10 studies proving GMOs are harmful? Not if science matters


NOTE: If you reached this page in a re-direct from supportprecisionagriculture.com, that URL was maliciously registered on June 29, 2016 by anti-GMO activists to confuse people who want to visit supportprecisionagriculture.org — the site set up by the 107 Nobel laureates who issued a letter on June 29 criticizing Greenpeace for its campaign to discredit Golden Rice. Activists, led by GMWatch, are now stating in blog posts–falsely–that the GLP set up the dummy .com site to push traffic to the GLP (the redirect goes to this page). That is not true.

If you are looking for the Nobel laureates’ campaign in support of modern agriculture please visit: http://supportprecisionagriculture.org.  The Genetic Literacy Project supports the message from the laureates but is in no way affiliated with their campaign, and is not directing traffic to the GLP or this article.

This is a bizarre set up by anti-GMO activists with the apparent collusion of GMWatch. GLP does not own the IP address linked to the .com site so it cannot block the redirect. This is an abuse of both the Nobel laureates and the GLP–and innocent web readers: you.

Activists often cite the alleged potential health risks of genetically modified foods. One recent example of this—”10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health“, posted on Collective-Evolution.com—outlines many familiar concerns and points in each case to “credible scientific studies that clearly demonstrate why GMOs should not be consumed”.

Are these concerns credible? What do the studies cited actually claim?

1) Multiple Toxins From GMOs Detected In Maternal and Fetal Blood.

The blog post sites a 2010 study that alleges to show this danger. The authors identified the Bt protein Cry1Ab in maternal and fetal blood, a protein found in some GMOs, but also commonly used as a pesticide in organic farming. The paper is flawed. The researchers’ measurements were based on an experiment/assay designed to detect Bt’s Cry1Ab in plants, not in humans. As this post in Biofortified.org explains, the pregnant women in the study would have had to eat several kilos of corn in order to get the Bt measurements that were detected in their blood.

Additionally, there’s the “so what” factor. Humans lack the receptors for the protein, so it has no impact on us. Did you know that chocolate is toxic to dogs? Are you concerned that it might be toxic to you? Probably not (if you are concerned, then you’ve missed out on the greatest source of joy known to human taste buds…). Some chemical compounds behave differently among species, and both Bt‘s Cry1Ab and chocolate are examples of this.

2) DNA From Genetically Modified Crops Can Be Transferred Into Humans Who Eat Them

That’s not what the cited 2013 study concluded. The authors found that whole genes from our food can be detected in our plasma. That does not mean that they’ve integrated into our DNA; it means that they’ve been found floating in the space between cells. And that’s any food, not just GMOs. DNA from GMOs behave no differently than DNA from organic or conventional foods

If you aren’t concerned about the DNA from blueberries “transferring” into you, then you should not be concerned about DNA from GMOs either. The paper’s deepest flaw is that a negative control was not included in the sequencing experiments. Several recent papers (see here and here) have outlined the importance of including a negative control in experiments where there is very little DNA to account for possible contaminants from the environment and reagents. (For a lay introduction to the concept of contaminants in sequencing, see here).

3) New Study Links GMOs To Gluten Disorders That Affect 18 Million Americans

The article quotes for an alleged “study” by the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT). But there is no study on the link of GMOs to gluten allergies. There’s a link to a post on a webpage, but there isn’t a peer-reviewed article. IRT is a one-man band run by activist Jeffrey Smith. It is an NGO that advocates for the elimination of GMOs from our food supply. It’s not a university, college or research institution. It doesn’t do studies.

I’ve written about gluten allergies and GMOs. The Celiac Disease foundation has spoken out against the IRT’s report. GMO wheat has not been commercialized, so any association of gluten allergies with the consumption of GMO wheat is on its face absurd. As for charts that track an increase in GMO consumption in general and gluten allergies, it’s a case of association with no causation (i.e. the incidence of gluten allergies have increased over the past decade and the amount of GMOs we eat have increased too. But, so have the number of plasma screens manufactured).

4) Study Links Genetically Modified Corn to Rat Tumors

This claim is the infamous Seralini paper, which was retracted, and recently republished, in a different journal without being peer reviewed. The paper identified tumors in rats that were fed GMOs and/or the herbicide glyphosate longterm. But the strain of rat used was predisposed to tumors. The paper did not perform statistical analyses and used too few rats, so it was not possible to determine if the tumors were due to the food, the chemical or to the fact that the strain of rats would get tumors regardless of what they were fed. Finally, the findings from Seralini’s paper are contrary to other long-term feeding studies. An overview of the criticisms regarding this paper can be found here.

5) Glyphosate Induces Human Breast Cancer Cells Growth via Estrogen Receptors

This claim relates to glyphosate, an herbicide used in tandem with herbicide resistant genetically modified crops. The cited paper examines the impact of glyphosate on breast cancer cell growth. In approximately 80 percent of instances of breast cancer, the diseased cells are hormone sensitive, meaning they need estrogen in order to proliferate and spread. These researchers took two breast cancer cell lines: one was estrogen sensitive and one was not, and they examined the impact of increasing amounts of glyphosate on cell growth. They found that glyphosate has similar impact on breast cancer growth as estrogen, although the relationship was not as strong, and it did not have an impact on the proliferation of the non-hormone sensitive breast cancer cell line.

The paper had numerous technical problems, including the absence of data on controls, a potentially critical omission. Additionally, there actually seems to be a protective effect at higher concentrations of glyphosate: instead of reaching a saturation point where the addition of glyphosate no longer has an effect on cell growth, there is no significant difference in cellular growth between the cells that received the highest doses of glyphosate and the controls  (which is why the data from the controls is an important factor).

This experiment was done with cells in a petri dish—what’s called an in vitro tissue-culture experiment. Such research is of limited real-world value. The cells are often finicky and need plenty of TLC in order to grow well; different cell lines can also behave very differently. The authors of the paper note some of these issues, along with the fact that their data doesn’t mesh with previous studies that have examined the impact of glyphosate on cellular proliferation (this previous paper suggests that glyphosate actually protects against cell proliferation in vitro in eight different cancer cell lines and that glyphosate might be developed into an anti-cancer drug!).

Monsanto wrote a response to the paper noting that many studies examined the potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate and none has found that the compound causes cancer. Some news reports misinterpreted the study, writing that researchers concluded that glyphosate causes cancer when that is not the researchers’ findings: they suggest glyphosate may cause breast cancer to proliferate. Monsanto pointed out that even this finding is contrary to the body of evidence that exists on the topic. The authors admit to this fact and discuss the appropriate next steps to examine this issue in mice/rats models for breast cancer. I think that that’s a great next step. I’d also look at a few more breast-cancer cell lines.

This is the most compelling research paper that I’ve read about that suggests a potential health risk surrounding glyphosate. But the study must be reproduced and its issues ironed out. However, as I mentioned, the paper isn’t really about GMOs as a class: keep in mind that only a fraction of GMOs are glyphosate resistant (i.e. Round-up Ready crops) and the use of glyphosate is not limited to GMOs.

Additionally, the paper does several experiments with a compound in soybean whose impact on breast cancer cell growth is very similar to that of glyphosate’s—meaning that there are “natural” compounds in our food that seem to have the same impact on breast-cancer proliferation that this paper’s findings suggest for glyphosate. There does not seem to be a scientific consensus on the topic of soy intake in breast cancer patients, although several publications have examined this issue without finding a positive correlation (examples here, here, and here).

6) Glyphosate Linked To Birth Defects

No peer reviewed, published scientific study makes such claims. The source of this health concern is a publication by Earth Open Source, an anti-GMO NGO co-founded by an individual who also owns a GMO-testing and certification company, and whose business would clearly benefit through the promotion of anti-GMO sentiments (see “About the Authors” in this document).

7) Study Links Glyphosate To Autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s

The paper that led to this health claim does not constitute research. It’s a hypothesis and no research was done to support the hypothesis. The paper was reviewed by science journalist Keith Kloor at Discover Magazine who aptly compared it to a Glenn Beck chalkboard drawing.

The claims were printed in a pay-for-play journal (also known as predatory journal), meaning that for a fee, one can get nearly anything published. There have been several exposés on pay-for-play journals, and many scientists believe that the phenomenon is eroding the quality of science (here’s an overview from Nature.com; here’s an exposé of pay for play journals)

8) Chronically Ill Humans Have Higher Glyphosate Levels Than Healthy Humans

This claim is based on a paper published in the Journal of Environmental and Analytical Toxicology, owned by the Omics publishing group- a notorious predatory publishing company.

The authors examined glyphosate levels in humans and different animals. There’s no indication of what the animals were fed, how much, how they were kept or myriad other variables. Any of these could invalidate the study. The researchers do not say anything about the age, sex, weight, height, or genetic background of the humans, or how much they ate, if they washed their food, how long they had been eating organic/conventional diets and, most mind-blowing of all, there’s absolutely no definition for what constitutes being “chronically ill”. Any single issue that I’ve listed here would be considered a fatal flaw that would exclude the paper from publication in a more prestigious journal.

9) Studies Link GMO Animal Feed to Severe Stomach Inflammation and Enlarged Uteri in Pigs

In the study on which this claim is based, the researchers gave pigs GMO feed and non-GMO feed and identified the differences between the two groups. The paper has been thoroughly challenged by many journalists and scientists:

  • Journalist Mark Lynas highlighted the degree to which the data is cherry-picked. The difference in “inflammation” between the GM-fed and non-GM-fed pigs is apparent only when you break down the degree of inflammation into subcategories, but there’s no difference if you view it as a single category. Overall, there’s a high rate of inflammation for both groups, which is not explained in the paper. At the same time, there are several parameters where GM-feed could be argued as having a protective effect (there are 50 percent fewer heart-abnormalities in pigs fed GM-grain), but this isn’t discussed.
  • As explained by geneticist Anastasia Bodnar, the authors do not analyze the compositional differences in the feed between the two groups. Previous studies have determined that the environment (i.e., water, soil, geography) of a crop has a greater impact on proteins and metabolites than whether or not the crop is a GMO. As such, the differences seen in the pigs may not be due pesticides or presence/absence of the transgenic protein; rather, they are most likely due to differences in composition of the feed
  • Geneticist Val Giddings notes that the animals had abnormally high rates of pneumonia, which points to the possibility that something wonky was going on.

In conclusion, even if the paper’s findings are real, there’s no knowing whether that’s due to something associated with transgenes or not, because the researchers do not account for natural variation in the feed.

10) GMO risk assessment is based on very little scientific evidence in the sense that the testing methods recommended are not adequate to ensure safety.

Let’s set aside the fact that this isn’t a “Scientific Study Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health,” which is the claim set out in the title. There are three papers associated with this bullet point. The first one is a review and I agree with a few of the points it makes. It highlights the need for standardized tests and statistics in animal feeding studies for GMOs, and anyone who followed the Seralini debacle would probably agree. It summarizes papers that have performed feeding studies and their results. However, the review does not remove flawed papers from their overview and nor does it distinguish between feeding studies for GMO crops that have been commercialized vs. crops that have never been submitted for regulatory approval. The paper does not conclude, “GMO risk assessment is based on very little scientific evidence”.

The second paper is also a review piece. The first author is affiliated with “Friends of the Earth,” an anti-GMO NGO. It does not constitute novel research and has a clear editorial slant.

The third paper does not even qualify as a review. It’s a commentary published in 2002 in Nature Biotechnology, which is a high caliber journal. It outlined possible unintended consequences that could happen with a GMO—none of which have ever been documented or identified since then, to the best of my knowledge.

In conclusion, despite the title of the article, none of these studies proves or even persuasively suggests that GMOs can be harmful to human health. The majority are either obviously flawed or are not scientific studies.

The current scientific consensus regarding GMOs remains unchanged: they are safe and do not pose a health risk to humans. However, a scientific consensus is subject to change if there is sufficient reproducible evidence that may impact it, but none of the studies reviewed here constitute such evidence.

Layla Katiraee, contributor to the Genetic Literacy Project, holds a PhD in molecular genetics from the University of Toronto and is a senior scientist in product development at a biotech company in California. All opinions and views expressed are her own. Her twitter handle is: @BioChicaGMO

  • Loren Eaton

    Wow! A veritable murderer’s row of incompetence.

  • RobertWager

    Excellent take down of the 10 myths claim.

  • Mark Glenn Keen

    Waiting for anti-GMOers to accuse the author of being “on the take” since she works for a biotech company….sigh… when all else fails…

    • Joe Vaish

      I don’t think she’s on the “take”, as you put it, but it’s possible she could be. I just think she’s a naive ideologue

      • John DeGraffenreid Jr.

        So don’t trust the scientist who is specifically trained and qualified to talk about the very thing she’s talking about, but DO trust the conspiracy theory, jack booted thugs who want to take away my freedom to choose what I eat?

        You have not just jumped the shark my friend, you have nuked the fridge.

        • Joe Vaish

          Well, if some random guy on the internet says it, it must be true. Your ad hominem attacks mean nothing; they are just empty words. She may be trained, but that doesn’t mean she has much real-world experience or is doing anything more. Many of the scientists on the other side of the argument, most of them independent but working for universities, have much more experience than she. One has only to dig into the actual research, not just some Top Ten list, to realize the discussion is far from settled and over. But please, keep eating whatever you want. Eat shit for all I care, but don’t pretend that you actually know what you’re talking about.

          • John DeGraffenreid Jr.


            Seriously, wow. You just said that a scientist who works in and is an acknowledged expert bio-sciences has no real world expertise in her own chosen field because she has an opinion contrary to your own.

            I’ve seen some prejudicial BS in my day, but holy cow dude. This is just like the anti-vaxxer’s arguments where they claim to have “the real truth” and no amount of real science will ever convince them that they are not only wrong but grossly and incompetently wrong.

            I’d tip my hat to the arrogance but I don’t feel it should be rewarded.

          • Joe Vaish

            Not my opinion; other, well-respected scientists’ opinion. Using simplistic statements like “anti-vaxxers” doesn’t make your case any more convincing, not to mention it’s just another straw man. By the way, plenty of people have discerning opinions on the state of vaccines, as well as GMOs. You would probably realize this if you’d do some more research beyond simple websites that you agree with ideologically. Just throwing around words like “science” doesn’t mean you actually comprehend what it means. And, please, step away from the Reddit and go outside and get some sun and exercise. Maybe then you’ll be able to make some actual reasonable, cogent arguments.

          • John DeGraffenreid Jr.

            Here is where I point out that all you’re doing is attacking me and anyone who points out that you aren’t actually arguing anything other than this scientist, who works in and is an acknowledged expert in her field, isn’t qualified to make a statement in her own field of study.

            You then go on to say that a University teacher has more experience and authority than someone who is actually working in the field for reasons that remain unclear as you don’t actually give voice to something so sanctimoniously unsound because it would be utterly laughable on the face of it.

            Now, as I have never been to Reddit your rather pedestrian attempt at negating my previous points is rather amusing and only goes to show that you are, in fact, nothing more than a presumptuous and pandering little troll who only wants to shut down any discussion outside of what you approve of. You don’t want people to be actually informed, you want them fed your propaganda because an informed populace is a dangerous one.

            I want the Truth and if this woman is telling it, then you have no right to silence it because you don’t agree with it.

          • Clint Westwood

            Surely you have a right to believe any nonsense you want. It is indeed a free country.

          • Calamity


          • John DeGraffenreid Jr.

            The woman. Named in the above article. Who is a trained biologist and an expert in her field. Do please read the article above because it’s been quite a while since this was even published. I’ve said my peace and have no wish to go further since it’s fairly obvious no one was actually interested in listening to anything the opposition has to say.

            Have fun sticking your head in the sand. I hear that fear tastes like chicken.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            Having your Capslock on is shouting. It doesn’t make your posts easier to read either. Please take your Capslock off.

          • Calamity


          • guest

            And that is exactly the problem. You folks have opted to abandon rational thought in favor of ideology and lies. You have no clue.

          • Joe Vaish

            No, her article shows a serious lack of discernment and isn’t particularly well-reasoned. If it were, it would include other attributes of human behavior that can affect research, including dogmatic, ideology based thinking, greed and numerous other ego-based behaviors that inhibit the scientific process. You are the one without a clue, I would say.

          • Calamity

            Said “guest” with no profile and no history. dude, you don’t even exist!!

        • Charlie

          “Jack booted thugs who want to take away my freedom to choose what I eat?”
          Funny. If you want to eat glyphosate, go ahead. For my part, I don’t want “jack booted thugs” forcing me to eat it without my knowledge.

          • Karen Bracco Aguayo

            Thank you! I had been wondering why no one had said this! As far as I am concerned, people can eat whatever they want! And they can NOT eat whatever they don’t want. So, why can’t we get these GMOs, at the very least, labelled? I know the answer, but it’s a pitiful one. I am wondering if anyone actually has a GOOD answer to this.

        • Clint Westwood

          The anti-GMO crowd wants labeling labels, nitwit, not bans. Just like ingredients on a candy bar have to printed on the wrapper.

          • John DeGraffenreid Jr.

            And I’ll believe that when they stop spreading lies and misinformation about the subject. No matter how much you might want things to be otherwise, you are not entitled to your own facts (as in making up your own facts). Until you’re ready to debate and/or discuss the matter honestly kindly let the experts and the adults do the talking.

          • Karen Bracco Aguayo

            And pro-GMO entities do NOT spread lies and misinformation? Isn’t that all the industry does??? Talking point 1, talking point 2, etc… Oh, and if they hint to this, side-step and hit them with this!
            Please, explain to me why you think GE food technology is NOT being used irresponsibly? We have NO answers, and yet they are already more than 70% of our food supply! Where are the long-term studies? And why do pro-GMO groups care so little about the unintended effects? How about the effects on the environment? What they are doing to topsoil alone is unacceptable! Water, air, earth. And now… nematodes? Some GMO mono-crops (mono-cropping is bad, in itself) are killing off necessary free-living soil nematodes. Where will it stop?
            Are you even aware that the large majority of all industry GMO crops are not even for human consumption? The “test” crops go to feed the animals we will eventually eat ourselves (even though most of these animals natural diet is NOT grains), or they go to make fuel!
            The industry controls over half of the world’s seed stock. How is this EVER a good idea?
            Excuse me for the rant, but I thought I would find brighter minds here. I am seriously let down.

          • Karen, what you wrote is a rant. Please provide a link to what you consider is a “GMO lie”. You make a lot of generalizations in your rant, but not one is supported by a link to any independent science source. In fact, many of your claims are the exact opposite of the facts. GM crops are more sustainably than organic agriculture if you do a life cycle analysis. For example, with Bt crops, you use almost no insecticides, while organic farmers massively use insecticides, spraying 5 or more times a season. Herbicide tolerant crops use far less toxic pesticides than do organic farmers, as just one example. Also GM farming allows no till agriculture, which enriches the soil and turns the soil into a carbon sink, improving climate change conditions, while organics and non-GMO conventional farming is sustainability disaster. As for “controlling” the world seed stock, what you write is just not true. Farmers get to choose whatever seeds they want. If the seeds do not perform as well, they do not choose them; there is no control. Patenting has been part of agriculture since the 1920s. Most organic seeds are patented. Patenting is limited to 20 years, so all seeds that are patented soon go off patent. This is a system designed to incentive innovation, not “control”. It would be great if you educated yourself a bit about modern agriculture.

          • BioChicaGMO

            Hi Karen,

            You’ve raise a lot of issues here. I’ll try to address them.
            1) “Why do pro-GMO groups care so little about the unintended effects?” Who said we don’t care? I just haven’t read any legitimate study pointing to an unintended health impact. Additionally, singling out GMOs for unintended consequences seems strange when they’re much more thoroughly tested/studied when compared to technologies such as mutagenesis.
            2) “What they are doing to topsoil alone is unacceptable”. Could you please provide me with a peer reviewed study that I could look over? Round-Up Ready crops have allowed for no-till farming, which reduces soil erosion.
            3) “Monocrops”. This is an issue with agriculture, not GMOs, unless you believe that berries and spinach in the supermarket are bought from a backyard garden. It’s an issue that needs to be addressed, but you’re limiting the extent of the problem by narrowing it down to only GMOs. Please see here: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/10/07/lets-play-gmo-jeopardy/
            4) “Are you even aware that the large majority of all industry GMO crops are not even for human consumption”. Again, you’re confounding the issue: that’s due to the type of crop being grown, not because it’s a GMO. Of course a huge percentage of the alfalfa grown in the US (GMO or otherwise) is for animal consumption. That’s because it’s alfalfa; not because it’s a GMO.
            5) “The industry controls over half of the world’s seed stock”. Again, not a GMO issue. Many, many non-GMO seeds, including those for decorative plants, are patented and sold. I haven’t seen anyone giving out cucumber seeds for free, and that’s simply because some company out there, who is probably owned by a much bigger company, took the time to create a strain of cucumber that’s suited to the climate where I live and the soil in our garden. That work took time and effort, and that company deserves the money I pay them for the packet of seeds that we plant in our backyard. Same goes for the GMO seeds used by farmers. See here: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/04/22/patents-and-gmos-should-biotech-companies-turn-innovations-over-to-public-cost-free/

          • Ian
          • BioChicaGMO

            That’s study #9 in the article written above.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Ian, have you read that paper carefully?

            While the authors can conclude that there is a statistical difference in the degree of severe stomach inflammation in pigs fed GM corn, the conclusions end there. The results may very well be a statistical anomaly. Look at the number of pigs with moderate inflammation. The number of pigs in the non-GM fed group with moderate inflammation is just outside the range of significance (p=0.58, threshold p=0.05). For mild inflammation, the numbers are roughly equal. Does that make any sense to you?

            Furthermore, this is not quantitative data. Inflammation was scored visually. There should have been followup analysis, like a complete blood count analysis. This would have provided much more convincing evidence.

            But I think the most problematic thing of all is that the majority of pigs in the study were suffering from pneumonia. Frankly, I just don’t see how anyone can point to this paper as credible evidence that GM feed is harmful.

          • Ian

            For me it’s not about the science, it’s about the overall goal of GMO’s. And that for me is Market share and controlling food sources. I am not a scientist, nor am I qualified to say or verify either way the scientific claims of the potential, or lack of, harmful nature of GMO’s. But I have extensively read and researched the way that markets work and am more then aware of the way that deception, gaming the system and regulatory capture play a large role within the markets and Government and my level of trust for entities such as Monsanto to act in the interests of protecting and being forthright with the general populace are about the same level I would give to letting a known, convicted pedophile look after a week long camping trip comprised of school children. Enough valid questions have been raised that erring on the side of caution in my mind is prudent.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Ian, I think that’s debatable. Yes, there are lots of commercial applications for GMOs and given the cost of producing GMOs, most commercial GMOs will be produced by for-profit companies. Few public institutions can afford to do so. But there are examples of ways genetic engineering can be applied in a non-commercial setting. Golden Rice is one example of how this can be done.

            I agree that the legislation surrounding GMOs (e.g. patent laws, ownership of genetic resources, saving of seeds, etc) needs improvement. The laws are patchwork, drawn from various pre-existing precedents and have been written by industry lobbyists in some cases. These are issues we should address. I would like to seem them openly discussed and addressed.

