its time for the biotechs and their millions to step aside and allow the
    American consumer to have the same RIGHTS as 64 other countries presently do today

    • Warren Lauzon

      That thing has been posted, re-posted, and cross posted dozens of times. Which does not make it any more meaningful. Only about 20% of those in favor even know what a GMO is, so it is kind of like asking “are you in favor of world peace”.

      • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

        1) If you did not keep people ignorant, by refusing to label, people would understand more.
        2) Mindless criticism of “that thing”, when you think about it.

        • Warren Lauzon

          The HFCS label has been on food for decades. Yet less than 1 in 15 have any idea what HFCS is.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            GMO’s are a huge change, compared to the addition of HFCS, not just plain old corn syrup. They both should be labeled. One is.

          • Warren Lauzon

            Uhmm… No. HFCS is not “just plain old corn syrup” – but that just illustrates what I mean when I said that less than 1 in 15 know what it is. “..There is, however, some evidence that the body treats HFCS differently than glucose, another common form of sugar. When a person’s liver is deciding what to do with glucose, it has several options: use it for energy; convert the glucose into triglycerides or store the glucose as fat..” http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/edible-innovations/sugar2.htm
            The problem appears to be that the body treats HFCS differently – HFCS in excess seems to produce liver fat much more readily. HFCS is probably not as bad as some would have you believe, the real problem is how the body handles EXCESS sugar of all types.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            You clearly misunderstood my statement. See that?

          • Warren Lauzon

            No, I did not misunderstand it. You are implying that GMO’s are much more dangerous, even though millions of premature deaths and diabetes can easily be traced to sugar – most of which is HFCS in foods. Yet you ignore that very real threat, and go after something that has yet to have ONE single proven harmful effect.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            “Uhmm… No. HFCS is not “just plain old corn syrup” – but that just illustrates what I mean when I said that less than 1 in 15 know what it is.” I certainly never said that HFCS is “just plain old corn syrup”. This is clearly a misinterpretation of my clear English.…..I never implied that GMO’s are much more dangerous. I said GMO’s are a much bigger change, and BOTH should be labelled..… Many studies have found harmful health effects of GMO’s. You choose to discount them, though some of them are much more rigorous than many of those studies supposedly showing safety.

          • Warren Lauzon

            Show me ONE scientific study that shows any harmful effects from GMO’s. You keep claiming they are out there, but nobody can seem to find them.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Seralini, et al.——-Arpad Pusztai———- Genetic engineering of crops as potential source of genetic hazard in the human diet Review Article——— A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health———The Goodman affair: Monsanto targets the heart of science.———The Very Real Danger of Genetically Modified Foods.———Detection of Glyphosate in Malformed Piglets.———Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and occupational exposure to agricultural pesticide chemical groups and active ingredients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.———Answers to critics: Why there is a long term toxicity due to a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize and to a Roundup herbicide———Exposing Monsanto: Herbicide linked to Birth Defects-The Vitamin A connection.———Mete-analysis connects glyphosate with non-Hedgkin lymphona———Don’t Look, Don’t Find: Health Hazards of Genetically Modified Food

          • Warren Lauzon

            All of those have been exposed as frauds, debunked, and in a couple outright fraudulent/fake studies. Those along with others are listed on various “bad science” sites. https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/external-resources-links/

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            There is a big dispute. It is not clear where truth lies. Bad science sites can be bad propaganda sites.

          • Warren Lauzon
          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            See my comments there.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            People will call anything a fraud. Does that mean that it is? Of course not. Those “bad science” sites are themselves on other lists of “propaganda sites.”

        • ForGMOEducation

          Labeling will not cure ignorance. The labels won’t define the technology. They will only name that it is included in the product.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Labels will help reduce ignorance.

      • Larkin Curtis Hannah

        And it totally ignores the fact that there will be a price to pay for all the testing that will come with labeling. I want a new car, but I don’t want to pay for it!!

        • Far-and-away, the largest cost to GMO labelling will be in stifling innovation, which is precisely what organic activists want.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            “Health concerns? Environmental health concerns? Stupid people–just ignore them! We know what is best, and we rule.”

          • Admit it Michael. you don’t want to see another GMO crop brought to market.

            No one’s calling anti-GMO activists like you stupid, but you must admit that you’re the one who actually believes a handful of greedy capitalists hijacked the scientific process for the last 30 years just so they could foist some useless crops onto gullible farmers around the world.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            “Admit it Michael. you don’t want to see another GMO crop brought to market. Not ever.” This is false. I want people to act very carefully when making hugely consequential changes–like turning the genetic makeup of life over to extremely narrow-minded, extremely selfish corporations and individuals.—–

            Your second paragraph-False. It seems to me that the science is unresolved. There can be no such thing as “finding that GMO’s are safe.” The only thing that could ever possibly be done is to find that “this, particular, genetically modified organism is safe.” That is all that can reasonably be forseen. Each and every genetically modified organism is going to require extensive, long term study of its safety.——-
            And actually, studying this issue, I am becoming more concerned about the implications of giving this kind of power–to change living creatures, ecosystems, the entire biosphere–over to extremely selfish groups and individuals. And I am extremely concerned about letting said groups and individuals claim that power for themselves–which they are now doing. —–This, I believe, is a huge mistake, condemning us, should we survive, to a mountain of trouble and pain.

          • I’m glad you weren’t around for the invention of the light bulb Michael. Or the internal combustion engine… the steam engine, the bow-and-arrow… the wheel.

          • hyperzombie

            Yeah, imagine if the lowly peanut came out today, it would never be approved for cultivation. Same with Kiwi-fruit and wheat.

          • Imagine if humankind had applied the precautionary principle to the discovery of fire.

          • hyperzombie

            Yep, after all we would be stabbing animals with pointy sticks because flint had not been approved yet.

          • Warren Lauzon

            But the pointy sticks would have to have safety labels.

          • First Officer

            And where are all the published studies showing mixing flint and wooden poles are safe and effective? 🙂

          • Warren Lauzon

            And tomatoes also, since the leaves are poisonous.

          • First Officer

            And legumes.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            You badly misunderstand and abuse the precautionary principle.

          • Warren Lauzon

            Not really. There comes a point where that “precautionary principle” becomes much more of a hindrance than a safety measure. If cell phones had to undergo the kind of testing for EMF brain damage that you want for GMO’s, we would still be using the telegraph.

          • For a discussion of how much the greens have abused the precautionary principle, see my new article: http://www.greenerideal.com/lifestyle/0915-gmo-debate-meetings-about-non-existent-food-safety-issues/

          • ForGMOEducation

            If we waited for life long tested of every technological advance, we would still be waiting a few years for the microwave to be released. Never mind that the wavelength of microwaves makes it impossible for them to escape from the box.

          • Quite right. In fact, the forbearers of the modern-day organic movement made precisely that point in defense of their philosophy of organic farming!

          • hyperzombie

            Never mind that the wavelength of microwaves makes it impossible for them to escape from the box.

            That is just “Big Microwave” propaganda,you are a Big Microwave shill. Bought and paid for by the Microwave Popcorn Industry, that uses microwaves and food additives to control our minds forcing us to ignore Chemtrail spraying planes and lizard people that are running the country…….. I know all this is true because I read it on Facebook.

          • Warren Lauzon

            It’s pretty typical not only of the greens, but all anti-science groups. Even the anti-evolution crowd has their variation on it. But the anti-GMO crowd and anti-vaccine crowd are especially prone to ignoring any and all science, and invoking unverified anecdotes, fear mongering, and the usual “what if you’re wrong” clause (I first encountered that clause on anti-evolution sites).

          • What these activists always leave out is the massive risk to human health if we don’t adopt technologies like vaccination. I think it’s because they’re not very good at math.

          • Warren Lauzon

            That part is always left out. And another thing they always leave out is that 6,000 year old rule about “beware of unintended consequences”. They are so focused on one single issue that they totally ignore any and all other ramifications of what might happen (governments, of course, have been ignoring that rule since governments existed). Uganda is a good example of that.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Not using GMO’s is not a massive risk to human health. It is only a risk to the plan of some people and corporations to corral massive amounts of money, by forcing not fully tested crops down peoples throats.

          • Go back through the history of science Michael. You could’ve said the same thing about every innovation that has helped humankind. And if someone like you ever did say that at other times in our history, thank God no one listened to him.

          • 150+million dollar loss for Monsanto this quarter and they can still afford to pay you?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            if people adopt this technology of genetic engineering too rapidly, it could have catastrophic effects on the biophere. Adopting G.E. too quickly means making changes in things we hardly understand. Caution is essential! There are many, many things we could do to improve global society and agriculture that would help us much more!

          • Ever heard of the IPAT formula? Look it up. You’re making the classic mistake of MULTIPLYING by technology when you should really DIVIDE by it.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The value of T depends on the particular technology. Another big step forward for the gung-ho GMO crowd would be to recognize the possibility of negative effects, at some point–a possibility that certainly exists.

          • Name a technology that doesn’t have the potential for a negative downside.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Few if any approach the magnitude of the potential negative downsides of Genetic Engineering.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I’m not anti-science. I’m anti scientific arrogance, self-righteousness, and know-it-all attitude.

          • Warren Lauzon

            Yet you keep rejecting the science it seems.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            And How many scientiic studies have I cited in this discussion? Over 20, I think.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            There is a big issue about which “scientific” studies can be accepted–and which criticisms can be accepted.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            There is a big issue about which “scientific” studies can be accepted–and which criticisms can be accepted.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The green movement is not anti-science. It is against people behaving destructively, stupidly–sometimes while informed by half-baked science.

          • Warren Lauzon

            The “green movement” is a big umbrella. It includes a few that actually are green, and a lot that are total BS and a lot that are nothing more than fear mongering charlatans preying on fear and ignorance.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Our society benefits hugely from the greens! We need more of them, and fewer sleep walking automatons–who are much with us.

          • Warren Lauzon

            Define “green”. I would say that less than 25% of those that call themselves green actually are, and in some cases worse.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Aware that life is a web–and living in a way to enhance that web.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            First, ” GMOs have never caused a single death or illness”–you no that is pure speculation. Epidemiological studies have not been done.
            Two, ever hear of PCB’s, DDT, Agent Orange, etc.? No wonder the chairman of Monsanto thinks he should have changed their name.

          • You are aware, I trust, that the ban on DDT has resulted in more deaths from malaria than were caused by both world wars?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            There are other solutions.

          • Then why didn’t public health officials employ these other solutions and prevent 40 million people from dying in agony?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The utterly unjust distribution of wealth and power contributed much to this.

          • The first step to putting people in the Third World onto the road to prosperity is to stop them from dying from preventable diseases like malaria and dengue fever.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The better first step is to stop stealing from them, and blowing them to smithereens.

          • I didn’t steal anything from anyone. Did you?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Not personally. But my country has. Big time.

          • Example?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The criminal behavior towards countries in the Middle East–stealing there oil.

          • Earth-to-Mike… Earth-to-Mike…
            We BUY their oil.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Earth to Mischa–we pay a pittance, to dictators and governments we played a crucial role in installing, so that most of the people in the Middle East benefit not at all.

          • Then let’s start using our own oil right here in North America. How’s that for a solution we can both agree upon?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            However, if you mean fracking–UGH! Water toxification!……………………
            Malaria–I don’t know. Maybe we can talk the mosquitos into not biting people. ………….
            Pardon me.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            It’s not like organic agriculture has every, specific answer.Organic agriculture tries to work with nature.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Do you realize the DDT is persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic? Do you know that DDT has massive deleterious environmental effects?

          • Only when not used properly. Banning DDT was far more deleterious than keeping it.

            http://www.greenerideal.com/lifestyle/0718-anti-science-wing-of-organic-movement/

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Whenever it is used. Have you ever studied any ecology? We don’t really have to destroy the ecosystem, so that we don’t get sick.

          • There’s a myth that DDT bioaccumulates in the whole environment. That’s illogical and unscientific, to say nothing of iompossible.
            DDT bioaccumulates only in certain organisms, just like natural substances do.
            Banning DDT was a death sentence for over 40 million people, mostly children under the age of five.
            Have a nice day.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            “DDT bioaccumulates only in certain organisms”–that is bioaccumulation.

          • What do you think happens when organic farmers use copper sulfate on their fields?
            There’s a dead-easy way to stop DDT from bioaccumulating in certain organisms. There is no way to stop copper sulfate from bioaccumulating.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            “There’s a dead-easy way to stop DDT from bioaccumulating in certain organisms.”–Stop using it.

          • And 40 million deaths? That’s not a problem in your mind?
            And what about the fact that organic pesticides also bioaccumulate? Should we stop using them too?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Sorry for your lose.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            There has got to be a better way.

          • Warren Lauzon

            You keep bringing stuff like that up, but always fail to explain any relationship between them and GMO’s.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            In my comment, “First, GMO’s…” I am referring to the study cited by M.Popoff, at greeneradeal.com/li…

          • Warren Lauzon

            I get a broken link there.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Go slightly above to M.Popoff’s last comment–the link.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            If everybody were much greener, we would thrive, relatively.

          • Fossil fuel is more green than burning wood for warmth. Likewise, modern farming is more green than primitive farming.
            We’re already plenty green Mike, and getting greener everyday. What organic activists propose, if you dig into their philosophy, is to drastically reduce human population levels to match their vision of a “green” economy. But that’s backwards.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Fossil fuel use is disasterously impacting humanity–Look. See……… If we don’t cut it way back, we will have mega-chaos. But just for a few million years…………….So you think that we are going to pull the rabbit out of the hat, and be able to go on like this? Methinks ye be blind.

          • Are you aware of the fact that there are 20,000 man-hours of Work in a single barrel of oil?

            When farmers converted from horses to the internal-combustion engine, they immediately doubled the productive capacity of their land because half of all arable farmland used to be devoted to growing feed for horses, mainly hay and oats. They were also able to farm more land, and to do so far more efficiently.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Yes. And all of us are going to have to make huge changes and adjustments–because we can not use most of the remaining fossil fuel. If you won’t open your eyes and look into this, you can forget having a helpful effect on humanity–because you are helping to condemn us to disease, starvation, and war. Big time.

          • How will going back to farming with horses prevent disease, starvation and war?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            To avoid even more widespread disease, starvation, and war (These are already massive,) we are going to have to make huge changes and adjustments–like, for one, not using much fossil fuels. That alone is daunting.

          • Fossil fuels are good. They free us.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The carbon that there use is putting (back) into the atmospere is ruining the climate–Don’t you see? Are you looking? Or are you accepting uninformed rubbish? Why?

          • Did you know that greenhouse operators generate carbon dioxide to boost productivity?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            It won’t scale up.

          • CO2 is like Oxygen for plants. Did you know that?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Sure. But there is this other thing–the greenhouse effect–By which CO2 will break the climate. It happened before, scientists believe–long long ago’

          • It never happened. CO2 levels used to be many times higher than they are now.

            In fact, we’re approaching the point where if CO2 levels drop much further, plants will stop growing altogether.

            We’re not going to hit that point tomorrow or anything. But it’s a very real threat to all life on the planet Mike.

            The environmentalists have this one totally backwards.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Looney tunes. I’m sorry, M.Popoff, you are a good chap, but what have you been reading? Who have you been talking to? You know, it is our task to make good sense.

          • More CO2 results in accelerated plant growth, which in turn results in increased Oxygen production.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Have you heard of melting ice caps? Disappearing glaciers? Rising oceans? Increased storms? Hottest weather ever recorded? Common, man, don’t be captured by rich, selfish, blind people.

          • What do the ice caps have to do with GMOs?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Follow the writing above.

          • hyperzombie

            “long long ago”
            Someone has been watching too much Star Wars.

            It goes like this.

            A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away….

            It is a period of civil war. Rebel
            spaceships, striking from a hidden
            base, have won their first victory
            against the evil Galactic Empire.

            During the battle, rebel spies managed
            to steal secret plans to the Empire’s
            ultimate weapon, the DEATH STAR, an
            armored space station with enough
            power to destroy an entire planet.

            Pursued by the Empire’s sinister agents,
            Princess Leia races home aboard her
            starship, custodian of the stolen plans
            that can save her people and restore
            freedom to the galaxy….

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            And we are almost wasting it.

          • Try working on a farm Mike. You’ll develop an abiding appreciation for the internal combustion engine.

            If you were to work a standard 12 -hour day on a farm of your choice, it would take you 4-and-a-half years to do the work that a tractor can do in a single day.

            Still think we’re wasting fossil fuels?

          • Benjamin Joseph L

            I can’t find your comment. This forum is so huge. And no, you’re incorrect, this is a stupid forum. I can explain with no debate why it is so. We are spending all of our time arguing pointless things on forums that have no legal binding, when that time could be much better spent not bickering but solving this problem. There is no QUESTION that GMO is less healthy, worse for the environment, and puts the control of our crops in the hands of money hungry war profiteering corporations. THE ONLY QUESTION is how we all want to join hands and fight this matter. Any other question evades the question, don’t get lost in semantics. Get on the right side of the fight.

          • Well, I strongly disagree with this. After I spend hours on this site, don’t tell me it is stupid pointless bickering. I have learned alot! I’m much clearer about what GMO’s are and aren’t. If you want to join hands and work for good, I strongly suggest stop pissing on allies.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Blahhooza.

          • Warren Lauzon

            Thank you for your well thought out and informative response.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The precautionary principle is about taking reasonable precautions. Sure, precautions can be unreasonable–one can misapply the precautionary principle–but that does not mean that something is wrong with the precautionary principle. (look up the precautionary principle.)

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Terribly.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I support progress. I believe in being reasonably careful.

          • And how exactly does banning an entire field of science qualify as “reasonably careful”?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I never said ban a field of science.

          • But you must appreciate that banning GMOs is the stated goal of the anti-GMO organic movement. And no, it’s not the extreme fringe that believes this. It’s the mainstream of the organic movement.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I never suggested banning GMO’s. The organic movement has to deal with the Go, Go, GMO crowd, which is quickly making huge and possibly bad changes in our food system.

          • Why does the organic movement have to “deal” with GMOs? They are two separate systems of farming, with no relation to one another.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            You fail to notice that pollen flows.

          • So?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            So they are not 2 separate systems.

          • I’ll let you in on a little secret Mike. Pollen only has an effect on a crop that is replanted, not on a crop being grown for food.

            And in the case of seed production, it’s the seed producer who’s responsible for the purity of his crop, not his neighbor.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Go ahead deny responsibility for some gene from let’s say a bacteria getting into my crop and hurting it–if you did not irresponsibly and selfishly put that gene into your crop, no way it would be in mine. Go ahead deny responsibility! Your behavior, here, is piggish, and should be punished.

          • I mean you no disrespect Mike, but you don’t seem to understand biology. Pollen drift makes no difference, unless it’s a crop being grown for seed.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            As I pointed out before, if you save the seed, or eat the seed, pollen drift is consequential.

          • Only if you replant the seed is there any consequence to pollen contamination.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            If you eat the seed, and it was formed partly from DNA that came from a foreign gene (foreign to that biome without GEO’s,) pollen drift could be consequential to you–even if you only eat organic.

          • That’s certainly the theory proposed by organic activists. But there’s no evidence of any consequence whatsoever when GMO pollen drifts onto an organic crop. None.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            One can’t just operate on evidence–one has to use their mind.

          • First Officer

            The level of mixing makes it inconsequential. We’ve been keeping separate strains separate for centuries.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            But this is an area where scientists should recognise the pressing limits of their understanding. G.E. introduces a new kind of change. We can not be sure how it will behave.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            But one of these years, if this GMO thing gets rolling big time, some gene that has unforseen negative consequences will get around–and cause big problems.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            This makes negative sense.

          • As long as it makes sense I’m happy to make progress with you Mike.

          • Benjamin Joseph L

            blah blah blah

            the pseudo scientific debate continues over semantics. let me refocus you all again.

            DO NOT GMO.

            KEEP FOOD ORGANIC.

            KEEP IT IN THE DOMAIN OF EARTH, NOT CORPORATIONS. Let’s unify and fight for that.

            Not quote scientific publications to coat our egos. FIGHT FOR THE RIGHT>

          • Grow up.

          • Benjamin Joseph L

            how about this. forget organic. forget GMO. forget everything implanted in your head. get some dirt together and grow a real tomato plant. eat that tomato and all your answers will come to you. the propaganda will fade and you’ll hear your own heart beat.

          • Well, thanks Ben.
            I grew up on an organic grain farm and tended to the family garden. I have done precisely what you describe literally thousands of times.

          • Benjamin Joseph L

            Sorry, I’m a little bitchy on this forum. I’m sick of forums, I want to see results. I am feeling the pain and suffering of this new chemical-based society and I know it’s a bad thing and I just don’t see why debate is helping us stop it. I file actual lawsuits, engage in real protests. What good has been done on a forum has been my main question.

          • Debate is the only way forward.

            Thesis versus antithesis yields a synthesis.

          • Benjamin Joseph L

            It’s hard to account for that synthesis in forums. Plus, we have a shortage of time and a real penetration issue on forums. Where’s the action steps? When do we actually effect change in the WAY THINGS ARE GOING.

          • The synthesis occurs in the common psyche.

          • Benjamin Joseph L

            The common psyche seems to be five corporations putting pesticides inside the genome of our food

          • General Electric and Westinghouse gave us electricity. Microsoft and Apple gave us the computer. Science is always bigger than the companies involved in bringing it to market.

          • Benjamin Joseph L

            I don’t know what your point is. Electricity and Computers have not benefited us because we were doing much better as a people before them. It’s absolute proof. But I’m not sure your point anyway.

          • Clearly you’re right Ben. You win.

          • Benjamin Joseph L

            Win what, your support?

          • No. I’m going to abandon electricity.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Let the people choose what innovation they want in their food, and who will make it for what purpose.

          • kurzweilfreak

            You do know that EVERY corporation is motivated to make money, and the best way to do that is to make a good product that people want, right? You don’t get very many repeat customers by making a product that is poisonous.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Making money for their investors is the bottom line of corporations, by law! That is simply true!

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            PCB’s. DDT. Saccharine. Cyclamates. Aspertame. rBGH. rBST. Depleted uranium munitions. Pesticides. Nuclear weapons. Drones. Fighter jets. Leaded gasoline. Leaded paint–all made by businesses.

          • Congratulations on finally coming up with a positive defense of modern business Michael.

            As you know, these substances are all vital to sustaining our modern way of life. Yes, they can be dangerous if mishandled. But the same can be said for a much longer list of “natural” or “organic” substances.

            Glad to finally have you on our side!

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I repeat, I never said natural is good.

          • Well, we have some common ground then. Have you checked out my website yet?

          • JoeFarmer

            Antibiotics. Chemotherapy drugs. Operating room equipment. Fire trucks. Ambulances. Automated External Defibrillators. Motocycle helmets. 97% efficient gas furnaces. Oven mitts – all made by businesses.

            I’ll bet I can come up with a much longer “good” list than you ever could a “bad” list.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I am certainly not saying business is always bad. It must not be allowed to ruin the ecosystems on which we all depend. It must be regulated. It must be pro-social, or its corporate license should be revoked. It has no right to take the commonwealth, for itself. It can work to increase the commonwealth, and be paid for doing so.

          • D.Show

            Government regulators and do-gooders also do some very destructive stuff. The Hanford site was a government lab, and the 18th amendment under the guise of being pro-social created some very destructive elements in our society that still exist. It would be wise to take anti-gmo philosophy to its logical conclusions before believing in its benefits. That conclusion being that it has nothing to do with a love of the environment, and everything to do with a hatred of mankind.

          • Are you totally unaware of any reasons to be non-Gung-Ho GMO? There are many good ones—-for examples, the American science fails to show the safety of GMO’s, because it has been limited by the G.E. industry–and hence is biased—-the science is not fully understood—-massively increasing the use of certain toxic chemicals, such as 2,4-D, due to G.E. plants, could have disastrous effects—-other extremely negative effects are very possible. How you can, at this point, responsibly pay no attention to these issues is beyond me. … There are many things that would help humankind much more than growing GMO crops.

          • hyperzombie

            all made by businesses.

            You forgot Bacon and Ice Cream, the greatest inventions ever.

          • hyperzombie

            All of these made/caused by businesses, pursuing there own profit.

            Most of this stuff was invented and made for governments and universities, i think you are blaming the wrong people.

            The massive poisoning of ground water brought to us by fracking.

            Name one…………Gasland does not count.

          • Warren Lauzon

            That is a bigger factor than any of the anti-GMO people would have you think. Right now they are all for banning all GMO’s, getting rid of Monsanto, and all the usual anti stuff.

            But when “things” start happening, like bananas and potatoes start to disappear from the grocery shelves due to new virus strains this whole issue will be revisited. Unfortunately it can take years of research to come up with new resistant strains – GMO or not.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Conventional breeding has vast, untapped potential.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            Are you a breeder? If not, you should talk to one. I think you would find that just the opposite is the case. Breeders have been pulling out the useful genes for a long long time.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The potential of conventional breeding is not only untapped–it has brought tremendous developments.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            GMO’s are not THE way to increase food supply. They may play a role, yes, but mostly we have to cultivate the Earth, and stop blowing one another up.

          • Warren Lauzon

            Supposedly 30% of all starvation is due to wars and civil unrest.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Is that scientific?

          • Aidan Benelle

            Such a garbage statement

          • Explain please Aidan. This is a comments blog. Not a gratuitous-accusations blog.

        • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

          I want health–and I’m willing to pay for it.

          • hyperzombie

            If it was really about “health” the first thing that you would be demanding is a “Grown in Animal Feces” label. E Coli and salmonella kill dozens per year and sicken 10s of thousands.. So stop lying to people in this tread and most likely yourself and admit that you just don’t like GMOs.

          • Warren Lauzon

            How about all those people that makes less than a couple of thousand dollars a year?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            If superrich people did not suck up all the wealth, this would be less of a problem.

          • Warren Lauzon

            So now you are claiming that there is a fixed amount of wealth to go around, and if rich people have more, then poor people have less? It appears that your strong point is not economics either.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I never said that. What I am saying is, having an extremely small percentage of people who have an absolutely astronomical share of wealth, which we do, is closely related to the fact that a large part of the Earth’s population lives in poverty–in a causal way. Because much of that concentration of wealth is because of “glorified stealing.” For one example, the fossil fuels of the Earth are part or the collective inheritance of humankind. But because of our unjust economic system, a tiny percentage of people are made fabulously wealthy by the use of those fossil fuels, while billions of people get nothing (directly.)

          • Warren Lauzon

            I don’t think it is that simple. Just for example if you look at the lower 25% of the world, nearly all is due to bad government, no government, strife, dictatorships, and the like. There are a couple of good TED talks videos but don’t have links handy.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The dell if I’m being simplistic about this.

          • D.Show

            the collective inheritance of humankind did not spend the time, effort and resources to develop the technology to extract, process and market fossil fuels. People are wealthy because they create value. Your one-sided economic argument completely ignores any costs that went into the creating of that value.

          • Yea. So when a country, say Venezuela, decides as a society to collectively develop their resources, so that every member of the society can benefit, the rich will claim that “their” resources are being “stolen”–and, time and time and time and time again, the U.S. will violently overthrow the government in that country, claiming it is being taken over by evil communism–though in fact it may well be merely nationalistic. This reality is sick on the part of my government, inhuman, wasteful, and extremely short-sighted. … Lots of people who are wealthy, maybe most, are wealthy because they cruelly or brutally oppress others, and steal their wealth. …. Your one-sided economic argument ignores this fact–which the wealthy rarely, if ever see.

        • Aidan Benelle

          Europe incurred no additional costs with GMO labeling.

          The Cornell study that stated GMO labeling would increase cost in the U.S.was funded by

          guess who: Monsanto

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            If you are going to test, (as they do in Europe) then there is a cost, period, end of story. Also, testing requires segregation of produce and agricultural products. There is a cost to this, end of story.

            Also, produce will have to be stored while tests are going on. This will lead to a loss of quality and likely loss of produce.

            You really need to think this through.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Do we molecularly test foods, to make sure that the listed ingrediants are correct?

      • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

        Many, many big polls show overwhelming support for labeling GMO’s from the American people. The people rule! Or should!

        • Warren Lauzon

          And other polls show that most have not the slightest clue what a GMO is. “.Public Perceptions of GM Food Labeling‐‐2013. “What information would you like to see on food labels that is not already on there?” In response, most said that no additional information was needed on food labels. Only 7% of respondents raised GM food labeling on their own. A similar number (6%) said they wanted more information about where the food product was grown or processed…” http://humeco.rutgers.edu/documents_PDF/news/GMlabelingperceptions.pdf

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The ignorance of the American people regarding GMO’s, which is large, has been largely increased by the unscrupulous practice of not labeling them. That same study found that 57% of Americans think that it is very important or extremely important to label GMO’s–and another 21.6% think it is somewhat important. Many other large studies, conducted by some of the most careful polling organizations, have found that, when asked, over 90% of Americans say that they want GMO’s to be labeled.

          • Warren Lauzon

            Yes, but when less than half of that 92% that wants labeling has even the slightest clue what GMO is, it comes across as more of a scare tactic than actual information for the consumer.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            You do not know what people know.

          • Warren Lauzon

            See http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2005-4/GMOs/2005-4-05.htm
            Over the past few years there have been several surveys that show that some 90% or so “want GMO labeling”. But during that same period there have also been surveys that show that anywhere from 1 in 20 to 1 in 6 have even a clue what GMO is. In one survey when asked to name the most common GMO product in supermarkets, nearly 38% picked tomatoes.
            There is so much anti-GMO bullshit out there that it is very difficult to get any actual scientific information, as the anti-GMO crowds creates such a high noise level filled with half-truths, outright lies, and fear tactics.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            There is even more pro-GMO bullshit.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            If they were labeled, or identified more in the corporate-owned media, people would not be so ignorant.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I am sorry sir, but there is as much bullshit coming from the Go, Go, GMO crowd.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            And just how should people know if the tomatoes are GMO’s? They are not labeled!

          • Warren Lauzon

            By the simple fact that there ARE no GMO tomatoes perhaps?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Nothing is labeled GMO. But GMO’s are significantly different–in the process that made them, and in the product. They contain genes from some unnormal source. I should think people have a right to decide for themselves whether that is a significant difference, to them. The science IS NOT CLEAR. People will tell you that it is–but it is not. You people who are so clear that GMO’s present no problem better work on making that clear–because it is not.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            And how should people know that? Especially as it changes and changes.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Mr. Lauzon, in fact a genetically modified tomato, the Flavr Savr tomato, was the first genetically engineered crop brought to market.

          • Warren Lauzon

            Yes, and it was taken OFF the market very shortly after that.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            People would know more about GMO’s if the industry didn’t bend over backwards to keep information from being shared with them!

          • Warren Lauzon

            Yet HFCS and many other ingredients have been listed for years, and most people could not give you the slightest clue as to what they are. Quick, without looking it up, what is Sodium Phosphate and why is it in my soup?

          • kurzweilfreak

            Not only that, but I bet if you asked if people would like a label stating that their food was fertilized with raw feces or “this food may show signs of having been eaten by bugs”, most people would probably vote yes to that but the organic industry would start a HUGE backlash. Isn’t it our right to know though? How could hiding this information be good for consumer choice?!

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Raw human feces–not used. Raw cow manure? It is at least aged, first. Eaten by bugs? That is nature. Organic consumers are more down-to-earth.

          • kurzweilfreak

            I never said human feces, you did. Raw cow manure,, responsible for e. Coli contamination in organic food, leading to organic recalls. That’s a fact, a hell of a lot more concrete than BS studies by anti-GMOS activists like Seralinii, Carmen and others who cook their results to get the results they’re looking for.

            “Natural” is a horrible fallacy to use, so much that you would think you guys would get the clue and stop trying it. “Natural” would be you living in a cave, foraging and hunting for food with your bare hands. It certainly wouldn’t be living in a nice house, driving your automobile to Whole Foods to buy neat prepackaged foods. Or even just farming. Organic consumers are no more down to earth than the kid buying an Xbox One from Walmart. Most organic consumers continue to believe that organic farming doesn’t use any pesticides or other chemicals. Or that the ones they do use are safer because they’re “natural”. Hilarious.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            You make your choices–let others make theirs.

          • kurzweilfreak

            No one is keeping anyone from buying organic if they want. The antis would definitely love to see GMO food banned if they could make it pass, and since they can’t, they want to mandate labels on the food for non-scientific reasons to imply that it is dangerous. People can only make informed choices when the information that they are getting is truthful, not full of FUD and lies that the anti-GMO crowd continues to propagate. I’d make a deal with them: I’d say label the food if they can find an actual scientific reason to do so, and in return they have to stop spreading the lies about giving people cancer and other bullshit like that.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            There are numerous scientific studies that have found problems with GMO’s.

          • kurzweilfreak

            No there aren’t. And there are thousands of studies that have found GMOs to be perfectly safe and equivalent to their non-GMO isolines. Do you even know what that means?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Yes there are. All you could possibly say, accurately, is that there are no scientific studies –which you believe are good studies–that have found problems with specific GMO’s. And the fact is, there is huge disagreement about which studies are good. Those “thousands of studies” you mention–how many of them are from the biotech industry? Are they biased? How many of them were very short term–90 days?

          • kurzweilfreak

            You can look for yourself, that’s the entire point of the GENERA Database.

            http://genera.biofortified.org/

            http://www.biofortified.org/2014/08/announcing-the-launch-of-the-genera-beta-test/

            “Those who follow the issue of genetically engineered crops have heard claims that there is little independent research on their safety for consumption or the environment. A new public database of research tells a different story. The resource is theGENetic Engineering Risk Atlas (GENERA), and it goes public on 25 August 2014. The results show that independent peer-reviewed research on GMOs is common, conducted worldwide, and makes up half of the total of all research on risks associated with genetic engineering.”

            If you want to dispute anything in particular with the GENERA database, be my guest.

            If you want to cite a credible study that you feel shows “problems” with GMOs, please do so. The “huge disagreement” on which studies are good or not usually comes from the anti-GMO crowd on one side not understanding how to conduct a proper study, why studies are done the way they are, and in turn why the few anti-GMO studies that are repeatedly touted are not credible or don’t support the conclusions they purport to. On the other side, you have actual scientists and experts in these fields dismissing these studies not just because of who the author is or who the funding comes from, but for specific, detailed reasons why the study is bad, pointing out specific flaws in methodology, statistical analysis methods, or just bad data.

            Where would you like to shift the goal post to now?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Beware of proaganda! The Genera website wants to convince you that they are unbiased, but this is untrue. Genera is created by Biology Fortified, Inc.–the creators of Frank N. Foode–a “friendly neighborhood genetically modified organism that was created to help make the science of biotechnology fun and approachable.” This is what we call corporate propaganda.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Don’t you think that, if the Go, Go, GMO side had legitimate arguements, they would rely on those, rather than adorable dolls designed to make people feel warm and fuzzy about GMO’s–and disguised propaganda?

          • kurzweilfreak

            >>Don’t you think that, if the Go, Go, GMO side had legitimate arguements

            They do, and they’re dismissed out of hand as being shills and propaganda. Usually by you and your uninformed layperson ilk. You can’t complain that the biotech industry doesn’t use legitimate arguments when you simply refuse to acknowledge them when presented to you.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Well, first, when people throw numerous insults at me, as you have, I am justified in ignoring them–but I have not……………………………… It seems to me that I am not the one ignoring the legitimate arguements of the other side. How many times am I going to read it–there is not one scientific study showing any harm caused by GMO’s? That, sir, is poppycock.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            However, it is repeated by the gung-ho GMOers ad infinitum.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I do not refuse arguments when presented to me, or dismiss them out of hand. Actually, I will consider them.

          • kurzweilfreak

            That’s incredible, you went through every single one of the 402 studies currently listed in the Genera database and were able to find conclusive links to Monsanto et al. I’m just flabbergasted. Oh wait, you didn’t do anything at all like this, you just yelled “shill!” and consider that an argument.

            Of course, you didn’t do this, because 1) you don’t really care about the science since it’s inconvenient to your predetermined opinion, 2) you probably wouldn’t understand the science anyway.

            I’m so glad that they leave all of these discussions up for future readers to see this. Future antiGMO nutters, take note: You can’t just dismiss evidence when it doesn’t say what you want it to. Crying “shill!” is not an argument at all, and at best you’ll look like an idiot (example above); at worst, you look like a conspiracy theorist ensuring that no one will take your position seriously anymore.

            Bravo to you sir. I can’t argue with impeccable logic such as that. I’m done here.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            “You can look for yourself, that’s the entire point of the GENERA Database”–Why should I even look at a database that claims to be unbiased, but actually is a creation of a group–Biology Fortified, Inc.–that at the same time is creating an imaginary character–Frank N. Foode–that is a “friendly neighborhood genetically modified organism that was created to help make the science of biotechnology fun and approachable.” In other words, the claim of Biology Fortified, Inc. to be unbiased is not worth the cyper space in which it is written–and therefore, the Genera Database is best, it seems to me, regarded as a propaganda tool. Funded by the same interests that produced the studies it covers.
            ………………………………………………

            I assure you, I do care about what science indicates. And also, I am well aware that supposed “scientific fact” is deeply embedded in a web of politics, interpretation, money, power, fabrication, propaganda, ignorance, innuendo, insult, and unconscious blinders.——————-It is extremely important to evaluate information sources………………………
            If you want to think that your search for truth is that much more highly powered and genuine than mine–well, so be it.

          • Biology Fortified receives NO funding from any industry or company..all university and private funding..check their website. The GENERA database is a collection of peer reviewed articles. It has no bias one way or the other. It is what it is…journal articles. You could try to use it to make your anti-GMO arguments. To claim it has a bias is absurd.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Meet Frank N. Foode–your friendly, neighborhood, genetically modified organism. Brought to us by Biology Fortified, Inc.–along with the GENERA database. How absurd to think that they are related!

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Private funding–in other words, blokes that have mountains of money have vast, ye total influence over that corporation Biology Fortified. Gee do extremely rich people have selfish, small-minded motivations, and bias, like other people do?

          • Actually extremely rich people, as a class, are more influenced by selfish, small-minded motivations than most people.

          • kurzweilfreak

            You care SOOOO much about the science that you aren’t even willing to look at it when presented to you.
            “Why should I even look at a database that claims to be unbiased…”
            So if you aren’t even willing to look at the studies themselves and you’re just going to call every single one of them “biased” just because they appear together in a categorical database, then please don’t say that you care about the science. You’re an ostrich who would rather stick your head in the sand than actually look into what people are putting right in front of you. There’s a reason that you don’t see a shitload of anti-GMO rebuttals to peer-reviewed articles: they don’t even look at them, and if they did they lack the credentials and knowledge to even understand them, much less rebut them. When you look at the small handful of studies that purport to have anti-GMO conclusions, it’s relatively easy to find detailed, specific rebuttals of them because holy crap, scientists actually read this stuff. Imagine that.

            The anti-GMO crowd has absolutely no one stopping them from compiling their own version of the GENERA database using their own selection of studies to support their bias and agenda. You’ll never see anything like this for one simple reason: it would be empty except for the same small list of failed, flawed studies they continue to attempt to trot out well beyond the death of the horse they’re beating.

            I don’t see how you can continue having these conversations when you’re so far out of your league. It’s really sad.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            It is a bit hard to ignore monumental personal insults, and get to the important issues. It is too bad that people throw so much ignorant crap at others. It would be good if people maintained one little bit of interpersonal respect, even when engaging conentious subjects. I know that people often have high opinions of themselves, and low opinions of others, but this is ridiculous.

          • kurzweilfreak

            Holy shit the irony is THICK here, something like this coming from someone who regularly accuses other people and groups of being corrupt, shills, and “biased” based on absolutely no evidence but personal opinion. AND you didn’t respond to a single thing posted above. “Awwww, he’s being mean!” Cry me a fucking river. Where is the anti-GMO version of GENERA?
            I don’t have any respect for anonymous random people online that give bullshit arguments on the wrong side of the science based on woo and GMO-cancer magic based on single-study-syndrome put out by people with quite less than impecable credentials while ignoring an entire database of studies specifically about this topic ready for you to pick through and look for flaws. Just admit that you lack the credentials and capability to do so, that your mind is firmly made up and there’s no amount of evidence that will get you to change it. At least that would be honest.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I never called people shills–you brought that word up–I made a specific complaint. I do not believe I ever said that certain specific people are biased. To call the Genera website biased is not a personal insult, and I did give good support for that claim. I don’t believe I called anyone “corrupt.” ………… Sir, I have been responding to you and about ten other people as fast as I can, and I know that I have responded to numerous specific concerns. ……………………………………….. I will admit, I have been quite harsh in characterizing comments. That has seemed justified………And I made a few comments that were unkind–pardon me………………….. But I certainly have never laid anyone out like you lay me out. “you’re so far out of your league. It’s really sad.” If you have such killer arguement, compared to my lame stuff, go ahead! Put away the numerous, clear, substantive points I’ve made in this discussion. Let’s see it! I’ll bet you can’t!

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I am justified in not spending my limited time in reading from websites that loudly proclaim there unbiased nature, when a brief exploration shows that they are created by a group that, in the same time frame that they were creating that website, was also creating a pure GMO propaganda device. Go ahead, criticize this! I use my head!………………You see, if thousands of studies find no problem, but forty find serious problems, I think that everyone of those forty deserves to be carefully considered–when the consequences are huge!…………….. And also, when study after study find that most people want GMO’s labeled, I think that it is the height of arrogance for some minority, though they be rich, to put a stop to that!

          • I found the deep, massive flaw in the Genera website before I went there.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I did not call any of those studies biased. ————————-You make it difficult for me to respond to your comments, because they are imbedded in so many stupid, sense-less insults. Your comments seethe and flow over in self-righteous rage–they boil and break in personal ugliness. You display full scale “I got the truth” attitude–while I am mere scum. Frankly, it doesn’t seem worth it–to contest with your lordship.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I don’t have the rebuttals to all those studies that I sighted–perhaps you would be so kind as to shre them.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            And who funded those rebuttals?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Tell me, who decides which studies to include in the Genera website? And how they will be dealt with? And what comments to make? The GE industry executives who run Genera–that’s who.

          • First Officer

            Please review the properties of the rats used and statistics
            Then you’ll see why those studies are 90 days.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Insufficient, unclear answer.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Read the debate about Seralini’s et al. studies. Do you think that truth clearly lies on one side? I don’t.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I repeat, because it is important–and no one has spoken to this–read the debate about Seralini et al’s studies as I have. Do you think that truth clearly lies on one side? I don’t.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Do those “thousands of studies” look in depth at all of the parts of the biosphere? Because if not, they are woefully incomplete.