            One problem I frequently see is a conflation between perceived health risks and legislation (note, I’m not saying you have necessarily done this, just speaking generally). When these issues are conflated, it becomes easy for lobbyists and GM advocates to sideline legitimate criticisms about regulation by pointing at the unsubstantiated claims about health risks. Critics would be taken a lot more seriously I think if they admitted that there are such things as safe GMOs, and instead focused their arguments on better regulations and laws surrounding GMOs.

        • Calamity

          WHAT SCIENTIST? I’ve read over 1800 papers. The scientists that develop these products say clearly that they should be tested further. At least half of these recommend long term testing. Over a quarter of them say that the outcomes over the next 20 years are completely unknown. If you are quoting a scientist. NAME HIM! GIVE THE NAME OF THE PAPER. I can address it if you tell us the name and what is in it! Why won’t you tell us what’s in the papers or who wrote them?

          • noah

            name your scientist

          • Layla picked 10 articles (not all peer-reviewed papers): can you pick one and then respond with something SPECIFIC, not just telling us how many papers you claim to have read.

        • amosm

          Touché! (Love “…nuked the fridge”!)

      • guest

        Pretty typical of anti-GMO ideologues. Take a well reasoned argument from someone with a Ph.D. in the relevant field and smear them. The alternative health movement and the anti-GMO smear machine has turned much of the environmental movement into a pathetic joke.

        • Joe Vaish

          Saying something like “Anti-Gmo Ideologies” is essentially a straw man and an ad-hominem; it means nothing. First, and foremost, GMOs are not all the same; it’s a broad term. You can’t compare cross-breeding to inserting DNA from a mammal into a plant. Your disagreement lacks any reference to facts. Her argument is not particularly well-reasoned and her references are cherry-picked. Your lack of critical thinking shows in your post.

        • Joe Vaish

          By the way, just getting a PhD doesn’t mean anything other than you can regurgitate what you’ve been told and can put it in a cogent form. Impressive, but it doesn’t show critical thinking skills or the fact you are free from ideological thinking.

          • Calamity

            I got mine by hanging in till the bitter end. It has little to do with what you know as much as who on your board likes you and who doesn’t. Really. honestly. if you go through the process you’ll see a lot of people get doctorates by just paying for them.

          • Good4U

            Calamity, maybe it works that way in the “humanities” fields, such as social science, art history, musicology, and the like. It doesn’t work that way in the real, hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, and their related fields. Only through critical thinking, and learning how to apply it to authentic issues do Ph.D. candidates become awarded their degrees. It’s necessary to publish your research in a peer-reviewed journal, where your articles are subjected to scrutiny by others in the relevant field. Evidently you never experienced that sort of scrutiny, as your cynical post demonstrates.

          • Dean

            As an English doctoral student, I can promise you, doctoral programs in the humanities are just as rigorous as those in the sciences. Calamity up there clearly has not actually pursued a doctoral degree in the humanities. Please do not minimize the work and intelligence of those outside STEM fields. Thank you.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            You clearly haven’t got a PhD if you believe that, Joe Vaish.

        • Calamity


          • Karen Bracco Aguayo

            It’s the scientist who wrote the article we are commenting on. Layla Katiree (don’t quote me on the spelling). She very well may not have real world experience. Many of these scientists live in the lab. They have no idea how the cultivation of the seeds/plants is hurting the environment. All they are aware of, and I am not speaking about all of them, is the successes and failures they have seen in the lab atmosphere.

          • Karen, you make a reasonable point that some lab scientists are unaware of real world experience. That said, scientists familiar with plant and animal biotechnology, who are not just lab scientists, but do work in the field, are almost 100% supportive of genetic engineering and its diminished impact on the environment. If are interested in a field view of the controversy, I highly recommend reading “Tomorrow’s Table” co-authored by a husband-wife team…he is an organic farmer and professor of organic agriculture and she is a plant biotechnologist. They discuss the plusses and minuses of both organic and GE agriculture–very informative.

          • BioChicaGMO

            Instead of trying to dissect who I am and what sort of “real world experience” I have, why don’t you comment on what I’ve written? Do any of the studies in the article by Collective Evolution “prove that GMOs are harmful”?

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Right, no outdoors test plots. No careful out doors observations. No idea what goes on in a field.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            Your CAPSLOCK is on.

      • Calamity

        Please explain why you would support a product that has achieved none of its stated goals. It does not increase yields. It has not reduced pesticide use. It does not in any way create a positive outcome for stockholder or customers. Has highly questionable safety, costs more than traditional methods, is banned in every country that has done independent testing? I can think of only one reason. That same reason that people had for supporting smoking and tobacco. Can you guess what that reason is?

        • BioChicaGMO

          Regarding pesticide use, positive outcomes for customers, etc, please see this meta analysis that suggests that there are many positive benefits: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0111629

          “Banned in every country that has done independent testing”: I’m interested to learn more about this. Do you have a paper/article that I could read on the topic?

          • Ellen

            Please watch this and tell me that there are positive outcomes for customers. I would revise your thinking http://althealthworks.com/4551/one-suicide-every-minute-gmo-seeds-from-monsanto-blamed-for-rising-death-rate-in-india/#sthash.H6dFCqw6.gbpl

          • Good4U

            Ellen, your link to the althealthworks website turned up a bogus article. Suicides by Indian farmers are mostly related to the intent of the current government & prime minister (Moti) to return India to the caste system that has plagued their society for millenia. Moti’s the same guy who tried to cast the N.Y. justice system in a bad light for prosecuting the diplomat’s wife for fraud, which she clearly was guilty of, but tried to hide behind her husband’s diplomatic immunity. The anti-GMO faction has tried to paint the picture that farmers are resorting to suicide because of their adoption of modern technology (which by the way Indira Gandhi strongly supported), when in fact it is due to their refusal to regress to the feudal system that had kept them in perpetual poverty. Any link to GMOs has been soundly debunked.

  • GenghisKhant

    An excellent article, something that I will be saving for future use.

  • jimbrauner

    Thanks for listing just a few of the ever increasing evidence that GMOs and glyphosate is potentially a terrible experiment foisted on people, especially here in the US. If GMOs are so great, I would expect the producers would not want to hide from me that they are in the food products that I buy.

    Here is a good article which I think sums up a serious lack of scientific integrity. The intellectual dishonesty of folks who claim to be scientists and who, based on a 90 day test by Monsanto on rats that GMO is essentially equal to non GMO is a modern travesty. I think the following article following puts it in perspective and reintroduces The Precautionary Principal into the discussion and points the way to go before we poison more and more people, land and animals.

    Nassim Taleb, a renowned New York University (NYU) professor recently raised eyebrows when he said genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have the potential to cause “an irreversible termination of life at some scale, which could be the planet.”
    What effects will the genetic manipulation of nature have on our worldwide ecosystem? Photo courtesy of Shutterstock

    Taleb, who specializes in risk engineering, has outlined the dangers of GMOs in The Precautionary Principle, a paper recently made available to the public.

    The threat
    Often, GMO seeds are favored because
    of their ability to yield larger harvests and avoid certain pests or
    weeds that usually eat up some of their productivity, reports Daily Finance.

    Taleb’s primary concern isn’t that ingesting GMOs is necessarily bad
    for people; rather, he’s focused on what effects the genetic
    manipulation of nature will have on the worldwide ecosystem. While Taleb
    concurs the risk of any one GMO seed ruining the planet is incredibly
    small, he argues that people are underestimating the domino effect of
    risk that’s involved.

    For example, if one genetically modified seed produced holds a 0.1
    percent chance of causing a catastrophic breakdown of the ecosystem,
    then the probability of such an event will only increase with each new
    seed that’s developed.

    Taleb writes that given enough time the “total ecocide barrier” is bound to be hit despite incredibly small odds.

    The argument hinges on the fact that GMOs represent a systemic, and
    not localized, risk. As GMO goods continue to be exported to countries
    throughout the world, the idea of being able to control GMOs in nature
    is impossible to guarantee.

    As Taleb says, “There are mathematical limitations to predictability
    in a complex system, ‘in the wild,’ which is why focusing on the
    difference between local (or isolated) and systemic threats is a central
    aspect of our warnings.”

    Responding to critics

    GMO supporters have criticized his work as GMOs have yet to
    significantly harm the ecosystem, but Taleb argues that point
    strengthens his theory.

    Daily Finance reports:

    The Precautionary Principle—which
    is what Taleb calls his warning—is all about managing risk, not about
    waiting for it to surface. The fact that GMOs are a systemic entity is
    undeniable. Taleb is equally skeptical of all entities that carry
    systemic risk—like too-big-to-fail banks.

    We don’t, as Taleb says, argue that a
    game of Russian roulette is safer with each empty barrel we find. It is,
    in fact, more dangerous.

    Visit EcoWatch’s FOOD and GMO pages for more related news on this topic.

    • Clifford Ageloff

      It is a principle held by Ivory Tower academics who have not found their way in the real world. and by no means is it a validation of the supposed dangers of GMOs. Would Mr. Taleb have approved the use of the internal combustion engine, considering in hindsight, what a transformative and troubling technology it appears to be?

      • jimbrauner

        I think your comparison to the internal combustion engine is childish my friend. The principal is to keep just such experiments as GMOs on people and corporate for profit only, academic and bought science from hurting humans. FIRST DO NOT HARM is another principal it encourages. In the case of GMOs we are talking about millions and millions of folks, especially in the US, getting sicker and sicker from food. We can’t even have GMO designation on our labels. This is the height of hypocrisy of an industry telling us their stuff is great and then denying us the right to know what is in our food. How is that for being proud of their products.

        I am happy to see that the jig is about up and it is just a matter of time before the whole GMO to sell chemicals house of cards will be coming down. Here is wonderful news that has broken through the monied political hold of Monsanto on our government agencies.

        Feds to Phase Out GMO Farms and Neonicotinoid Pesticides at Wildlife Refuges


        I am not against progress and even against genetic research and good results but given what I have learned I am totally appalled at what Monsanto and the AgroChem industry has and is doing to us to make money. I live about 10 minutes from Monsanto’s research in St. Louis County MO and just seeing their name any more turns my stomach.

        • Clifford Ageloff

          Bro, if you are reading ‘truth-out.org’ for your ‘information’ we have very little to discuss other than your cognitive dissonance.

      • William

        You can stop the advance of a combustion engine any time you want. A better comparison would be when you compare GMO with the Ebola virus. The problem there is that it is a long way away from the (more) civilized world. If a real, uncontrollable problem occurs with GMO, it is likely going to be in the USA. That is, if you ignore serious issues like CKD, that, at the moment, may not be directly linked with GMO but with Glyphosate, the spread of GMO and the increased use of Glyphosate wil make it happen elsewhere. It seems that, especially for Americans, what happens a long way away from home (but caused by American products) is just collateral damage to keep the price of food on their plates low while maximizing the profits for a few.

      • That does a disservice to genuine academics, who are typically smart enough to question a doctrine like the PP. Most of us can’t afford ivory for our towers, either…

        At the heart of the PP is the same fallacy as in Pascal’s Wager: you can’t make a cost/benefit analysis without considering context. Here is a decent formulation of the argument: http://www.skeptiforum.org/the-missing-context-in-the-mathematical-argument-against-gmos/

        In the case of GMOs the relevant context is that banning transgenic technology does not stop gene transfer in agriculture; and since transgenics are a more controlled technique than mutagenesis or hybridising, they are in fact arguably safer. So under the PP’s immortal guidance we should reasonably ban *non*-GMOs, which are a genetic timebomb 😉 Or more reasonably, accept that GMO technology does not add a significant risk to what has been done for millennia. I’m astonished that Nick Taleb, who is not mathematically or logically incompetent, apparently hasn’t spotted that, but perhaps he’s too busy surfing the wave of being hailed as a perceptive soothsayer of disaster. Of course, if you keep predicting disasters everywhere you look, eventually you’ll be proven right.

        The main fans of the PP are not genuine academics or risk assessment experts, but those who want to ban something. For them the PP is a pseudo-respectable argument that is _always_ on their side. Pity it doesn’t stand up to the slightest rational scrutiny… as decent academics with a little mathematical competence know very well.

    • BioChicaGMO

      Hi Jim, your comment is very timely: a discussion just started on the GMO skeptiforum facebook site on the document you’ve cited. I invite you to join the conversation: https://www.facebook.com/groups/GMOSF/

    • Ellen

      Please watch this video about the devastation Monsanto product is doing to these farmers’ land and lives. http://althealthworks.com/4551/one-suicide-every-minute-gmo-seeds-from-monsanto-blamed-for-rising-death-rate-in-india/#sthash.H6dFCqw6.gbpl

  • @Layla—Some heavyweight debunking on your part! Thanks.

    Each of these 10 “smoking guns” could use a more detailed discussion. A common theme among many of the articles and studies is that they are “models”, but as G. Box said, “…all models are wrong, but some are useful.” The common weakness is that the authors do not present reasonable arguments for why they think that the models can be extrapolated to real-world effects in human. This is “science by innuendo”.

    • Calamity

      Outstanding. Thank you Peter.

  • Ron Hollis

    Overall these ten studies do bring up issues regardless of author’s points of contention. GMOs have never been conclusively and completely proven to be safe. As far as glyphosate consider the adjuvants contained in Roundup and real danger becomes apparent.

    Jul 30, 2014 For the first time in the world Roundup ( not just glyphosate) has been studied in the blood of rats, showing at .1ppb ( 50% less than is allowed in EU drinking water and thousands of times lower than is allowed in USA drinking water) rats showed sex hormone changes. The study shows that the adjuvents ( other chemicals) in Roundup make glyphosate 1000 more toxic. This ground breaking study proves the EPA does not have evidence to say Roundup is safe and should be recalled immediately. Nicholas speaks with Zen Honeycutt of Moms Across America at the “Food Safety and Sustainable Agriculture Forum 2014”


    • BioChicaGMO

      Hi Ron, the video you’ve shown here is based on Seralini’s study, which was retracted. Please see point #4 in the article above.

      • Ron Hollis

        This is about the adjuvants in roundup and comparison to safety levels. By the way the retraction was political. Many scientist stand by his study and has been republished. Did you view the video?

        • BioChicaGMO

          Hi Ron, I did view the video. I assumed that the study and the rats that the person in the video is referring to is Seralini’s study. If my assumption is incorrect, I’d appreciate it if you’d point me to the study/research article. Thanks!

        • Adam Ornawka

          Adjuvant are short lived and dissociated when they enter the plant. Studying concentrated product in vitro is a very poor proxy for product applied at GRAS rates and having the registered pre harvest interval pass.

          • Ron Hollis

            Did you view this video? One drop roundup out 10 billion drops of water fed to rats. Why do you call this concentrated? At any rate who wants any part of roundup on the food we eat.

          • BioChicaGMO

            Hi Ron, as mentioned above, I did view the video. And if it’s referring to Seralini’s study, a review of the data has found that the rat’s symptoms were due to chance/random. Please see this report from the European Food Safety Authorities who reviewed Seralini’s data: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/2986.pdf
            The Wikipedia entry also has many useful links for further reading:

            Regarding your comment “who wants any part of round-up on the food we eat”, you can always stick to buying food under the USDA’s organic label if you are concerned. However, I encourage you to read the following piece for an overview of the amount of Round-Up used in agriculture and its relative toxicity: http://kfolta.blogspot.ca/2014/07/glyphosate-math.html

          • Ron Hollis

            The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) had to reject the study in order to protect its own previous opinions on this and other GMOs. The findings of this study, if confirmed, would overturn regulatory assumptions of safe levels of glyphosate and Roundup.

            Séralini’s Rebuttal

            Séralini’s study showed that 90-day tests commonly done on GM foods are not long enough to see long-term effects like cancer, organ damage, and premature death. The first tumours only appeared 4-7 months into the study.

            Summary answer:

            The Sprague-Dawley (SD) rat strain that Séralini used is also used in long-term 2-year toxicity and carcinogenicity studies by industry and academic scientists, as well as in 90-day studies on GMOs. If this was the wrong type of rat for Séralini to use, it was the wrong rat in all these other studies, and market authorizations for the thousands of chemicals and GM foods that were authorized on the basis of these studies should be revoked.

            Detailed answer:

            Critics say that the Sprague-Dawley (SD) strain of rat that Séralini used is naturally prone to developing tumours, so the increased tumour incidence found in the rats exposed to NK603 maize and Roundup may have been “spontaneous” – that is, they would have happened even without NK603 maize and Roundup. They conclude that Séralini’s tumour findings are meaningless.1

            However, the SD rat is a standard choice for long-term (2-year +) studies for tumour-causing and carcinogenic effects by independent and industry-sponsored researchers.2 3 4 5 6 The National Toxicology Program in the US uses the same SD rat from the same source as Séralini’s rats (Harlan) for its long-term 2-year carcinogenicity and toxicology studies.7 None of these researchers or research programmes has been challenged over their use of SD rats.

            “An absurd argument” – researcher

            In a newspaper interview, the Swiss scientist Dr Angelika Hilbeck of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology replied to the argument that Séralini chose a cancer-prone rat strain:

            “This is an absurd argument. Séralini chose the same strain of rat as Monsanto. Do we really think that a substance should be tested on an animal that is not sensitive to it? With these defamations they wanted to distract us from the fact that Séralini used the same methodology as Monsanto. Because if you take Séralini seriously as a researcher, you have to take seriously his study and the comparison with Monsanto’s study. That would put into question Monsanto’s study and hence the approval of GM maize.”
            Monsanto and other manufacturers of glyphosate, the main chemical ingredient of Roundup herbicide, used the SD rat in their two-year carcinogenicity and multigenerational reproductive toxicity studies that form the basis of the EU authorization of glyphosate.8 9

            If the SD rat was the wrong rat for Séralini to use, it was also the wrong rat for all these other studies. So market authorizations for the thousands of chemicals and GM foods that were granted on the basis of these studies – including glyphosate – should be revoked.

            The SD rat is also often used by industry in its 90-day tests on GMOs submitted to gain regulatory authorization. This includes Monsanto’s 90-day test on NK603 maize.10

            Séralini correctly used the same rat strain that Monsanto used, in order to make his study comparable to Monsanto’s. This is in line with the recommendation of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in its chronic toxicity protocol 453.11 The OECD says that for a chronic toxicity study, the same rat that was used in the 90-day test should be used. If Séralini had used a different strain, he would undoubtedly have been criticized for doing so and thus making his study not comparable with Monsanto’s 90-day test.

            Is the SD rat abnormally prone to developing tumours?

            The SD rat is about as prone to developing tumours as humans living in industrialized countries. Researchers view it as an excellent human-equivalent model for tumour-causing and cancer-causing effects.12

            This includes the fact that in rats, as in humans, the number of tumours increases with age.12 Far from muddying the picture, as critics of Séralini charge, the fact that old rats get more tumours accurately reflects the reality of human ageing.

            Background rate of tumours does not matter

            The background rate of tumours in the strain of rat that Séralini used does not matter and does not invalidate his findings, as explained by Judy Carman, associate professor at Flinders University School of the Environment and director, Institute of Health and Environmental Research, Australia.

            Dr Carman said:

            “Séralini undertook a properly controlled experiment. This means that he used a control group that was not given any treatment. This control group tells you the background level of tumours in that type of rat. In science, you compare this background rate to the tumours you see in groups that you have ‘treated’ in some way. In Séralini’s case, the treatment groups were treated with GM NK603 maize and Roundup herbicide, separately and together.

            “The aim is to see if the treatment increases the amount of tumours above the background rate. The increase is measured using something called the ‘relative risk’. For example, if a treatment results in twice as many tumours as the control group, then you say that the treatment has a relative risk of 2.

            “Science is done this way because we know that there are background levels of tumours in animals and people. For example, you have a small risk of getting lung cancer even if you do not smoke. But you have a much higher risk of getting lung cancer if you do smoke. In fact, you have about a 12-fold higher risk of getting cancer if you smoke than if you do not smoke, so the relative risk here would be described as 12 for smoking and lung cancer.

            “The rats that Séralini used may or may not have a high background level of getting tumours. It does not matter. The fact is, rats in treatment groups had a higher chance of getting tumours than rats than the control rats that did not get the treatment. Saying that the results were invalidated because the control rats had a higher background rate of tumours is as absurd as saying that smoking cannot cause lung cancer in an ethnic group if that group has a naturally-occurring higher background rate of lung cancer.”
            In Séralini’s study, all treatments in both sexes increased large tumour incidence 2-3-fold in comparison to controls within the experiment.

            By the beginning of the 24th month, 50-80% of female animals had developed tumours in all treated groups, with up to 3 tumours per animal. In the control group, in contrast, only 30% of the rats had tumours.

            The most valid control for any experiment is the concurrent control – the control group within the experiment. However, industry and regulators often use “historical control data” from a variety of other experiments to evaluate the findings in any one experiment – generally to dismiss findings of toxic effects and to claim that the substance or product is safe.

            Use of historical control data is bad scientific practice unless the comparability of each data point is established. But since it is common in the field of industry/regulatory science, Séralini briefly and in a summary statement evaluated his findings against published historical control data on the SD rat.

            Séralini found that the treatments in his experiments increased the incidence of mammary tumours 2-3-fold in comparison to spontaneous tumour rates in the same SD strain from the same supplier (Harlan),13 and 3-fold in comparison to the largest study with 1329 SD female rats.14 In addition, tumous in Séralini’s treatment groups developed earlier and faster than in controls. This suggests that these tumours had a different biological basis from those arising spontaneously.

          • BioChicaGMO

            Hi Ron,
            Regarding the use of SD rats by the NIH, that’s a good point. However, the National Toxicology Program’s website states “The NTP long-term toxicology and carcinogenesis studies (bioassays) in rodents generally employ both sexes of rats (Harlan Sprague Dawley) and mice (B6C3F1/N hybrid) with three exposure concentrations plus untreated controls in groups of 50 animals for two years.”
            Seralini only used 10 animals per group, which isn’t sufficient for the necessary statistical tests that need to be performed.

            I’m also copying the comments that I’ve provided for Jason Shoffler on the topic of the SD rats for your convenience:
            Regarding the fact that Seralini’s study was republished without another round of reviews, that information can be found here: http://retractionwatch.com/201
            The fact that SD rats are predisposed to tumors is well known. The earliest paper that I could find is from 1956 (http://cancerres.aacrjournals….. You claim that the tumor incidence is “slightly higher”. This paper from the 70s states that the SD rats had nearly 2x the rate of spontaneous tumors compared to controls (http://cancerres.aacrjournals….. As such, it’s a poor choice for long-term studies, which was the aim of Seralini’s study. I can’t imagine what sort of discussion was carried out in the lab when that choice was made… “Hmmm… we know that the rats are going to get tumors past 1 year. But lets keep them alive with their tumors, so that we can mimic industry standards. Since we’re not studying their tumors, it doesn’t really matter if they suffer.”?

          • Hi Ron, I sympathize. Wading through all this information can be hard. However, instead of simply cutting and pasting text from Seralini’s personal website, I strongly recommend that you read some of the citations that he makes, because they actually refute his own claims!

            For example, while Seralini used 10 rats per group in his infamous 2012 paper, Voss et al. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15588926) used 185! OECD guidelines clearly state that the statistical models to be used in a study should be defined in advance, and the number of animals should be selected accordingly. It is inconceivable to me that someone as experienced as Seralini did not know up-front that his study was doomed to failure, even though it cost several million euros to perform. To simplify the point: if I toss a coin three times and get ‘heads’ every time does this mean that I have a 2-headed coin? No. Seralini, and others, are trying to draw conclusions from finding the equivalent of three simultaneous ‘heads’. This is why mainstream science (and the original journal) have dismissed his results as being meaningless.

            Incidentally, I still don’t understand why activists groups like PETA are not publicly condemning the suffering and death of a large number of animals, for the sake of a meaningless study (or publicity stunt).

          • Ron Hollis

            Hi Peter, sorry but some cut & paste is necessary when both sides need be represented. Let’s not be closed-minded.
            Here’s Seralini’s response to some questions.
            What did you study?

            Our team is the most-published in the world on the impact of GMOs and pesticides on health. We have done studies on human cells and on rats, both short- and long-term (two years). Regarding studies in rats, we were the first ones to study so many parameters (tens of thousands for blood and urine) and for so long. These rats consumed regularly GMOs with pesticides, and at the same doses, GMOs without pesticides. The aim was to find out where any toxicity came from. We were the only ones in the world to do this, as companies and health agencies had never ordered tests lasting longer than three months. But the study was retracted with great violence by the journal which published it after a former employee of Monsanto (Editor’s note: manufacturer of Roundup and GMO seeds) was introduced onto the editorial board of the journal. He is the former head of GMO toxicology dossiers at Monsanto.

            What did this study show? Cancer?

            No. We first observed the toxic effect on the animals’ liver. GMOs and Roundup also caused very significant kidney inflammation and necrosis of the liver. The other phenomenon was inversion of sex hormones (excess androgen in females and too little estrogen). The third effect was also hormonal: mammary tumors and pituitary gland tumours. In our study, we never mentioned the word cancer, because there were tumours, which varied from more or less cancerous. We recorded everything , but we did not conclude on cancer. Deaths resulted because they had grown very quickly (internal bleeding, pressure on vital organs … ). This happened both with the pesticide and with the GMO alone. We understand the mechanism of action. The enzyme that is overproduced in the GMO to make it tolerate Roundup began indirectly to decrease the levels of amino acids essential for protection of the liver and kidney.

            But this study is questionable because you used a type more susceptible to tumours, groups of animals that were too small …

            We had control rats (not fed GMOs), and we still found two to three times more tumors [in treated rats]. And there were inversions of sex hormones, which nobody mentioned. Furthermore, these rats have been used in 250 000 toxicology studies, and with ten rats per group (a total of 200), the number of rats was within the norms of general long-term toxicity studies [like Séralini’s]. And Monsanto used the same strain of rat to test its GM corn! And they measured ten rats per group, a total of 40. There are double standards! The study was criticised by some tens of people: health agencies and lobbies. For me, the retraction was due to the study’s symbolic effect. This [retraction] allows lobbyists to say there has never been any study showing a health risk with GMOs. So that the Commission can continue to allow GMOs and so that this little phrase can always be used. This study was withdrawn due to the wrongdoing of lobbyists in the system, under pressure from Monsanto. The arguments of the journal were the same as those of Monsanto. In any case, we stand by our findings! And we will republish [the study]!

          • BioChicaGMO

            Hi Ron,
            I don’t want to keep going back and forth, if you’re simply going to post information from Seralini’s page. I’ve provided my perspective, stating that the choice of the SD rat was not appropriate given the number used. Additionally, keeping the rats alive for so long once they had tumors was unethical. I already know what Seralini thinks. I’ve read his papers, comments and rebuttals. I want to know what you think. Are you OK with Seralini’s choice of model organism, knowing full well that they were going to get tumors in the long-term? Are you OK with the fact that not enough rats were used to perform any useful statistics?

          • Ron Hollis

            Hi Layla,
            Just trying to see all sides to issue. I’m OK with Seralini’s rebuttal. Make sense to me. Criticism hinges on the incorrect assumption that Séralini’s study was intended to be a carcinogenicity study. You may say that Séralini used too few rats of a strain prone to tumours, so the tumours seen may have occurred spontaneously and no conclusions can be drawn. But Séralini’s study was a chronic toxicity study, not a carcinogenicity study. The increase in tumour incidence was a surprise outcome. The logical response to the findings is not to dismiss them but to follow up with a full-scale carcinogenicity study on GM NK603 maize and Roundup.

          • @Ron—I’m still not clear. SPECIFICALLY, what do you think is the single most compelling observation in the Seralini safety study.

          • BioChicaGMO

            Hi Ron,
            I think we may have some common grounds here. Could we agree that Collective-Evolution’s piece is inaccurate or misleading in stating that a “Study Links Genetically Modified Corn to Rat Tumors”?

          • BioChicaGMO

            Hi Ron, any thoughts about the commonality in our arguments?

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            The mammary adenomas were not significantly more frequent in the GMO-fed rats than in the controls.

          • Mlema

            that’s why it was ridiculous for Seralini to plaster photos all over. It was irrelevant to the study.

          • Mlema

            BioChicaGMO – why is it bad for Seralini to use a small number of this tumor-prone animal, but not for Monsanto?

          • BioChicaGMO

            Because the animals are prone to getting tumors in the long term, not short term. Monsanto’s studies are 90 days. For a 2 year study, which was Seralini’s goal, he should have either a) used something else or b) used more rats

          • Mlema

            8 years prior to the Seralini study, Monsanto published it’s research in the same journal, research using the same number and kind of rats. Monsanto=9 month, Seralini=2 years. These are toxicology studies. The European commission is spending a lot of money to re-do Seralini’s study. They’re going to use 50 rats. So maybe we’ll get to the bottom of this. I don’t think your criticism regarding the rats is valid, since this is standard accepted protocol, even in 2 year studies. But I agree with those who say the tumorous rats were awful.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            50 rats/sex/group is the minimum acceptable number in a 2-year study.

          • Mlema

            For cancer.

      • Mlema

        Retracted for inconclusive findings. A reason for which no other study has ever been retracted. There’s nothing wrong with the study that isn’t also wrong with Monsanto’s. Seralini has answered his critics, but those in the industry refuse to acknowledge.

        • BioChicaGMO

          How is a 90 day study the same as a 2 year study?
          I agree with you that the journal made a mistake in its retraction, but for a different reason: the journal should have just admitted that the paper shouldn’t have been published in the first place.

          This is from the notice in the retraction (http://retractionwatch.com/2013/11/28/controversial-seralini-gmo-rats-paper-to-be-retracted/ ).

          “there is legitimate cause for concern regarding both the number of animals in each study group and the particular strain selected. The low number of animals had been identified as a cause for concern during the initial review process, but the peer-review decision ultimately weighed that the work still had merit despite this limitation. A more in-depth look at the raw data revealed that no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate in regards to overall mortality or tumor incidence. Given the known high incidence of tumors in the Sprague-Dawley rat, normal variability cannot be excluded as the cause of the higher mortality and incidence observed in the treated groups.”

          Sure, Seralini has provided a rebuttal, but he hasn’t fixed the issues with his paper. He even had a chance to address the issues that critics raised. Instead, he just published the same dataset.

          • Mlema

            The Seralini study used the same kind and number of rats as Monsanto has. If the study shouldn’t have been published because it was inconclusive, then Monsanto’s safety research is also inconclusive. Seralini’s was a toxicology study. He stupidly used the ugly tumors to gain notoriety. Perhaps he deserved to have his study retracted just because he acted so dumb. But the facts remain: the study is above reproach and there’s a double standard being applied here.

          • BioChicaGMO

            So you believe that 90 days and 2 years are the same thing?

          • Mlema

            huh? No, 90 days and 2 years aren’t the same thing. Did I miss something?

          • BioChicaGMO

            Well, Monsanto’s studies are 90 days. Seralini’s study was for 2 years. As such, the argument that “Seralini was doing the same thing as Monsanto. He should be able to use the same rats” is not a correct statement. The rats get tumors in the long term. Seralini’s study was a long term study. As such, he should have used a different rat or more rats, to be able to perform the appropriate statistics.

          • Mlema

            I think it’s all about the controls. This wasn’t cancer research, it was about toxicity. Seralini made it about the tumors by parading the poor lumpy rats all over the media.

            Here’s what I see: when Monsanto does a feeding trial, the focus is on all the results that appear to be normal, and those that indicate problems (like liver and kidney lesions) are hidden, or dismissed as insignificant. But when Seralini does the research, all the focus is on those abnormalities which are irrelevant (some parameters which seemed to favor eating glyphosate) and the relevant findings are ignored.

            At any rate, if you are correct, we had best notify the European Commission, since they are spending a lot of money to repeat these studies, and will use 50 rats. We want to make sure they use the right kind, right?


          • BioChicaGMO

            Do you have information on the European Commission’s study? I’d love to learn more about it.

          • Mlema

            The EFSA has guidelines for exactly the sort of study Seralini did. Seralini followed feed guidelines and sex differentiation in results where Monsanto didn’t.

            Here’s the problem I see: Although 10 rats are recommended for toxicology assessment for 12 months, 50 rats are recommended for carcinogenic studies for 24 months. So the critism of two year of SD rats is not valid. And ten rats for a toxicology study is not wrong. Seralini did a 24 month toxicology study. When the rats showed up with tumors, he paraded them around (in order to wake people up most likely and get the public battle going)

            So, the question is: should he have conducted a 2 year toxicology study? I don’t know. I think the reasoning is that he’s trying to find out what long-term exposure means.

            So, what are the real reasons his study was withdrawn?

            The EU has requested that the EFSA do a 2 year carcinogenic study with 50 rats to follow up on Seralini’s results of MON603 research
            (page 70)

          • Mlema

            NK603, not MON603

          • BioChicaGMO

            I asked the GMO-Skeptiforum (which is a Facebook group that I’d encourage you to join if you’re on FB) if anyone had an update on this project. Apparently, Seralini’s group withdrew from the study because they decided to shorten the analysis to 6 months, but use omics based technology to look for differences in the rats. See here: http://www.gmoseralini.org/criigen-withdraws-from-french-government-project-on-gmo-risks/

          • Mlema

            I’m not aware that Seralini is involved at all in the EFSA follow-up of his research on NK603 (which I linked you to a description of). Why would he be?

            You’ve linked to a project by the French Government: “Risk’OGM” (which apparently Seralini’s group must have belonged to and then dropped out of)

            These are 2 separate organizations. The EFSA is equivalent to the FDA for all of Europe. If you want updates, check with EFSA information sites. Sounds like your FB page isn’t a knowledgeable source.

          • BioChicaGMO

            You’re right; the French study is complementary to the 2 year study being carried out by the European Commission. http://www.gmoseralini.org/seralini-study-france-launches-long-term-study-on-the-risks-of-gmos/

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            The reason Monsanto’s trial didn’t comment on liver or kidney lesions was that there were no test article-related liver or kidney lesions found.

          • um

            the FDA was recently forced to put into the public domain 44,000 pages of confidential finding concerning Monsanto and their products, including studies on the hazards of using rBST hormones in milk production. And we’re supposed to trust GMOs?

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            My name is not Ros, you rude impertinent person.

          • Mlema

            False. The raw data showed a statistically significant number, but Monsanto not to report it.

          • Mlema

            False. There results were statistically significant but not reported by Monsanto. Monsanto was forced to release raw date which revealed the lesions.

          • Mlema

            The raw data revealed a statistically significant number of kidney and liver lesions. Monsanto dismissed and the data had to be forced public to reveal that fact.

          • Mlema

            You’re not looking at the same study. I’m talking about the one that Germany forced Monsanto to release its raw data on – which showed kidney and liver lesions. Monsanto didn’t report, although statistically significant.

          • Mlema

            It was a feeding trial for regulatory approval.

          • Mlema

            Why does every reply I make here disappear?

          • Mlema

            Does Monsanto have edit capabilities on this site? I’ve made several replies here to Rosalind and they’ve all subsequently disappeared. Anyway – there were liver and kidney lesions. You’re obviously talking about a different study. I’m talking about the one that a German court forced Monsanto to release the raw data on.

            here’s hoping this posts!

          • Mlema

            Why shouldn’t the paper have been published and why was it retracted? Is your sole reason that there were too few rats and they were the wrong rats?

          • BioChicaGMO

            Using too few rats is a fatal flaw. It’s not a small matter. Please see: http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2014/07/seralini-rat-study-revisited/

            Additionally, I think it’s extremely unethical that the rats were kept alive for so long with the giant tumors for a photo op.

          • Mlema

            your link and quote are from the letter Hayes wrote to SEralini’s group. What he wrote was irrelevant to the validity of the study. The paper passed peer review and no one could find a legitimate reason to retract it, so they said the data was inconclusive. Again, no other paper has ever been retracted for being inconclusive. This was about industry pressure. That’s the long and the short of it.

    • Clifford Ageloff

      Zen Honeycutt? She’s an anti-GMO activist, not a ‘source’ of credible information of ANY kind.

      • Randall H.

        I read how they collected their “comparable” corn for the study.

        We literally don’t feed animals that kind of nutritional variation, let alone do scientific studies.

  • Jason Shoffler

    If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”

    ― Malcolm X

    GLP:This claim is the infamous Seralini paper, which was retracted, and recently republished, in a different journal without being peer reviewed.

    ME:The Seralini may just be the most peer-reviewed paper in the history of peer-review.

    GLP:The paper identified tumors in rats that were fed GMOs and/or the herbicide glyphosate longterm.

    ME:Actually, there was kidney and liver toxicity as well as severe hormonal imbalances. Professor Seralini was looking for those. The tumors were a side note and complete surprise, not the main focus of the study.

    GLP:But the strain of rat used was predisposed to tumors.

    ME:Sort of true. The SD rats do tend to have a slightly higher tumor rate after 18 months than the other popular lab rat. So, it should be noted, it lowers the statistical weight after the 18month mark of cancer tumors developing. In Seralini’s case, the females started developing tumors in 4 mos. So, it should be noted, but unless there is any new evidence regarding the SD rats tumor rates, that revelation doesn’t really effect anything. Really seems to be a favorite with the GMO lobby for some reason.

    Now, since it was a chronic toxicity study the cancer has zero bearing on the toxicity results. The strain and number of rats was selected specifically to mimic industry safety test that Professor Seralini was duplicating.

    Sadly, Seralini was forced to do this because Monsanto refused to follow the scientific method like they were supposed to. Instead of duplicating the anomalous findings from their safety test that the general rules of ethics and good science would dictate, they, instead, decided that science NOR public health were in the best interest of the shareholders.

    So, Monsanto’s general handling of the study, by the strictest definition of the word, was unscientific. And quite clearly unethical due to the public heath hazard potential. Which, sadly is the level of ethics we should expect from them but don’t. It should also be noted, and taken seriously, that they probably have more potential health hazards they are hiding….

    So unscientific scum bag on one side….

    And on the other side, Seralini, who not only decided to follow the scientific method for what appears to be a growing social concern, he even did so facing constant harassment and threats to his career.

    GLP:The paper did not perform statistical analyses and used too few rats, so it was not possible to determine if the tumors were due to the food, the chemical or to the fact that the strain of rats would get tumors regardless of what they were fed.

    ME:Again, to rehash this point. Its a shame that the study is over a year old and Entine still doesn’t know, or won’t acknowledge what kind of study it is. Which is stated clearly in big bold letters on the front top of the study, cant miss it if you actually look at it.

    As I stated above, the tumors started at 4 – 7 months so the slight increase in tumor rates after 18 has little bearing on weight of his cancer findings. And it absolutely has no baring, whatsoever, on the main purpose of the test, the toxicity findings ,which was multiple organ damage and hormonal imbalances. So, GLP gets an F for journalism and a D- for scientific accuracy.

    GLP:Finally, the findings from Seralini’s paper are contrary to other long-term feeding studies. An overview of the criticisms regarding this paper can be found here.

    ME:There really is not a huge pool of long term studies to reference. Infact, Professor Seralini’s is one of the most robust, detailed and in depth chronic toxicity studies for GMO maize Ever..

    What there is an over abundance of, is these 30 and 90 day industry feeding trials, which are included with that big list of safety studies PR package the lobby throws at everybody. They don’t call it corporate junk science for nothing, folks

    • BioChicaGMO

      Hi Jason,
      Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Regarding the fact that Seralini’s study was republished without another round of reviews, that information can be found here: http://retractionwatch.com/2014/06/26/republished-seralini-gmo-rat-study-was-not-peer-reviewed-says-editor/
      The fact that SD rats are predisposed to tumors is well known. The earliest paper that I could find is from 1956 (http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/16/3/194.full.pdf). You claim that the tumor incidence is “slightly higher”. This paper from the 70s states that the SD rats had nearly 2x the rate of spontaneous tumors compared to controls (http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/33/11/2768.long). As such, it’s a poor choice for long-term studies, which was the aim of Seralini’s study. I can’t imagine what sort of discussion was carried out in the lab when that choice was made… “Hmmm… we know that the rats are going to get tumors past 1 year. But lets keep them alive with their tumors, so that we can mimic industry standards. Since we’re not studying their tumors, it doesn’t really matter if they suffer?”

      • Michael

        As I understand it, Monsanto used the same breed of rat to do their 90 day studies, that Seralini was trying to duplicate with a longer exposure time. Seralini was also criticized for the amount of rats tested. Again, it was the dame amount that Monsanto used.
        And to Repeat what Jason pointed out, Seralini was not testing for or looking for tumors. Continuing to use that as an excuse to discredit the study is ridiculous.

        • BioChicaGMO

          Hi Michael: by definition, Seralini was no longer duplicating Monsanto’s study when he decided to extend it to 2 years. It’s a fundamental aspect of animal research that you pick your organism based on the goals of your study. His goal was to perform a long-term feeding study using genetically modified feed, as outlined in the very first sentence of the paper’s abstract: “The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant NK603 genetically modified (GM) maize
          (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup application and
          Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb of the full pesticide containing glyphosate and
          adjuvants) in drinking water, were evaluated for 2 years in rats. “

          • Mlema

            Seralini’s mistake was parading his tumorous rats all over the media. If he’d just put the study out – which was valid and still is – there would be much less fanfare (but the industry would still have gone after him). Kidney and liver problems showed up in a re-analysis of Monsanto’s data done by Seralini some years earlier (don’t remember if it was the same GMO). The industry hates Seralini, and all GMO proponents insist that anything he’s done or does is automatically invalid because he’s Seralini.

          • John DeGraffenreid Jr.

            A study is only as valid as its methodology and his was flawed, at best. These kinds of things have to be held to the highest ethical and academic standards because of the potential for harm they could cause. (see the vaccines cause autism debacle)

            If someone can’t be bothered to cross every t and dot every i then they shouldn’t be doing the study.

          • Mlema

            I agree. But why is Seralini held to a higher standard than Monsanto? Please look for later comments in this discussion between myself and the author of the post. Also, there’s plenty of info online about Monsanto’s own study of MON863, and Seralini’s subsequent examination of the raw data, which, along with other independent review, proved to reveal critical oversights.

          • John DeGraffenreid Jr.

            Because Seralini attempted to prove harm. He was the one who chose to use the rats he did. He was the one who chose to promote his study as being unbiased when it was objectively anything but.

            He rigged the results and, therefor, cannot be taken seriously. If you already know what the results will be before you even get out of the gate, as he had to have known given the well known reputation of that breed of rat, then how can the results be honest ones?

          • Mlema

            The rats he used are the standard for these sorts of toxicology studies. They were the same rats used by Monsanto. The debate, as far as I can see, is over whether it was proper to use the smaller amount of rats with a longer term of study.

            What do you mean he “rigged” the results? The study was retracted for “inconclusive results”. There was no fraud, no protocol mistakes – just inconclusive results. No other study has ever been removed from the literature for inconclusive results.

            Please read the content of my conversation with this post’s author here:

          • John DeGraffenreid Jr.

            Perhaps you should reacquaint yourself with the definition of rigged.

            He used rats known for accelerated tumor growth, which strikes me as somewhat irresponsible given that you’d want rats that WON’T grow tumors if you spill water on them for this kind of thing.

            But hey maybe I’m just being silly in expecting honesty in these kinds of studies.

          • Mlema

            Sprague Dawley rats are bred for this sort of research. They need to have a certain susceptibility to various pathologies in order to be useful for research. Again, this is the standard and was used by Monsanto to do the same research on the same foods. The only difference was length of study. As long as there are good controls, the tumors are only significant for their cruelty. The difference between control rats and rats fed the GMO is what’s important, not that the rats got tumors. This was a toxicology investigation.

            Please find my earlier conversation for more information if you wish. I provided links there. Nothing was “rigged” – the study was peer-reviewed and found to be sound science. Again, the question seems to be about the number of rats for a 2-year toxicology study. Monsanto used the same number and kind of rats, but only for 3 months. Why would you expect to find evidence of toxicity in such a short time? seralini expanded the research, but should have used more rats because of the longer time frame. In two year cancer studies, 50 rats are used. As I explained in the comments I tried to link you to, the EFSA is spending a ton of money to expand this research and settle the issue.

          • John DeGraffenreid Jr.

            No. You see the reason that the study was retracted was because of the type of rat used in it. I have actually read about the retraction there sport and the main problem that many people had with it was the susceptibility of the rats to tumors, since that was what it was attempting to prove. (which is the very definition of rigging the results. Which I know because I understand how language works and how to put 2 and 2 together with this little thing called reason. It’s useful in sniffing out horse manure from reality)

          • Mlema

            ok. Now tell me why Monsanto’s studies are valid demonstrations of safety for consumption.

          • John DeGraffenreid Jr.

            A. The author of the above piece does all of that in spades, ergo I have no reason to further beat my head against the wall of concrete that exists betwixt yon ears.

            B. I’ve not read those studies nor do I care to because people have been eating this kind of food for more than a decade and, guess what, there was no massive break down in society the way that they keep claiming. In fact I’ll go a step further and say that the anti-science brigade bares singular responsibility for every death of starvation in areas where engineered crops COULD HAVE FREAKING GROWN had the science been able to develop further. You know those crops that are designed to grow in regions hit by massive droughts? Yeah. Every drop of innocent blood is on the hands of the luddites who frightened the people who needed that food for their survival into not using it.

            Now all our cards are on the table. At least I can sleep at night.

          • Mlema

            Your reply is baffling. The piece above doesn’t talk about Monsanto’s study of NK603 at all.

            If you don’t want to read the studies, and prefer to base your safety assessment on “we’ve been eating it and nothing’s happened” – that’s your choice. But don’t pretend it’s scientific. We’ve haven’t been eating GMOs – we’ve been eating non-protein extracts as ingredients in processed foods. But there’s protein in GMO corn – and that is likely in our food. But you have no way to know whether that has or hasn’t negatively impacted the health of those who’ve eaten it. There’s no way to correlate health effects with consumption.

            As far as innocent blood on the hands of “luddites” who’ve frightened people – that’s and absurd and hysterical statement. Give me one example of a GMO crop whose lack of availability has caused detriment to anyone. Most drought-resistant varieties have been conventionally developed, some with marker-assisted selection. I defy you to find one example of a GMO that could have prevented death and didn’t because someone scared the farmer into not planting it or people into not eating it. And I’m not talking about the US dropping pig feed in Africa – I’m talking about those drought or flood resistant GMOs you seem to think could save the world, Where are they? We have one DR corn in the US – of course modified for pesticide. It doesn’t yield as well as the non-GMO. Which is the trouble we’re currently having with Golden Rice too. These plants are weaker versions of their parents outside their trait. Bad news for farmers who need yield over convenience, and aren’t subsidized by tax dollars to pay for pesticides.