          • First Officer

            Let us guess. .. Seralini? Huber?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            5 grams of protein–Labels do not imply danger–they imply we the people have the right to know what they are buying!

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            GEO’s are scientifically, verifiably different. You deny that, but claim this big scientific knowledge. Your scientific knowledge may have a few holes.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Cooking results! I am so glad Monsanto wouldn’t do such a thing!

          • kurzweilfreak

            I don’t know if Monsanto would do such a thing, but it’s absolutely fact that Seralini, Huber, Carmen would and have.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            How high will the mountain of studies indicating problems with GMO’s get, before you and others stop saying, “there are no studies that have found problems with GMO’s?” I guess you mean, “well there are such studies, but they all have such big problems that they do not qualify as scientific studies.” Don’t you realize that it is the nature of scientific studies to be disputed? Would you please stop this idiotic, propagandistic drum best that “there are no scientific studies showing a problem with GMO’s?”

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Please?

          • This applies to every person saying “there are no scientific studies that have found problems with GMO’s.” That is so clearly false, I wonder how anyone with integrity can say it.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            That is spelled M-O-N-S-A-N-T-O. Check them out.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            It is not easy to evaluate studies and their criticisms and their defenses. The fact is,well-informed people often disagree about such things.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Believe what you will.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            If you or someone would show me the studies arguing that the studies finding problems are bogus, I would appreciate that. Of course, criticism is often weak.

          • First Officer

            Wow, ain’t that an elitist we’re better than thou remark

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            It is true.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Salami.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            So why are you so against labeling? You know, that is what the large majority of American people want!

          • Warren Lauzon

            At some point it just gets ridiculous. Muslims want Halal labeled stuff. Jews want Kosher labeled stuff. Green Peace wants every possible thing labeled stuff. It is like labeling bottled water as “fat free”. It provides no useful information at all about how good or bad the product is.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Kosher food IS labelled.

          • Jon Entine

            Voluntarily, with the labeler picking up the cost…the appropriate model, so others do not have to pay for a non-science based label.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            It is science based! It is a scientifically verifiable fact GEO’s (GMO’s) are very different than traditionally bred and selected crop varieties. How can you, Mr. Entine, deny this?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            You won’t, I predict, answer this–because it is true.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            You know, it is required that the octane of gasoline, and its ethanol content, be labeled. Because of health effects? Hardly.

          • It is science based! It is a scientifically verifiable fact GEO’s (GMO’s) are very different than traditionally bred and selected crop varieties. How can you, Mr. Entine, deny this?

          • Sorry, but there is no detectable difference, for example, between GMO soy oil and non-GMO. Nothing that can be detected and no nutritional. The only difference is the seed and the process to make that seed. If that’s the criteria, then we label all processes–from mutagenesis (1000s or organic products made through that process) to organic foods grown in feces. But we don’t now because the end products–the crop or food–is not meaningfully different and in many cases it would be impossible to figure out the process.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Sorry, there is difference detectable in the plants–the seed is part of the plant. I repeat, “It is a scientifically verifiable fact GEO’s (GMO’s) are very different than traditionally bred and selected crop varieties.” In how many crop plants, do you think, is the seed eaten?Clearly many. ………………………………. . The labeling of the octane of gasoline is required in many states! ………………………
            Aged manure has been used to fertilize soil for thousands of years…………………….
            Don’t you think the people should decide if it is a meaningful difference–whether or not G.E.O. techniques were used, or not?

          • LOL. Putting your own comments in quotes doesn’t make them any less scientifically ignorant!! The USDA/FDA/EPA has determined labeling one food growing process and not others, particularly one that does not materially effect the product, should not be labeled. You may not like the science and the US law, but that’s the way it is. Sorry.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            You call that comment ignorant? Astonishing. EVERY CELL is different. …………………………It is the propriety of current law that we are debating, yes? Then you can hardly support your poition on the fact that, currently, the law is what it is.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            LOL? The entire DNA of an organism is in every cell of the organism–except sex cells. So if you put a gene/s from some biologically distant organism into the DNA of a specified organism, you have materially changed every cell in that organism–in a detectable way. …………….… “It is a scientifically verifiable fact GEO’s (GMO’s) are very different than traditionally bred and selected crop varieties.” Having ones DNA changed by having a gene(s) added from some biologically distant organism–now that is a significant change. Thus, my comment was and is correct. ………………………………Yet you call it “scientifically ignorant”. I have to wonder, in what Ocean are you swimming? Please do tell.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            You can’t. Because what I said is true, and your comment was wrong.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Manure, farmers call it. Ever been in a barnyard?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The labeling of ingredients, additives, and nutritional content is mandatory.

          • Glad you’re own board with the science. GMOs are neither an ingredient nor an additive. It’s a process, as organic farming is a process. When nutritional content is changed, such as when a vitamin enhanced rice or cassava is engineered, it would be labeled. Story over.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The story is not over! Those genes are added! It is not clear that the quality as a food item of the GMO is unchanged. Your ideology says so. This is not clear.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Genetic Engineering is a process. GMO’s are the product of a process.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Governmental decisions are not only, or even primarily, science based.

          • Warren Lauzon

            It is labeled voluntarily, not because of government regulations.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The fact that people, in this poll, did not raise GMO’s on their own, has been facilitated by (1)the refusal to label–keeping people in the dark, and (2) the irresponsible mainstream media, which is all either owned or controlled by the very very wealthy very very small minoriy.

          • Warren Lauzon

            Red Herrings, both. Many other things have been on labels for years, yet people keep eating it – even things like chicken soup has added sugar, but that has not slowed down sales. As far as the media goes, almost every media piece I have seen is bullshit – giving more time to GMO (and anti-vaccine) alarmists than to professionals. And there is also the factor that the dangers of GMO are so low that it is not worth doing a story on it unless you can come up with some bullshit science-illiterate to come on and claim that GMO’s are causing zombies. In short, it’s not news unless they fake it.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            People are being kept in the dark! You anti-labelers are lying, selfish, self-righteous people who are keeping the public in the dark for one reason only–if you told the truth, some or many people would avoid buying Gmo’s–thus hurting your personal profits! If there is no problem with GMO’s, then convince people of that! They will buy them! If you have not convinced people that they are safe, and you have not convinced me, then you are using your money power to shove your laws down the people’s throat! Pigs!

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            We know who owns the media, and whose interest it serves.

          • Warren Lauzon

            LOL! .. My personal profits. Oink.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            You think that control of the media is a red herring. That right there is the obliviousness that makes it a problem!

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            This poll was just as biased. It was differently biased.

        • Warren Lauzon

          Not that many really. I know of two, and at least one of those the wording was such that it might as well be a vote on “are you in favor of world peace”.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I just counted 25. It is true that a number of these show support for GMO labeling in the 80’s percent, and some only in the 70’s percent.

      • Aidan Benelle

        That “thing” as you try to discount it, is an actual poll taken this summer of real American, unlike the sock puppet pro GMO pablum, that covers the pages of this website

      • Aidan Benelle

        Truth gets around

        • Warren Lauzon

          And lies like that get around even more.

    • First Officer

      And when it comes time to actually vote on it, the majority vote no.

      • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

        After being subjected to mountains of advertising–pure propaganda–by the G.E. industry.

        • kurzweilfreak

          So you’re saying that the American public is really so dumb that that’ll go from a 93% consensus to a majority voting exactly the opposite of that consensus in a heartbeat thanks to a TV commercial or two? If that really is the case, and that is exactly what you are implying here, do you really trust the general public to be making decisions of public policy on as complicated, technical a topic such as genetics and farming?

          You can’t just yell “propaganda!” and “shill!” all the time unless you have some evidence to back it up with. Pick a piece of propaganda and demonstrate how it is wrong.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I’m saying that the massive propaganda to which we are all subjected is a big problem, and most people do not even realize that they are subjected to massive amounts of propaganda. But if you opened your eyes and looked, you would see it.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            “A TV commercial or two.” In California, on the GMO labeling proposition, the anti-labeling people spent 45 million dollars, more than 5 times as much as the pro-labeling side.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I would choose the people’s rule over big money’s rule, or some dictator, any day.

        • First Officer

          So your opinion of voters is that they cannot think for themselves and only go by the quantity of ads.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            No, my opinion is that when something is repeated often enough, many people will buy it. This has been proven.

          • First Officer

            I think that’s what the anti-gmoers call, “raising awareness”.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Yea. Like, “Winston tastes good, like a cigarette should.”

  • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

    The proposed labels could simply say, “No GMO’s were intentionally used in producing this crop,” or,”GM seed was used in producing this crop.” Cheap. Not perfect. Does it give consumers usable and important information? Clearly.

    • Larkin Curtis Hannah

      So we would have a law and we would have to “trust” people to be truthful in what they put on the label. Try that with speed limits. Europe does not do it that way!! Don’t think it would work here either.

      • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

        We could start with that simple requirement, and add enforcement provisions as it became clear what would be good.

        • Larkin Curtis Hannah

          Without monitoring how do we know there is not a problem? Makes no sense. If you want to have a mandatory label and still peddle your organic produce, you will be tested.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            This start would have the huge advantage of waking people up to this issue–Americans are sleep walking.

          • Like all leftists Mike, you completely underestimate the intelligence of the public. They disagree with you, so they must be misinformed. Is that about right?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Do you have any idea how many people do not know that they are eating GEO’s very frequently?

          • How many know organic crops are grown with seeds developed through chemical and nuclear mutagenesis? Or that organic farmers sometimes fail to ensure manure is composted thoroughly before applying it to a crop for human consumption?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I think that chemical and radiation mutagenesis should be labeled. Cow manure does not need composting.

          • Manure most definitely needs to be fully composted before being used on a crop for human consumption Mike.
            Remind me never to let you run a small backyard garden, let alone a farm.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Manure is useable after aging on some crops. People do not know basic stuff–like, they are eating many GMO’s every day. Does that mean that we are not intelligent? No.

          • The aging you refer to is otherwise known as the composting process. And if that process is not complete, it can be deadly.

            On the other end, aging manure for too long results in reducing its fertility being reduced to next to nothing.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Where I farm/gardened, Composting meant adding many things together, not just manure, then letting it work on itself. Aged manure just means that it has been awhile since it was created.

          • Yes, composting should involve more than just manure. But time and temperature are crucial. Too short and too cool, and you’ll kill people; too long and you’re just wasting all the nutrients as they leach into the ground beneath your compost pile.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            You are the one discounting the public and their intelligence–by refusing to label GMO’s, in spite of the fact that that is clearly what the public wants.

          • GMOs have been on the market for 20 years. So clearly the public has accepted them. Only when organic activists stir up fear does the public even begin to reconsider this acceptance.

      • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

        How many foods are molecularly tested to be sure that the listed ingrediants are accurate? This case is more comparable.

        • Larkin Curtis Hannah

          So what, precisely, are you proposing? I am sure you don’t want organic foods tested. But they will be if GMO labeling becomes the law.

    • First Officer

      Except that it’s unconstitutional as it is compelled speech without substantial interest.

      • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

        Sure. You can deny that there is a substantial difference between GEO’s and other breeding techniques. That makes zilch sense. But you can repeat it till the cow’s come home–and the chicken’s come home to roost.

        • What you’re missing here Mike is the fact that new forms of technology will always be vastly different from their predecessors. But the end result – the product – can indeed be exactly the same, just more efficient and safe.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            This technology introduces human intervention into processes that it does not understand at a whole new level.

          • That could be said of any technology

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Very few, if any technologies cut as deep as Genetic Engineering.

          • Really? Gong from the horse-drawn buggy and horse-drawn plow to the internal combustion engine doesn’t measure up?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Internal combustion engines do not reproduce themselves. Nor do we eat them.

          • But horses DO reproduce themselves, and some people DO eat them (the French mostly). So if you’re opposed to GMOs for those reasons, does that mean you’re also opposed to horses?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Get real. You are introducing organisms with genes in their DNA from naturally far removed organisms, a process that does not generally occur, and pretending that you are doing nothing new! Blahoney!

          • I never claimed we weren’t doing anything new.
            The problem here is that organic activists think we have to ban GMOs because they’re new.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Many people claim that GMO’s are nothing new. Organic activists, I think, are not just avoiding newness–the organic movement has gained momentum because “conventional” farmers have done so much serious environmental damage with their half-baked application of chemicals to farms.

          • The organic movement has gained momentum because its leaders are lying.

            Organic farmers know GMOs are none of their business. Why do organic activists have to make GMOs their business to the exclusion of all else?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            “The organic movement has gained momentum because its leaders are lying.” You are pretty good at unjustified smears yourself. GMO’s are a legitimate concern to any person on Earth.

          • The leaders of the organic movement have perpetuated the myth that GMOs pose a risk to organic crops. That’s a lie, plain and simple. So how is this a smear?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Back when we were talking about contamination, at the beginning of this discussion, we disagreed about it. So, because you never convinced me that contamination does not occur, does that make me a liar when I say that it does? No. I speak the truth as I see it.

          • You’ll have to show an example of GMOs contaminating an organic crop.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            There is an alternative, here. Use your head.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Are you aware of the massive problems caused by conventional farming?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Cars don’t reproduce themselves, and people don’t eat them.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The product is certainly not exactly the same.

          • We used to light cities and homes with gas flames. Then Thomas Edison and Nicolai Tesla gave the world electricity. The systems involved couldn’t have been more different, but the result was the same, only far safer and cheaper.

        • First Officer

          It is actually irrelevant as to whether GE is substantially different than other breeding techniques or not. It is nonetheless at least as safe as the others and introduces no new risks. Hence there is no substantial interest for the state to limit freedom of speech by requiring the compelled speech of mandatory labeling.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            You can only believe that GMO’s introduce no known risks by blinding yourself to the many studies that indicate risk. I say, you are blind!

          • First Officer

            Like what studies? Seralini? Huber?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            “It is actually irrelevant as to whether GE is substantially different than other breeding techniques or not.” It is not. I hear this constant din from the gung-ho GMO crowd–“There is no difference between Genetic Modification and other breeding methods.”(Actually, GMO’s should be called GEO’s.)

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Actually, the G.E. industry hates the idea that GMO’s might be labeled, and spends millions of dollars on propaganda to prevent it. They want to go on forcing their products on people, until they capture the billions of dollars they have in mind–let the people be damned!

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            People have a substantial interest in knowing about their food. This is recognized, in substantial parts–ingredients, additives, grams fat starch protein salt etc., organic. I believe country/state of origin would be appropriate, as would GMO or not.

          • First Officer

            actual ingredients and amounts of nutrition has been shown to be of medical use to some people. Organic and GMO has not. Which is why neither are mandatory. If a farmer follows every organic rule in the book, he is not obliged to label his produce as such. Country origin has been shown to be of practical medical use (i have never seen mandatory state labeling). You can make a rather good case other countries do not have equivalent handling procedures as our own.

            Yes, people have a substantial interest in the sense meaning a strong interest. But they do about a lot of things. That doesn’t give an automatic right to have such information on divulged on demand. You have the right to know it, but not the right to force others to give it to you.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The fact is, you do not think that there is any significant difference between G.M. and other food organisms, but many people do. The science, it is unclear–although it is extremely common for people to say that it is clear–and people make that claim on both sides of the question. Since it is not at this time clear, both prudence, and the people’s wishes, dictate that GMO’s should, at this time, be labeled.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            In addition, labeling GMO’s would make it possible to conduct etiological studies to determine, FOR THE FIRST TIME, whether GMO’s are affecting human health in America.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            You know, it is required that the octane of gasoline, and its ethanol content, be labeled. Because of health effects? Hardly.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            But there are many studies showing increased risk–and many more important studies have never been done.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            It is not clear that “it is nonetheless at least as safe as the others and introduces no new risks.” That is a not fully tested, controversial idea. Many believe it–many do not. Many people who are highly informed about this issue do not believe the quoted statement. Those who do not should be able to consume their normal diet without having to consume unwanted GMO’s. It is a human right.

          • First Officer

            They are fully tested, unless your deffinition of fully tested is always some level that can’t be achieved, such as requiring it to be tested for 20 years on every single indiividual. It’s your human right to eat what you want and, in this case, it is served through private voluntary labeling, like Kosher and Halal.

            As a side note, just because it might be your right to eat such and such, that doesn’t mean it is your right to force others to make or grow it for you. It is your human right to eat a particular ancient strain of blue corn. That doesn’t mean you can now go out and legislate that it must be grown for you.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            “They are fully tested”–this reminds me of the college Molecular Biology professor who (in this discussion) directed me to a massive study about the health impacts that GMO’s have had on farm animals–little or none–and who therefore seemed to say that GMO’s had been proven safe. But what about health impacts on other aspects of the biosphere? Those are extremely important–in our era of the massive dieoff of bees, struggling amphibians worldwide, hugely increasing cancer rates, hormonal disruption, and the incidence of autism. Are GMO’s contributing to these? How about via the massively increased use of roundup and now maybe 2,4-D?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            “As a side note” Sure. But it is entirely legitimate to require labeling of GMO’s, as Genetic Engineering is extremely controversial.

          • First Officer

            In a word. No.

            1) CCD in most of EU yet very little GM crops.

            2) Amphibians have problems worldwide? Well, gmo’s aren’t grown worldwide. There’s no huge increase of overall cancer rates, cancer rates per age groups are actually down.

            3) Autism? Again rates are in both US and EU yet little GM food is consumed in EU.

            GE makes genetic changes as does all other breeding methods. The only difference is GE allows us to only change what we want to change and more quickly. Any change that GE can affect, can also be done, in principle, by older methods.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I don’t believe anyone knows why amphibians are declining. ………………………………….
            2,4-D is, according to the CDC, the cause of numerous severe health effects on animals. How can you use that stuff? But now, GMO’s resistant to 2,4-D will be approved–resulting in massively increased use of 2,4-D. Are you Gung-Ho GMOers at all concerned about the health of the planet? …………………………
            Yes, traditional breeding makes genetic changes. But traditional breeding does not put genes from biologically distant organisms into the DNA of our food crops–a massive difference. I think for scientifically literate people to deny this is foolishness.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            In a word, yes.—–Your reply did not mention hormonal disruption. 2,4-D is widely believed to cause it. Now, due to the irresponsible use of Genetic Engineering, its use is going to hugely increase.

          • First Officer

            This so called huge increase in decades old 2.4-D herbicide has not occurred yet so how can GMO’s be presently contributing to any 2,4-D effects? And, again, it would be the 2,4-D resistant trait that would be involved, not how that trait came to be.

            Here’s the datasheet:

            http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/2,4-DTech.pdf

            It may disrupt hormones but at what level does that have any deleterious effect? According to the datasheet, it’s 15 mg/kg/day

            Here’s the application rate data. Max, 3 pints for preemergence, 2 pints for post emergence on crops for the growing seaons. Also says no more than 3 pints total per acre per growing season.

            http://wci.colostate.edu/Assets/pdf/Labels/Grasses/Herbicide/2,4-DLV4.pdf

            There’s no way anyone will ever be able to eat 15 mg/kg/day given these application rates and breakdown rates.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The point is, it is abundantly clear that 2,4-D is an extremely toxic chemical–and you think your puny science shows that it will be no problem?The Gung-Ho GMOers are ecologically and spiritually ignorant! You think that you have science on your side. I think that you are, on the whole, scientific morons!

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The use of 2,4-D has been increasing for years, because people are ecologically and toxicologically stupid! Now, its use will multiply, due to GMO’s.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            “Any change that GE can affect, can also be done, in principle, by older methods.”
            In your fantasy land! That is nonsense!

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            You Go, Go GMOers PRETEND to be so science based, but pronounce tons of slop and Ad Hoministic trash!

        • kurzweilfreak

          What, pray tell, is specifically this substantial difference? I hear this all the time, but the only argument I ever hear is “it’s different!” but that’s meaningless. What is the substantial difference? It’s quite easy to point out the specific details: Plant A is the original isoline, Plant A+ is the same isoline with one gene verifiably inserted or knocked out, producing the desired protein to create the exactly desired phenotype.

          Which part of this is questionable?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            First, you are not creating an “exactly desired phenotype.” You’re creating what you get–which is not precisely predictable…………The larger issue–how Genetic Engineering is substantially different than concentional breeding–in conv. breeding, genes from a mother plant are combined with genes from a father plant OF THE SAME SPECIES (via the combination of pollen cells and egg cells.)–All of these genes have been subjected to selective pressures in that organism for millions of years–except that there are natural mutations……………..
            In Genetic Engineering, genes from theoretically any organism are inserted into the DNA of the plant that is being modified. The individual genes have been subjected to selective pressures (in the organisms that they were part of,) but the combination of that gene in that DNA is radically new–it has never been subjected to selective pressures–i.e., it has not demonstrated fitness as an organism.

            A single gene does not affect just one protein, as used to be guessed. A single gene affects the entire DNA, in ways that are not understood………………………………..
            The change that is being effected in Genetic Engineering is different in kind and in degree from the change that is being effected by conventional breeding. Genetic Engineering causes a much more radical change in the DNA of organisms in our food chain–an area of which we understand little. Therefore, it only makes sense to be extremely cautious before making such changes…………… Have you ever heard of the Sorcerer’s Apprentice? Watch your Disney.

  • Aidan Benelle

    Faces behind the GMO labeling offensive = American Consumers

    • JoeFarmer

      Baloney. It’s Jeffrey Smith, Mercola, the Kimbrells, Ronnie Cummins and a few other rogues that have fooled the credulous like you.

      • Aidan Benelle

        All you have to do “JoeFarmer” is view the GMO polling data below from ABC, the New York Times and Consumer Reports to see that your reply is in the very least – laughable

        • JoeFarmer

          Your belief in push polls emphasizes your credulity. Thanks for playing.

          • Aidan Benelle

            Seems like you like to ‘farm’ industry prop, Joe

          • JoeFarmer

            You’re a typical science-averse, ideologically-blinded activist. Others on this thread have already shown you why you’re wrong, yet you persist.

            Of course the obvious counter to your silly claims is how did GMO labeling initiatives fail in California and Washington? I’m sure your answer will be that the big bad Monsanto bought everyone’s vote, right?

            But if that’s true, then Obama must have bought the White House in 2012, since he raised more money than Mitt Romney. Right?

            Enjoy ending up on the wrong side of history. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn you’re an anti-vaxxer, too.

          • Aidan Benelle

            To the contrary ‘Joe” unlike you
            Everything I’ve posted here is Fact and backed up by credible reference unbiased links

          • JoeFarmer

            Show valid scientific evidence that shows GMO labeling is a good idea, genius.

            You can’t.

          • Aidan Benelle

            64 other countries have already come to that conclusion, genius

            However those countries,governments and associated regulatory bodies are not under the influence of the biotechs as in this country.

            But you already knew that ‘Joe’

          • JoeFarmer

            You’re dumber than I thought – you can’t tell the difference between politics and science!

          • Aidan Benelle
          • JoeFarmer

            64 countries with labeling laws not based on science!

            Quit deflecting. Show me one, just one, labeling law based on legitimate science-based concern. You can’t.

            https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/GLP-Science-and-GMOs.pdf

            The Royal Society of Medicine
            (United Kingdom)
            “Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA.”

            The European Commission
            (Belgium)
            “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that
            biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than conventional plant breeding technologies.”

            The Union of German
            Academics of Sciences
            and Humanities
            (Germany)
            “In consuming food derived from GM plants
            approved in the EU and in the USA, the risk is in no way higher than in the consumption of food from conventionally grown plants. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior in respect to health.“

            Ball’s in your court, genius. Let’s see what kind of faith-based argument you can come up with.

          • Aidan Benelle

            Then there’s the reality of GMO’s in Europe~

            Major GM food company Monsanto ‘pulls out of Europe’

            Monsanto, one of the world’s biggest and best known genetically modified crops companies, is effectively- pulling out of Europe, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10186932/Major-GM-food-company-Monsanto-pulls-out-of-Europe.html

            The vast majority of GMO’s in Europe go to animals – not people

          • Who eats those animals Aidan?

          • Aidan Benelle

            Interesting…..

            Rather than addressing the monumental failure of GMO’s in the EU ~ you ask who eats the animals..

          • hyperzombie

            Lift the ban on GMOs and see how this so called monumental failure lasts. Farmers would grow them in a heartbeat.

          • Quite right. Wherever European farmers are allowed to grow GMO crops, they do, without hesitation.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Sure, GMO’s can require less work. That is a good thing. But pretending that there are no scientific studies finding problems with GMO’s is false, and discredits the gung-ho GMOers. As does pretending that GMO’s are nothing different, actually they are just like traditional crop development methods. Mark these words!

          • Did you really just say GMO’s are just like traditional crop development methods?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            No,, I said that saying “GMO’s are just like traditional crop development methods” is false, and discredits the gung-ho GMOers.

          • It’s the fact that genetic engineering is indeed different than traditional crop breeding that makes GMOs innovative.

            How exactly do you define progress in science and technology? By doing the same thing we always did?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            But since GMO’s are deeply different, they should be labeled. In this country, the people are supposed to rule. The people want GMO’s to be labeled–by a large majority. GMO’s ARE fundamentally different. Why won’t you let people choose what they want? By refusing to label, you are setting the hyper-rich owners of the GM industry as the know-it-all, omnipotent rulers–which is truly an ugly thing.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I love progress in science and technology–but, don’t you know, scientists do plenty of garbage, too.

          • The people do indeed rule. And for 20 years they have ruled there is no need to label GMOs, much less ban them.

            I don’t remember the public voting on the microchip, the air bag, nanotechnology, super conductors or disposable diapers. Do you?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The plutocrats rule. You might read, “Who Rules America Today?” by G. William Domhoff.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            During California’s proposition 37 campaign (on GMO labeling), those opposed to labeling spent 45.6 million dollars. Those in favor of labeling spent 8.9 million dollars. Monsanto and Dupont alone spent 13.5 million dollars.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            That is just one example of the plutocracy in action. In general, in the U.S., it rules.

          • Yes, sadly, the politicians we elect are often powerless.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Nanotechnology should be tested. Disposable diapers are a big problem.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The labeling laws, we can change.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The people are duped by massive advertising campaigns.

          • Massive advertising for GMOs?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Massive advertising advocating not labeling GMO’s.

          • If advertising is such an unscrupulous way to sway people to vote, why do organic activists engage in it?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            They live in the real world.

          • Then so do GMO corporations.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The system is bad. We have many rich idiots, who get to plaster the media.

          • Would you rather have no media? Like China?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            We have got to do something so that stupid super-wealthy people do not bathe us in an endless stream of small-minded non-sense. What, I do not know. America is hugely in the hands of wealth, not humanity. If people, rich and poor alike, started to behave morally, we would see vast improvement.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I’d rather have no violent, dehumanizing imperialism–which China mostly avoids. At least it is nothing like the imperialist that the U.S.A. is. (Even Canada is much worse, in this matter, than China.)

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            As for media, why did they sell (sell out) the public airwaves to private interests? It is very sad–the rule of money.

          • Interesting… you believe there’s something wrong with a form of science that’s used to develop new varieties of crops… crops that have been fed to livestock in Europe for 2 decades without a single health consequence to the animals or to the Europeans who eat those animals.
            What would persuade you GMOs are safe Aidan? Anything?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Utterly unjustified statement–“without a single health consequence to the animals or to the Europeans who eat those animals.” Epidemiological studies have not been done.

          • First Officer

            Failing to the tune of millions of imported metric tons a year. Anti-gmo laws in the EU has led to pigs getting healthier corn than the Italian people!

            https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/09/24/the-italian-job-farmers-facing-insect-infestation-pay-dearly-for-europes-anti-gm-stance/

          • JoeFarmer

            You’re dumbassery is at least consistent:

            “Some recent reports are suggesting—again!—that Monsanto is withdrawing
            from business activities in Europe. The opposite is true. We’re actually
            expanding our operations in the conventional seed business in Europe,
            and will continue to sell Europe’s only successful commercial biotech
            crop, our MON810 corn, to farmers in several European countries. But
            we’ll no longer be pursuing approvals for cultivation of new
            biotech crops in Europe. Instead, we’ll focus on enabling imports of
            biotech crops into the EU and expanding our current business,
            particularly in Eastern Europe.”

            http://monsantoblog.com/2013/07/18/monsantos-business-in-europe/

          • Aidan Benelle

            Read your own post again. Its right before your eyes:

            “We’re actually expanding our operations in the conventional seed business in Europe”

            Since when is conventional seed a GMO product? Monsanto’s GMO’s failed miserably in the EU and that is exactly why they are RETREATING back to the CONVENTIONAL SEED MARKET

          • JoeFarmer

            Your stupidity never ceases to amaze!

            The EU hasn’t approved a GM corn hybrid for cultivation since the 1998. You can’t call GMOs a failure because the goverment hasn’t approved it!

          • Warren Lauzon

            I think Europe just very recently approved a 2nd GMO corn strain, but cannot find the news story on it.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            “The EU hasn’t approved a GM corn hybrid for cultivation since the 1998.” This is, I believe, Aidans point–though the European Union has not found evidence of harm caused by GEO’s (according to the study linked to by J.F.), they are not stuffing them down people’s throats, as is being done in this country. Not at all stupid. Good point! Guess what–arguments go better when people avoid personal animus.

          • Aidan Benelle

            GMO cultivation bans in Europe

            Austria: Ban on cultivation of Monsanto’s maize MON 810, MON 863 and T25
            Notified in June 1999, initially under Article 16 of Directive 90/220/EEC, and subsequently maintained in February 2004 under Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC;

            France: Ban on cultivation of Monsanto’s maize MON 810.
            Notified in February 2008, under Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC; and under EU Regulation 1829/2003

            Germany: in April 2009 the agriculture Minister, Ms. Aigner, announced a ban on cultivation and sale of MON 810

            Greece: Ban on cultivation of Monsanto’s maize MON 810.
            Application lodged in April 2005 under Article 18 of Directive 2002/53/EC, and subsequently in January 2006 extended/maintained the measure under Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC;

            Hungary: Ban on cultivation of Monsanto’s maize MON 810.
            Notified in September 2006, under Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC;
            Ban on cultivation and commercial use of potato Amflora
            Notified in June 2010

            Italy: (Updated in Aug 2014)
            General ban on cultivation of GE corn MON810
            Notified by inter-ministerial decree (Health-Environment-Agriculture Ministers) entered into force in August 2013. This ban will stay in place till will be taken – at European level -steps connected to art. 54, comma 3 regulament 178/2002 (CE) and anyway not more than 18 months.

            Luxembourg : Ban on cultivation of Monsanto’s maize MON 810.
            Notified in March 2009, under Directive 2001/18/EC

            Ban on cultivation and commercial use of potato Amflora
            Notified in June 2010

            Poland: (Updated in July 2014)
            Ban on cultivation of Monsanto’s maize MON 810.
            Application lodged in January 2013 under Article 16 of Directive 2002/53/EC (The EU’s Seeds Directive). The ban under the Seeds Directive affects all MON 810 varieties.
            Ban on cultivation of BASF’s potato Amflora. Application lodged in January 2013 under Article 16 of Directive 2002/53/EC (The EU’s Seeds Directive).

            Romania: Ban on cultivation of MON 810 maize announced by Environment minister Korodi on 27 March 2008.
            The Romanian government has indicated that it intends to install the ban on the same legal grounds as France: under Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC; and under EU Regulation 1829/2003. Enactment of the ban is expected in April 2008.

            Switzerland: (Updated in July 2014)
            In 2005, the Swiss voted by referendum a 5-year moratorium against the commercial cultivation of GM crops and animals. The Swiss government decided to extend this moratorium till 2013.
            In 2012 the Swiss Parliament voted for a second extention of the moratorium until December 2017.

          • Jason

            Your whole argument seems to be “Well, they’re doing it, so why aren’t we?” My mom had taught me that wasn’t a good argument by the time I was 10.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            No–the point is that labeling conveys important information that people have a right to know–and that the large majority of people want labeling.

          • Jason

            Why don’t you go find a copy of the law that gives you this “right to know”?

            Don’t forget… It’s not your food. It’s somebody else’s food. It’s you that makes the concious decision to buy somebody else’s food or produce your own. If you don’t like the way they market their product (their label), don’t buymit. What makes you think you have the right to know everything that goes into somebody else’s product?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            You are envisioning/creating such a positive society–where the people have no right to know anything or decide anything for themselves. The plutocrats and dictators love you.

          • Jason

            Awww… Playing the helpless victim card. Take a little responsibility for your actions. If you don’t like a products labeling practices, don’t buy it. But don’t stamp your feet and cry unfair just because they don’t do thing the way you think they should.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Your comment is wild. I live in this country–I am advocating that this country change its labeling practices. I believe in government for and by the people. You know, it is required that the octane of gasoline, and its ethanol content, be labeled. Because of health effects? Hardly.

          • Jason

            And your comment is all over the place and mostly irrelevant.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Ever hear of democracy?

          • Jason

            We don’t live in a democracy. We live in a representative republic. Ever hear of middle school?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Middle school is good. But don’t stop there! We live in a plutocracy. However, democracy–representative democracy–is a far superior aspiration.

          • Jason

            I’d suggest a refresher course in social studies.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Jason, I’m going to try to talk about important stuff, and ignore meaningless compost.

          • Jason

            I suppose it doesn’t hurt to try. Good luck.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Social Studies courses are taught by people who do not usually make much of American plutocracy. If they did, they would lose their jobs.

          • Jason

            Well…. At least they know how our government is organized.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            You do not think this country says that it is a representative democracy?

          • Jason

            Democracy:
            a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority.
            b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.
            Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. (Sound familiar?)

            Republic
            a: a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government.
            b: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.

            Which of these describes our system of govt better?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The American republic is synonymous with representative democracy, the political system through which citizens govern themselves. Representative democracy is democratic in that the people have the power to choose those who govern; it is representative in that the people themselves do not govern but leave governance to the agents they elect. The engines of representative democracy are Congress at the national level and legislatures at the state level, with the executive and judicial branches playing important supporting roles.
            Above from
            Republic On Trial: the Case For Representative Democracy
            by Alan Rosenthal, Burdett a Loomis, John R Hibbing, Karl T Kurtz

          • Jason

            Your quote describes, perfectly, a representative republic. Sounds like the authors need a refresher too.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The American people’s understanding of their government is so deeply rooted in the word “democracy” that I have to wonder where you come from, and where you are??

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Or maybe it is just Republican wisdom.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I believe America is entitled to rule by and for the people, rather than rule by and for money, oligarchy, the rich, or any self-chosen “elite” who ram through their opinions and desires with violence or its threat. However, you are right. We are ruled by stupid wealth and ugly power. Sadly.

          • Jason

            Misconceptions often are deeply rooted. Doesn’t make them any more true. And, I’m in Indiana.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Yes. And, just as true, it describes a reprasentative democracy.

          • Jason

            If you say so.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The –Republic– section of your comment says nothing about the people (not just some select group) voting. The democracy section does count representative democracy as Democracy. I’m sorry Jason, but your comments here make little sense.

          • Jason

            Please reread… “b: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers….”

            Your arguing a dead point. You know what our syste, of government is so now your argument is “yah, but it’s the same thing”. No…it’s not. But nice try.

            Good day.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            You are entitled to your opinion.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Democracy–government by and for the people.

          • Jason

            Except we don’t live in a democracy. We live in a representative republic.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Go ahead–Deny the existence of scientific studies showing problems. Brilliant!

          • JoeFarmer

            Name the scientific studies showing problems, professor!

            Oh wait, there aren’t any…

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods, ARTEMIS DONA1 and IOANNIS S. ARVANITOYANNIS2;

            see: The So-Called Scientific Consensus: Why the debate on GMO safety is not over–Food And Water Watch, September, 2014;

            Seralini, et al.——-Arpad Pusztai———- Genetic engineering of crops as potential source of genetic hazard in the human diet Review Article——— A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health———The Goodman affair: Monsanto targets the heart of science.———The Very Real Danger of Genetically Modified Foods.———Detection of Glyphosate in Malformed Piglets.———Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and occupational exposure to agricultural pesticide chemical groups and active ingredients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.———Answers to critics: Why there is a long term toxicity due to a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize and to a Roundup herbicide———Exposing Monsanto: Herbicide linked to Birth Defects-The Vitamin A connection.———Mete-analysis connects glyphosate with non-Hedgkin lymphona———Don’t Look, Don’t Find: Health Hazards of Genetically Modified Food

          • JoeFarmer

            Quit using activist sites for “information”. You’re just wasting time and electricity.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            It is you who are discounting many scientific studies! At least be honest, and say,”There are no scientific studies that are good scientific studies, or that I approve of, showing problems with GMO’s.” Because, each and every time that you or anyone else makes that claim in a blanket way, you are just telling an untruth, or lying.

          • JoeFarmer

            I know how to read scientific studies. Let’s take a look at your honeybee reference.

            The authors say: “Therefore, we speculate that successful forager bees could become a source of constant inflow of nectar with GLY traces that could then be distributed among nest mates, stored in the hive and have long term negative consequences on colony performance.”

            But glyphosate use on farms doesn’t happen anywhere near the time that crops like corn or soybeans are producing pollen. So their speculation is pretty much useless.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Several studies have found Glyphosate persisting in the environment about a year.
            (See Health and environmental impacts of glyphosate: The implications of increased use of glyphosate in association with genetically modified crops July 2001 by the Pesticide Action Network UK.
            So their speculation is not useless.

          • JoeFarmer

            PAN, or Pesticide Panic Network is a really poor source. Try using data from Ag universities, not activists with an agenda to peddle.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Face it, there are many scientific stidies finding problems with the GMO’s that are being used. You can deny the Earth is sperical!

          • JoeFarmer

            Nothing with any scientific validity.

            Sorry, but you’re on the wrong side of science.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            OK, you say that–there are no scientific studies that have any scientific validity that show a problem with GMO’s. That, at least, can honestly be proposed. However, you nor anyone that I am aware of has made a legitimate attempt to demonstrate it.

          • JoeFarmer

            Show some evidence or quit wasting my time.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I just above cited about 30 studies. Stop ignoring evidence! You waste my time!

          • JoeFarmer

            GFY.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Curse at those you argue with. Good show!

          • JoeFarmer

            DIAF

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Joe Farmer, I have nothing more to say to you. Have a good life.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I am sure that there are people claiming that all of those studies that find problems are bogus. Would someone direct me to these papers?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            And who funds Ag universities? I’ll bet the dollars spent in Ag universities by the G.E. industry is not exactly small change. And what are they buying? Research!

          • JoeFarmer

            Look up university funding, genius.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            If you want to think that the G.E. industry is not hugly influential in the ag. universities, that is your right.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Yea! We don’t want any studies from concerned people! We just want studies from the G.E. industry, or rich rich people!

          • JoeFarmer

            There’s plenty of independent research

            A Decade of EU-Funded GMO Research:
            http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf

            There’s plenty more.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            These studies were made in a context where GMO labeling IS required, and where there is extensive understanding of the need for careful, on-going, and in-depth research into the effects that GMO’s have on all parts of the biosphere.

          • JoeFarmer

            In other words, you have no idea what you’re talking about, but felt compelled to respond.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I have just read the document, “A decade of EU-funded GMO research, 2001-2010.” Now there we have some responsible study of this issue. It puts to SHAME the notion, promulgated by only one government on Earth–the U.S. Government–though I’ll bet a billion it was conceived by the GM industry–that GMO crops are “substantially equivalent” to conventional crops, and hence need no individual testing. The study finds no evidence of harm caused by GMO’s, but it does this in a context where rigorous scientific studies of the impact of GMO’s on various aspects of the environment are ongoing, and the labelling of Genetically Modified Organisms IS required (As it is in most of the world.) Were America to adopt an approach much much closer to the European approach, it would be a massive step forward for this hyper-rich (but only partly–the ruling part), undemocratic, plutocratic, extremely selfish, very bloody bully of a country. And that is what I would like. You see, I do not have a problem with GM technology, if it is properly implemented. I have a big problem with it being shoved down the consumer’s throat, in a way calculated to corral big bucks for extremely wealthy, extremely selfish people. Which is what is happening. NOTE: I definitely am not saying that all people who are big supporters of today’s GM technology are either rich or selfish–the majority of them are probably neither rich nor selfish. But people should become aware of the many class issues closely tied to GMO’s, and to U.S. Government policy in general–because of these, we tend to be ignorant. The U.S. government is, in truth, a POX to many of the poor people of this world–and in so being, it is a pox upon our own spiritual health. This is, needless to say, not scientific, and it is very controversial. But it is true, and important. Please study this issue!

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            What do you mean, there aren’t any?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Government is not based in science. It is based on the rights of individual men and collections of men.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Most proper human concerns are not science based.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            See–“The So-Called Scientific Consensus: Why the Debate on GM Safety Is Not Over–Food and Water Watch, September 2014. At-
            http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/gmo_consensus.pdf#_ga=1.254957451.2055885081.1410846832

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Scientific sense is not the only, or even primary, good sense.

          • First Officer

            And 132 don’t.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            “Currently, 64 countries around the world require labeling of genetically engineered foods. Unlike most other developed countries – such as 15 nations in the European Union, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Russia and even China – the U.S. has no laws requiring labeling of genetically engineered foods.”–Justlabelit.org Those 64 countries represent about ½ of the world’s population.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The E.U. labels all GMO’s.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The idea is insane.

          • Warren Lauzon

            Yet you never actually post any of those “unbiased links”.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The wrong side of history is being ecologically ignorant–a tradition that continues “proudly.”

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I’d say the big bucks are doing the pushing.

          • JoeFarmer

            Sounds like you don’t know what a push poll is.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            You call all those polls showing the public’s desire for GMO labeling “push polls?” Fantasia.

        • Warren Lauzon

          Polling such as that means very little. If you read the original question as posed by CU it is pretty much designed to only have one answer. Apparently CU has pulled the text of the poll, as it is no longer on their website.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            “Polling such as that means very little.” Refuse. 25 polls+.

          • Warren Lauzon

            97% of Americans want world peace.
            68% of Americans favor bombing ISIS.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Sire, there are polls that are of questionable significance. The polls on people’s desire that GMO’s be labeled are very clear.

      • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

        I’m not to credulous.

    • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

      Truth.

  • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

    There can be no such thing as “finding that GMO’s are safe.” The only thing that could ever possibly be done is to find that “this, particular, genetically modified organism is safe.” That is all that can reasonably be forseen. Each and every genetically modified organism is going to require extensive, long term study of its safety.——-

    • Then you must apply the same burden of proof to all new forms of technology. Do you?