          • Mlema

            Sorry, you made me mad with your stupid insults. What I wrote makes it look like I’m against agricultural GMOs. I’m not. But I’m so weary of this rhetoric about saving the world and equivalence to non-GMO development. It’s false.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Refreshing argument, Miema.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            I have read Seralini’s studies and they are absolute rubbish, and a disgrace to the peer-reviewers and editors who let them through.
            I have a decade’s experience in running toxicology studies in a wide range of animals including laboratory rats,in contract toxicology laboratories.

          • with a whole decade of experience, you’re about halfway to becoming an authority on your very first study subject, since long term effects studies require at least twenty years for effects in humans to be reliable. Oh…my mistake. your studies are on animals, and no experience in actual human studies?

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            Lifetime effects take only 2 years in rats.

            I haven’t conducted human studies, but I have reviewed hundreds. That’s my job.

            Seralini’s studies were in rats. You do realize that?

            How many 20-year human studies have you conducted?

          • Mlema

            So your opinion means something. Thanks for sharing it.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            The study was not retracted because of the breed of rat used. It was retracted because the data did not support the conclusions. The conclusions were unfounded.

          • Mlema

            What conclusions are you saying weren’t supported? Please be specific.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            Sprague Dawley rats are not a good choice for chronic studies because the females have a very high background incidence of mammary adenomas. Also, Sprague Dawleys are very prone to developing liver and kidney pathology with age.

          • Mlema

            Monsanto didn’t control for sex differences in their results. Nor did they use an isogenic food control as far as I can tell. The importance was in the controls. Many of the rats that lived displayed pathology. However, the GMO fed rats developed them multiple times faster. The results were sex-dependent, a differentiation which Monsanto chose to overlook in their own studies.

          • Mlema

            As I said in the conversation I’ve referred you to – it’s about the controls. The test group developed tumors 2-3x more rapidly than the control, and well within the typical time frame of a toxicology study (which is what it was)

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            He attempted to prove harm because the CRIIGEN Institute where he works gets a lot of funding from Greenpeace, which opposes GMOs, and ‘he who pays the piper, calls the tune’. Also Seralini has published a number of trashy paperbacks scaremongering about GMOs, and obviously he is interested in boosting his royalties.

          • @Mlema—Am I right in thinking that you have not actually read the Hammond (ref. 1) or Seralini (ref. 2) papers? If you had, you would appreciate that they are as different as night and day. Seralini was NOT just a longer-term repeat of the Hammond 90-day study. (For example, 40% of the data was not supported by a relevant control)!

            In order to help move this debate forward, perhaps you would tell us what do you think was the single most significant result from the Seralini paper?

            The statement by the editor that the Seralini group paper was retracted because the results were “inconclusive” was simply a very polite, euphemistic, way of saying that the data they generated were not consistent with the conclusions that they claimed. In plain language, there were no meaningful results! Without a result (just meaningless data), there was no point to the paper. (As an aside, the real scandal here is incompetence of the journal in not flagging the problems of the paper in the first place).

            The Seralini group chose to show results of biochemical analysis obtained after 15 months (not 2 years), but failed to present them in a conventional fashion (i.e. mean values, plus or minus the standard deviation—unlike Hammond et al.). Why? Could it be because no significant differences were seen? Instead, they chose to use an exotic mathematical analysis (Orthogonal Partial Least Squares-Discriminant Analysis) which I have never seen used for analyzing this kind of controlled study. Perhaps they really figured out a radically different way of analyzing the data. If so, great; but it was incumbent on them to demonstrate that it was valid, and make the case why this kind of approach was used instead of simply repeating what Hammond et had done? The phrase, “lies, damn lies, and statistics” seems to be appropriate here.

            Even today, the Seralini group shows no remorse, but shamelessly presents pictures of rats with gross deformities on their website—clearly designed to imply to the non-science public that a real, serious, effect was seen. I think that this display of images is the most damning demonstration of the true motivation of this group: creation of fear, in the absence of data. This is no longer science, just politics.

            Mlema, I admire your courage in defending the work of the Seralini group. Where we part ways is a basic principle of science: by default, any claim is assumed to be untrue, unless proven to the contrary. The Seralini group skillfully uses suggestion and innuendo to side-step this principle. Doubtless—unlike a naive undergraduate student—they were highly qualified to have designed and executed a clear, definitive, study to investigate the potential harmful effects of longer-term GMO corn or glyphosate. Since they didn’t—at the risk of trying to guess at motivation—one simple interpretation of this debacle is that they executed a small, poorly-controlled, study with the intent of suggesting some deleterious effects. Many people without a scientific training were fooled. (Personally, I would have given an undergraduate student a D+ and told them to re-do the study design—but that’s just me).

            ref. 1: Hammond, B., Dudek, R., Lemen, J., Nemeth, M., 2004. Results of a 13 week safety

            assurance study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn. Food Chem.

            Toxicol. 42, 1003–101

            ref. 2: http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0278691512005637/1-s2.0-S0278691512005637-main.pdf?_tid=dd9f5b04-49d0-11e4-bf06-00000aab0f26&acdnat=1412212394_554bd061f62ddbc9a49f160a273acf66

          • Mlema

            Seralini is a long-time critic of safety assessments of GMOs.

            The two papers were different because Monsanto’s was flawed. All your criticisms have been answered by Seralini, including those against his analytical methods. You can read for yourself here:


            And since the only conclusion Seralini drew was: “Our findings imply that long-term (2 year) feeding trials need to be conducted to
            thoroughly evaluate the safety of GM foods and pesticides in their full commercial
            formulations.” – I fail to see how the results didn’t justify the conclusions. I find the results concerning.


            Science isn’t in the business of being polite. The study was retracted because of industry pressure. There was no fraud and no error. Lack of conclusiveness isn’t a reason to retract a paper. We have plenty of published papers with no conclusive results. Read Snell et al metastudy on feeding trials.

            I don’t like Seralini’s dramatics. But let’s face it – the industry would have been all over this study with or without his antics. They’ve taken down other scientists who are too public with negative findings. Seralini got what he wanted: publicity for his research. He stirred up the debate again and drew attention to the lax safety testing we have on these pesticide-driven GMOs.

            You say:
            “Where we part ways is a basic principle of science: by default, any claim is assumed to be untrue, unless proven to the contrary.”

            So, since the nature of development of some Gmos makes them more prone to changes that need to be thoroughly investigated pre-commercialization, based on your maxim, I would say that Monsanto needs to offer some proof that it’s product is safe. The claim that NK603 is safe to eat has not been proven, therefore, you must assume it to be untrue.

            In the US, assessment practices don’t account for evaluation of the toxicity of the actual food, let alone the food with the pesticides used in conjunction.

            The Monsanto study failed to use isogenic controls, to begin with. Also, it’s dosing didn’t follow protocol. And Seralini has shown that 90 day tests are too short. So unless you can show me how Hammond’s study proved the safety of NK603, your own motto makes your support of Monsanto’s safety research invalid.

            Seralini’s study drew attention to the fact that current protocols for feeding trials on GMOs need to be improved. The EFSA has invested a large sum of money to conduct research which will hopefully settle some of these debates. They will use 50 rats in a similar 2-year study. And yes you’re right about the length of time Seralini looked at for the actual toxicity study. That makes the results even more concerning.

          • Calamity

            I like people telling me that they think things are dangerous. It makes others look into it. We have blindly accepted that corporations are doing things as they should for the people with the appropriate amount of study, deliberation and care. There is a shadow on that. These corporations have been asked to make it right. They have, instead, decided not to allow anyone to see their research. Not allow the public to know what they are eating, and have further cost their shareholder hundreds of millions in lost profit through mismanagement and deception. Sounds to me like the science is almost secondary to the fiduciary responsibility of the companies involved. I would thing the FCC and the FDA would want to look a lot deeper.

          • BioChicaGMO

            I invite you to look at the GENERA database, where you can search for papers on the safety of genetically modified crops based on funding.

          • Mlema

            BioChicaGMO, can you link us to what you think may be the best example of a paper on GENERA that shows the safety of GE crops?

            Since all GE crops are different, do you feel each one should be similarly tested?

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            No, it revealed that Seralini has no understanding of clinical pathology, or of statistics.

          • Mlema

            We’re all expressing opinions here. Some should be taken seriously because they’re justified with rational explanations, facts, or links to explanations and facts. I don’t see that your opinions should be taken seriously.

          • Mlema

            Seralini’s study was retracted due to inconclusive findings. Saying that he has no understanding of pathology or statistics is just you not liking his work.

          • Mlema

            He isn’t the only scientist whose examination of the study and the raw data revealed poor controls and the dismissal of statistically significant results.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            What Seralini did to Monsanto’s raw data is what statisticians call ‘torturing the data until they confess’. The hilarious thing is that when by throwing a huge number of statistical tests at the data until he managed to find some significance, he misinterpreted the results in biological terms. When he found statistical significance in *declines* in liver enzymes and kidney parameters that are only adverse findings when those parameters are *increased* he called them liver and kidney changes. If they were be taken seriously (which no competent clinical pathologist would do) they would have to be interpreted to mean that the GM feed made the rats’ livers and kidneys healthier than those of the control rats.

          • Mlema

            We are obviously talking about different studies. The Monsanto study I’m referring to was also re-examined by a German group after a court order forced Monsanto to release their raw data. This is the study I’m saying showed liver and kidney damage. And it had nothing to do with enzymes. The raw data can be found online.

          • Mlema


          • Mlema

            This isn’t true. I’m not sure what study you’re referring to, but the raw data from the Monsanto study is online. There were kidney and liver lesions – statistically significant – and Monsanto ignored that. German courts forced monsanto to release the data and hired their own scientists to review it. They found the same shortcomings as Seralini. Monsanto tried to go back and use historical controls to compensate for their lack of good method, but they really couldn’t put the cat back in the bag.

          • Mlema

            my replies to Rosalind continue to be removed from the site. Why?

          • Mlema

            Are you actually addressing the raw data of Monsanto’s own study on MON863? Seralini wasn’t the only one that found problems with Monsanto’s research: failure to use isogenic controls, failure to discriminate sex differences, and failure to report statistically significant data on kidney and liver lesions.

          • Mlema

            The raw data was kept secret by Monsanto until a German court ordered it released. Have you looked at it? You can find it online if you really want to.

          • Mlema

            My reply appears above. Can you link to the paper in which you say Seralini “tortured” Monsanto’s raw data?

          • @Mlema, You are obviously one of the courageous few who is willing to publicly defend the work of the Seralini group—even the infamous 2012 paper! What do YOU consider to be the most convincing conclusion from this paper (as it relates to the original topic of this thread—the safety of GM-based crops)?

          • Mlema

            Peter – that’s the thing. Seralini didn’t draw any conclusions. All he did was report his findings. There was no fraud or misconduct. He followed protocol to the letter. The paper was inconclusive. It only points to the fact that more independent research is needed because Monsanto’s research was in question, and Seralini’s repeat (with extended time) raised issues. As I mentioned in another comment somewhere on this page, the ESFA will oversee a study using more rats for the 2 year period.

          • Mlema

            Whenever I reply to Rosalind below, my reply disappears. So here’s my reply – let’s see if it posts here.

            Are you actually addressing the raw data of Monsanto’s own study on
            MON863? Seralini wasn’t the only one that found problems with
            Monsanto’s research: failure to use isogenic controls, failure to
            discriminate sex differences, and failure to report statistically
            significant data on kidney and liver lesions.

            The raw data was kept secret by Monsanto until a German court ordered
            it released. Have you looked at it? You can find it online if you
            really want to.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            All old rats get kidney and liver problems.
            Seralini’s claim in an earlier study that young rats got kidney and liver problems was based on his lack of understanding of clinical pathology. He called deleterious effects when the liver and kidney biomarkers in the serum went down, when in fact that indicates healthier livers and kidneys, not sicker ones, in the GMO-fed rats.

          • Mlema

            Do you care to show us what you’re talking about? What earlier study? One of Seralini’s? Monsanto’s? Can you link us to the study? If it’s Seralini’s you’ll be sure to have access.

          • Joe Vaish

            You were proven to be incorrect. Accept the fact you are arguing ideology and not facts and move on.

          • Calamity

            LOL- Our test is good. It was 90 days. Your test is bad. Exactly the same test. just two years. LOL. You guys are the biggest liars i can imagine. You would gladly poison children to keep your pathetic jobs, than come clean and retain your ethics. Pretty low, boys. Pretty low.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            The point is, if you keep female Sprague Dawley rats longer than 90 days, you are going to start seeing mammary adenomas, which Seralini did, but he was too spectacularly ignorant to realize that Sprague Dawley female rats are extremely prone to getting mammary adenomas.

          • Mlema

            It was a toxicology study.

      • Rosalind Dalefield

        I think it is very clear from his comments that Seralini had no idea that Sprague Dawley female rats are highly prone to mammary adenomas.

    • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

      Very strong argument, Jason.

    • Ron Shook

      I don’t have much of any in depth knowledge of any of the 10 points here, except that I read quite a bit about the Seralini study at the time and the points you make about the misdirection in this article are sterling. Thank you! I won’t have to repeat them elsewhere. I’m not a biological scientist but I can read misdirection when I see them.

    • Rosalind Dalefield

      Old rats get pathological changes in their livers and kidneys. That’s a done experiment. There was no dose-response relationship between dose and the liver or kidney pathologies, or in the incidence of mammary adenomas either.

      • Mlema

        Monsanto’s 90 day study showed kidney and liver lesions – the impetus for Seralini’s follow-up study, with better controls.

  • clunkygirl

    Anyone up for some reading and possible debunking? This was sent in response to some of my comments. I already read about some of these studies but I haven’t read them myself and I’m in grad school so I already have a lot of fun things to read (I promise, I will get to these because it’s the responsible thing to do). etherwood, et al, Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract, Nature Biotechnology, Vol 22 Number 2 February 2004.online http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v22/n2/full/nbt934.html
    These workers suggest that there is transfer but that the rate of transfer is “low” (IMHO any is a bit much considering consumption over time and the short bacterial reproductive time.)


    has a lot of information


    See also


    • BioChicaGMO

      Good question. The first thing to keep in mind is that the DNA from a GM cell behaves no differently than the DNA from a conventional or organic food product. The first paper that you’ve cited from Nature Biotech is generally taken out of context. It’s findings are not specific to GMOs and its conclusion states: “Thus, it is highly unlikely that the gene transfer events seen in this study would alter gastrointestinal function or pose a risk to human health.”
      I have not read a paper showing that DNA from our food has integrated with our own DNA or with the DNA in the bacteria of our guts (if such a paper exists, let me know). There are multiple papers demonstrating that the DNA from our food can be detected in our plasma and organs.
      Regarding your point about transfer into the gut, it could be possible, and I imagine that the microbiome sequencing projects that are underway will help determine if DNA from our food transfers to our gut bacteria. But to say that it has happened is purely speculative and hypothetical. Keep in mind that in order for the bacteria to proliferate and “take over” our microbiomes, the adopted gene would have to confer some sort of selective advantage, and I have a hard time seeing how the genes that are currently used in GMOs would do that.
      In the end, if over the course of human evolution, the bacteria in our gut haven’t taken up DNA from nuts or other foods we’ve been eating for thousands of years, why would it start happening now for these specific crops?
      I’ve written about this a bit more here:

  • Mlema

    I think the partisan nature of this site becomes apparent through posts like this one. 10 studies are “debunked” – but there’s no discussion of the dearth of actual safety feeding trials on bt foods that humans are now expected to eat as diet staples (instead of as ingredients bereft of possible problematic proteins). Foods like bt sweet corn in the US and bt eggplant in Bangledesh. You can count the studies done on one hand.

    Instead, we’re told that we’ve eaten billions of GMO meals already and no one’s been harmed. Aside from the truly unscientific nature of that assertion, it’s simply not true. The consumption of bt toxins many thousands of times what we’ve been exposed to previously hasn’t been investigated. We’re simply relying on the belief that since humans don’t have receptors for these proteins, they can’t hurt us. But feeding trials indicate that these proteins, as they exist in the GM food they’re engineered into, cause a number of problems like liver and kidney lesions, and immunogenic responses.

    This is nothing more than advocacy for the biotech industry. Here’s how you do it: find bad research and debunk it. Talk up the rhetoric: GMO is more precise, improves yield, is environmentally friendly, can help feed the world, etc. – when what we’re mostly talking about is pesticide-tolerant or insect resistant patented commodity crops.

    meanwhile, ignore valid studies that disagree with your claims and also ignore that there aren’t many studies at all on the most concerning aspects of this technology. Oh, and paint all those who raise concerns as anti-science and anti-GMO – even though those people may support well-reasoned applications of GMO.

    • @Mlema—You mention several studies about the safety (or lack of) of Bt. Could you provide links so that we could discuss more specifically? THX.

      • Mlema

        Not sure what you want to discuss. Here are a few studies. Every bt plant is unique.


        I’d be most interested in your take on the safety of bt brinjal in Bangledesh – perhaps the first instance of a bt plant being eaten as a diet staple by humans.

        I’ve got the links to the studies that were done in India. If you want to discuss them let me know, since I don’t have them handy. Also, there are a couple of reviews on those studies.

        If you’re looking to discuss studies on the safety of specific bt food crops, then you must have some research in mind that you’re basing your thoughts on the issue on? I’d be happy to discuss those with you as well.

        • Mlema

          Here’s an interesting discussion on engineering bt into commodity crops.


          • Dr. Heinemann is a highly knowledgeable scientist, and is particularly adept at cataloging an amazingly large number of hypothetical scenarios—almost entirely negative ones. Science needs “devil’s advocates” like him. What he fails to do is to discuss the likelihood of these scenarios, or put these hypothetical risks in the context of all the other hypothetical—and known—risks that we face.

            I’d be glad to discuss this in more depth, but threads on GLP are not the ideal medium.

          • Mlema

            You are reading the paper very differently from me. I see him attempting to make calculations that no one else has bothered to consider. These are the questions that NEED to be considered when changing the genetics of vast amounts of biomass and doing it in the way we’ve done with bt.

            Are you familiar with the attempt to engineer a bacteria to break down field stubble on Oregon turf farms? Scientists crossed Xanthomonas with Kebsiella planticola. It was only by accident that the bacteria were prevented from being released. The EPA had already approved them for field tests.

            Why was this a lucky accident? Because it turned out the GE bacteria could have destroyed many species of plants by displacing the
            Kebsiella planticola normally growing around their roots and utilizing
            their secretions to make alcohol (which was the purpose of engineering
            them, but not their target)

            You can find more on that incident online if you wish. GE is a powerful technology. We can’t let the profit motive overwhelm our scientists’ recommendations of caution.

        • Brinjal (eggplant) is an important food crop in India, but is attacked by a variety of insects. One study found an average of 15 pesticide applications per season (!), resulting in 13% of samples having above the maximum recommended level of contamination. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/58472/2/art-5.pdf

          Substitution with a Bt transgenic would likely improve yields, reduce cost of pesticides, and reduce pesticide exposure both to the farmer and consumer.

          I consider the vocal objections by certain anti-GMO activists to Bt Brinjal to be unethical. In the West, many people make a big deal about “choice” not to consume GM-desrived foods: to me, a much more important “choice” is to give Indian farmers the right to choose the kind of pesticide technology they prefer.

          • Mlema

            So, you’re not interested in critically assessing whether or not the tests done on the engineered brinjal showed that the food was safe for human consumption, but are more interested in asserting that bt brinjal will: improve yields and reduce pesticide residue on brinjal.

            First of all, there’s no shortage of brinjal in India, and in fact it’s often fed to animals because of its overabundance. Second, IPM can and is being used throughout India to reduce the use of chemical pesticides.
            You don’t have any evidence that using bt brinjal would reduce cost of production or increase yield – only theory. Other bt crops have fallen prey to pests not affected by the bt toxins. It happened with sucking pests in bt cotton in India. Also, without as much as 50% of every planting being put in as non-bt, resistance to the bt toxins is inevitable. In both cases, pesticide use goes back up to where it was. This happened rather quickly in India with bt cotton. Using the indigenous genetics of brinjal in India and Bangledesh to engineer seeds with patented genes is just another way for Monsanto (Mahyco in Bangledesh) to take over a commodity in those countries and sell it back to the people at a profit.

            Unethical? Is it really unethical to question whether or not bt brinjal, which is a diet staple in India and Bangledesh, is safe for human consumption?

  • William

    Nice to debunk these studies, but I would be much more interested in really credible research, lasting at least 2 years using ‘normal’ farm animals and being fed 100% (perhaps some additives in the form of vitamins and/or calcium) GMO feed stock as it is produced in the field and as it would normally be sprayed (frequency and timings) with Glyphosate. Compare that with a control group fed non-GMO feed stock.

    The studies that I have seen don’t go further than about 30% GMO content. If it is so safe, why not do research on 100% to get the best chance of catching problems along the way.

    • BioChicaGMO

      Check out this study. It’s behind a paywall, but the description in the abstract seems to fit your criteria. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20579187

      • William

        Thanks for the link. Can only get the abstract but that gives a few things away. MON810 does not work together with Glyphosate. Also, previous studies (probably while this research was being carried out) found liver, kidney and heart damage in rats. Those results were immediately discredited and the EFSA stated that it was within ‘acceptable range’. (Most people suspect that the EFSA is infiltrated and controlled by Monsanto). The study in the link could have so easily added a few boxes to the research by establishing whether the cows of both groups were equally healthy for those and perhaps other organs. They had done the ‘time’, why not get all possible results? Is there something to hide? That is what I ask as non-science person. If you do a two-year plus study, you want to get as much benefit out of it as possible, including the impact on the health of the cows. Two years is hardly enough for cancer to fully develop, but the initial signs, and/or changes to tissue can be observed. Because that is not done, the whole study becomes of virtually no value. Yeah, for the farmers the results of milk production are similar. But the ultimate goal is feeding the same ‘stuff’ to people. For that, you need health studies on the effects of GMO corn. If scientists cannot be independent in what they are publishing, science is useless.

        One of the researchers was apparently working at the University of Munich at the time.

        When Mon810 was banned in Germany,(see: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/monsanto-uprooted-germany-bans-cultivation-of-gm-corn-a-618913.html) the president of the Technical University had this to say:

        *_However, supporters of genetic engineering argue that a ban could prompt research companies and institutes to pull up stakes and leave Germany. Wolfgang Herrmann, president of Munich’s Technical University, has said that a prohibition risks precipitating “an exodus of researchers.”_*

        So much for independent research.

        • BioChicaGMO

          Why would you interpret that statement as meaning that the researchers were not independent? A ban on the commercialization of products in their field of research makes their research more difficult. Stem cell researchers made similar statements during the Bush administration. Doesn’t make their research less independent.

          As for other long term studies, please see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22155268
          You can also search the new database in Genera, which will allow you to search based on source of funding: http://genera.biofortified.org/

  • Joe Vaish

    Lots of flaws in your “take down” as some have so eloquently described it. Take number 7, for insance. No where in the article you are referring to does it state GMOs are associated with Autism, Parkinson’s or Alzheimers. They merely noted a correlation, and stated there is not enough solid evidence either way to make a certain claim, but it is a possiblity. Like most people, you are arguing ideology under the guise of being rational. Sad.