      • Jim Young

        I want reasonably informed choice (Labeling), and protection from the monopolistic, mono-culture, pushing, producers that not only contaminate everyone else’s land, but have the gall (and corrupt legal system) to actually sue the people who’s land they contaminate.

        If you can’t limit your products and processes to those willing to experiment with just their own lives, then I will oppose anything but the most rigorously regulated GMO use possible.

        Your claims of proven safe ring hollow to me when the term “Generally Recognized As Safe” (GRAS) is the actual term used to describe the less rigorous testing allowed now.

        The harder you fight labeling, the harder I will fight for more limited GMO.

        • Jim, Please provide even ONE example of a farmer who was sued after inadvertent cross pollination. (Hint: there are zero examples)

          • Oh darn. You gave it away Jon. You’re supposed to encourage organic activists to try finding an example of a farmer who sued his neighbor for “contaminating” his crop with GMOs, and then, when they come up empty, you say, “See?”

          • First Officer

            Yes. Not even Marsh vs Baxter is a case of cross pollination.

          • What was most amazing about that case was that Marsh the organic farmer actually tried to claim that a GMO oilseed crop (canola) had contaminated his organic cereal crop (wheat). Truly the height of agronomic absurdity.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            In supposedly non-GMO crops imported into Europe, there was much contamination found.

          • But there is no such thing as contamination by GMOs, except in a political sense, a political sense created out of thin air.
            Those crops were perfectly safe, as safe in fact as all the 100% GMO crops that Europe routinely imports from America to feed all its livestock due to their crop failures since they don’t use GMOs.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Go ahead, say there is no contamination! It makes no sense, but you can say it!

          • Sure I can say it. Show me a single example where contamination of an organic crop has been proven. Just one.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Over-reliance on evidence is not justified.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Use your mind.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            What sense does it make to sue over contamination, thus losing your reputation as a grower of organic produce?

        • The majority of GMOs are non-proprietary and do not require the use of any pesticides. They could be grown under organic management, except for the fact that urban organic activists made it impossible for them to be certified as organic.

          It is not reasonable to put a warning label on something that has never caused any harm in 30 years. Labelling is evidenced based, not based on popularity.

          Nice tux by the way Jim.

          • Aidan Benelle

            Doctor OZ is addressing the Chemical Industry, GMO’s and the effects of ‘their associated herbicides’ this coming Monday Sept. 22

            I think you (Micha) and Jon Entine should tune in.

          • So, in essence, you see GMOs as being synonymous with increased pesticide use even though the opposite is the case?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Massively increased use of herbicide–especially Roundup.

          • So what? Overall pesticide use is way down per-acre and per-bushel.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Not if you count the tons of pesticide “ingrown.”

          • If you want to weigh the Bt that’s spliced into GMO-Bt crops, it’s in the 10,000th of an once per acre.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I doubt it.

          • Stop and think Mike. How much do you think all of the DNA in your body weighs?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The DNA to produce in-the-plant Bt expresses itseld, producing how much ITP BT?

          • You’re not answering the question.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            It is not the weight of the DNA that is important, but the weight of the In-The-Plant BT that is of importance.

          • Correct. And the weight of Bt in a GMO corn crop is minuscule compared to the weight of Bt an organic farmer applies to his fields.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            And it is all internal, unbroken down when consumed.

          • It makes no difference because Bt has no effect on us.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Perhaps not.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I doubt this. I believe Bt is produced by every cell in the GMO plants.

          • I like you Mike. You’re honest. You said “I believe” whereas most people in your position just say “it is so!”

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Organic is much lower.

          • Warren Lauzon

            I have seen enough of the Oz episodes to convince me that I would never seek medical treatment from him.

          • First Officer

            “…addressing the Chemical Industry…”

            Helloooo, Chemical Industry !

            (Couldn’t resist !)

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Whether or not GMO’s have harmed human health is, at this time, unknown. Epidemiological studies have no been done.

          • 20 years? 30 years? When’s enough?

        • Aidan Benelle

          Jim, FYI
          Dr Oz takes on Chemical Industry Mon 9/22

          “New GMO Pesticide Doctors Are Warning Against

          A brand-new GMO pesticide is about to hit the market and the health of your brain could be in trouble. Dr. Oz needs your help to stop it before it’s too late.

          This show will challenge the food industry, the chemical industry and the President.”

          • hyperzombie

            A brand-new GMO pesticide

            There is no such thing, what exactly would be a GMO pesticide? Was the chemical produced by a GMO? I dont get it.

          • Warren Lauzon

            Oh yeah, I would for sure trust doc Oz as a reliable unbiased source…

        • First Officer

          There are fundamentalists who actually want to know if the products they are buying are made by those of the same religion as themselves. That doesn’t mean they get to force everyone else to label everything in sight for them.

    • Warren Lauzon

      It is pretty much impossible to that anything is 100% safe. The burden is you to prove they are NOT safe, and so far you have not even come close.

      • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

        Many studies have found big problems.

    • First Officer

      Yes. The criteria is that the GMO must be as least as safe as it’s counterpart. It was quickly found out that most foods would fail the safety demands that anti-gmoer’s demand of GMO’s.

      • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

        GEO’s must be safe for the entire ecosphere, not just human beings, and not just farm animals.

        • First Officer

          Of course now the goal post is moved to an impossible to verify for any substance, material or organism position, including all organic farming approved strains.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Pepperoni.

  • Warren Lauzon

    One of the most dangerous foods on the planet is peanuts, which is only 99.4% safe for human consumption. Why not ban peanuts?

    • NoToGMOs

      They are being banned in a lot of places like schools and airplanes due to the high risk of anaphylaxis to peanuts that an unprecedented number of people are developing since the introduction of your frankenfoods 18 years ago.

      • There are no GMO nuts.

        • First Officer

          But there are anti-gmo nuts! 🙂

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            However, the gung-ho GMOers have their own varieties of scientific arrogance and denial.

      • First Officer

        Do you have any links to data that indicates this unprecedented rise in peanut allergies?

      • Warren Lauzon

        That is ludicrous. Peanuts have never been a subject for GMO’s, yet peanuts are now more dangerous because of GMO’s? And peanut products are only banned in a small number of schools, and the last airplane trip I took I had a choice of peanuts or raisins.

  • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

    “Monsanto will tell you that nobody has been sick or died after eating GM food. Remember that nobody apparently gets ill from smoking a pack of cigarettes either. It takes time for the effects to add up. We need to wake up and realize that the stakes are extremely high here and that our entire food system is at stake.” from daybreakmill.com, Meet Frank N. Foode

    • How long do we have to wait for the effects to “add up”?

      • First Officer

        Did they set a date?

        • I think organic activists would be happy with a half-century.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Ever hear of the Sorceror’s Apprentice? He jumped the gun–and so are you.

          • Tell me Mike. What other technologies should we put on the back burner while we wait a half-century to make sure they’re “safe”?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Few cut as deep.

          • True… we all have to eat… right? As such, farming is something every nation on earth participates in, otherwise its citizens will starve. Farming is vital, and hence, as you say, it cuts deep.

            But, hang on… if farming is so vital to human survival, then surely it warrants our best minds and our best technologies to advance it. No? I mean, you would never suggest, for instance, that old fashion medicine was better than modern medicine, would you?

            Here’s an idea… not everyone owns a cell phone, and not everyone needs one. So why not go after “nice-to-have” advanced cell-phone technology instead of “must-have” food-production technology?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I just don’t understand, if you are so sure today’s GM technology is an advance, why you won’t proudly label GMO’s. You are stuffing GMO’s down peoples throats! Some of you argue that there is no substantial difference between GEO’s and organisms modified by tradfitional techniques–at least, not in the product obtained–but that is just blind. Do traditional techniques put genes from any organism, no matter how naturally distant, into the DNA of our food? They do not. Does this constitute an in any way important difference? On this question, the science is not clear. So, people must be free to make their own choices. O yea rich–you think that you own the world, and the people in it.

          • We don’t label any other form of crop breeding. Why would we label this one? Just because it’s the most advanced one yet? Just because it does things we’ve never done before?

            All forms of innovation involve doing something we’ve never done before. If we started labelling these things with warning labels, innovation would cease.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I do not see how people insist on failing to acknowledge the vast difference between Genetic engineering and other crop breeding. If you acknowledge what is perfectly plain, that there is a huge difference, you would make a big leap forward in your honesty. Some of you think it is sad, ignorent people standing in the way of progress. I think it is sad, brilliant (in some respects) people insisting on denying obvious reality.

          • Of course I acknowledge that genetic engineering is a huge leap forward. Where did I ever say otherwise?

          • Where did you learn American-English? I suggest more in-depth studies.

          • The questions is why do you assume that a huge leap forward is necessarily a bad thing?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Is it a huge leap forward, having people who have a rudimentary understanding of plant biology, ecology, evolution, human psychology, human governance, human interaction, morality, ethics, spirituality–in a word, nature—is it a huge leap forward, having people who have a rudimentary understanding of nature directly and personally putting there hands on the genetic evolution of the planet? It seems to me that the virtue of that development is highly questionable. I do not think that people have developed the requisite wisdom to make such deep changes in a good way. I think that humanity would much better work on low-tech, high-spirituality solutions to the many extremely difficult problems facing us as a species.

          • The same could be said for all technological developments Michael. As Lord Northbourne responded when asked if there was sufficient proof that organic farming was viable: sometimes the demand for absolute proof is just an excuse for doing nothing.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            This (genetic engineering) is a unique technological development–with vast reach and depth. It has vast potential to help us–and vast, even larger, potential to hurt us (at least in the short term). People almost utterly fail to appreciate, or work with, the complexity, harmony, and beauty of nature–which we have got to do.

          • Jon Entine

            “harmony” of nature…you mean like hurricanes, earthquakes, poisonings from natural volcanic eruptions, plagues from mass diseases, killer bacteria released by farming with dung, meteor hits, killer storms in winter and storm…that can of harmony and beauty. You are so woo woo it’s scary.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            There is plenty of disharmony in nature–lots. It would be hard to not see that. And there is harmony–deep. It is most unfortunate to not see that. —-Genetic Engineering–does it have vast potential to hurt us? Well, it is far from precise. It is getting more precise. If people remain hyper-vigilent, it probably won’t cause great harm. But the potential is there. If/when people lose their hyper-vigilence, and become just routinely vigilent, problems are more likely to develop. G.E. involves making changes in not fully understood realms–very potent realms. The biggest problem may be those people who think they understand it fully, but actually don’t, and those people who think they are making precise changes, when actually they aren’t.
            Woo woo you.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            People are ALREADY showing great lack of carefullness, in approving crops engineered to be tolerent of 2,4-D–a very toxic chemical.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            There is ample motivation to be concerned about spiritual things, and they are not scientific–but they are real, important, of the essence–and any scientists who do not see this are not well rooted.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            In fact, people have already shown lack of adequate vigilence in creating GMO’s that hugely increase the use of roundup and 2,4-D, two very toxic chemicals.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Farmers fertilizing with MANURE is an ancient practice.

          • Yeah… this whole idea of working with the complexity and beauty of nature is just a bunch of hot air Michael. Don’t fall for it my friend.

            All farming is completely UN-natural. The farmers job – whether he’s conventional or organic – is to BEAT nature at her own game.

            Nature doesn’t feed you. Farmers do. And they do aso in spite of nature.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            If you don’t work with nature, you will make a hell of a mess. If you do not see harmony in nature, you miss the most valuable, and instructive, and guiding stuff that there is. Here we have a strong reason to be very suspicious of genetic engineering–many of its advocates are totally out of touch with the harmony of nature. Of course many can not see this, and think that I am lost in the sauce, or ether, or something (uneducated–closed-minded–anti-science, etc.) I strongly urge all such people to consider closely the harmony of nature, and try try to work with it. Then, you may do some good work.

          • Harmony in nature… yeesh. Try running a farm sometime Mike.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I ‘m not saying that living is easy or always pleasant–I’m saying that harmony is fundamental to life.

          • Harmony is certainly a sound philosophy. But farming occurs in spite of nature. Not in harmony with it.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            That is a poor, poor approach.

          • That just proves you don’t farm my friend.

            There is one major way farmers farm in “harmony” with nature: it is by observing the seasons.

            Beyond that, there is very little that farmers do – even organic farmers – to be in “harmony.”

            Farmers work against nature, and thankfully so. That’s life.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Plants and animals grow and reproduce–that’s nature. The soil builds its fertility naturally–until it is abused. The sun shines–naturally. The rains fall–naturally. The seasons cycle–naturally, Without nature’s harmony, none of us would live one second.

          • And it’s the farmer’s job to take this “harmony” and turn it to the production of food, something nature would not, and does not, bother to do on Her own to any appreciable degree.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Nature made food for people for millions of years before farming… If you are not interested in working with nature, please please have nothing to do with getting my food to me. I want no food from people who are unaware of the need to work with nature.

          • Only in very rare circumstances does nature provide food. Hunting and gathering fed us, but only barely so, and the first farmers worked against nature as much as with nature.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            If you don’t recognize your dependence on nature, that is a sad thing. Did you cause yourself to be alive? Originally, you as an individual had nothing to do with it. Nature, i.e. the universe, did it all.

          • Yes, we are indeed part of nature Mike. But nature does not feed or clothe us.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            If you want to spread toxins around the earth, thinking that you have to do that in order to have food, you are sadly deluded, and you have no right to poisin the earth we all have as our home. Please become a little bit smarter about your farming!!!!! And stop poisining my home!

          • Go drink some Glyphosate,, aka Roundup you Monsanto troll.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            There are also very many poor people who are duped–about justice, goodness, kindness, compassion, government, their own government, morality, science, religion, truth, violence, and etc.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Of course, one could argue that that difference–putting genes from other organisms into our food–is, in itself and by itself, legitimate reason the GEO’s should be labeled. This being a unique case, that is an entirely legitimate argument.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I did not mean that farming cuts deep. I met that G.M. tech cuts deep. It introduces, for the first time in human history, people changing the DNA of organisms by putting genes from biologically distant organisms into that DNA. That is a huge step, because DNA molecules are the most potent molecules we know of.

            But do people have the wisdom to make that step carefully?

            It is clear that we do not.

          • If G.M. technology didn’t cut deep, it would be a failure.
            All new technologies cut deep, or no one would adopt them.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Cuts deep in not understood areas. For eample, people are basically irnorant about how to safely use chemicals. Now, with GMO’s, you are going to massively increase the use and spread of toxic chemicals that, someday, people will come to real,ize that it was crazy to ever spread around the biosphere.

          • People are ignorant about a lot of things. That’s why we have experts, scientists, tradespeople, journeymen and farmers.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Scientists are like tots, playing in the sandbox–and are often just as shortsighted.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            And all those catagories make plenty of mistakes.

          • Humans are fallible. You’re surprised?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            No. So we should be careful.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            No. But we have to be careful, regardless of what so-called experts or others say.

          • Mischa–long time no hear. Did I say something that bothered you? Sorry. Don’t take it personally. The discussion has gone on nicely.

          • Indeed it has Michael.
            Thesis versus antithesis yields a synthesis.

          • Isn’t that a Hegelian Dialectic? I’m just going on memory. From High School.

          • Yes. Hegel was cribbed by Marx.
            Unfettered debate is the only way forward.

          • It is good.

          • Indeed it is my friend.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I never suggested we wait half-a-century. Let people decide how long they want to wait–rather than taking it from some supposed authority.

    • hyperzombie

      Remember that nobody apparently gets ill from smoking a pack of cigarettes either.

      Ummmm, if anyone sat down and smoked a whole pack of cigs at once they would definitely get very ill.

  • Aidan Benelle

    Demand the President step in & oppose EPA’s approval of the New 2,4-D resistant Genetically Engineered Crops!

    Communities living downwind of fields and thousands of schools within 200 feet of corn and soybean fields are at risk of inhaling the new “Enlist Duo” herbicide. Exposure to the chemical 2,4-D is linked to an increased risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, thyroid & reproductive problems, Parkinson’s disease and neurological damage. Do not allow the EPA to approve this highly toxic herbicide mix.

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/demand-president-step-oppose-epa%E2%80%99s-approval-new-24-d-resistant-genetically-engineered-crops/sy38Vm0s

    • hyperzombie

      2-4-D has been approved for over 60 years now, This is not new.

      • Aidan Benelle

        Dow’s product “Enlist Duo” contains the combined strength of 2,4-D and Glyphosate a mixture has
        NOT been used for 60 years.

        • hyperzombie

          Sorry, Glyphosate has only been around since 1974, so that makes it only 40 years.
          Happy now?

        • JoeFarmer

          Duh, glyphosate came on the market in 1975.

          It is common to tank mix glyphosate and 2,4-D for spring burndown of weeds. This is not a new combination of herbicides, just a change in the timing of application.

        • What you fail to grasp Aidan is the fact that innovation only occurs when we try something we’ve never done before.

          • Aidan Benelle

            If you think combining one chemical created in 1941 (2,4-D) with another chemical created in (1970) “innovation” –

            You hold the innovative ‘bar’ really low for the future of American agriculture and that is exactly the mindset I disagree with.

          • Wow, you’re evidently completely ignorant of how science works Aidan.

            Thomas Edison and Nicolai Tesla both worked on a form of technology that was centuries old by their day. It’s called electricity.

            Then, when their versions of this technology were almost another century old, along came Bill Gates and Steve Jobs who invented the home computer.

            See how this works?

          • JoeFarmer

            Considering you know exactly zero about agriculture, you have no business talking about setting the bar.

    • Warren Lauzon

      Well, you managed to get more signatures than the one to build a Death Star, but not by much.

    • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

      According to the Center for Disease Control—Occupational Health Guideline for 2,4-D—2,4-D causes, in animals, liver damage, kidney damage, cardio-vascular effects, skin diseases, convulsive disorders, and neuropathy.

      • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

        In other words, because of wild G.E. technology, our planet is going to experience massively increased exposure to a highly toxic chemical. Don’t you people see how crazy it is to cause that? You bring death, not life. Enjoy the profits–and the bogus “scientific” justification for what you do.

        • hyperzombie

          because of wild G.E. technology, our planet is going to experience massively increased exposure to a highly toxic chemical.

          2-4-D is the number 2 herbicide in the world right now, and after this new approval, it will still be the number 2 herbicide.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Highly toxic to living things.

          • hyperzombie

            LOL, really, so toxic it doesnt kill your lawn.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            See the CDC on 2,4-D.

          • hyperzombie

            see the one on caffeine and alcohol, way more dangerous.

            http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/cab.htm

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Don’t be ignorant about toxic chemicals–they wreak untold damage and destruction.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Alcohol, I scarcely touch.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            It is toxic to dicots, not monocots.

          • hyperzombie

            Untrue, time to brush up on what 2-4-D kills and doesnt kill.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            “It ((2,4-D)) was the first “selective” herbicide, meaning that it suppressed “dicots” (plants with two seed leaves, also known as broadleaf plants) while leaving “monocots” alone (plants with one seed leaf or thin leaves).” from
            http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe70s/pests_04.html

          • hyperzombie

            Well just like life it is more complicated than kills broadleaf and does not affect monocots. There are plenty of dicots that are resistant and many monocots that are killed by 2-4-d, like wild garlic and many others.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            We’re discussing this because of your comment, “so toxic it doesnt kill your lawn.” That is because your lawn is a grass.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            It’s use will be massively increased, due to GMO’s.

      • hyperzombie

        Wow, sounds so scary….

        Here is one for caffine

        http://quantum.esu.edu/~scady/MSDS/caffeine.pdf

        Even more dangerous., yet you most likely drink it everyday….

        Want me to send you one for soap?????

        It has some scary effects as well,, and OMG it is in toothpaste…..

        • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

          You don’t believe in toxic chemicals?

          • hyperzombie

            Every chemical is toxic if you expose yourself to enough…. Even the toxic chemical, H2O.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Some chemicals are toxic at 10 PPB. I wouldn’t worry about caffeine-which I rarely drink.

          • hyperzombie

            Yep, like Ricin, botulinum, snake venom, all natural toxins.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Yea–and PCBs, DDT, tetra-ethyl lead, lindane, heptachlor, carbofuran, daminozide, aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, endrin, vinyl chloride, dioxin, VX, 2,4,5-T, neonicotinoids, 2,4-D, aldicarb, all made and spread around the world by short-sighted, chemically and ecologically ignorant people.

          • hyperzombie

            LOL, all the toxins that you listed are far less toxic than the natural ones that I listed, come on you can do better… Plutonium, or cesium?
            Radioactive Cobalt?
            ,

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            They are less toxic for a given amount, but because short-sighted people in their pursuit of selfish profit have spread them in our food, water, air, soil, and bodies, they impact people much more.

          • hyperzombie

            Well with the exception of Dioxin, all your man made chemicals are not as toxic as mine. You could have done better if you listed plutonium, cesium

  • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

    “Currently, 64 countries around the world require labeling of genetically engineered foods. Unlike most other developed countries – such as 15 nations in the European Union, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Russia and even China – the U.S. has no laws requiring labeling of genetically engineered foods.”–Justlabelit.org Those 64 countries represent about ½ of the world’s population.

    • hyperzombie

      Those 64 countries represent about ½ of the world’s population.