    • BioChicaGMO

      Do me a favour. Go to the very first link in the article. The one that is hyperlinked to collective-evolution.com
      Scroll down to item #7. You’ll see that I copied, verbatim, the title of the bullet point, which was the entire point of my article, which seems to have escaped you.

      • Joe Vaish

        Thanks for making me do some due diligence. You are right; I conflated item #7 with the overall conclusion of the article, which was “So, if anybody ever tells you that GMOs are completely safe for
        consumption, it’s not true. We just don’t know enough about them to make
        such a definitive statement. A lot of evidence actually points to the
        Also, I found out the author from Discover is not a scientist; he is simply an editor and freelance journalist. He quotes questionable sources, such as Kevin Folta (Google him). By the way, it wasn’t the author of the Discover article who said it was a Glen Beck drawing, it was somebody on Twitter. Also, the authors of the study that you put down as being in a pay-to-publish journal are 1) Consultant Anthony Samsel who has worked for the EPA as a consultant Here’s a brief bio on him:

        Samsel was a consultant at the world-renowned ‘think tank’, Arthur D.
        Little, Inc. in Cambridge, MA. He is now retired and engaged in
        nationwide community investigations of industrial polluters. He has
        worked on many environmental projects for the EPA, US Coast Guard, and
        Army Corps of Engineers and is the author of “Guide to Water Cleanup
        Materials and Methods.”​

        was the principle environmental and public health investigator, who
        successfully linked the Georgia Pacific Corporation to the chemical
        phenol and contamination of public drinking water wells. 2) Stephanie Seneff, an professor from MIT specializing in Artificial Intelligence expert who has recently turned her attentions to Biology.

        Of course, their article/paper has been criticized by some but it has over 248 references. Did you check and follow up on all those? They also have numerous other studies/overviews for glyphosphate, many of them in peer-reviewed journals. In the end, the truth is that you are as lazy and as much an ideologue as you accuse others of being. Just own it and your sloppy “science”. I suggest you take some time and actually read the papers they have published. You might actually learn something. Obviously being fresh out of graduate school isn’t cutting it.

        • Joe, You seem to be impressed by large numbers of references. Samsell and Seneff have published a couple of papers like this. A technical term for this is “Gish Gallop”.

          Yes, I have read both these papers more than once and waded through dozens of the “references”. Despite the ostensibly vast literature search, the authors seem to be uncannily unaware of the literature that would contradict their notions. I am confident that 99.99% of people hearing about the wild claims in these papers will not do the necessary fact-checking. These papers are political tools dressed up as science.

          • Joe Vaish

            Thanks, but your comment is basically a word salad with no substance. You offer no real counter evidence or research; only a generalized statement. This is a common tactic in debates but amounts to nothing. You could easily use the strawman “impressed by large numbers of references” to any other research. Those mentioned have done due diligence in their research and have a track record of achieving tangible results. You’re just some doofus on the internet.

          • @Joe. Some dressing for the “word salad”: http://ultimateglutenfree.com/2014/02/does-glyphosate-cause-celiac-disease-actually-no/

            Another simple example is the claim that glyphosate is to toxic to humans because it chelates metals. Yet normal dietary zinc is roughly 1000-fold higher than the typical exposure to glyphosate! (NB simple arithmetic + high-school chemistry required). Homework assignment: do the calculation for dietary calcium.

            In a recent interview about the dangers of glyphosate and GMOs, Dr. Seneff stated: “You wonder, if you were smoking organic tobacco, it might not be so bad for you, you know?” ( http://rs1234.freeconferencecall.com:80/fcc/cgi-bin/play.mp3/7124320460-1070367-15.mp3 ). While it would be amusing to do a more thorough debunking of the Samsell/Seneff claims, it would be outside the scope of this thread.

          • Joe Vaish

            I only had time to peruse your article, but all I can really say is that it boils down to the typical “he said/she said.” You make some points about, again, ideology, as well as potential un-scientific approaches. As you mentioned, going in-depth is beyond the scope of this comments section. However, a couple of simple rebuttals to your article. 1) From the University of Maryland’s site, considered by most to be on the leading edge of modern research, “The Center for Celiac Research estimates that approximately six percent of the U.S. population, or 18 million people, suffers from gluten sensitivity.” This is from 2011. Either way, it’s closer to what Seneff suggests and/or represents quite a jump from the .6 percent figure you put out there 2) Trends and Associations Don’t Imply Cause and Effect. This is the equivalent of saying “Correlation doesn’t equal causation,” which is incredibly sloppy for any scientist to say and, by itself, should throw a HUGE shadow of doubt on any sense of credibility. A much more accurate way to say this would be “trends and associations don’t NECESSARILY imply cause and effect.” The fact is, in many instances, it does imply cause and effect. Putting that silly chart showing organic food intake increasing autism rates is childish at best. The opposite extreme would be saying if I punched you in the face and you complained that it hurt I could easily blame the wind saying, “correlation doesn’t equal causation.” Either side of the issue/debate/evidence you fall on, apparently having a PhD doesn’t equal the ability to not be influenced by ideology.

          • I’m sorry that you are confused—or is it that you would rather not actually read the piece, in case it might make sense? Either way, feel free to go to the blog and leave a question, and I’d be glad to help explain the points.

            GLP is devoted to scientific literacy. Literacy requires work (reading, listening, asking questions, thinking). A little tip, Joe: when you don’t know something, ask questions first. It’s ironical that you seem to be using exactly the crude approach that Samsell/Senneff take in their two papers: doing a superficial information search about an area of science that you are obviously unfamiliar with, and then drawing a false conclusion.

            BTW As much as it would give me pleasure, this is not the place to debunk the flaws of the University of Maryland Medical Center website, which clearly contradicts published science. Don’t forget, University websites and press releases are marketing tools—not subject to scientific peer-review. Let’s hope they do a little more fact-checking when treating patients. I will ask them to correct the error, which has obviously been on their site since 2011.

          • Joe Vaish

            Ha ha. I’m not confused at all. I just recognize a poorly written article, full of bias, when I see it.. And I agree, your website is pure propaganda, with the usual cherry-picking and childish reasoning. You didn’t directly address any of my criticisms in your thinking, by the way, another great debate tactic. I understand at your age it can be hard to admit you’re not as smart as you thought you were, but you should at least make an attempt to be honest with yourself. By the way, here’s an article from Medscape showing the same figures that I mentioned: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/757916_5 and goes further to by saying it isn’t very well understood anyway. The National Foundation for Celiac awareness also quotes the same statistic http://www.celiaccentral.org/non-celiac-gluten-sensitivity/, as does Fasano from the U of M. Guess you’re in the minority in your estimate, but ultimately it may not matter as FODMAPS may be to blame. Keep up the good fight though, Pete, praying at your imaginary alter of the pristine peer-reviewed study and your imagined brilliance.

          • Joe Vaish

            By the way, just to be clear about this, your article states, from the
            Samsel and Seneff paper, “Celiac disease, and, more generally, gluten
            intolerance, is a growing problem worldwide, but especially in North
            America and Europe, where an estimated 5% of the population now suffers
            from it.” It’s obvious that they are including the statistics of both
            celiac and gluten sensitivity, yet you chose to state they were
            referring only to celiac disease. If it were only celiac, your
            statistical quote would be correct, but, again, it’s obviously not.
            Incredibly disingenuous and manipulative on your part. Add that to the
            failed logic of the graph about correlation and you have a very poorly
            written article. Feel free to correct your article. I did it for free
            this time, but next time you’ll have to pay.

          • Joe, if you cannot even quote my article accurately, then “What we have here is a failure to communicate” (Cool Hand Luke). Your courageous defense of Samsell/Seneff is impressive. Are you sincerely interested in discussing the potential role of GMOs or glyphosate in gluten-related disorders? If so, please go to my blog and comment—I would be delighted to pursue the discussion, and will gladly eat my words if I’m mistaken. Or are you merely interested in distracting the thread away from Dr. Katiraee’s GLP article?

            What I find interesting in Layla’s point #3 is that Dr. Seneff has recently hitched up with some of the popular fringe—a non-science political activist, a chiropractor, an altmed activist (“pineapple enzyme cures cancer”), and a nutrition graduate from Bastyr University. In a recent interview, Dr. Seneff bemoaned the fact that she had difficulty getting her ideas published in the mainstream scientific journals. I have no doubt that she will get much more publicity from joining Jeffrey Smith and associates, than by trying to break into mainstream biological science.

          • Joe Vaish

            Sorry, but I cut and paste from your article directly, so there was no misquote. There really isn’t any use talking about this as you continually use strawmans and deflect any direct discussion.

          • Joe Vaish

            I’m not interested in defending anyone; I’m simply trying to look at things methodically and logically. Here’s what your statement says in item #1 in reference to gluten sensitivity after the Samsell/Seneff article quoted the 5% statistics : “This is not true. While the prevalence of celiac disease has increased, the 2009/2010 estimate of prevalence of non-celiac gluten sensitivity in the general U.S. population U.S. is about 0.6% (Ref. 2).” Your reference (Ref. 2) then points to a study that is solely about celiac disease stating the 0.6% statistics. You failed to correct your own blog, as this was not the same as it was before! Either way, you failed. If you can’t do something simple like that, how can you even begin to have a rational discussion on GMOs or glycophosphate?

          • Mlema

            “GLP is devoted to scientific literacy.”

            Science teachers are devoted to scientific literacy. This site doesn’t teach science, it tells us that we should like GMOs and pesticides. Show me one post on this site that actually teaches science.

  • guest

    As a scientist with a Ph.D. in plant genetics and more than twenty years of experience in academic research in the field, I find this discussion deeply depressing. Frankly, most of the people that argue against GMOs are scientifically illiterate. Yes, they can ape a real discussion of the science, but they aren’t really competent to actually have one. And the vast majority of actual academic scientists know it. Because if you’ve spend years studying the field, it bloody obvious. But for the casual reader, they seem to know about what they are taking about when they peddle trash science as real. I think much of the leadership of the anti-gmo movement are a deeply cynical group of lying scum bags. Natural News is laughably idiotic, and yet it is regularly referenced by activists who don’t have the training to understand that. The Organic Consumers Organization is, ironically, a front group for Big Organic companies. And Jeffery Smith is a classic American huckster. If he wasn’t shilling for the anti-GMO schtick he would be doing something else. Faith healing, essential oils, flying yoga. Whatever. And Dr. Bronner’s. Have you actually read the words on their bottles of soap? It used to be kind of cute. Now, not so much. At any rate, not that it matters to them, but the net effect has been that the Environment movement has deeply alienated tens of thousands of actual scientists, including me. We are a tiny minority of the population. Most of us are pretty apolitical, but if we are political, we are generally pretty liberal, and deeply sympathetic to the Environmentalist perspective. But the shear volume of Stupid on this issue, like the vaccination issue, is deafening. I don’t expect the activists to hear a word I’m saying. Shill, blah, blah, blah. And I’m anonymous, so everything I’m saying could be a lie. But, for the rest of you, who are undecided, look carefully at who is talking to you. Ignore anonymous comments (even mine). There are many, very brave, academic scientists, who use their real names, who are deeply offended by the perversion of good science being promulgated by ideologues, opportunists, and greedy business interests. Why do you suppose that is?

    • Calamity

      Tell you what Doc, You provide any proof that no one has died from them and I’ll back off. Till then, you have a huge mountain of data to read. Oh, you don’t read data, because you’re not a doctor. Your a no one from nowhere with no experience? Really? I thought you were a doctor? No, You just say you are? I’m shocked. A PHD that can’t come up with a name, a profile. No citations off any papers. No stance or knowledge, but tells everyone how safe GMO’s are? I’m stunned. LOL

      • John

        I am just reading and laughing….I totally agree with the above PHD. Ppl like you disgust me. I have been scrolling down reading what you have wrote and you keep mentioning all these generic studies you’ve read but you have yet to put one forth on this comment page. And when you do its likely to come from one of the ridiculous aforementioned resources mentioned by the above scientist who you have obviously just “disproved”.

        • Lyric Smith

          I have been reading through these comments to see if anyone of these arguments can help me with a paper i have to write on GMOs.But none of these really helped me out .Most of them seemed to be childish in ways or completely bias. Personally i try to eat organically because no one is sure of the out come on the human body when gmos are consumed and like others i do not want to be a part of this experiment. They have not been tested long enough . Even if some guy with a PHD says its okay . Him and other educated people are just human , not god , not some mythical person that can foresee the fate of these new ” foods”. Can someone actually show me where they are getting all this information from ? instead of just insisting that you are right ?

          • Walter

            Check out Dr. Shiva….she knows and can help your research..

          • HA!

            (This was a joke, right? Oh god, I can’t tell anymore… http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe )

          • Dean

            you’re all jealous you’re too stupid to get your PHDs. The ave American’s IQ is 100. Barely capable of analytical thought. HAHA. I trust the PHD’s. They’re not Gods, but more trustworthy than you grammatically incorrect morons.

          • Bob Bobert

            Ever heard of Einstein? Newton? What about Tesla? Tesla was the perfect student.. never missed a lecture but had ideas that didnt fit with what scientists at the time accepted;. resulting in him losing his place in education and becoming arguably the greatest scientist of all time. Point being.. a phd does not make you right or more able.

          • not really convinced that eating corn which produces it’s own pesticides would be healthy for me.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            Better not eat any plants at all then.

          • Why? are you trying to say that all plants kill insects?

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            Many, many plants synthesize substances toxic to insects, and others synthesize substances to make themselves unpalatable to insects. Some of those substances synthesized to make plants unpalatable to insects are toxic to human beings.

          • and yet they all work withing the original 147 left hand proteins found in life on earth. some GMOs contain the 148th such protein… and you feel there has been enough testing done to ensure their safety?

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            No, they are not always considered poisonous, because whether or not they are poisonous depends on dose. There are a large number of potentially harmful plant-derived substances in the everyday diet, but they don’t cause problems as long as you eat a balanced diet and don’t eat too much of the harmful substances. If you refused to eat every plant that has substances in it that could kill you at a high dose, you probably wouldn’t have any plants to eat at all.

          • unfortunately Ros, I do understand toxicology enough to recognize that dosage is important. Also important is how those toxins are eliminated from the body. Many such are actually retained and build up over time. One fine example of such is mercury, found in almost every fish on the planet. While eating some fish is healthy, too much can cause mercury poisoning. How do the toxins in GMO crops pass through the human system? NO ONE KNOWS because it hasn’t been studied.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            What toxins in GMO crops, rude person?

            Relatively few poisons are bioaccumulative and regulatory agencies take a very, very dim view of those that are.

          • The ones that they haven’t bothered to test for, arrogant narcissist. ones similar to DDT and dioxin, which were declared ‘safe’ when introduced but were proven later, not to be. Ones that may not be directly fatal, or even directly harmful to humans, but change the flora and fauna within our digestive tracts.

            And once again you sidestep the real issue.

            Franken-food needs to be studied thoroughly BEFORE we discover that “OOPS, we were wrong again” happens. Prevention rather than grasping later for a cure.

            If this concept is too tough for you to grasp, perhaps an easier concept…. it is very difficult to unbreak an egg.

          • AaPenny Lali

            This is an interesting point. If the FDA and other agencies accept toxins in products because they are at a level that is acceptable, does the FDA also look into ALL the different toxins we are exposed to in a single day? If we are exposed to limited levels of toxins in just about everything we come into contact with, do these toxins accumulate and help one another negatively affect our bodies or is it all ok? I ask because my four sets of grandparents and most great-grandparents died between 85-98 years of age. However, my family has now lost 6 women in 15 years under the age of 60. I have a hyperthyroid and am the first in my family to have this condition. I used to not worry about what I ate or wore (make-up, perfumes etc) but now am wondering where is all the illness coming from?

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            Myr Silverleaf, there are not only 147 proteins on earth. There are millions. Where did you get the idea that there are only 147?

          • I did not say that there were only 147 proteins on earth. in facts in earlier posts I commented that there are vast numbers of them; however all life on planet Earth is comprised of a very specific 147 left-hand proteins. At least it was until the advent of GMO work, when a protein never before seen in any living organism on the planet, was spliced into our food supply.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            “all life on planet Earth is comprised of a very specific 147 left-hand proteins”
            This is complete and utter rubbish. There are at least 2 million different proteins in the human body alone. Not counting our microbial flora.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            By the way, it is rude and impertinent to shorten a person’s name without their permission.

          • rude and impertinent is your condescending attitude, Ros… you have yet to earn my respect.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            I don’t want or need the respect of someone as ignorant and stupid as you, and I can’t be impertinent to someone who does not outrank me.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            Bees pollinate the 660+ flowering plants that produce pyrrolizidine alkaloids that are extremely toxic to your liver, some of which have caused massive outbreaks of liver disease in human beings. At least some pyrrolizidine alkaloids are carcinogenic and it is likely that most are. Pyrrolizidine alkaloids are very, very commonly found in honey consumed by human beings.
            As another example, Google ‘grayanotoxin honey’
            What was your point about bees again?

          • the point, since you missed it, is that plants don’t develop toxins against insects when they depend on them for reproduction.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            Incorrect, as it happens, because pollination and consumption are two different things.

          • Naryal

            Except, they do, you idiot. All the time. Milkweed is poisonous to most insects and animals, the exception to that being the Monarch butterfly in its’ larval stage.

    • Crissy Dobson

      Regardless of what current studies do or do not show, one thing is true… There is a fast amount of information about biology/genetics/human health that we still do not know.

      Gene therapy works in theory, but not in practice… does anyone truly understand why? No.
      Often in laboratory studies, introducing new genes into cells (human or otherwise) has off target or unexplainable results. Simply put, there is no way to know with certainty that there are no effects from consume GMO products, could they be effects that we currently do no have the knowledge base to monitor? Could there be no effects? Could the effects be long-term or as a result of cumulative exposure?

      Those answers can’t be answered now. But we can look at the history of laboratory made products and human health… for example pharmaceuticals. There is a desired effect, however there are often unforeseen off target effects. Many times the product is deemed safe.


      …and only after the product is released to the public for some time do the effects become evident and what was thought to be safe indeed isn’t. The patients who died, went blind, or suffered a number of “side effects” are the test subjects.

      Anything new, man-made for human consumption is an experiment. Only time will truly tell the impact. Maybe they prove harmless, but based on our history, I choose not to be a test subject.


      Biochemical Researcher

      Ps. As a scientist, I can say that in general, scientists are ignorant of their own ignorance. We have a history of thinking what we “know” to be true is “gospel” only to have much of current knowledge disproved by future generations.

      • Joe Campbell

        Crissy Dobson. This is someone who I can admire. Knowledgeable, Intelligent, yet humble. One who knows man is far from perfect and even science doesn’t have all the answers.

      • FCelestePizza

        I like how you start your argument with “regardless of what current studies do or do not show.” Also, it’s almost certain that most of the food you eat contains some GMO ingredients, so you are a “test subject”

        • Haribo Lector

          She might as well have said “Putting aside all the evidence” or words to that effect.

          • Awesomesauce Mcgee

            No, she used it right. She’s saying that the evidence can be questioned and there isn’t a definitive answer so put it aside. What she states after the comma is what she considers the unquestionable fact.

          • Jeremy Olson

            But there is no evidence to prove GMOs are unhealthy. Therefore, we can’t simply say “GMOs are dangerous.” like so many anti-gmos people do.

          • Bad Ballie

            Agreed, there are however numerous studies that state that GMO’s may not be safe, which is enough for me to say, OK stop, do further testing and prove it one way or the other. IT is not acceptable to say they may be safe, and leave it because the consequences will most likely not appear until after I am dead. One thing that has been shown though, is that the age old statement “life will find a way” holds true, and there are numerous reports that show that in some countries, GMO seed have “invaded” the natural crops to the point where up to 87% of all current crops whether originally GMO or not, now consist of GMO stock. I also worry that Obama has appointed the ex vice president of Monsanto at head of the FDA, it raises many questions the biggest being how long before the so called “terminator gene” in approved for distibution

          • Michael McCarthy

            “in some countries, GMO seed have “invaded” the natural crops to the point where up to 87% of all current crops whether originally GMO or not, now consist of GMO stock”

            Been reading natural science propaganda, it would seem.

          • Bad Ballie

            Actually there are many reports questioning their safety, very few get peer review, its a question of money at the end of the day, those that do not accept the approved line simply lose it or do not get it in the first place.

          • Terry Hill

            OH snap!
            When science doesn’t support our wild, unsubstantiated claims… Conspiracy theories!!

          • Haribo Lector

            If there is no evidence to back up an assertion, the intellectually honest thing to do is to stop making the assertion.

          • Fluoride Free Thoughts

            Have you not taken the time to understand what GMO’s do to rats??? Please do and realize that there are no tests on humans so FDA(Bought and controlled by corporations) can easily say that there’s no proof. Take some time to taste the pudding;)

          • GC


          • Fluoride Free Thoughts

            you lack patience in an evident sort of way 😉

          • GC

            You lack the patience to investigate those studies on rats.
            Actually the article itself addressed the rat studies, so I presume you didn’t read it?
            And how would you know that the FDA is being bribed? Of course, an government institute with thousands of scientists are being given money without the government noticing. Of course.

          • Fluoride Free Thoughts

            Your questions are all irrelevant if you know how to assimilate all sources and the outcomes over years. Don’t be a disregarding idiot to make a personal, prideful point about things you only perceive to understand. Thanks for your patience.

          • Terry Hill

            Did you not read the article? The GMO-rat experiments were so flawed they were laughable. Seralini has a history of making stuff up for money, including his now infamous ‘aspartame’ studies (using the same cancer-prone rats).
            Bottom line, there is no causal link between GMOs and any health-related issues. Try looking at some university websites, or any of the hundreds of research papers done outside the US.

          • So, since you brought this up, what do GMO’s do to rats?
            (Just to save time, if you have to use the word Seralini in your response, don’t bother).

          • To everybody who wonders why Peter can’t stand the word “Seralini”: In a short thought exchange with me Peter refused to acknowledge that prof. Giles Seralini, Caen U, France, was a top GMO researcher (whose paper, showing SD rats developing tumors, organ malfunctions after being fed GMO corn, was retracted by a new editor at the journal who – guess what? Came from the GMO industry, and re-published; view pictures of the GMO-fed SD rats at http://www.DrHans.org ). Now confirmed with 230 scientists supporting Seralini’s magnificent work, and writing an open letter about GMO industry harassment (1.), and confirming that there was no consensus among scienrtists about GMO food safety (2.).

        • Waxil Davidson

          All of our food has been genetically modified simply by humans selecting and isolating certain strains over the past 10,000 years. The original corn was as tiny little stalk with about 8 big kernels on it, through natural mutation, and human selection (not natural selection) we modify things all the time. The ignorant have this made-up narrative in their minds that they manufactured, of evil scientists in a lab injecting poison into our food, it’s comical.

      • Tina Scarpelli McGugan

        You lost me at “a fast amount”. And I do not believe you are any sort of researcher.

        • alsoafakename?

          Her auto-correct likely changed vast to fast 😛

          • Just Saying

            ….it may have been autocorrect, but someone claiming to be a researcher should probably proofread a statement before posting it.

          • Mlema

            Because it’s appearing in a highly esteemed journal article that the world will be readin’?

        • Kimmie

          If you’re going to nit-pick about typos, the original article has quite a few of them. Am I to assume you were “lost” reading it as well?

      • Bob Akimbo

        There is no serious scientist that thinks what we “know” is “gospel,” and no serious scientist that would make that assertion.