      So they have at least 1/2 of the crazy people,,,,,

      • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

        There are other very important factors besides just the science about the “substantial equivalence” of specific G.E. crops.–which anyone who wants to can deny.

        • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

          This comment is not primarily directed at hyperzombie. It is ditected to all that club of people at G.L.P. who habitually sling phooey.

  • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

    See–“The So-Called Scientific Consensus: Why the Debate on GM Safety Is Not Over–Food and Water Watch, September 2014.

    • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

      This article is very important!! Do not let yourself be buried by a mountain of propaganda!

      • Canadian_Skeptic

        And you say this as you point to more propaganda.

        Do you know what irony is?

        • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

          That is an extensively researched, referenced, to the point, and illuminating article. Why do you call it propaganda?

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Look at the graphic on the very first page. What kind of serious science articles need to use ominous imagery (i.e. black skies) to convey a message?

            Then there’s also review papers like this one:
            http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07388551.2013.823595

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            An excellent article with strong points you dismiss because it is printed with some images? Doesn’t make much sense. I’s so glad they don’t stoop so low as to use images in, say, Scientific American.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Many truths can only be found scientifically. But many truths can not possibly (or practically) be found scientifically–we have to use good sense.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Go ahead! Where is your reply to this?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Quote from the abstract of that paper–“trying to catch the scientific consensus that has matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide.”That is an opinion or a propaganda point, not a scientific statement.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            That’s a statement of purpose and speaks to the objective of the review article. That is obvious if you quote the full sentence:

            “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.”

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            They selected. If you select your facts, most things can be shown to be true.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Yeah, they selected 1783 scientific papers. Sound like they really cherry picked! 😛

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Very selective, and biased.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            You think 1783 is “very selective”? Are there dozens or hundreds more you think they ignored? If so, it should be easy to produce at least five examples of such journals. I’m glad to wait. Look forward to reading them if and when you decide to enlighten me.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The papers that I’ve shared that deal with the toxicity of glphosate and 2,4-D present, if you think about it, problems with the GMO’s that have been created. Also see–“The So-Called Scientific Consensus: Why the Debate on GM Safety Is Not Over”–Food and Water Watch, September 2014–linked to above.

          • You might get some attention to your propaganda if you actually linked to science or government sites instead of fringe activist sites.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            On 2,4-D–see the CDC–Occupational Health Guideline for 2,4-D http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/81-123/pdfs/0173.pdf

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I try to deal in and with truth as much as possible. Truth is not a popularity contest, nor is it determined by some elite group. Nor is it dogmatic. It is real, sensible, clear, and hidden.

          • I believe Genetic Literacy Project is a more fringe activist site than Food and Water Watch.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I believe that a crucial element of propaganda is that it is a consciously distorted presentation of truth. Whether or not I am propagandizing, you can have your opinion about that. It has no relationship to reality, but you can write of my propaganda if that put-down makes you comfortable.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            See this article, “2,4-D Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment”, from the USDA
            http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/pdfs/093006_24d.pdf

            and then tell me that “”we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops”, as it says in the study you cite above, “An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research.” That statement is false and dangerous.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Can you explain how this is at all relevant? Do you understand the difference between 2,4-D and a GMO? Do you think 2,4-D is a GMO? Have you ever heard of a strawman fallacy?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Once again, for you, If GMO crops massively increase the use of 2,4-D, or any other toxic chemical, then GMO’s are directly endangering the public’s health and well being.

          • Every chemical, including every organic chemical is potentially “toxic”–that’s what they are designed to do…kill pests. 2,4-D is as mild as the pesticides come. It’s been evaluated been numerous governments dozens of times over 30 years and found safer than most organic chemicals. Safe for workers, pregnant women, kids, whatever. You can buy it at your local hardware. Read the EPA/Us government analysis. You’re a hysteric with no understanding of basic science. Save your hysteria for real issues.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Duh.

          • hyperzombie

            or any other toxic chemical,

            well caffeine is toxic as well as salt. Should we ban people from using the salt, soap, oil herbicide/pesticide? these are endangering public health as well.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Michael, that’s like saying cars are dangerous because of drinking and driving. That is absolutely NOT an example of a direct danger from GMOs. At best, it is very indirect.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            It is direct! You genetically modified the plant by inserting a gene that makes the crop resistant to 2.4-D, so that you can use massive amounts of 2,4-D and kill all the weeds, when growing the crop. The huge increase in the use of 2,4-D is the direct result, even the purpose, of that GMO. So when 2,4-D proves to have bad effects on the biosphere, which has been rigorously scientifically shown to be the case, that is an example of a harmful effect caused by a GMO–which the Go Go GMOers infinately proclaim has never been shown to occur.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Apparently you have you’re own personal definition of “direct”. If my friend Bob tells me something, then I have heard it directly from Bob. But if my friend Bill, tells me something that Bob said, then I have not heard it directly from Bob. Thus, if 2,4-D is harmful, and let’s say for the sake of argument that it is (I haven’t researched it yet myself), then it’s effect is independent of GMOs.

            At best (and this is being very generous), wide adoption of GM crops engineered to resist 2,4-D could result in an increase of 2,4-D and subsequent health and environmental consequences. But this would be a result of the 2,4-D, not the GM crop itself, because growing that crop without spraying wouldn’t have any effect.

            You’re so desperate to find something you can cling to as evidence of the danger of GMOs, that you’re committing logical fallacies (strawman fallacy in this case) and weakening your whole position in the process. You’d have a much stronger argument if you said, ‘2,4-D is dangerous so let’s use GM technology that goes in a different direction’.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I am not at all desperate to find the danger of GMO’s–from the first I heard of them, I was concerned about how GMO’s are likely to combine with and multiply society’s poor use of chemicals, which occurs in general and specifically in Agriculture. I believe that people are, of course to varying degrees but generally severly, ignorant in their use of chemicals. People are, in general, ignorant of the effects any given substance will have after it has served the limited purpose for which people fashioned it. This is a huge issue, generally unseen, that we are going to have to become wiser about if we hope to find a good future, as a planet. ——- Specifically, if people Genetically Modify plants in a way that directly contributes to the irresponsible spread of toxic chemicals in the environment, then Genetic Modification is being an enabler to humanities ecological destructiveness. ——— Do you think that humanities ecological destructiveness is a small thing? It can quickly and easily lead to the destruction and death of all of us.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            That’s better. Specific criticisms are easier to both frame and address than blank claims like ‘all GMOs are bad’. Just so we’re clear, it’s your contention that the use of GM crops is disadvantageous as you are concerned it will (or has) increase the use of agricultural chemicals, correct?

            So then where do you stand on genetic modifications that either do not increase the use of chemicals (e.g. GM papaya resistant to papaya ringspot virus)? What about genetic modifications that have led to a decrease in chemical use, such as crops expressing Bt endotoxins, the use of which has significantly decrease insecticide use?
            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11153.html

            I am happy to acknowledge that there may be less desirable applications of GM technology. I am open to the argument that herbicide tolerant crops may not be the best use of this technology, though I am still evaluating the evidence regarding that issue. But are you willing to acknowledge that there are in fact beneficial uses of this technology?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Why are we avoiding the clear interests of society by refusing to label GMO’s

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I have not been opposed to all GMO’s, from the beginning of this discussion. Some people may think that, but misattributions are extremely common. I have noted it at least 3 times. I am very concerned about people’s misuse of chemicals–that is true. As I have been discussing GMO’s and studying about them, now for almost the first time, I have become concerned about other things, also. Like—–For whose benefit will organisms be modified–a small sector of society, or life on Earth, as a whole? (This, I believe, is a very real concern.) Are we being careful, and thoughtful enough in our deployment of this technology? Are we regulating Genetic Engineering sufficiently? Are we studying all of the relevant questions fairly? Are we respecting poor people, and native people, sufficiently? Why are we keeping people in the dark, by refusing to label GMO’s? Do the wealthy think that they own the world? Are we properly cognizant of the fact that our understanding is limited? Do people have a clue that we have got to work with nature–because if we do not, chaos will come quickly? Are we being overly quick to interfere in things that we do not understand? Do we perceive the depth and fulness of the harmony of nature, and are we striving to add to that?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I like to call the self that we all are parts of, “The Great Spirit”.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Why are we avoiding the clear interests of society by refusing to label GMO’s?

          • Increasing Bt endotoxins is problematic. What are the health effects of consuming vast quantities of Bt? Are you sure? And insects will develop resistance to Bt. What we want to do is develop complex agro-ecosystems, which provide abundant food, fuel, fiber, medicine, etc. This is a very different vision that the vision of industrial agriculture, and is far far healthier. Genetic Engineering might play a role in realizing such a vision–but the much bigger role is for cultivating the Earth. This vision would have a chance of realization, if we laid down our vast military-industrial-intelligence complex, which costs us a fortune, and which terrorizes many many people of the world. And which eviscerates our souls.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            If the reason you genetically modified the plant was to make it possible to use large amounts of 2,4-D when growing the plant, then the increased use of 2,4-D is a direct consequence of the genetic modification. There is another step involved (actually growing the crop according to recommended procedure), but it is a direct, scarcely avoidable consequence.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            If A causes B, and B causes C, A is directly related to C.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior
          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Thanks for that. I look forward to giving it a thorough read. I’m always interested in new information.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            But that sentence is NOT a scientific statement, though it is contained in the abstract of a review of scientific studies.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            It’s a description of methodology Michael.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            It is not methodology. That is an opinion which is not demonstrated scientifically, but which they would love to have you accept as true and scientific.
            In the conclusion of that paper, it states–“we can conclude that the scientific research
            conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops”. That is a piece of garbage up with which I will not put. And it is disgraceful, coming from scientists. You wonder why this skeptic doubts the conventional truth about GMO’s? The endless repetition of nonsense statements like this one makes me feel these Go, Go, GMOers have to be watched closely, because they are clearly not closely tied to reality.

        • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

          It is utterly senseless to call this article propaganda. Get real!

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            So you think using black sky imagery over a wheat field as the background for a title is what exactly? Objective and balanced?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The article is not all objective. It has a viewpoint. A reasonable, informed viewpoint.

        • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

          Printing a view about something in some obscure magazine does not, methinks, qualify as propaganda. Blaring an opinion from most TV’s most days is more like propaganda.

  • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

    By refusing to label GE crops, you are purposely keeping people ignorant, in the interest of profits. Oppressively selfish is that effort!

  • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

    A study has found that the aerial spraying of glycosate damages dna.

    http://www.scidev.net/global/farming/news/aerial-spraying-of-herbicide-damages-dna.html

    • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

      There are Many studies showing glphosate to be a toxic chemical.

  • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

    A study finds glphosate to be genotoxic—
    Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2009 Mar;72(3):834-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2008.09.019. Epub 2008 Nov 14.
    Genotoxicity of AMPA, the environmental metabolite of glyphosate, assessed by the Comet assay and cytogenetic tests.
    Mañas F1, Peralta L, Raviolo J, García Ovando H, Weyers A, Ugnia L, Gonzalez Cid M, Larripa I, Gorla N. LINK: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19013644

  • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

    A study finds glycosate to be teratogenic to vertabrates–

    Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling Chem. Res. Toxicol., 2010, 23 (10), pp 1586–1595 DOI: 10.1021/tx1001749Publication Date (Web): August 9, 2010
    Copyright © 2010 American Chemical Society LINK: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx1001749

    • Canadian_Skeptic

      While I share concerns about glyphosate exposure (though maybe to a different degree), it’s important to note that glyphosate is not a GMO and not a logical basis upon which to criticize all GMOs.

      While glyphosate tolerance represents a majority of current commercial GM crops, it is a very specific modification. There is no credible evidence that glyphosate tolerance itself causes any harm to humans or animals.

      • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

        GMO’s have caused the massively increased use of glyphosate. Glyphosate is a broadly toxic chemical. Therefore, GMO’s have led to a very toxic chemical being spread on the face of the earth, our mother, more widely. Actually, two very toxic chemicals–add 2,4-D. Spreading toxic chemicals over the Earth is ecologically ignorant.

        • Glyphosate is “broadly toxic” in the same way that salt is “broadly toxic”. In fact its LD 50 rating is LESS than salt. It’s one of the mildest pesticides available, less toxic than many/most organic alternatives…a genuine benefit to farming and the environment. As you are always touting the Euro-centric view of all things GMO, you will I”m sure embrace this German/EU study on glyphosate released earlier this year that concluded the chemical was even less toxic than thought, and recommended loosened restrictions: http://www.glyphosate.eu/industry-task-force-welcomes-important-step-eu-review-glyphosate

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I have seen much information that glyphosate is toxic. And 2,4-D is worse. Go ahead–try and dismiss my concern about 2,4-D. Spreading toxic chemicals is ecologically ignorant–and short-sighted people have done a massive amount of it.

          • Everything is toxic! And all farmers use herbicides and pesticides, including organic farmers, who I guess you believe are ignoramuses. If “ignorant” farmers, organic and otherwise, did not use chemicals, we’d have mass starvation, which obviously doesn’t phase you. Glyphosate’s toxicity happens to be extremely low…about the level of sale…with no harm under normal usage (or even way above normal usage) on humans, animals or the environment, in more than 250 studies, including the most recent European/German review. You can reject the studies as you likely will but the fact is there is no reputable study suggesting any harm from glyphosate use. It’s been used in family gardens around the world (as well as in farm situations) for more than 30 years, with no documented harm. As for 2.4-D, you can have all the concern you want, but it’s not science based. You are a conspiracy theorist so I’m sure you will dismiss the EPA (no there are not Monsanto agents at the EPA), but it reviewed the toxicity as part of its Enlist Duo approval and concluded: “When used according to label directions, Enlist Duo is safe for everyone, including infants, the developing fetus, the elderly and more highly exposed groups such as agricultural workers.” Moreover, its use will encourage no till agriculture which helps combat global warming (organic farming, which is mostly till, is a disaster for it releases carbon, as is quite dangerous…far more ecologically dangerous than trace chemicals found in food. But you don’t seem to care much for evidence.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I don’t care much for evidence–conspiracy theorist–mass starvation doesn’t phase me! Sir, have you gone off the deep end?

            I really do not see that we are going to possibly be able to avoid mass starvation (which, in fact, is already occuring. Just not here, or in Europe.) considering the realities of the fossil-fuel situation. Or maybe you, too, are one of those blind-as-bats Republicans who does not believe in either global warming or peak oil. Now THAT is scientific blindness!
            But maybe you have steered clear of that mindless idiocy. Good. In that case, let’s talk GEO’s (GMO’s). And related.
            Did you see the CDC on 2,4-D? I do believe that is a scientific organization! Certainly their take must give you some slight scientific pause.
            O.K., so the EPA approves it. They, too, are part of the ignorant mindset which pervades our civilization and, even more dominantly, our society–a mindset which is deeply, deeply ignorant in its use and misuse of chemicals.
            Most people do not recognize that huge issue. Few do. If people would think more, they would.
            Or maybe you don’t believe in such widespread societal ignorance.
            I will just mention that something like one-third of people do not believe that evolution has occured.
            When you look at the range of life-destructive effects that 2,4-D has, how can you accept its use? Don’t you realize how utterly limited our science is? If our science were more complete, the catalog of known toxicity would be hundreds of times as long!
            The EPA says that a gram of it, or less, will kill many very large birds! Gee, might such a toxic chemical disrupt the ecosphere? It is blind to not think that it very well might.
            But, granted, that is the way of our society. If some rich people, who own a factory, can make more of a profit by dumping toxic chemicals into the public water supply, hey, go for it!
            I think that we people are behaving stupidly!

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            No till agriculture would be good. I suggest Forest Farming. And Permaculture (Ecoculture.)

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I strongly suggest forest farming and permaculture, as a possible, practical, sustainable, ecological, highly evolved, spiritually satisfying, community enhancing way to live, work, and develop ourselves.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Developing a sustainable agricultural system is not going to be easy. USDA certified organic agriculture is just an attempted step towards sustainable agriculture. Conventional “modern” farming has huge problems–exorbidant fossil fuel use, massive ecological degradation. Maybe we will learn to avoid these.
            — I don’t exclude the possibility of using genetically engineered organisms. But currently, we are using them not for the life and health of the planet, or the education of the people, but for the short-sighted profit of a few.

          • Please explain how Golden Rice, which anti-GMO activists are doing their best to call, vitamin enhanced cassava, a potato that reduces carcinogens, the Hawaiian papaya, the GM American chesnut tree and Bt crops that have reduced insecticide use to near zero are not sustainable and are for the “short-sighted profit of a few”?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Crops are not sustainable if they require fossil fuel input. Grapple with that. (!!!) Crops are not sustainable if their cultivation introduces obnoxious chemicals. —–

            Golden Rice–gee, provides vitamin A. Don’t you think those farm-workers deserve to have enough time to grow some vegtables, rather than being exploited to the extent that they work constantly? Does ALL their time have to go to making profit for the land-owners–chemical companies–gmo creaters? Vitamin enhanced cassava–similair point. —– A potato that reduces carcinogens–Which carcinogens? How? —– G.E. American Chestnut tree–could be good! —– Insects will, before long, develop resistance to Bt. Guaranteed. Where will G.E.ing go then? 2,4-D? Very toxic–see the Forest Service. And where then? Chlordane?—– Are the genetic engineering companies going to themselves make common plants somehow unworkable, requiring further genetic modifications? Could happen. Sounds like quite a racket. —– We need an institute for sustainable agriculture–this is an urgent matter of public concern. It is not right that society’s future should be determined by a selfish few.

          • Drew, you are hopeless. Rice is a staple of Asia and is grown at low cost. You can’t just swoop in from your house and magically transform an entire culture to grow broccoli. Vitamin enhanced cassava and rice and other staples is the perfect example of GE at its best. Most rice and cassava are grown by small farmers for themselves and their villagers.

            Check out the just approved innate potato. It is modified without any use of “foreign” genes to silence the genes that yield proteins involved in acrylamide formation, which can cause cancer, and discoloration in potatoes, which causes huge waste. It’s s sustainability lovers miracle innovation.

            Bt has been used by organic growers for nearly a century–it’s the most used pesticide in the world, perfectly safe. The engineered version is actually more targeted and safer. Please educate yourself.

            You are right about sustainable agriculture…GE based agriculture is actually far more sustainable than current organic practices alone…not even close. It also allows for no till agriculture, which has turned farming from a carbon loss disaster into environmental plus. Please educate yourself.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            People will someday realize, should humanity survive, that what we have to do is build–not degrade–the biotic world. Then, the insects and other animals and people will have enough to live. Then, the complex balance of the living world wll sustain and enliven us. Then, we will use every chemical, every bit of substance, as part of the living world. Then, we will know that we are one family. …….. On the other hand, we way go to Hell. …… But most likely, we’ll go somewhere in between. ….. I think that we better aim for the harmony.

          • You are hopeless. You do not understand the respective roles of the CDC and EPA. The CDC study has nothing to do with dangers in our food supply. Any pesticide profiles that way including organic pesticides. The EPA’s evaluation is state of the art, and despite ant-science jokes of organizations such as Food and Water Watch say, 2,4-D has been evaluated hundreds of times in studies around the world and is perfectly. As with glyphosate, it’s used in gardens around the world. The fact is the kind of agriculture you support will contribute to global warming, is not sustainable, and will contribute to global hunger. Organic farmers would be the first to complain if pesticides were banned; they’d be out of business in a second. You just don’t understand the concept of empirical evidence, and repeatability of studies. To you everything is black, good and evil, etc. Your views are very similar to global warning deniers and evolution deniers. I’ll stick with National Academy of Sciences, the EPA, the World Health Organization and the European Commission…Food and Water Watch and the like are all yours.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Check this out–

            from the executive summary of

            2,4-D–Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment FINAL REPORT

            USDA, Forest Service

            September 30, 2006

            vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

            For 2,4-D, substantial concern is evident for workers, members of the general public, as well as several groups of organisms covered in the ecological risk assessment.

            For many pesticides, including 2,4-D, accidental exposure scenarios, some of which are extremely conservative and perhaps implausible, lead to risk quotients that exceed the level of concern. 2,4-D is, however, somewhat atypical because many non-accidental exposure scenarios – i.e., exposures that are plausible under normal conditions of use – also exceed the level of concern and often by a very substantial margin.

            Unless steps are taken to mitigate risks, workers involved in the application of 2,4-D and members of the general pubic who consume vegetation contaminated with 2,4-D could be exposed to 2,4-D levels greater than those which are generally regarded as acceptable. In some cases, the exceedances are substantial. Similarly, adverse effects in the normal use of 2,4-D salts or esters could occur in groups of nontarget organisms including terrestrial and aquatic plants, mammals, and possibly birds. Adverse effects on aquatic animals are not likely with formulations of 2,4-D salts except for accidental and extreme exposures at the upper ranges of application rates. The ester formulations of 2,4-D are much more toxic to aquatic animals and adverse effects are plausible in sensitive species and sometimes in relatively tolerant species.

            The results of this risk assessment suggest that consideration should be given to alternate herbicides and that the use of 2,4-D should be limited to situations where other herbicides are ineffective or to situations in which the risks posed by 2,4-D can be mitigated.

          • Reply! Reply! Reply to this study, if you can! Otherwise, recognize how very weak your defense of GMO’s is!!!