        • Dillon Stewart

          You haven’t met a lot of scientists have you? I’ve met with some scientists with high credibility in their field, but when questioned about their theory possibly being wrong, they get offended. Like, “Why don’t you believe what I’m telling you?” Even if the case in which, was not questioning belief or rather a flaw that may have been spotted in the theorem. Humans do things without thinking about what affects it will have on the future.

          Especially the ones who fund the scientists who want “Progress” over safety. This system has been around since we started to experiment.

          Someone discovers something it’s written down as fact, rather than to be questioned further. I know so many people who simply believe what they are told in the news, or from a “Credible” source and never have any of their own opinions to be placed into the topic. Just “Oh that’s interesting so it must be true”. The same will go for many scientists, or as you put it bob, “no serious scientist that would make that assertion”. But simply that being stated, shows that is ignorant nature in it’s own right.

          Science is the new religion, yes it’s a religion with “facts”, and more detailed descriptions of goings on. But it’s still a religion none the less. It has faith, it has belief, it even has study to learn more about said belief. Don’t take this as an insult as many science types will. But our society is built on belief, and that things are true. Even if they are not.

          • AllViews

            I agree with you in that science is more ignorant than it is knowledgeable. I agree that when quantum physics was hypothesized, everyone thought that “no serious scientist that would make that assertion”. Then people tested quantum theory, and it worked.
            But science is not a religion. You cannot follow science without understanding it. The “facts” and “beliefs” that you speak of are liable to change. I understand that if you question the theories of scientists with high credibility, many will become defensive, but not if you find something wrong with them.

          • B Green

            As a person of religious faith, I’m opposed to the statement that “But science is not a religion. You cannot follow science without understanding it.” Although that is true for a lot of people, but they will never benefit from it. Only those who truly understand what their faith is all about will gain anything from it. So, in that sense, it’s the same as science.

      • Rosalind Dalefield

        What is a ‘biochemical researcher’ doing working at a boxing center?

        • research?

        • dfgsdgdgsdf

          It’s obvious from her comment history she is a liar.

      • Kayellebee

        Thank you Crissy, it was good reading your point of view.

        I am so confused about GMO issues. I want answers but there doesn’t seem to be any that are totally conclusive. Although I am not happy with my position of sitting on the fence, that’s where I’ll stay because there is not enough proof for me to totally agree with one side over the other.

        I belong in the ‘scientifically illiterate’ catagory. I am far from studied in the area of science but I am deeply concerned by the anti-GMO info that I’ve read. I don’t necessarily believe all that I have read but I can’t forget it either, what if it is true? I honestly try & ‘research’ the other side of the story but it only confuses me more.
        I definitely lean more towards anti-GMO, I guess I feel it’s better to be safe than sorry.

        I am grateful for the time that people spend on getting their educated point of view out there for the benifit of a more informed society.

        Still confused but happy I am learning.


        • lf

          Kayellebee… how can any logical thinking person be confused by the GMO issue when there are so many studies that shows the safety of GMO ?
          why don’t people just admit to it and simply say “we do not believe the scientific community (for whatever reason) and we chose to ignore the evidence” this is a kind of honesty not seen in the anti GMO groups , instead they continue to try contradict science with opinions passed as studies, lies, bad science and skewing of data to prove something that doesn’t exist…
          This attitude doesn’t work well when you try to fight science you’ll always look like a fool when trying to fight science with fluff.. this is no different than that Saudi cleric who recently claimed the hearth doesn’t revolve around the sun, he used some kind of phoney scientific argument to prove his point

          • Kayellebee

            I feel like copying & pasting my earlier comment because you clearly didn’t conprehend where I stand on this issue. You straight up pigeonholed me into one of ‘those anti-GMO groups’.

            I am not putting forward an argument or ‘fighting’ the scientific community on this issue, far from it. I simply shared my perspective as a consumer, a consumer with very little understanding of science. Which I might add does not define my logical thinking ability but it does give reason to my state of confusion with all things GMO.

            If a comment is not inline with your own view point, don’t automatically presume it comes from a negative angle. You should try reading things more objectively before you reply to them. You may look foolish if you post a reply that is full of irrelevant fluff….just saying.


          • lf

            I thought my reply was very clear and relevant
            it is obvious that i didn’t pigeonholed you in any group, maybe you need to re read it

          • Bobbylob

            I read your response several times, and yes, you did. You laid out a generalized comment without fully understanding what you were replying to. The very thing those in the scientific community are complaining about with people who are anti-GMO. If you happen to be one of those scientists, it’s no wonder people are confused.

          • dfgsdgdgsdf

            Anti-GMO activists are ignorant liars and agenda driven professional manipulators.

            Watch this if you want to know how much harm they cause in the third world:



          • AllViews

            I will tell you this: the problem with a lot of arguments about “GMOs” is that GMOs are varied. Some GMOs cause bad side effects, and some don’t. The ones that do are never sold, obviously, because that would be a waste of money. The ones that don’t cause side effects are sold, and you can eat them.
            I hope this doesn’t seem biased.

          • Excuse My Ignorance

            Everyone is entitled to opinions. Just like you just stated your opinions. You clearly don’t “understand” the anti gmo side. Take walk in their shoes for a while. Read some books and come back. We were never ready for gmos and we still aren’t. Time to wind the clock backwards and do it right.

          • Daniel Mosco

            Crissy Dobson gave a humbling answer as a scientist and is entitled to her opinion. Although correlation doesn’t imply causation and natural products also have their fair share of side effects, many people I know feel healthier when treating their ailment with an herb rather than a pharmaceutical. So for GMO each to his own. Both sides are trying to make money and will fight science with science and do whatever possible to influence and confuse the masses.

            lf To answer your question to Kayellebee, a logical person should be confused and question everything. An intellectual should never take something at face value. Quantity does not equal quality and scientific studies are no exception.

            If you don’t believe me you should read this: According to Stanford University professor Dr. John Ioannidis we know that about $200 billion — or the equivalent of 85 percent of global spending on research — is routinely wasted on poorly designed and redundant studies. We know that as much as 30 percent of the most influential original medical research papers later turn out to be wrong or exaggerated. We also know that a lot of medical evidence is contradictory and unreliable, such as those studies that purport to show that just about every food we eat either causes or prevents cancer. http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

            If you think peer reviewed makes a difference think again. According to Dr. Richard Smith “we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.”

          • Most of the human population do not think logically (they think emotionally) and even worst they don’t understand science. Most of the human population relate better to sensationalism that address their fears. The GMO debate simple comes down to understanding the science or not. Those of us that are science literate understand the 2000 studies demonstrating the safety of GMO, those that don’t understand the science relate to the 10 studies that claim GMO’s are unsafe – but sensationalize it better then the real science. We all love a good drama. It should also be noted that many of the studies claiming GMO’s are unsafe are published in Pay for Play Journals (they will publish almost anything for the right price). But the general public knows nothing of these types of Journals. If the research was so poor it couldn’t get published in a reputable Journal they turn to these low quality journals or they go to non-peer review.

        • Kayellebee, read my post below to get a better understanding of the GMO debate. The fact that you understand you don’t understand the science puts you one step closer to understanding the science. There really is no debate for those that understand the science. Good luck.

        • oliiviaxxo

          I respect you a lot. Truly. You are admitting to being scientifically illiterate, yet are open to suggestions in your underlying issues with GMOs. Good for you! Learn away!

      • smithmm

        Crissy doesn’t know what she is talking about. She must be a shill, not a researcher, afraid and ignorant of modern molecular biology, basic metabolism and gene therapy.

        • Excuse My Ignorance

          Crissy Dobson has a really good point. Clearly, you don’t understand what she is talking about. You have to communicate to both sides and put the puzzle pieces together to truly understand her and many other anti GMOers

          • smithmm

            No, she doesn’t have a good point. She is ignorant of the science of GMO food products and gene therapy, as well. I was a molecular biologist working in gene therapy and the researchers know exactly what works and what does not and why.

          • Excuse My Ignorance

            This statement means nothing. So how do you guys test in vivo on human studies per gmo?

          • Solutions not judgements

            I’ll answer my own question… “Simulated gastric fluid” and a “degrading time” also known as the michaelis – menten rate law… Please correct me or feel free to rebutted if what I say lacks information which is more than likely. I’ll be back

          • boogy bear

            You’re a sheep, how can you call someone who discredits something ignorant lol? There are proven studied that people who stopped eating gmo’s lost weight after switching to a fully organic meal plan. I hope you enjoy the glyphosate in your blood and new born child. Yes there was a study that proved to find glyphosate in a new born and in a mothers breast milk. Its a poison not a vitamin

          • smithmm

            Nothing was discredited. What does glyphosate, an herbicide, have to do with anything related to GMOs or dieting? You are conflating disparate topics. Another nutjob. . .

          • Bear Jay

            First, your study finding glyphosate in an infant and breast milk was sponsored by organic backed groups was not peer reviewed and has several obvious flaws in the data. Second, your claim of “loosing weight after switching to a fully organic meal plan” is meaningless. As a farmer I am not anti organic. If you wish to pay the premium that is fine. I question why people that push for an organic diet feel that conventional farms that feed the majority of the world cannot co-exist with organic. As for loss of weight? that also happens with lack of nutrition or trace minerals and your body begins breaking down muscle mass. Loss of weight also can happen from eating a more balanced diet. Organic or conventional! If you are going to make the effort to buy only organic you are more likely to also eat differently. Furthermore I have read the peer reviewed facts about glyphosate and know that even if you used it as a salad dressing (not suggested) the worst it would do was “intestinal irritation” while they have not paid people to study its effects people have inadvertently and intentionally consumed large amounts of concentrate and few have died. Those that died were not from toxicity but it is extremely acidic Even the cases that tried committing suicide and did not die had almost immeasurable levels in their system after 72 hours. (the moral is if you want to kill yourself , do not use glyphosate, drink organic vinegar instead)

      • Excuse My Ignorance

        My big question right now is… If it’s bad for bugs, how could I not assume it’s not bad for me? Especially when they have standards such as LD 50. How the heck do they truly determine a LD when we don’t even have the technology to even know the truth…..?

        • I Wont Excuse Laziness

          Please read the article before commenting…

          This is mentioned in the article with a specific example that chocolate is toxic to dogs, but not humans.

          If you don’t understand WHY things are toxic for some living creatures but not others, take the time to research it. Don’t just ask someone in a comment section. Are you serious?

          • Excuse My Ignorance

            We don’t test in vivo for humans…. Thanks for the attempt to give advice. I’ve read enough articles to know why… Thanks again…. None of it makes complete sense. Take care now. Don’t assume. Cause you know what that does

          • boogy bear

            Lol have you realized that Monsanto literally pay people to go out and support gmo’s and to discredit anything that has something to do with gmo’s being harmful… You’re all sheep honestly… So if you go and eat round up in a larger quantity and it unhealthy why would a little bit not be harmful? the answer it is, regardless if its a deathly amount or a withstand-able amount. There’s still a negative reaction with the body. But honestly i’m probably responding to someone being paid off anyways but i thought i’d put my two cents out there.

          • atheistlibertariancriminalassh

            i will gladly shill for their side (or yours) for a living wage. i don’t think it’s really a job. if it is could use the money. just sayin…

      • dfgsdgdgsdf


        “Biochemical Researcher”?


        You copy/paste the same bu&%&& all over the internet. Learn how to hide your comment history before shilling.

        We have used far worse/uncontrrolled methods for genetic modification (yes organic farmers use chemical and nuclear mutagenesis) for decades now. Not a single case of harm for any consumer.


        “Somewhat controversially,[19] several organic food and seed companies promote and sell certified organic products that were developed using both chemical and nuclear mutagenesis. Several certified organic brands, whose companies support strict labeling or outright bans on GMO-crops, market their use of branded wheat and other varietal strains which were derived from mutagenic processes without any reference to this genetic manipulation. These organic products range from mutagenic barley and wheat ingredient used in organic beers[20] to mutagenic varieties of grapefruits sold directly to consumers as organic.[21]”

      • RealityBites

        As a scientist, you should already understand that the only things seen as fundamental truths are called laws and very few exist. Otherwise everything else fits into a spectrum between true and false depending on the varying degrees of evidence provided. We choose to trust things that have a higher likelihood of being known as true. This keeps us from being indecisive and stunting progress in society. I find it very amusing that people who would get into a vehicle, which is proven to be a likely factor of harm, would protest GMOs which have enough current evidence to support their safety in consumption.

    • Joe Campbell

      Time reveals TIME! Hybrid plants such as broccoli have been around for over 2000 years! They have been proven to be healthy. Hybrids are still completely organic. Your pathetic GMO’s are but 20 years in the making and are mutated. Look at the countless cases of digestive disorders, cancers, the list goes on and on…..The number is staggering. Where is your Science now smart guy? The health issues surrounding GMO’s are staggering! The amount of digestive disorders are skyrocketing. These high cancer rates were unheard of 20 years ago. You truly are what you eat. I’m sticking with organic. The rest that support GMO’s you can be the lab rats. Take your GMO’s and gimme a big smile while your chewing them. Tell me how your kids turn out. By the way, if GMO’s are so safe in all your glorious scientific knowledge then why not label them? In addition, why have 60 other countries across the globe banned GMO’s? If you’re so intelligent then answer me how the human body will react to this constant abuse 30 years from now. That’s right you can’t that’s because science can’t speed up time to find out the answer and I’m not going to be that lab rat pal. We’ve all decided that you will be that lab rat. If you support it than YOU eat it. Tell me how that works out for ya big guy.

      • BioChicaGMO

        1) “Hybrid plants such as broccoli have been around for 2K years”. What about the pluot? Or broccoflowers? Or those orange cauliflowers? What about the ruby red grapefruit, which is under the USDA-Organic label, but is a product of mutagenesis?
        2) “I’m sticking with organic”. That’s your right and if that’s what you’re comfortable doing, go right ahead. The Organic label already excludes all GMOs, so why do you need another label?
        3) “If GMOs are so safe… then why not label them”. Because labels convey risk, and there are plenty of studies that have shown consumer risk perception relative to labels. Labels also add cost to the food chain, which I don’t want to pay for just because you want an unnecessary label.
        4) “60 other countries across the globe have banned GMOs”. No. Most countries have regulations in place surrounding GMOs. Even countries that do not grow GMOs allow them to be imported. There is only one country that has a ban on GMOs: Kenya. http://gmoanswers.com/ask/why-are-gmos-banned-so-many-countries
        5) “How will the human body react to this constant abuse 30 years from now”. I’m not sure what you mean by “constant abuse”.

        • Joe Campbell

          “constant abuse”=Putting something that is “unnatural” into your body repeatedly over time and happily watching the effects.
          Either yourself or someone else partaking in this process will eventually bask in the various forms of digestive problems, wonderful different flavors of cancer, Amazing forms of Autism….ADHD…..The list goes on and on. It’s wonderful…..it’s like Christmas you just don’t know what you’re going to get! Behind that delicious GMO is an array of unknown wonderfulness!
          “unnatural”=NOT FOUND IN NATURE….just in case you might need a bit more clarification.
          Brought to you by Monsanto….the wonderful makers of the bought and patented synthetic form of Biotechnology……Pardon me I meant “food”. Cheap and abundant! Now at your local grocery store. Hurry now while supplies last…..oh never mind, just kidding, we have an abundant supply that will keep you and your family fat dumb and happy for years to come!
          Once again thanks for all of you who support GMO’s! You help to keep the hospitals nice and full, and make healthcare a multi billion dollar industry! Because hey! Who wants to eat natural stuff when you can buy cheap GMO’s. So what if I get sick…the hospital is right around the corner, I get out of work for free, and they serve FREE food! And I get FREE medication I get to take for the rest of my life! Come on this is America baby!!!! We are the fattest sickest nastiest and one of the dumbest corrupted nations on earth and we don’t want to lose that title. Without GMO’s we never could have earned this title and be #1 for the sickest nation on Earth! Yay for us! The American food supply is the greatest! Thanks GMO’s!

          • Good4U

            Joe: Go have a beer & relax. Oh, sorry, you can’t have beer. It isn’t “natural”. Mother Nature doesn’t brew beer.

          • actually? mother nature DOES brew beer, all the original ingredients are natural and highly regulated for thousands of years. the original processes of brewing are all natural, resulting in purified water (much safer than the crap from your tap) complex carbohydrates (much less addictive and safer than refined sugar, and far less toxic than artificial sweeteners like aspartame), dietary fiber, natural antioxidants, silicates for bone health and preventing loss of bone mass in women and reduction of kidney stones in men… point being, the frat party image of guzzling BUD is the bad guy, the truth of the matter is that real beer is actually good for you, in moderation.

          • Good4U

            Myr, I agree. I like beer, and drink it. I even made some once. I was being facetious to Joe. I think he should relax, and if beer helps, hey, go for it. It’s still not natural though. It’s brewed by humans. No more natural than GMO technology.

          • can’t imagine the first brew being devised by man…. had to be like some sort of dare concerning spoiled bread or something, and discovering that it wasn’t bad! kinda like ‘love apples’ which were thought to be toxic, but we all know today that tomatoes are actually good.

            and because the ‘original beer’ ie, the very first fermentation, WASN’T by man, it had to be natural.

          • Good4U

            Myr, your speculation on the “original beer” is probably right, just like the “first GMO” that I’m referring to. In case you are interested, the processes of gene transfer from one species to another, and even between plants and animals, is taking place every minute of every day, and none of those processes are in the least bit controlled by humans. Viruses splice genes from one organism to another as they enter cells and begin their replicative processes. Some viruses are themselves mutagenic, i.e. cause gene changes in their hosts (people, animals, plants). Bacteria also carry DNA from one organism to another as they spread from one host to another. All of this is completely natural, and no one can predict the outcome. We only discover the outcome after the fact.

            Trying to say the beer we drink today is “natural” is like saying the foods that we eat are natural, even those from “organic” farms. They are not “natural” in any sense. Humans have been transferring genes from one species to another since the beginnings of agriculture. Many of the types of plants that we eat today were generated by chemical or radiational mutagenesis, meaning that their genes were changed intentionally by plant breeders using highly artificial methods (not “natural” in any sense). They simply selected the best ones for deployment. You & I eat them all the time.

            I’m as healthy as I could ask to be at this stage in my life, and have survived many illnesses due to the intervention of human endeavor, including the use of transgenic organisms. The fact that most of us in highly developed countries are living longer than ever before in the history of the human species is testament to the efficacy of technology to raise our standard of living. That includes improvements in human nutrition via plant (and animal) transgenics.

          • unfortunately, some natural things are assuredly not good for us; but I can’t see eating corn that produces it’s own pesticide as being healthy, or plants that are more resilient so more toxic chemicals can be applied. I also find it disconcerting when growth hormones are found in elevated levels in the milk supply and have been associated with increased risks for cancer.

            I’m not saying that all GMOs are bad for us, just that there has not been enough testing to be certain one way or the other.

          • Good4U

            Myr, I appreciate your dedication to this topic. It is clear that you have given it a lot of thought, so thanks for your views. All I’m saying is that nothing that we humans eat, or smear all over our bodies, or use to power our lives, is natural. It’s silly to believe that one is leading a “natural” life when he or she is spending hours every day banging on a computer, with a full belly, and in decent health, all due to the technology that humans have developed for the past 10 thousand years or more. In the developed world, nobody is natural. If you want to find something resembling “natural” humans, you will have to travel to very remote parts of the world where indigenous peoples remain, usually in jungle areas. You will find extreme poverty, disease, slavery (men consider women and other men to be sexual property), barbarism (they kill and maim each other readily), and very short lifespans. Women begin having babies as soon as they reach puberty, very few live beyond the age of 20, and an old man is maybe 30. Airy-fairy publications on the internet would have you believe that such people lead pristine lives, fully in touch with their environment. I’ll grant that they are, but the other 7 billion people on this planet are not natural in any sense of the word.

          • Now I see where our point of contention is. ‘Natural’ does not mean ‘Original’ it means:

            1.existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial ): a natural bridge.

            2.based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.

            3.of or relating to nature or the universe:
            natural beauty.

            4.of, relating to, or occupied with the study of natural science: conducting natural experiments.

            5.in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land.

            6.growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, as vegetation.

            7. having undergone little or no processing and containing no chemical additives:

            natural food; natural ingredients.

            Nature does evolve over time. And yes, man has discovered remedies that occur naturally. Many processes we use replicate the natural ones. Hybridization, selective breeding, and the occasional cross species melding (such as horse and donkey to produce a mule, a docile non reproductive work animal) have been done on a grand scale, but were already possible in nature.

            As how this pertains to beer, living yeast (selectively bred for the purpose) digests grain which was grown as a crop, with flower buds called hops added, and water. All these things are found in nature. Beer is one of the waste products from the action of the yeast eating the grain. many breweries use CO2 injection to carbonize their beer, but I much prefer the bottle conditioning method, which is a second feeding of the yeast of sugar, again another digestive process.

            By the descriptive reasoning you kindly provided, not even the primordial original living organism touted by evolutionists would be considered ‘natural’

          • Good4U

            Quite right. See my post above (4 days ago), the process of transgenics (genetic engineering) has been going on naturally since the beginning of life on this planet. It is quite natural in the sense that you describe natural. In fact, one type of bacteria, called Agrobacterium tumefaciens, is one of the mechanisms that bioengineers utilize in order to intentionally transfer a gene from one organism to another. It’s a completely natural occurrence, done by natural means, just as natural as any beer I have ever made or drunk.

          • then you don’t believe the finding that an unnatural protein has been created and introduced into some GMOs? After all, all life on this little rock of ours is comprised of exactly 147 left hand proteins.

          • Good4U

            Myr, there’s no such thing as an “unnatural protein”. Transgenic organisms (GMOs) produce proteins that are just as natural as those in the organism from which they came. That’s the whole point. They haven’t been “created and introduced” any differently than those which have been introduced by viruses and bacteria since the beginning of life. The fact is, transgenics is happening all around you, and even inside you, every minute of every day. You don’t control any of it. If you only knew the magnitude and ubiquity of it, you would be astounded.

          • so a 148th left hand protein would still be considered ‘natural’ even though no living organism has ever had it prior to GMOs?

          • Good4U

            Transgenics means moving a gene from one organism to another. That means that the gene, and the protein that it coded, were present in the donor organism; so yes, the protein is natural. Your premise is false.

          • you misunderstand my postulate. there are far more proteins in nature than the specific 147 left-hand proteins which comprise all life on the planet. This is fact.

            In the creation of GMOs, some of them have had a different, never before in living organisms, added into their structure; a 148th left-hand protein, found in the world, but never before found in living organisms. This may be because the genetic coding required this to make the new organism (GMO) viable, but that is speculation.

            However, since this particular protein has never before been in our food supply, would you not agree that it is potentially threatening and deserving of extended testing BEFORE putting it on the shelves of our markets?

          • Malc

            147 left-hand proteins…Humans alone have ~20 000. I am just curious where you got your information to seem so confident in yourself. Perhaps you mean amino acids? I don’t see how such a polymer can have left designation, but am curious so inform me please.

          • only 20 amino acids, 40 if you count both the left hand geometry and right hand… include a single right hand amino acid in a protein it becomes worthless. an average protein would chain about 400 amino acids together, that chain also has a left hand geometry.