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The EPA is an extremely political organization. — The CDC guideline illustrates that we are considering a very toxic chemical. — I don’t really care if the EPA calls 2,4-D a moderately, or even only a slightly toxic chemical. If one gram of it will kill many animals, it is a very toxic chemical. And how about sub-lethal effects?— You claim to be so closely bound to science. Don’t you realize that most of the effects of 2,4-D, or anything else, are scientifically unknown? When they calculate there NOAEL’S and LOAEL’S, don’t you think that they are missing a few things?— By the way, lots of
            2,4-D is contaminated by dioxins. — The fact that Glyphosate is used in many home gardens implies not one thing about its safety. How many people smoke tobacco? How many did forty years ago? — I really suggest that we move away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible, and we don’t have to poison ourselves, or destroy the ecosystem, in order to do that. That is a big, needed step, if we are to evolve farther. — And I suggest that we apply ourselves vigorously to working with nature to get the food that we need—which, if we do not do, we are just plain stupid. — About repeatability of studies–do you have any idea how hard the establishment has squezzed some of the scientists who have printed studies that found severe problems with GMO’s? — “I have simplistic views.” Give me a break.

  • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior
    • Canadian_Skeptic

      Interesting. Thank you for posting an article from a reputable peer-reviewed source.

      I haven’t read the paper completely yet (but will later), only skimmed several of the sections. There is one important point that the article makes, which I think is often overlooked. Not all GMOs are the same. Each must be considered individually and the degree of scrutiny depends on the type of modification (e.g. the authors of this review highlight concern about GM animals with engineered levels of growth hormone).

      You should also take a look at a more recent meta-review.
      http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07388551.2013.823595

      • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

        Peer review is no determiner of truth. It is a determiner of what the wealthy establishment thinks–which regularly proves itself to be old-fashioned, unenlightened, and selfish.

        • Canadian_Skeptic

          Of course not. Peer-review is just a minimum threshold for science. Spare me the anti-establishment sentiment. There are so many online journals now with decent enough reputations that the claim of elitist suppression just doesn’t hold water.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Peer review is no way a minimum threshold for science. Science is, properly, about truth–not opinion.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The “scientific community” is no gold standard. In fact, the “scientific community” is biased.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            People who do not like particular results generally think that the studies that yielded those results were flawed.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            If that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black….

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Look, I’ve just pointed out to you a massive flaw in the so-called science of Genetic engineering. Do you wish to deny it?———-I have sighted numerous studies–they have all, every one, been dismissed.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            No, you made a sweeping generalization based on your personal prejudice. That’s not evidence. That’s bias.

            You haven’t cited “numerous studies”. You’ve pointed to a very limited number of studies that all have methodological flaws. It’s not my fault that all you can point to is sloppy science. Nor is it my fault that you don’t have a solid background in the relevant fields of science to spot these flaws yourself.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Well, the flaw I pointed to is that scientists have not been free to study GMO’s as they want to. Mr. Entine says that that is no longer true. I wonder whether what he says is completely true. I would appreciate anyone’s light on this ……Did you see the collection, ADVERSE IMPACTS OF TRANSGENIC CROPS/FOODS: A COMPILATION OFSCIENTIFIC REFERENCES WITH ABSTRACTS Link: http://indiagminfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Sci-ref-complete-book-2nd-edition.pdf Many studies! Please respond to it.
            ……..OK, tell me that you have the lowdown on the work of Arpad Pusztai–I think that the potato he studied was withdrawn from the market, due to his expose. And all the scientific geniuses say, “Oh. That study hasn’t been replicated.” The potato is not available! The man lost his job, and why?
            ——-And did you see this–An example, little known, of a genetically modified organism that `was used commercially, and had disasterous consequences. Link: http://www.psrast.org/jftrypt.htm —–a quote–“This product was placed on the market, and within a few months it caused the deaths of 37 people and caused 1500 more to be permanently disabled.”

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Yes, I saw that link you sent me. I have responded to it by saying I look forward to reading it more thoroughly and checking a number of the articles in more detail. I will not comment on something that I have not yet familiarized myself with.

            “Arpad Pusztai”
            >>Yes, in science you lose your job when you lie about data. For scientists, their credibility is their most valuable asset. Once that is lost it is almost impossible to regain. Dr. Pusztai made claims in a TV interview that were never supported by the data he published. If his work were in a mundane field, it probably wouldn’t have mattered as much. He likely would have still lost some credibility. But in an area as controversial (at least among the public), his actions were downright foolish.

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

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            O.K., you think you have the lowdown on Pusztai. I am not sure, but I have extremely large doubts about your take on the matter. The TV interview was 150 seconds, selected from an interview 2 hours long–what he said was no doubt distorted by being taken out of context, if nothing else. Attempts to discredit Dr. Pusztai have been extremely common at many upper levels. The man speaks extremely well for himself. He seems to show a good deal of integrity. What do you make of the fact that Monsanto had just given Pusztai’s employer, Rowett Research Institute, an organization dependent on donations, about ¼ million dollars–shortly before Pusztai was fired and gaged–right after he was praised? Seems to me that the man was squelched.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            What are you talking about? First of all, who exactly constitutes the “scientific community” in your mind? How exactly is this “scientific community” biased?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Those who do science are biased in that, like everyone, they have limited understanding and experience, and personal likes, dislikes, and orientations.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            So everyone is biased. Sure, to different degrees and with respect to different issues. But what’s important is being able to recognize where one’s own bias might lie and seeking to either avoid that bias, address it directly, or if neither are possible acknowledge it. I don’t see this as a limitation that prevents us from trusting the scientific community though. If it did, we’d all have to go back to living in caves.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Well, it seems to me that we should not “trust the scientific community.” We should use the clarity they offer as a perch, from which to see better. But we should recognise that scientists are hugely limited, make mistakes, and can at the best only give us some of what we need to guide our thoughts and actions.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            How are scientists “hugely limited”?

            Do you think that you are in a better position to evaluate GMOs for potential risks than a researcher working in a relevant field?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Scientists are hugely limited in that any of us perceives such a tiny part of the scheme of things, that it is much closer to nothing at all, than it is to everything. Scientists are hugely limited in that our minds, at their best, are closer to a dog’s, or a deer’s mind, than they are to eternal mind. Scientists are hugely limited in that our bodies are puny sacks of bones, weak, stumbling, failing. Scientists are hugely limited in that their lives are like a firefly in the night. Scientists are hugely limited in that they think science alone penetrates the truth.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            But, I will say that it seems to me that scientists, who often think of themselves as truth-oriented and not biased, are in fact very biased, in sometimes more problematic ways.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Michael, why don’t you try actually getting to know some scientists instead of pretending you know how all scientists behave. Your arrogance is insulting. You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Scientists, at least those that I know, are well aware of the potential for bias. The easiest person to fool in science is yourself. Good scientists keep this in mind. Bias might not be escapable but if you’re aware of it and open about it, you can address it. I suggest you get some experience in science before you try telling others how scientists think.

            In fact, you’re demonstrate the very trap of personal bias that you’re accusing others of falling into.

          • Well, I am thinking of the subject at hand. Scientists are naturaly inclined, over-all, to be facorable to GMO’s. I mean, GMO’s are, in general, their kind of thing–developed by scientists! Employing many scientists! Complex! Made in Laboratories! New! One further step in the long process of humankind understanding, and gaining control over, nature!
            So how quick have many scientists leaped to the conclusion that GMO’s are safe–when (1) in fact the field has not been fairly studied, due to the limitations put in place by the industry, and (2) It is not possible to show that GMO’s are safe–only that specific GMO’s are safe.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Michael, let’s ignore for the moment the gross simplifications and generalizations you keep making. For the sake of argument I’ll accept your claim that most scientists do not reject GMOs out of hand. Why do you think that is? You’re only explanation seems to be because GMOs are new, cutting edge science. That’s a pretty weak argument. Show a little more effort. You can’t seriously expect me to buy that crap, can you?

          • What I said is that “Scientists are naturaly inclined, over-all, to be favorable to GMO’s.” For which I offered 6 reasons. How can scientists accept skewed results (results skewed because access to study of GMO’s has been limited, by the industry) and make conclusions about their over all safety? It is phoney. I wish you or some other expert in the field would explain how this is false. Can you? Anyone?

          • Until someone gives this explanation, all of the pro-GMO comments in this argument are invalid.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            There is no club, group, profession, class, or peerage that has a lock on the truth.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Of course not. But science does work. And by that I mean the scientific method. It’s a technique. A tool. A way of discovery what is true. This method absolutely works, but it is not perfect.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Many questions are not scientific questions. For example, has the Genetic Engineering industry had an overly free hand in regulating themselves? In conducting the peer-reviewed science that has occured? In spreading propaganda?

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Those are fair questions. I want transparency as much as you do. More information is almost always better when it comes to matters of science. We’re on the same side with respect to the issue of transparency.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Glad of that. However, the goodness of transparency, of honesty and opennes, implies to me that Genetically Engineered Organisms, sold as food, shoiuld be labeled. Because not just scientists, people who better understand how to evaluate objective truth, but in fact all people deserve honesty, openess, and transparency. And if, because of people’s relative slowness to accept new things, the use and sale of GMO’s

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Why should foods containing GM ingredients be labelled? We generally only apply mandatory labels to products when clear health risks are evident. I have yet to be convinced of any such risks associated with GMOs, so I see no scientific basis for labeling. The only basis I see is ideological, which would mean Jewish or Muslim people could equally demand mandatory Kosher and Halal labeling.

            “Are you for humanity, or a tiny elite?”
            >>False dichotomy. I’m not that gullible.

            ” It is not only much better for our society if all people are informed about issues like genetic engineering–it is absolutely people’s right to know what they are being fed.”
            >>I agree, it is desirable to inform people about GMOs. Why do you think I’ve engaged in a lengthy dialogue with you. You’re not very well informed about GMOs and I am interested in trying to change that.

            And if people want to avoid GM ingredients, they simply have to buy “certified organic” or “verified non-GMO” products. Why is that not enough?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            In many states, the octane of gasoline has to be labelled. Why? Maybe someday someone will speak to that, which I have cited frequently. The precise fiber content of fabric has to be labelled. ——- Who says that scientifically health risks are the only legitimate reason to require labels? It seems to me that other basis are perfectly legitimate. For example, many people prefer more natural things. Why shouldn’t they be able to choose that, without paying the premium for organic foods? (A premium that I pay every time I have that choice–which is only part of the time.) And who says that there are no health risks with GMO’s? A GMO killed 37 people, and permanently disabled 1500 people. Link–
            http://www.psrast.org/jftrypt.htm

            What about alergies? How can you be so sure allergies to GMO’s will not appear? The scientific study of GMO’s has been drastically limited by the industry. Many studies have found negative health impacts of GMO’s. The go go gmoers deny that any scientifically valid studies show that, but this is far from clearly being demonstrated–at least that I have seen.. …… Government is for the people, not corporations. And if you believe corporations are people, maybe I could sell you the moon. It is utterly insane! ———-P.S. The reason I use the names Go Go GMOers and Gung-Ho GMOers is because it is not just people who are or tend to be pro-GMO that I am refering to–I am referring to those people who are so far on that side of the fence that they are somewhat unreflective, dismissive of anti-arguments, and disrespectful to people who have anti views.

            Also, I charge the industry and its supporters with dishonesty due to selfishness. Many people would choose non-GMO food by choice, but don’t realize that they consume much GMO that is not labelled. ———

            “Are you for humanity, or a tiny elite?”
            I will grant you, that is sometimes a false dichotomy. Here, it is applicable.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Thanks for helping to inform me. This is, except for a few brief discussions with friends, my first discussion about GMO’s, and my first extensive reading about them. At this point, I do know much more than most people, I believe.

          • That “Americans are self-righteous, disrespectful, violent custards toward the peoples of the Earth” is, of course, an opinion. But it is fully supported by mountains of facts, truth, reality, analysis, writing, argument, and people. I wish that all you people who dismiss such opinions would look at the real world, so that we might become a decent people.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            You apparently have no idea what you’re talking about. Peer-review is absolutely the minimum threshold for science. Peer-review isn’t perfect, but anyone who wants to be taken seriously in science must present their evidence to other scientists and give them a chance to critique it. That is a essence of peer-review.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            If and when every scientist who wants to study specific GMO’s is able to do so, and has been able to do so for let’s say 10 years, then you might suggest that we should only look at peer-reviewed studies. Until then, the field of studies regarding GMO’s has been so unjustly limited, that your claim to scientific rigor is laughable. Laughable.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            What’s wrong with these papers?

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399

            http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17450390500353549#.VJhCgV4AOp

            That second one was even conducted by researchers at an organic farming institute. Surely you would say that such people would be objective and free to publish their results, wouldn’t you?

            I don’t see any justifiable reason to dismiss these papers.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The first study is (apparently) only concerning farm animals–that is a tiny part of the biosphere. The second study–big thing–a study of a particular GMO in a particular situation found no noticed bad effects. Many Go Go Gmoers seem to say– There you have it! GMO’s are safe! Its been proven! That is a total distortion of the true implications of that study–which are tiny.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Michael, almost all of the safety studies (both those claiming to have found negative effects and those claiming no effects) have been conducted in either farm animals or rats and mice. If you reject studies using farm animals, then you’ve just shot yourself in the foot. Besides, pigs are actually quite similar (physiological) to humans.

            All individual studies are going to be of a single GMO under specific conditions. That’s how science is conducted. You set up an experiment that looks at a specific variable (a GMO) under specific conditions. This is really basic stuff Michael. Any experiment that is too broad is doomed to failure from the very beginning. For a study that is too broad is unable to make any specific conclusions. With all due respect, Michael, you don’t seem to be very familiar with how scientific inquiry is conducted. That is perfectly fine. Very few people are trained scientists. But a problem arises when untrained individuals fail to recognized the limits of their understanding while underestimating those of experts. It’s called the Dunning-Kruger effect. Google it.

            “Many Go Go Gmoers seem to say”

            >>I would have a lot more respect for you if you dispensed with the derogatory catchphrases. I don’t refer to people I disagree with as “anti-GMOers” or any other such silly term. It’s childish Michael.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Studies on plants and micro-organisms must also be prominent–Epidemiological studies on people are very much needed–and would be much more practical, were Gmo’s labelled–Yes, we study one organism at a time. But do you realize how untrue and irresponsible it is when people say, “GMO’s are safe! Thousands of studies demonstrate it.” No. Thousands of studies, some believe, have shown that specific GMO’s did not have specific tested for problems. There is no generalizing to GMO’s as a group. Because different GMO’s vary radically from one another.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Go Go GMOers is merely referring to the bulk of people who participate on this site, GLP, and to a very prominent group in American society. It is accurate.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            And it will be laughable until all scientists are freely able to conduct the studies in this area that they want to. If anyone has a link that shows that all scientists are now so able, please share it. Otherwise, don’t you see how transparently phoney your claims of scientifically demonstated safety are?

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I guess Archimedes had peer review. And Galileo. And Darwin. And Einstein.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Einstein did submit papers to peer-review.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_publications_by_Albert_Einstein

            For publications by Darwin see, just do a Google Scholar search:
            http://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=D847cGsAAAAJ&hl=en

            Peer-review first appeared in the mid 17th century, so Achimedes and Galileo never published anything that was peer-reviewed in the conventional sense.

            Peer-review is the gold standard for modern science. It doesn’t matter who you are in science, your work must be peer-reviewed to be considered seriously by the scientific community. If you can’t backup your ideas with peer-reviewed sources, then you have two choices: 1) do original research yourself, produce empirical evidence and submit it for peer-review, or 2) re-evaluate your claims.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            When the ability of scientists to study the issue is drastically curtailed, which the best that I have so far been able to determine is still the case, then your peer-reviewed criteria is just another part of the control of study, thought, discussion and practise by selfish, non truth-based interests.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Yea the peeage eventually catch on. But new ideas are often trashed, though they prove to be right.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            New ideas are just as often, if not more frequently, wrong than right. Being ‘new’ isn’t what matters. Evidence is what matters.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Darwn had publications–were they peer reviewed? And how many of Einstein’s peer-reviewers said, poppy-cock?

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Michael, I’m not going to address questions that you can easily find answers to by simply going to the links I provided or by doing a quick Google Scholar search.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I can’t research everything. I did go to those links.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            No, I am talking about the heart of science. Peer review is a mechanism used in the advancement of true science–but is is not a requirement in discovering truth. I’ll bet that if you require it every time a paper is published, you will miss some important stuff.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            That’s a bet you will lose.

          • It’s a speculation, but you can not disprove it!

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            I can’t disprove unicorns or leprechauns either. “Disproving” is not what science does. Science can only confirm a hypothesis or fail to confirm. Like I’ve already told you (multiple times), it’s time to step back and reconsider how well you actually understand science.

          • Since hypothesis can be multiple, one hypothesis can disprove another. If i confirm the hypothesis that “this GMO is not safe”, I have disproved the hypothesis that, “All GMO’s are safe”, and I have also disproved the hypothesis that, “GMO’s are safe”.

          • Some hypothesis disprove others. —— I think that I have an unusual approach–which I think is a good thing.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Yea. And I sight in this discussion, numerous articles from online journals and the cry has been deafening–“that study is not peer reviewed!” Everytime someone says, “not peer-reviewed,” I say, “elitest suppression.”

  • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

    Here is a link to a strong article that you Gung-Ho GMOers should rebut–Anniversary of a Whistleblowing Hero (Dr. Arpad Pusztai)–
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/anniversary-of-a-whistleb_b_675817.html

    • hyperzombie

      LOL a newspaper article from 8 years ago… Got anything recent?

      • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

        Get real.

    • First Officer

      Whose work could never be duplicated and refuted by the billions of animals that eat GMO feed everyday.

      • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

        The negative consequences for the man of bucking the industry, the money power, were large. That potato he srudied is not available, hence replication is not possible. Do you realize that scientists are not permited to study any specific GMO, without permision to do so–permision which is not granted to critics?

        • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

          The fact that the potato in question was withdrawn from market, due to this study, means the study can not be replicated–it is not available–nor does it seem important. What effect other GMO’s have in no way repudiates this study–they are different organisms. You seem to have that misperception that somehow, some study or group of studies could establish the safety or harmfulness of all GMO’s, as a class. Actually, safety or harmfulness could only possibly be established for particular genetic modifications, one at a time.

    • Jason

      If you need anything more than the fact that it’s a Jeffrey Smith article, try this:

      http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/section-1/1-1-pusztais-flawed-claims/

      • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

        There are plenty of criticisms of Arpad Pusztai. And there are plenty of defenses, and compliments. It seems to me that the man showed lots of integrity.

    • Canadian_Skeptic

      Can you find something from a more reliable source? Both the website (HuffPo) and the author (Jeffrey Smith) lack credibility. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy HuffPo, but I recognize it for what it is. Entertainment. As for Jeffrey Smith, he’s not a scientist. He has no background in molecular biology. And he makes his living attacking GMOs, among other things that aren’t organic farming. I simply don’t trust him to provide a balanced and critical analysis of anything.

      • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

        Sir, you can have your opinions about what is a reliable source, but so can I have mine. You can ignore vast sections of this debate about GMO’s if you want to, but it is not very informed skepticism you demonstrate. Being a scientist is no proof, or even sign, of virtue.

        • Canadian_Skeptic

          I’m ignoring non-scientific debate. I am ignoring arguments that lack support of empirical evidence. You’re free to engage in whatever debates you want with whoever you want. But if you want to be taken seriously in a scientific context, sources matter and you don’t get to have your own opinions about what is or is not a reliable source. In science, the reliability of a source is determined by the accuracy of the information it presents. HuffPo and Jeffrey Smith, while amusing, are often not accurate. You’ll find yourself frequently wrong if you try to support your arguments with these sources.

          Virtue? When did I ever claim to be virtuous because I am a scientist? Take your red herrings elsewhere.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Government policy–for example, the labelling or not of GMO’s–is NOT a scientific issue. And neither are questions of the appropriate human behavior.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Claims about the safety of GMOs are absolutely a scientific issue. It’s impossible to determine the safety or potential negative effects of GMOs without employing science.

            This directly ties into the labelling issue, because if there are no demonstrable risks associated with GMOs, then why institute a regulatory regime to label foods containing them? If you surrender the science issue, your entire argument collapses on itself.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            If you will look at the origin of this debate, it was about the propriety of labeling G.M.O.’s. It is true, much consideration has been given to the safety of GMO’s, but that is not the parameters of this debate. But you, of course, can participate as you want.——–Do you realize that, in many states, the octane of gasoline sold has to be labelled? That is certainly not because of a comparable health risk! It exists because it is useful for Business–which GMO labelling decidedly is not! There are other reasons to label GMO’s–for example, the fact that all of their ramifications for the biosphere are not understood. And if you think that some thousands of studies have plumbed those ramifications, you are sadly failing to comprehend the complexity of the biosphere–or to live responsibly in it.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            The safety of specific GMO’s is I agree a scientific issue. However, that the safety of GMO’s can be determined, or even studied, as a class or group has not, and cannot ever be shown.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Each GMO is different based on what the genetic modification is. I am not saying that just because one GMO is safe, all GMOs are also safe. Safety, and similarly risk, must be demonstrated for each genetic modification.

          • So why do people keep on saying, science demonstrates that GMO’s are safe. The irrefutable fact is, some have been found to be unsafe. It is not clear how many, maybe many, but certainly some. My pod, one killed 39 people!