            A situation similar to the left-handedness of amino acids also exists with respect to nucleotides, the smallest units of the nucleic acids, DNA and RNA. In contrast to proteins, in which only left-handed amino acids are chosen, in the case of the nucleic acids, the preferred forms of their nucleotide components are always right-handed.

            Your ‘estimate’ of how many proteins exist in a human is actually a bit low, its closer to 50k; however 147 of them are essential to life, and they are all purely left handed.

          • smithmm

            There is no such thing as a left-hand protein. That is alchemy, not biochemistry. You don’t know what you are talking about.

          • smithmm

            You should stop trying to be a biochemist or nutritionist. You are an embarrassment.

          • smithmm

            There is no such thing as a “left-hand” protein.

          • SageThinker

            Yes, indeed, life has a “handedness” — it’s a form of chirality, reads about it. I don’t know about other claims by Myr but this is real thing. (link in next comment)

          • SageThinker
          • smithmm

            Again, there is no such thing. You clearly can’t read a lay article, since there is no mention of “handedness” in proteins, which are polymers, not chiral molecules, only L-amino acids. Try not discuss chemistry, if you are not a chemist.

          • SageThinker

            The handedness would be in the amino acids.

          • smithmm

            That’s not what you said, nor did you make any point at all.

          • SageThinker

            I assumed that you would understand that proteins are made up of amino acids. My text was in a separate comment, as sometimes comments with links get delayed. Here is my text to the comment for your reference: “Yes, indeed, life has a “handedness” — it’s a form of chirality, reads about it. I don’t know about other claims by Myr but this is real thing. (link in next comment)”. A fun fact about chirality — it was the key to the problem with thalidomide. One more example of “better living through chemistry” gone awry because of the simple fact that humans are fallible and cannot think of everything. And the same story repeats today.

          • smithmm

            Right, I’m a molecular biologist and specialized in genetic engineering and gene expression. I am not a lay person and understand far more than you about chirality and the like. Anyone who talks about “handedness” in biological molecules, like you, is operating at an elementary, Biochemistry 101 level.

          • SageThinker

            Wow. What a superiority complex. So are you saying that there is not a “handedness” to some biological molecules, and that life has not settled on one handedness and not the other? How can you characterize me as operating at a 101 level from this? I think *you* were the one castigating Myr when s/he said something about handedness of life, and i was simply pointing out that she is correct in this regard. Way to pull rank. Want me to pull rank too? I could tell you where i’ve worked and in what field relating to this topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(chemistry)#/media/File:Chirality_with_hands.svg

          • smithmm

            Dude, molecules have NO hands!

          • SageThinker

            Are you saying that chirality does not exist? That would be an odd thing for a molecular biochemist to say. It sometimes makes all the difference.

          • Captain Moonlight

            You have no scientific training and clearly suffer from the Dunning–Kruger effect; “a cognitive bias wherein unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate.” Tell the truth, little man.

          • SageThinker

            You fail to answer the question at hand, and resort to a personal attack. And by the way, i am actually right about chirality of many of life’s molecules, as well as that of thalidomide. Your answer shows a poverty of position.

          • Captain Moonlight

            You pretend to be a scientist but you are just an old man with grey hair and liver spots who delights in spreading falsehoods. Poor old thing.

          • SageThinker

            Ditto here. Empty repeated identical comments would equal “spam” in my book of definitions. If banning someone for spam is a policy then here may be a case where a mod would ban a user.

          • SageThinker

            You’re really losing it, Captain. You’re posting this exact comment on my last 100 comments. Real good way to engage in dialog. You lose all credibility in the eyes of everyone who can see.

          • Captain Moonlight

            You pretend to be a scientist but you are just an old man with grey hair and liver spots who delights in spreading falsehoods. Grow up.

          • SageThinker

            Once again, sire Jon Entine, you will notice that a minion has encountered a glitch in his programming and has entered into a behavioral loop that is not beneficial to the system.

          • smithmm

            That is a really ignorant and erroneous contention.

          • disputing it is the ignorant and erroneous position.

          • smithmm

            What the hell are you talking about? Playing biochemist? You can’t fool a real one. . lol

          • Please don’t egg her on—it just encourage more silliness. She’s obviously doing a good job at distracting from the topic of the thread. This is the price we pay for un-moderated forums.

          • fortunately, your ‘poo-pooh-ing of fact has shown you aren’t a biochemist either. Fortunately I am a researcher, which you are obviously not, and have more than one or two friends that are biochemists. in fact one just graduated recently in Minnesota, something they call a university, ever been to one?

            Personally my degree is in computer science. tons of math, something you have yet to demonstrate, and the ability to use modern tech to locate information, something else you have failed to demonstrate. Funny thing is, chemistry and algebra? very closely related…

            So I suppose we are back to my speculation that you are just some sort of Monsanto lackey, probably paid to throw your negativity into public discussions against GMOs. All the while knowing that what you are ‘supporting’ is stupid. I presume you are part of the massive cover-up and are attempting to misdirect peoples concerns with your company line rhetoric. May you eat your GMO based artificial foodstuffs and die a horrible death from the cancers it might cause.

          • smithmm

            You’re just hilarious with your buffoonery and boasting of biochemist friends. Thanks! And as for your silly death wish, I’m sure you’d claim to be a humanitarian and a Christian too.

          • Actually? my religious beliefs are none of your concern. I do believe that people should get what they deserve, which is why proper labeling of GMO products is such an issue. People have the right to know what they are eating.

            Silly death wish? Hardly. Humanitarian? You betcha! If your defense of GMOs leads to you getting what you deserve? call it Karma or whatever you want, you will have earned it. This doesn’t mean I want you dead today. But perhaps your suffering could save countless other lives. Lives saved by exposing the facts behind GMOs, through proper testing.

            Obviously Smithmm, you aren’t going to go against your paycheck from Monsanto, enjoy your cancer.

          • smithmm

            You’re a sociopathic moron.

          • You best get your definitions corrected you Monsanto dupe. Being such a puppet makes everything you say suspect.

          • Has anyone noticed that Smithmm has not refuted my claim of him being on Monsanto’s payroll? How can anything he says be trusted?

          • BioChicaGMO

            Regarding “a corn that produces it’s own pesticide”.
            I recently wrote an article about this; please see: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/12/09/myth-busting-are-synthetic-pesticides-used-with-some-gmos-more-dangerous-than-natural-ones/

          • Mlema

            BioChicaGMO, you’ve popped in to the conversation here and there to correct misunderstandings of the science. Why don’t you correct the misunderstanding above: “…the process of transgenics (genetic engineering) has been going on naturally since the beginning of life on this planet.”?

            This is why people don’t trust GMO industry advocates. They claim they’re just “communicating the science”, but they don’t really explain anything and allow false generalizations about the technology to be repeated over and over – even perpetrating them themselves – as long as it supports the industry’s cause: winning public approval.

            The whole point of transgenics is to breed plants that can’t be bred in nature. I don’t care that it’s natural or not. Anything can be called natural or unnatural. I care that the science is being misrepresented.

          • smithmm

            “The whole point of transgenics is to breed plants that can’t be bred in nature.” That is absolutely false. The point is to better develop plants that are undesirable to breed by other slower and painstakingly crude methods.

          • Mlema

            You’re right, in some cases. However, billions of plants producing multiple Cry toxins ain’t gonna happen in nature. It’s an easy way to dispense pesticide-in-plant. Bt plants wouldn’t exist in “nature”. So-called “science communicators” are misrepresenting this technology.

          • smithmm

            How do you know there has not been enough testing?

          • I quote from Monsanto:

            ‘There are not currently any human clinical trials used to test the safety of GM crops. This is not unusual; no existing food or ingredient – GM or otherwise – has been the subject of human clinical trials. However, there is broad global agreement among food scientists, toxicology experts and regulatory food safety officials on how to evaluate the safety of GM foods. We follow these expert recommendations.’

            the article goes on to mention how they ‘test’ for protein digestability, but not in humans, how they only look at the ‘introduced’ portion as needing to be examined, dismissing the interaction between the introduced element(s) and the host elements…

            Really a fascinating read.

            Next thing you know they’ll splice chimpanzee genes into soybeans so they can be trained to pick themselves….

            Doesn’t it make sense that if they want to be able to patent the seeds they should have to test them for safety first?

          • smithmm

            You knowledge of biochemistry is lay level, at best. Test *what* for safety? They are not drugs that go through clinical trials. It’s just food. Food is not tested for safety and there is no need to do so.

          • food no….but are GMOs actually food/ reasonably close to other food? Lead is ‘reasonably’ close to gold, both are metals and only one step apart on the periodic table… but i’d bet you wouldn’t want your dental work done in lead.

            Test that the interaction of the host plus the introduced genome in combination are actually safe for human consumption.

            We have chlorine and ammonia in our blood streams, granted they are typically found locked in compounds that keep them from interacting with each other… but just as an experiment why not take a gallon of bleach and add it to the same quantity of ammonia in a bucket in your room and take a deep healthy inhale of the result. Specific interactions are what are unknown with GMOs.

            GMOs should be TREATED as drugs

          • smithmm

            There has been plenty of testing and you are woefully uninformed if you think there is any evidence that any “GMO’s are bad for us”. You have no understanding of plant genetics, nutrition or gene expression.

          • According to Monsanto’s own press release there has been no human trials of GMOs what-so-ever. The ‘classification’ of GMOs as ‘FOOD’ has circumvented any tests, unfortunately, Monsanto, the FDA, and the EPA regularly swap personnel amongst themselves. To simply state that it closely resembles the regular variety of the plant isn’t ethically enough, albeit legally enough for profit hungry corporations to pack the shelves with an untested product. It should not be treated as ‘FOOD’ GMOs should be required to do testing as any other man made product is. I have never stated that GMOs are categorically unsafe, but it makes logica sense to prove safety before putting GMOs in the food supply rather than waiting for long term exposure to prove otherwise.

          • smithmm

            No, it makes no sense, logical or otherwise, to treat food as other than food. That is idiotic and ludicrous on its face. There is nothing different about these products that anyone can test for. You have no idea how a clinical trial is performed and they are not performed with food products that are not drugs.

          • it’s not food…its a food substitute…

          • As to evidence, granted it is all circumstantial, but then again, how would you suggest proving they are unsafe, except with testing.

            There are a number of correlations that indicate that ‘something’ has happened to increase cancer, reduce the average life span in the USA (as shown by a drastic reduction in the number of persons over 65 receiving Social security benefits), and an increase in the number of other disease instances since the advent of GMOs in the food supply.

            All this despite the reduced number of smokers, the relocation of manufacturing industries overseas, reduced automotive emission levels… Something doesn’t add up.

            The very fact you believe there has been testing shows just how ignorant of the facts you are Smithmm. All that has been done is a bunch of bureaucrats saying ‘looks close enough to me’.

          • smithmm

            Your premise is flawed, biased and unscientific (anecdotal): “How would you suggest proving they are unsafe, except with testing.” Things are tested to demonstrate safety not the lack thereof. Compositional testing of GMO products HAS demonstrated no difference from conventional strains. There are no disease correlations as you erroneously suggest.

          • I’m curious about what your definition of ‘natural’ is.

          • lf

            if i remember correctly “beer or mead” was created by accident when people stored their liquids in sheep stomach and the enzimes in the stomach started the fermentation process, something that is definitely a natural process but couldn’t have happened without human intervention.. not much differently than genes manipulation .. btw the original “beer” contained honey a higly refined carbohydrate

          • beer was discovered by various peoples around the world. ‘mead’ is a relatively new concoction in comparison. I would check your memory as it doesn’t have the facts, If. You can check out the history of beer at: ambersuds.com

          • lf

            i stand corrected about the origin yet irrelevant , my point is still valid
            the ingredients are found in nature but it takes human intervention (or an accident caused by human intervention) to combine them and produce a drink , the same way GM is done

          • Seriously? That’s like comparing the discovery of fire to a moon launch; and we all know the safety record of space flight. Next thing we’ll be hearing is how safe it is to splice alligator genes into sheep because it makes them more water tolerant.

          • lf

            sorry i don’t understand the moon launch/fire reference.. as far as splicing alligator genes into a sheep you might be onto something

          • if you don’t fathom the difference between observing and replicating natural events vs 22,000 parts built by the lowest bidder with no consideration between potentially incompatible applications then you’re just stupid, or trying to elicit an emotional response from me. Either way you show your indifference to the truth.

            Alligators and sheep…hmm..waterproof wool! SUCCESS! Unfortunate side effect is that the sheep keep eating the shepherds, the sheepdogs, other livestock; but still its a resounding success!

            Just like the FDA approved use of aspartame, a wonderful non calorie non sugar sweetener that even cockroaches won’t touch, totally safe for human consumption despite the lack of long term studies… do you really want to risk your health on frankencorn or zombiesoy?

          • Mlema

            GMO yeast is used in wine, beer and other industries.

          • ria

            Yes but the ingredients to make that beer were not made by nature. i.e. they have been modified/bred to produce higher yields and suchlike…

          • They absolutely were made by nature. Crossbreeding and the like could not have been accomplished without natures co-operation. Gene splicing on the other hand completely ignores natural selection and imposes artificial design.

          • RonPK

            That’s not true either. Fermentation happens in nature also, but the flies laps that up I the very least, not enough for harvesting.

          • Good4U

            Ron, you have to read my responses to Myr thoroughly in order to get the point. I already said that her “original beer” idea, which addresses your point as well, is probably is true. But the beer that I drink is no more natural than the GMO corn, soybeans, etc. that I also eat.

          • hey Ron?

            Most craft brewers tend to stay away from GMO barley, since it’s characteristics are different than real barley. Beer has nothing to do with corn or soybeans which are the primary focus of the ‘engineers’… pretty much still the safest health drink on the market

          • Bobbylob

            Beer was accidentally discovered when rainwater mixed with stored grains (barley, most likely) in clay urns and fermented. Mother Nature was brewing beer. Didn’t need humans at all, except to place it into a convenient little receptacle.

          • Haribo Lector

            Citation needed

          • AllViews

            So only natural food? Cooked food isn’t natural. Neither is bread.

          • atheistlibertariancriminalassh

            appeal to nature: a fallacy in which something is asserted to be good, valid, ideal etc. because it is ‘natural’. yourlogicalfallacyis.com
            your argument is without merit. were it a valid argument pitchblende, arsenic, astatine, lions, tigers, bear and belladonna, (nightshade, not porn star,) would all be harmless.

        • God_sees_you

          Excuse number 3 is BS. The cost of a label also adds cost to the food chain, then just package and leave the package blank. This will save a lot of money for the food chain because money can be saved from not adding any graphics to the packaging, but we know this will not work because your first point was correct. Perception will make it difficult for them to introduce and/or sell any products in the market if the label isn’t consumer friendly. The only truth, they didn’t want to spend the money to educate the public. They calculated that it was not only cheaper not to educate the public, but cheaper to just sneak it into the market place and package it exactly like it’s competition. This doesn’t mean the products aren’t safe, but the perspective of the consumer at this point towards GMO’s is shaded with doubt because the GMO industry still isn’t trying to educate. Instead, they are fighting not to label and passing laws to protect themselves against future litigation.

          Labeling has nothing to do with cost of packaging, we are talking about 3 letters – GMO. Must be frustrating defending science against marketing when they could simply educate the public and label the package. Instead, they leave the education up to you, most likely a paid plant to defend and sway public opinion in a comment section of an article.

          If there is really nothing to hide, why not pass a law that forces all genetically modified food to openly stamp GMO on the package? Are you going to tell me again how this will add cost to the food chain? GFYS

        • Simon James Bradbury

          I’m not entirely sure how labelling a product necessarily conveys risk, based on that argument I assume you disagree with products highlighting additives or nutritional value, both have received equally negative press. As consumers we have the right to make an informed choice, purchasing organic food to avoid GMO’s is not financially viable for most working family’s and I do not prescribe to the opinion that in a democratic society Big business has the right to dictate what I consume, the public deserve to know what they are purchasing and feeding their family’s.

          Monsanto’s director for communications Phil Angell once stated that it was not their responsibility to ensure the safety of their produce, that was the job of the FDA. I find that statement rather disconcerting especially considering the ominous revolving door policy between congress, the FDA and the biotech industry. With the majority of the public lacking the necessary scientific credentials to fully understand Monsanto’s grand vision it’s naturally preposterous to suggest potential bias maybe at work? ludicrous to consider the validity of Monsanto’s feeding studies when FDA scientists described them as flawed and highlighted concern but were overruled by their superiors. I also assume its equally ridiculous to overlook the work of Arpad Putzai a world renowned biochemist and nutritionist who was hired by the British government to evaluate the safety of GMO’s then subsequently fired when he had the audacity to tell the public the negative results of his studies. The fact is that the present generation of GMO’s currently offers no direct benefit to the consumer but demonstrates a currently unquantifiable risk, the promise that GMO’s once offered has quite clearly failed to materialize. GMO crop yields are falling and higher levels of pesticide are being utilised to counteract natures increasing resistance. When I consider the L-Tryptophan or BSE scandals or the concern surrounding RGBH-1 please forgive me for being just a little sceptical that the prevailing priority of the bio-tech industry might just be to their shareholders rather than the needs and welfare of the public. Rational scepticism is a necessity and blindly buying into Monsanto’s cleverly marketed utopian GMO future considering the emerging concerns appears rather misguided.

      • Good4U

        I think I sat next to Joe Campbell at a hockey game last weekend. He really talks like that in person! Could be the model that “guest” was talking about…

      • ellen

        thank you

        • Joe Campbell

          You’re welcome Ellen.

      • Rosalind Dalefield

        Joe Campbell, over the last few decades the age-adjusted incidence of almost all types of cancers has been declining. The exceptions are principally those cancers for which we know the exacerbating factors; lung cancer (smoking), malignant melanoma (suntanning), cervical cancer (HPV), Kaposi’s sarcoma (immunosuppression secondary to AIDS). Thyroid cancer seems to be increasing slightly but it is debated whether this increase is real or just better diagnostic capability.
        Furthermore, 5-year survival rate for most cancers is improving. In short, your age-adjusted chance of getting cancer has never been lower, and your chance of surviving 5 years after diagnosis has never been higher. The only reason there appears to be a lot of cancer around these days is that more and more people are surviving beyond the age of 65, because diagnosis of cancer is much more common in the elderly.
        Cancer has always been with us and occurs throughout Mammalia and in non-mammals too (yes, even sharks). People are living longer and that is the only reason there is a higher overall rate of cancer. The age-adjusted incidence of new cases shows no such increase, but an overall decrease. I hope this post makes you feel better.

        • Emily

          I’ll admit that I’m no expert on the age-adjusted incidence of almost all types of cancers…but I’ll raise you one. Non-HPV-related squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, specifically the tongue, has increased 111 percent in young white women over the past 30 years. I’m not a cancer expert, but this particular cancer I know. My 24-year-old sister has it. It is still relatively rare, and doesn’t get the attention the ‘sexier’ cancers do. The increase is entirely unexplained…they literally haven’t a clue why it’s happening. And, to me, that says we are doing something wrong. Is that something GMOs? I don’t know. But as we go through this fight, it’s certainly not something I’m wanting to include in my family’s diet.

          • Haribo Lector

            You’re running an equal risk that organic food is the cause though. After all, consumption of that has increased massively in the last 30 years. Dare you risk it?

          • Unfortunately Haribo, your argument doesn’t hold water. Organic food may have re-surged in the past 30 yrs, but has been around and consumed since when?

            Perhaps GMOs are just another Berlinger attempt to reduce the population without open warfare or mass murder…..

            Bullets bad, poison good!

          • boogy bear

            exactly before gmos all we ate was organic. organic was the norm and cancer rates were tremendously lower than they’re now. We are what we eat.. Gmos are genetically “modified” organism. another term for modified is mutated. Cancer is a mutated cell. We are what we eat. People can’t possibly think that eating a mutated organism can’t have an effect of mutation in our bodied… Theres assumptions aren’t “scientifically” proven but I guarantee they hold some truth behind them.

          • Hi Emily,

            My sympathies for the tribulations in your family and I hope things get better as time progresses.

            One thing I have discovered in my research over the past few years is that the life expectancy of Americans, has not held to the global life expectancy curve.

            While there is no definitive prove as to the cause, there is a remarkable coincidence corresponding to the introduction of GMOs into the food supply.

            also coincidentally, is the reduction of manufacturing toxins in the American environment as most of the factories are now situated overseas. This seems counter-intuitive…. Less pollution should mean healthier, longer lives; but it hasn’t worked out that way. Reason demands that there is an explanation; but no one seems to be able, or willing, to provide an answer.

          • Brian McGee

            I can’t read any more of this. While I am technically scientifically uneducated (compared to those with degrees and experience in the topic) I am a lover and believer in the scientific method as our primary way of understanding the universe. And the fundamental principle of that ideology is that you cannot make claim to any idea or fact (especially one that incites fear or mistrust) without having some REAL DATA to back it up.

            When you say there’s a “coincidence” and use that to project the idea that something is a problem we should stay away from, all I hear is that there’s also a strong coincidence of global warming, at the same time that we are reducing the number of pirates in the oceans. So I would suggest everyone start pirating the oceans, so that global warming will reduce. !!!!!

            Any rational scientist (which I’m hoping we all are if we’re having this in-depth of a discussion) needs to have perspective and caution before making any claim, for or against an idea, and when that data, for or against, isn’t here yet, a true scientist’s disposition is “I DONT KNOW”, not “I DONT KNOW BUT IM GONNA GUESS AND MAKE AN ARBITRARY DECISION BASED ON COINCIDENCE AND ANECDOTE UNTIL SOMEONE PROVES ME WRONG”. That’s not unbiased science at all. I don’t care which side of the argument you’re on. Here’s my specific thoughts for consideration and “perspective”:

            Yes, people have a crazy number of diseases and ailments nowadays that they may not have had before. Possible reason? GMO. Also possible reasons? Pharmaceuticals, computer use, fake chemical sugars, cell phone radiation, global warming, lack of grandma’s cooking, and pirates. The proof that they are in any way harmful just isn’t there!

            Yes, heavily and lab-created GMO foods are more recently new, but saying ALL GMOS ARE EVIL Is like saying all exercise will kill you. Sure, there are cases of someone exercising until they end up in the hospital. There are negative examples of EVERY POSSIBLE THING ON THE PLANET! There’s even joke sites with legit research on the detrimental effects of excessive H2O consumption (water, for those who don’t know chemical names).

            My point is that with this resoundingly large amount of REAL research into the safety of (the vast majority) of GMOs, believing in favor of unfounded fear is ludicrous. This exact article that we are commenting on specifically breaks down why the anti-GMO ideas (I won’t even say movement) are completely factless and political.

            My last point is again, perspective. Anyone who thinks we aren’t already lab rats is an idiot. We don’t live in a sterile environment. We live in an organic cesspool teeming with billions of creatures and organic material that are affecting us daily. And even if we WERE in a sterile environment, I couldn’t think of a LESS natural place to be! So please, before you go screaming that your GMOs will corrupt your body and destroy your happiness and murder yor child, please take a step back and worry about that secondhand smoke, or that new strain of the flu. Science exists to educate. So perspective please. And stop saying “I’m afraid of it because no one knows about it. They’re not trying to murder you, there is no conspiracy (except maybe pharmaceuticals, but that’s a different conversation). Have a sandwich, shut up,read a study or two, and trust these people who spend their lives learning this stuff.