          • The fact is, most people want GMO’s to be labelled–untill you mislead them with a ton of advertising and lots of dishonest stuff about increased cost, and this so-called scientific consensus about the safety of GMO’s–which clearly does not exist. How can any scientist be scientifically convinced even that specific GMO’s are safe, considering that critical scientists are not free to study them? By being blind.

          • The people want GMO’s to be labelled. The only reason that they are not is that we live in a plutocracy, not a democracy. The plutocracy is tightening very much, under Republicans and Democrats. The Roberts Supreme Court is deeply engraining plutocracy. Americans, you are sleep walking. Utter selfishness rules in America.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Yea, take the E.P.A. for a reliable source. What did they officially find while Reagan was President? Or W. Bush? I shudder to remember. P.S.–that Red Herring is your reading, not my creation.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            E.P.A.? When did I ever cite the EPA? Pretty ironic to accuse me of throwing out a red herring in the very same comment where you do EXACTLY THAT.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I brought E.P.A. up as an example of how unreliable supposedly science based sources can be.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Many valuable points do not need “empirical evidence.” If you apply scientific ideas too widely, you end up in a muddle.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I never said that you claimed to be virtuous because you are a scientist. The fact that Jeffrey Smith is not a scientist does not invalidate his arguement one little bit.

          • We all have our opinions about which sources are reliable. It is not at all clear who is reliable. It is a judgement call.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            No. It’s not a judgement call. Sources demonstrate themselves to be reliable through a historical record of providing accurate and objective information.

          • Sure. Some people think that Rush Limbaugh is a font of truth–and many people think that the network news tells the truth. I think it is totally unreliable.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            That doesn’t make any sense Michael. Limbaugh has a history of presenting misinformation. Your example doesn’t make any sense and it doesn’t serve as a logical counter to what I just said. If anything, you only further proved my point.

          • But people disagree about what is and is not misinformation. I believe millions “take it from Rush.” ……. Whether someone is reliable or not is a judgement call, because you will never get people to agree who is reliable, and who is not.

  • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

    Scientifically inclined? See this compilation of studies–ADVERSE IMPACTS OF TRANSGENIC CROPS/FOODS: A COMPILATION OF
    SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES WITH ABSTRACTS Link:
    http://indiagminfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Sci-ref-complete-book-2nd-edition.pdf

  • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

    An example, little known, of a genetically modified organism that `was used commercially, and had disasterous consequences. Link:
    http://www.psrast.org/jftrypt.htm

  • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

    It is very important to realize, when considering the safety of genetically modified crops (better, genetically engineered crops), that actually and to me unbelievably, it is not possible for independant researchers to use those crops to conduct studies. See–Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research? Scientific American, August 2009. Link–
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/?page=1

    • Canadian_Skeptic

      Absolutely agree with you here. Science requires openness and transparency. I don’t think you’ll find many people who disagree with this position.

      • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

        However, reality is the way it is–and it is messed up sick that because of the money and power of the genetic engineering industry and its supporters, scientists are not free to study specfic GMO’s. In fact, this invalidates, makes useless, all those many arguements from go-go-gmoers that the many scientific studies that have been done have not detected (many) problems due to GMO’s. For one thing, that arguement is routinely ridiculously over-stated–many studies have found problems. For another thing, scientists, especially critical scientists, are handcuffed. This is disgraceful behavior by the go go gmoers, and demonstrates their disgusting dishonesty. You all should be ashamed–and recognize the evil methods by which your point of view has been promulgated.

        • Canadian_Skeptic

          Mchael, do you actually no any scientists? Have you ever had a civil conversation with anyone who conducts research? Because it certainly sounds likes you don’t and haven’t. You seem to have this preconceived notion of who your opponents are and that they are full of malicious intent. I am not ashamed in the least for standing up for science against willful ignorance. I will continue to do so and behaviour like yours only further my motivation.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            You stand up for science? Then you should recognize that the scientific study of GMO’s (GEO’s) that has been done is hugely messed up, and is in urgent need of repair. Restricting the scientists who can study them to your chosen group is cooking the results! All this talk about peer-review is worthless–the whole field has been drastically slanted! I do have to wonder how the Gung-Ho GMO crowd can keep a straight face, as they talk about how “scientifically rigorous” work demonstrates the safety of GMO’s. That is baloney. Until independant and critical scientists are able to freely study the issue, your studies are inconclusive.
            I’ll say it again–I think that you Go Go GMOers who think that you understand everything that has to be understood about this issue should be ashamed.

          • You have no clue what you are talking about. There have been more than 2000+ studies involving GMOs and more than 700 of them are by independent scientists…there is no more studied issue in science. So you even reject the 300+ studies by the European Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf) …of course you do. You are a conspiracy junkie who rejects mainstream science, much like climate change deniers and anti-evolutionists…a real reactionary right wing anti-science person.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Many of those studies by independent scientists have found severe problems………..
            Do you reject the prominent statement in the Scientific American article that I link to above–“Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.” Here is the link again–
            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/?page=1 …….

            If you do not see that this control by the G.E. industry over the studies that are performed seriously compromises the field, now I am the person thinking, “you are hopeless.” Or shall I explain it to you?……..As for your last sentence above, I can only say, “Earth to Jon! Do you read me?”

          • You’re like a 12 year old. That article is 5 1/2 years old and is long since outdated. There have been more than 450 studies since then, including 200+ funded and overseen by the European Commission, which have persuasively found that GMOs are as safer or safer than conventional or organic foods. If you want to deceive yourself that 2000+ studies, 900+ that are independent, are not believable and 23 studies that raise some questions but NOT one of which has been reinforced with a follow up study and have been done by scientists with a stated premise against GMOs are somehow MORE believable than you are unwilling to accept empirical evidence. But we already know that.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Mr. Entine, you are like a 120 year old. Are you saying that now scientists are totally free to study GM crops? Please send me a link demonstrating this……….Many studies have found severe problems with GMO’s–though this is regularly and in a disingenious fashion denied by the go go GMOers.——Did you look at this link–ADVERSE IMPACTS OF TRANSGENIC CROPS/FOODS: A COMPILATION OF SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES WITH ABSTRACTS Link: http://indiagminfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Sci-ref-complete-book-2nd-edition.pdf ——– The studies that have been done are not nearly so universally positive as the gung-ho GMOers regularly say——And what do you say about 2,4-D? I linked to a Forest Service (USDA) study showing severe problems with this herbicide-which G.E. is about to proliferate………I am not in the slightest removed from the value of empiracal evidence–I think the problem is that there is so much empirical evidence, that it is not easy to integrate it. For me, or you, or anyone else.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Yes. And were critics, not just supporters, free to conduct those studies? “23 studies” you say–that estimate is years out of date(!) Tell me again that there is no scientific evidence that 2,4-D is a problem–and this time, don’t be obviously false (at least, try not to be).

          • It is important, Mr. Entine, that you respond regarding 2,4-D–because the evidence presented in this debate thus far indicates that there may well be a serious problem with 2,4-D–which means that GMO’s are getting into very problematic territory.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            If I am the 12 year old, how come my points are frequently stronger than yours?

          • In fact, we have two points on the table that seriously question your position in defense of the current GMO’s. (1) There are extensive scientific reasons to be very concerned about the increased use of 2,4-D, which GMO’s are about to cause (indeed, there are extensive scientific reasons to be very concerned about any use of 2,4-D), and (2) There is an extremely serious problem with the GMO research that has been done in this country, namely that critically inclined scientists have not been allowed by the industry to conduct the studies that they want to. If you do not address these 2 points, give up the ship, because GLP is a disservice. To all of us.

          • OK don’t answer–you write complete falsehoods, and refuse to deal with massive, real problems of GMO’s. Congratulations. Your arguments do not stand up, and neither do you.

          • You mention “independent” studies. But there are still restrictions on the ability of critical scientists to study what they want to study. As long as that is true, how can you possibly fail to notice that the field has not been fully studied, hence conclusions about safety are premature?

          • 700 studies being done by “independent scientists” is vastly different than independent scientists being free to conduct such studies in this field as they are moved to–and you lnow it.

          • Mr. Entine, do you relish your role of obfuscation?

          • I’ll rewrite it: More than 2900 independent scientists with no ties to industry who were free to conduct such studies as they were moved to have written more than 700 studies that have found that GMOs pose no harm that is not also posed by conventional or organic foods. Moreover, about 110 scientists who actively campaign against GMOs, most of whom have ties to anti-GMO NGOs and financial and other relationships with the organic industry, have published approximately 30 studies, almost all in pay for play or minor journals, showing some potential danger that is also potentially posed by organic and conventional food; none of those studies has been replicated.

            How does that work for you? It’s absolutely accurate.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            The whole field of GMO research is slanted??? What do you base this claim on? How can you possibly say with confidence that every scientist working in this field is being dishonest?

            What’s more likely, that thousands of scientists are involved in hiding the truth (without anyone spilling the beans), or that you are biased and are rejecting scientific evidence on the basis of your personal beliefs?

            By the way, I don’t think I’m actually advocating for GMOs. The closest I have come is giving a few examples of potential or realized benefits of GMOs in response to a request for examples. But you seem to think that my mere rejection of your beliefs automatically makes me a pro-GMO advocate. The degree of your bias is astounding and very, very obvious.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            I certainly never said, nor do I believe, that every scientist working in this field is being dishonest. However, the whole field of research is slanted by the fact that researchers need the permission of the G.E. industry in order to study G.E. plants. If you do not see that as a huge confounding factor in the search for truth, that is plain ignorance.
            I never said or implied that you are advocating for GMO’s. Many, in fact most of the people who have participated in this debate definately are.
            I have my ideas–sure. But they are not dogmatic, nor resistant to truth, nor scientifically uninformed, nor spurious. No, I am thoughtful about this subject, and learning about it. How about you?

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Michael, while I share the opinion that scientists should be able to operate freely and with transparency, the restrictions are no longer absolute. Progress has been made on this front. I would think the very fact that there are papers claiming negative effects of GM feed (e.g. Seralini et al in rats and Carmen et al in pigs) is evidence that research that is not flattering to certain biotech companies can be conducted and published (the quality of research in these examples is a different matter entirely though).

            You can also read about the easing of restrictions back in 2010 here:
            http://e360.yale.edu/feature/companies_put_restrictions_on_research_into_gm_crops/2273/

            I agree that more change is still needed. However, that alone doesn’t automatically invalid the science that already exists on this issue. You have to address the actual science if you want to counter it. I don’t dismiss Seralini’s work just because he’s a well-known anti-GMO advocate. I dismiss his claims because the work I have seen from him is flawed. It’s on these basis of these flaws that I questions Seralini’s credibility. That is how science is debated.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Thank you very much for posting that link. But it is more than 4½ years old. Does anyone have anything more recent? That article evidences improvement, but not nearly enough. The completed research is not invalidated, however the correct interpretation of its implications is drastically limited. In other words, the work that has been done, thousands of studies, is inconclusive. And it will remain inconclusive untill many of the remaining restrictions are removed–for one glaring example, the ability for anyone to study the human health impacts of GMO’s. Etc.
            …… As it is (at least, as evidenced by this somewhat old article) it is still a disgrace to the Go Go GMOers that they so righteously tout their “peer-reviewed” studies, while the field of research remains badly tilted.

          • I don’t understand how supposedly serious scientists and scientifically informed people can go on and on, as they have in this thread, about how legitimate sscience demonstrates the safety of GMO’s, when, as far as I have been able to determine (and I seriously wish that someone would post me a link showing that this is no longer true), serious science has not been done, at least in this country, because access to studying the field is restricted by the genetic engineering industry.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Michael, when presented with a situation where you don’t understand something and “serious scientists and scientifically informed people” hold views different from your own, perhaps what you should do is stop and re-evaluate your position rather than remaining ardently convinced the problem lies with everyone else.

          • Now you are defending the selective access to studying this field, which has been in place. I’m not a scientist, but the heck if you are going to convince me that that restriction is legitimate, and that it has not seriously weakened the field of science in question, GMO’s. Actually, you agreed with me about this, before.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Restriction? What restriction are you talking about? There’s nothing stopping you from undertaking training in science and becoming a scientist yourself.

            No offense, but you often don’t make a lot of sense.

          • The restriction on who can study which questions regarding GMO’s, placed by the industry. …… No offense, but if you do not see the sense of my points, I suggest you look at them more thoughtfully.

          • I don’t think training in science is what I need. Numerous trained scientists apparently don’t see or give due import to a confounding factor in the G.M. science that has been done in this country that is big enough to drive a truck through.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Training is exactly what you need. At the very least you need to find reliable evidence to support your claims. Yes, there are scientists with concerns about GMOs. Depending on the issue, I have concerns as well. But the reality is that number of scientists who are ardent detractors of GMOs and working in related fields is vastly outnumbered by those who disagree with you.

          • Yes–and it seems to me not well considered. Where is the science? The science is slanted. How can you people put-up with such garbage? Or, if it is not garbage, maybe you would be so good as to explain how it isn’t?

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            No, I’m not going to take the time to explain why the existing science on GMOs is not garbage. I have REPEATEDLY attempted to do exactly that already. But you don’t listen. I’m mean actually listen and think about what you’re hearing. You listen only insofar as you constantly try to pick holes in what you are hearing (that is ‘holes’ based on your own limited understanding of the subject). You’ve exhausted my patience.

          • I was not saying that the existing GMO research is garbage. I said that the restrictions on research, many still in place, are garbage. My point recently has been that the American research on the safety of GMO’s is so seriously flawed that that reseach is inconclusive as to the safety of GMO’s. Do you disagree with that? On what basis? I think your position is that the American research is not so flawed as to be inconclusive. I wish I understood how what is clearly, to my untrained mind, a huge confounding factor is in reality not so serious.
            …… Don’t give up yet. I imagine it is frustrating, arguing with someone whose assumptions are untypical. But, if the search for truth interests you, it will be rewarding.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Yes, I disagree with you. I am not delineating research based on the country in which it was conducted. I’m not sure where you got the idea that I was. Here’s a German study if you really need something non-American:

            Long term feeding of Bt-corn – a ten-generation study with quails
            http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17450390500353549#.VK1unCvF_Ll

            I am looking at all the evidence, and the fact is the vast majority of quality science demonstrates that there is no credible evidence that GMOs pose any inherent risk beyond similar non-GMOs.

          • I think that distinguising American research is important. If the American research is utterly inconclusive because of a deep flaw in its conduct, the American people and scientists had better grapple with the issue. Also, I do not understand the relevant parameters of the studies in Europe–are they also flawed? ( I’ll finish this comment later.)

          • Why is “Canadian Skeptic” now listed as “Guest”? GLP, what level are you on?

          • And until someone on GLP powerfully responds to my arguments, I will regard you all as losers.

          • NoToGMOs

            Yay! A long-term study on parameters like ‘hatchability’ and ‘laying intensity’ of QUAILS! I am SO reassured of the safety of GMOs to my health!
            NOT!!

          • Do I need reliable evidence to show that restricting who can study what in this field makes the studies that have been done (thousands) inconclusive as to the safety of GMO’s? I would think not–after all, you are a trained scientist.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            No, Michael. What you need to do is look at the studies themselves. I agree that limitations are a problem, but that is NOT a rational basis upon which to discard the research that does exist. That is what you consistently fail to grasp. To reject a study, you must address that study specifically and present reasons why the study is not valid based on the way in which the study was conducted, for example, or based on mistakes in data analysis.

          • I am not discarding research that exists. I am saying that it does not imply that GMO’s are safe. …… To seriously criticize a body of research, it is not necessary to criticize individual studies–it is entirely legitimate to point out important ommisions in what studies have been conducted. In the present case, scientists who have a hunch as to a possible problem with GMO’s have not been free to study that question without permission from the industry. However, scientists being able to pursue such hunches is crucial to the advancement of the field. By stopping scientists from pursuing such hunches, you are blinding the field. No problems found, except in non-mainstream sources? Big thing–you have blinded science–and you have cut mainstream sources out of the picture. It is a disgraceful instance of the way wealthy people steam-roller the rest of us.

          • Benjamin Joseph L

            Do yourself a favor, Canadian_skeptic is a GMO troll. It won’t respond to a real debate happening in its name, it is on here just to piss real concerned people off. The name itself “Canadian_skeptic” was chosen by a panel to have an effect at luring people into debate. I’m doing a whole article on “Canadian_skeptic” the troll. Not a real person, just a corporation. Relax, go spend time with your family, don’t let this robot lure you in. Ask it its name or locale, or for a website, or even email, you’ll get nothing. Not a real person.

          • Yas well why don’t people just take it from you and the other experts, and let hugely anti-social companies (in practise) do what ever they want? Because people have got to follow truth as they see it, and you experts clearly do not understand the relevant factors.

          • If you stand for science, that is good. How can you tolerate a major confounding factor in the scientific work on GMO’s? Don’t you see that it makes the work inconclusive?

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Michael, you don’t listen. I have never said I tolerate restrictions on research. You simply think I do because that is the prejudiced view you have of people who do not share your opinion about GMOs. That fact is, I have told you that I agree with you on this point.

            However, the very fact that there are studies like Seralini’s infamous rat study or Judy Carmen’s odd pig study demonstrate that researchers can, and do, publish research that criticizes GMOs. This idea that nobody can study GMOs and publish anything critical is a myth. Yes, there remain restrictions. I think they are bad. Are we clear now?

          • You did, before, say that you agree with this– that GMO research in this country, at least, has been hugely restricted, and this is a very negative thing–which I appreciate much. However you have made several other points which made me think that you do not appreciate its importance–for examples, questioning, “What restriction?” and, right after I again synopt this issue, saying “…perhaps what you should do is stop and re-evaluate your position rather than remaining ardently convinced the problem lies with everyone else.” In other words, you seemed to say “You are wrong, accept what “scientists” say.” (These comments appear directly below, as this is written. Of course, they will move farther away.) That, it sure seems to me, denies the point that I had just made. That is why I thought you didn’t see my point–not because of my prejudiced view.
            …..But if you see my point, I’m glad. Note, I did not say, “This idea that nobody can study GMOs and publish anything critical is a myth.” The fact is, scientists still need the approval of the seed companies to conduct research, at least in this country. .…… While you did/do agree to my unhappiness with these restrictions on research, you never went so far as to accept my contention, which is that these restrictions having been in effect means that it is not possible to say that it has been shown, scientifically, that any specific GMO is safe–much less that “GMO’s are safe”. But that is exactly what most partcipants in this discussion say over and over again. It is not justified, scientifically. Would you or someone else please explain how the statement, GMO’s are safe, is justified–considering the research field has been extremely slanted by one side of the debate? This is, it seems to me, extremely important.

      • Night.

  • Benjamin Joseph L

    This is such a stupid conversation. Canadian, Science is really perfect. That’s why we have Fukushima’s every week, only science allows that. Science is to know and we don’t know. And yes, calling it cutting edge science is the same as making not a weak, but a powerful argument. Cutting edge “science” should not be interfering with biology. There’s more science in a leaf on a maple tree then in all the internet and science projects combined. You don’t FUCK with nature with your big science ego.

    GMO is a clear retardation. It’s also a way for a few sick corporations that used to make warfare equipment (Dupont (who funded Hitler) and Monsanto) to own the food supply. We can only assume you work for one of them because you make about that much sense.

    Everyone needs to get off their scientific high horse and let nature take its course.

  • I’m going to repeat this argument, here at the top, because it is very important and no one has bothered to answer it. It is a disgrace that people, with a straight face, proclaim that science demonstrates the safety of even individual GMO’s, much more the safety of GMO’s in general. This is because, at least in this country, GMO’s have not been fairly studied, in that the G.E. industry has hugely curtailed the ability of critical scientists to conduct the studies they want. This “slanting of the field” makes all your papers that are peer reviewed and published in top-flight journals so inconclusive, that it is a disgrace that any scientist or informed person accepts it as indicating safety. I have to ask, do you know anything about humanity? Do you know anything about science?

  • dr eziza

    esther DATING AGENCY NIGERIA.

    welcome to the one reliable Sugar mummy, sugar daddy and lesbians ladies hookup, Get the opportunity to meet our Rich, Influential, connected, sugar mummies and sugar daddies, lesbian who are willing to spend and squander cash on you, don, t be idle, start calling we are the only agency that those a security membership service, Welcome to Africa finest, reliable dating agency in nigeria with good track records in ghana, south africa, benin republic and Nigeria, also in the usa, spain, uk, dubai, we have a wonderful influential network of clients ranging from government officials, politicians, senators, executive, honorobles, oil barons, money bag business personality, hotel owners and gold men and women, and we have very influential and connected sugar mummies, sugar daddies and lesbian ladies and, be among the people to get our exclusive connections we are the best reliable, efficient in our job, get the opportunity to meet them, you can also come to our office to visit us for counseling advice, we have sugar daddies, mummies, lesbians all over nigeria, even in ghana and outside the shores of africa who are willing to lavish money on you, with gifts, cars, house and even contracts connections, and even assist get a job, enter the entertainment industry nd fashio industry, and also assist in getting loans and financial assiatance,

    check our facebook page and website for testimonies, and also buy ovation, genevieve and love connection magazine for testimonies..

    start now text your name, age, location, occupation what service you want to 08147032288.

    Call mr Mr Ramsey for explanation, now licensed to give international service, also be a registered member and allow us look for your desired job, and desired contracts and also allow us help you get into the entertainment and fashion industry.

    txt your name, age, what you want, location, occupation, facebook id now: 08147032288