          • Truly you have hit the nail on the side. Already proven is the risk of ingesting rBST, a hormone given to cows to increase milk production. Aspartame has been shown to be a ‘safe’ toxin, added to all manner of foods and has been linked to increased incidence of diabetes, which even cockroaches are smart enough to avoid. Want to roach-proof your home? Add aspartame to the paint on the walls; its safer there than in your soda.

            Pharmaceuticals aren’t much better, but they have had years of study, beginning with animal testing and then typicaly a multitude of human test studies before being released, along with a list of possible side effects (some including death, increased thoughts of suicide, etc.)

            I am also certain that the crew of the Challenger, their families, support staff, and the world in general wish that there had been more testing done on a $0.03 rubber ‘O’ ring as to its performance when exposed to unseasonably cool temperatures.

            I am not saying that GMOs are bad. Not saying they are good either. Just that there has not been enough testing done to prove one way or other.

            You make the point that we are all lab rats anyway, so what’s one more test? My position is, if we are all lab rats, why subject ourselves to additional test when we don’t have to? I also noted your reference to ‘global warming’ you do realize that this was a govt scam, that test results were deliberately faked to support Gore’s assertions, and later exposed for the exaggerations they were; right? There is also a huge difference between “they are trying to murder you” and “they don’t care if you die from their products”. Point in case is the tobacco industry, many studies have shown detrimental effects from smoking too much, although the science behind the second-hand smoke studies are most assuredly not scientific. The strange thing is, state governments have turned the tobacco industry into a HUGE revenue source. Arbitrary taxation with no public vote, gouging 18% of our population with a average 650% tax levy. Counter-intuitive for a society bent on making smoking extinct wouldn’t you say?

            And Brian? Natural does not mean primal or primitive. If you don’t like the word coincidence, how about corollary (in case you don’t know that word, it means two supposedly unrelated trends happening at the same time). Does a corollary mean that one caused the other? Not necessarily, but it does lend circumstantial evidence that it could be. And you have to wonder how many people are in prison just on circumstantial evidence; and how many others should be.

            GMO research, in its altruistic form has a noble goal, to feed the world. But at what cost? Is it more to line the pockets of corporations or feed people healthy food.

            The corporations whine that ‘labeling infers risk’ which of course is crap. “New and Improved!” “Proudly made with GMO corn!” ,etc etc. If they are so certain GMOs are safe? there are any number of ways they could package and label. No one is asking them to put a ‘WARNING’ label on them, just an honest ingredients list, and let the people choose if they wish to buy the products.

          • spacefiller

            Correlation does not imply causation, and there is no such thing as NON-GMO.

          • tell that to the several thousand death row inmates put there by circumstantial evidence.

            As to the existence of NON GMO food? are you frikin stupid or what. Just because GMO crops have contaminated so much farm land and poisoned so much live-stock does not mean that there aren’t still some sources of non frankenfood available.

            GMO does not have anything to do with natural selection or hybridization. GMO crops are deliberately modified by altering the DNA of foodstuffs through laboratory methods, creating organisms that would never and could never exist otherwise.

            Many of the corporate shills and trolls point to the recent discovery of transgenic bacteria in sweet-potatoes and say ‘See? it’s happening in nature!’ when in fact its most likely due to contamination to begin with; and if not? its just one more reason I don’t like sweet-potatoes anyway; and the fact that this ‘process’ can occur in one plant does not make it natural for any others.

            There are some simple truths:

            1. people do not eat GMO food by choice, the resounding majority are opposed to it, thus proper labeling of products containing GMO food substitutes needs to be clearly labeled. This in the PRODUCERS burden.

            2. Viability of pollen from GMO food stubstitute food stuffs have been proven viable, under the right conditions, up to 500 miles away from a grow site. Thus all GMO growers should be required to prevent such contamination, not the non GMO growers who want nothing to do with the corruption of Big Ag, the chemical conglomerates, or the FDA. Currently it is incumbent upon the non GMO grower to provide buffer zones to attempt to prevent cross contamination. Monsanto has launched several lawsuits (failing) to invoke patent breach against farmers that did not intend to grow GMO foodstuffs, but were contaminated by neighboring fields. Public record.

            3. Farmers that agreed to grow frakenfood were promised bigger yields and lower costs. Patently untrue, most yields show little difference, and the real cost is in QUITTING, since the glycosphate remains active up to 6 years after spraying, causing non resistant crops to die.

            4 Golden rice, genetically modified to provide vitamin A to prevent blindness in impoverished regions of the world FAILED MISERABLY. In order to provide enough vitamin A a 14 yr old child would need to consume 27 bowls of rice per day. Nice try, good thought, epic fail.

            5. Without the use of genetic engineering, the world produces more than enough food to feed everyone. The problem is NOT crop yield (which GMO food stuffs haven’t proven) it is in getting the food available to the people that need it. This is POLITICS not gene splicing. What good would doubling production do if you can’t get food where it needs to be?

            6. Why is, Monsanto and the other GMO producers, the ONLY industry that doesn’t want brand recognition? Because they wish to obfuscate the trail of liability for an under tested product. Why did Monsanto buy the patent rights to a gene that interferes with the reproductive ability of anything that eats it? Is it in YOUR food?

          • spacefiller

            It is a commonly excepted concept.
            And no, I’m not stupid, I’m actually a scientist in the grain industry so keep drinking your non-GMO kool aid.

          • OMFG, you ARE stupid after all; despite being a ‘grain industry scientist’. Non GMO Kool-Aid? Like what our species has done for hundreds of thousands of years?

            I believe I posted 6 points and all you can do is say you aren’t stupid and Non-GMO Kool-Aid?

            Have they taken away all your scientific objectiveness and replaced it with corporate propagandizing?

        • blah

          but gmos are bad for us

        • Then explain why the average life expectancy in the USA has declined since the advent of GMOs in our food supply, despite the reduction of toxins from industry in our atmosphere?

          • Arthur Doucette

            Life Expectancy hasn’t declined since GMOs were introduced in 1996.

            Life Expectancy

            Year Both Male Female Increase

            2012 – 78.8 – 76.4 – 81.2

            2010 – 78.7 – 76.2 – 81.1 – 1.2%

            2005 – 77.8 – 75.2 – 80.4 – 1.0%

            2000 – 77.0 – 74.3 – 79.7 – 1.6%

            1995 – 75.8 – 72.5 – 78.9 – 0.5%

          • those are global life expectancy figures, not USA.

          • Jackson

            Every source that pops up for me on the googles shows that US life expectancy is also going steadily up from 95 till now. What source are you using?

          • social security statistics. Apparently there are approx 10 million fewer recipients aged 65 or older in 2013 than there were in 2002. hard to imagine that could be true in a world were people are living longer… Unless some miraculous event made it so these folks just didn’t want their benefits

          • Doc brown

            The real statistics not the kind that are controled by corporations.

          • JoeFarmer

            LOL! Yeah, the statistics that you can only get if you know the secret handshake!

            Watch out for those Chemtrailz, “Doc”!

          • ya Know Doc? that is exactly what I am saying. get corroborating or conflicting stats from outside the walls of the study. Hence my reliance on govt stats regarding SS benefits rather than on ‘life expectancy’ studies done by the same group that says Monsanto makes food. And to top it off, Monsanto lackeys are still denying that Monsanto makes its profits from figuring out how to kill stuff (IE: DDT, Roundup, etc…)

          • hyperzombie

            Apparently there are approx 10 million fewer recipients aged 65 or older in 2013 than there were in 2002.

            Nope, 13 million more.

          • JoeFarmer

            Ya, I think “Myr” is just posting BS to drive traffic to her crappy blog.

            I’m going to start a blog, get a bunch of Amazon Affiliate links plastered on it, and google ads. Then I’m going to start posting all over the web that Canucks all suck at hockey ‘cuz they’re ghey.

            And just watch the dolla-dolla-dolla-billz start rollin’ in!

          • My numbers come from the social security website, where is your imagination being formulated?

          • Arthur Doucette


            Those are for the US

            CDC: life expectancy in the US reaches record high


          • I suppose then that would also account for the 10,000,000 fewer persons over the age of 65 receiving benefits from social security compared to 10 yrs ago hmm? Always get corroboration from outside sources. If life expectancy were actually increasing, there would be a corresponding increase in the number of people receiving benefits.

          • Arthur Doucette

            Except that is False, and easily verified as false. Life expectancy is increasing.

            Number of people receiving Social Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or both, February 2015: Aged 65 or older 43.2 Million

            Beneficiaries Aged 65 or Older, December 2004
            Benefits were paid to 34.5 million people aged 65 or older.


            http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/fast_facts/2005/fast_facts05.pdf (pg 30)

          • Arthur Doucette

            2010 Census Shows 65 and Older Population Growing Faster Than Total U.S. Population

            Percentage Higher than in any Previous Census

            The U.S. population 65 and older is now the largest in terms of size and percent of the population, compared with any previous census, according to a new 2010 Census brief [PDF] released today from the U.S. Census Bureau on the nation’s older population. The group grew at a faster rate than the total population between 2000 and 2010.

            According to the 2010 Census, there were 40.3 million people 65 and older on April 1, 2010, increasing by 5.3 million since the 2000 Census when this population numbered 35.0 million.

            The percentage of the population 65 and older also increased during the previous decade. In 2010, the older population represented 13.0 percent of the total population, an increase from 12.4 percent in 2000.

            65 and Older Population Grew Faster than Total Population

            Between 2000 and 2010, the population 65 and older grew 15.1 percent, while the total U.S. population grew 9.7 percent.

            Examining the growth of 10-year age groups within the older population shows that 85- to 94-year-olds experienced the fastest growth between 2000 and 2010. This group grew by 29.9 percent, increasing from 3.9 million to 5.1 million.



          • Jackson

            Also, using social security benefit payouts as some sort of proxy for life expectancy is just bizarre when we have actual life expectancy numbers just as easily available.

          • Doc brown

            Does still born children count in this satistic? Plus it only effect’s young children and new borns. Jackass.

          • Arthur Doucette

            To be included in the life expectancy numbers there must first be a live birth:
            ‘‘Live Birth’’ means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of human conception, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy, which, after such expulsion or extraction, breathes, or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or
            definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached. Heartbeats are to be distinguished from transient cardiac contractions; respirations are to be
            distinguished from fleeting respiratory efforts or gasps.

            To be considered a Still Birth, the fetus has to be at least 28 weeks old, but then die prior to expulsion/extraction as defined above.

            Prior to 28 Weeks it is either a miscarriage or an abortion, depending on if it was natural or induced.

            Not all countries use the same exact definitions, so if you are comparing different countries you have to verify that they do so.

            The good news is that both infant and fetal mortality have been trending downward since 1990


          • JoeFarmer


            You can’t spell, “statistic” and you’re getting all horsey? LOL!

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            The age-adjusted all-cause mortality in the USA has declined in the 75 years 1935-2010, regardless of the introduction of GMOs in the food supply.

          • @Myr—If you truly want to totally contradict Rosalind, then a good start would be to offer some evidence. Otherwise your remarks are just distractions.

          • Mlema

            Reduction in smoking has increased life expectancy, but obesity has reduced it. JAMA sees a potential decline in life expectancy, even to the point where children born today won’t live as long as their parents.

          • you see, that is the entire point of contention Peter. Monsanto has gotten GMOs classified as FOOD instead of a dietary supplement, and there has been NO human testing done. Since one cannot prove the non-existence of something, it must therefore demand that something actually is. In my opinion, it is far wiser to prove GMOs safe, than to find out after long term exposure that they are in fact not as safe as claimed.

          • @Myr—Please don’t make things up: it dilutes the quality of the thread, and it makes you look silly.

          • obviously you haven’t read the Social security reports on the numbers actually receiving benefits that are over 65, which has declined by more than 10 million since 2003

        • Mlema

          Cancer is the 2nd leading killer of children ages 4-15. The rate for cancer in children has increased with regard to acute lymphocytic leukemia, brain, non-hodgkin lymphoma and rhabdomyosarcomas.

          There’s no way to link cancer to GMOs because we have no idea who’s consuming what. But the proliferation of carcinogenic substances in our environment could certainly play a role. And those substances are mostly man-made.

      • Matthew Speak

        The real problem isn’t GMOs….it’s processed foods, fast food, and our obsession with instant gratification. I’ll stand up against those things, which scientists DO agree are causing health problems, before I start questioning science.

        • Joe Campbell


          • don’t fret Joe… M. Speak has shown just how ignorant he is, a multitude of time in this thread. The most serious aspect of the whole GMO issue is that Monsanto , and their cross-over employees in the EPA and FDA have classified GMOs as actual ‘FOOD’ thus skirting the legal need (and dismissing the ethical imperative) to actually test their products before releasing them for mass public consumption.

        • Joe Campbell

          Speak…First you must question your own intelligence before you start questioning ANYTHING. Including Science. GMO’s are NOT Science. It is a synthetic form of pseudo biology which has yet to prove safe for humans and is still considered an experiment due to unknown long term health effects. I agree with you on the fast food topic but you must understand processed foods are packed full of GMO’s and a huge part of the health crisis today. Until we take GMO’s out completely we will never know and I don’t see that happening anytime soon. Right now the only way to take care of yourself is buy organic and don’t eat processed food.

          • Matthew Speak

            But we DO know. The science is already in on this…we’ve been creating GMOs for thousands of years. There is a difference between highly processed foods full of additives and GMO vegetables. The fact that you are unaware of that is telling. But go ahead and pay more for your “organic” veggies that were actually genetically modified decades or centuries ago.

          • Joe Campbell

            Speak, First you never explained what it actually is that we DO know. So please tell me what is it that we actually DO know. Understandably there are many things that you DON’T know. Evidently History, and Biotechnology are a couple of them. If you want to continue to post on here I highly suggest you educate yourself, read, and please for God sake do some actual research before you go making erroneous claims like ” we’ve been creating GMOs for thousands of years.” You are clearly misunderstood and are now misinforming others. This is a major pet peeve that I find extremely irritating that is slowly dumbing down the next generation. Just so you know, we HAVE NOT been creating GMO’s for thousands, or even hundreds of years. Try about 20 years. What you are probably referring to are “HYBRID” plants and vegetables. Broccoli for instance is a hybrid vegetable. Hybrids are rare in nature so they were carefully selected, isolated, and cross-bred “naturally” by farmers NOT scientists many years ago. GMO’s ARE NOT hybrids! There is a BIG difference. In GMO’s the gene has been DIRECTLY interfered with by scientific and synthetic means that could NEVER naturally occur in nature such as splicing salmon DNA with a plants DNA. I don’t have a lot of time to go back and forth on this topic but I feel it is my duty to educate people from time to time when I have a chance.

          • Matthew Speak

            Actually YOU are the one who is misinformed and spreading misinformation to the masses. Just because something is done in a lab rather than on a farm does not mean you’re right to differentiate one as “hybrid” and the other as “GMO”. Essentially that’s the difference. There is zero evidence that GMOs are harmful or that organic fruits and vegetables we buy at the store are any healthier, pesticides perhaps notwithstanding. I believe in 5-10 years the anti-GMO crowd will go the way of the anti-immunization crowd.

          • Joe Campbell

            So you say “Just because something is done in a lab rather than on a farm does not mean you’re right to differentiate one as “hybrid” and the other as “GMO”. Essentially that’s the difference”. This makes absolutely NO sense. I have now concluded you are probably a 10 year old kid that is trying to do a book report on GMO’s. There is a HUGE difference between “HYBRID” and “GMO”. That’s why we have two different terms explaining the process dummy! I don’t have time for this. Go back to your tree house and have fun with your friends. Leave the discussion to the grown-ups.

          • Matthew Speak

            Ah yes, typical. Can’t win the argument so you switch to the insults. Thanks for conceding.

          • Mlema

            Matthew, genetic engineering used to create crops like Bt corn, soy, cotton has only been around for about 20 years. I’m afraid Joe is right, this technology isn’t similar to natural or traditional breeding. It allows us to cross plants and/or animals that would otherwise not breed. Saying that we’ve been genetically modifying plants for thousands of years is something that pro-industry sites like to say in order to try to assuage fears of GE.

            There are different levels of risk involved with different modes of GE. What’s most important is that we test and evaluate them to address the kinds of risks they entail. We don’t do that in a thorough way because our regulatory system was inadequate to deal with this new technology when it was first came on the scene. Nothing’s changed, and that’s why we sometimes find out about problems after the new plant is already deregulated. These various problems with and information about GMOs aren’t widely disseminated online. Instead we have two diametrically opposed stances on GE crops. Pro- and anti- .

            And we argue and argue and argue. Oh well. We like to do that I guess 🙂

          • SpeakMatt

            Ah yes not widely disseminated online….except on websites devoted to it, most of which have an obvious ax to grind. Again, worrying that there might be danger is not the same as danger actually BEING there. There is no evidence GMO foods are harmful and yes we have plenty of tests/regulations to prove it.

          • and hopefully sooner, the GMO crowd will go the way of DDT

      • Haribo Lector

        Hybrids are GMOs; and they’ve been around for nearer 11,000 years. Nice try.

        Some countries make being gay illegal, so your argument that “60 countries have banned GMOS, therefore they’re unsafe” is completely spurious.

        There is no evidence that digestive disorders have increased; that perception exists because of the vast number of people who self-diagnose as lactose intolerant or coeliac because it’s fashionable.

        If cancer rates have increased (and that’s a big if) it’s because we live longer and cancer is still, fundamentally, a disease associated with aging.

        • Joe Campbell

          WRONG…..Hybrids are NOT GMO’s.
          Anyone that thinks they are, simply knows nothing about definitions or Biology for that matter. Let me take out my GMO animal crackers and educate you a bit on the difference between the two. A mule is a hybrid. A mule is NOT a horse nor is it a donkey. It is a cross between the two. Once again it can happen in nature but it is rare most likely due to the difference in species, herd migration, and so on. It is no different with plants. Hybrid plants have been cross bred by NATURAL means and the gene has not been directly interfered with
          by synthetic, artificial, gene manipulation by human meddling hands. Even so, when something is produced in nature that was perhaps unintended, like yourself, it’s interesting to observe how it is unable to reproduce. “There are no recorded cases of fertile mule stallions”. It ends right there.

          As for your comment on “being gay” that’s something you have to deal with by yourself. I’m
          sorry I can’t help you there. I can tell you that countries that care about their people usually ban things that are not in harmony with nature’s
          code. Much like a mule stallion which cannot reproduce, gay people, like yourself cannot reproduce either. Judging from the erroneous comments you made earlier, this is a blessing to the next generation.

          Thank You for your comment.

          • Mlema

            Wow, I was with you until this comment Joe. You’re right: GMOs are new in the world and it’s wrong to say they’ve been around for thousands of years. but your comment has a bit of a homophobe tone. I hope that’s accidental.

          • Haribo Lector

            Everything you believe, on every subject, is at odds with reality.

        • Hybrids are NOT GMOs, they require viable specimens cross breeding, while GMOs don’t need to comply with genetic compatibility between the ‘parent’ plants

          • Haribo Lector

            Hybrids are organisms, so that’s a check in box one. They’ve been genetically modified, so that’s a check in box two. Yup, seems to check all the boxes.

          • “GMO” is not a meaningful scientific term, and there is no universally accepted definition—but of course, it has plenty of political and rhetorical weight.

            Lewis Carrol addressed this topic in his book, Alice Through the Looking Glass: “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

            ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

            ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

          • Loren Eaton

            You can most certainly hybridize, say GMO corn, with another GMO corn plant or even one that’s not GMO. Same with soy, even though soybean are mostly self pollinating. You do however have to have viable plant tissue to make the GMO in the first place. It is also kind of helpful if its fertile (most are) so you can make seed for the next generation.

          • @Loren—It’s tempting to respond to people who have no idea what they’re talking about—people who swamp legitimate threads with inane comments, while repeatedly avoiding address the actual topic. However, after following the comments of this person, I think the best advice is “don’t feed a troll”.

            Pseudonyms are used for a variety of purposes, but unless someone is a prominent person whose identity would be a distraction from the topic, or a corporate whistleblower who might fear a lawsuit, then the simplest interpretation is that they do not have the courage to stand behind their claims as REAL people, and risk ridicule.

            Let’s move on.

          • hyperzombie

            Pseudonyms are used for a variety of purposes,

            Like a crazy assed x girlfriend internet stalker?

      • lf

        this is a typical comment fueled by ignorance.. sad

        • Joe Campbell

          What I find even more sad and ignorant is your lack of punctuation and failure to start a sentence with a capital letter. Clearly your education only goes as far as kindergarten. In addition, nothing I commented is fueled by ignorance. They are facts that go far beyond your understanding.

          • lf

            Ok… lol

      • rosehouse

        Hybrid plants are different from GMO foods. The former are from natural plants while the latter are created in labs!

        • Jackson

          Is it the physical location where the plant is made that is the important part? I could make a hybrid in a lab, would that make it bad and “unnatural”? I could make a transgenic in a barn, would that then make it good and natural?

          • No Jackson, location is not the determining factor. What is the determining factor is that hybrids are naturally viable, reproductive plants, with compatible dna, producing a third type of plant that may or may not breed true, may or may not be able to reproduce (similar to the classic mule), while GMOs directly manipulate the genetic code, crossing species to create an organism that could not possibly exist through natural selection, with the intent that the product not be able to reproduce.

            Frakencorn and zombiesoy along with several other ‘products’ have been labeled arbitrarily as ‘FOOD’ to avoid the necessity of testing for safety.

          • Jackson

            while GMOs directly manipulate the genetic code

            When you make hybrids you purposefully manipulate the genetic code too, you just insert the DNA through sexual reproduction instead of horizontal gene transfer.

            crossing species to create an organism that could not possibly exist through natural selection

            Some GMOs use DNA from other species, but some insert genes from the same or closely related species. Further, why do you feel that natural selection is the only way we should do things? Traditional breeding soaks the seeds in mutagenic chemicals to induce mutations, which are then selected for by the breeder, not exactly what I would call “natural.”

            with the intent that the product not be able to reproduce.

            Guess how many GMOs use terminator seed technology? A big fat zero. They can all reproduce if their isogenic line can reproduce. Bananas and seedless watermelons can’t sexually reproduce, but I don’t think that makes them bad.

            Frakencorn and zombiesoy along with several other ‘products’ have been labeled arbitrarily as ‘FOOD’ to avoid the necessity of testing for safety.

            Not only that, but you forgot to mention the vampirmatoes, the wereapples, and the mummytaters!

      • Ashley

        You’re dumb

        • Before issuing such a ridiculous comment, you might actually want to read the entirety of this discussion.

      • hyperzombie

        broccoli have been around for over 2000 years!

        nope broccoli is about 300 years old.
        Red grapefruits 50 years.
        Dwarf wheat and rice about 40 years
        Modern Kiwi fruit 30 years
        Seedless Watermelon 20 years
        Mini bell peppers 4 years’
        Frescadia lettuce 3 years
        Certified Organic 25 years

    • Guest

      I’m doing a research paper for my class about GMOs where you have to state a pro and a con. Though there are really no health issues, can you argue that there is no economic soundness because of the ban on GMOs in multiple countries, some of which is a major consumer of US produce?

      • @Guest—In the U.S. farmers are permitted to plant GM crops: as a consequence 93%, 94% and 96% of corn, soy and cotton are GM, respectively.

        Farmers make this choice for economic reasons, not ideological.

        The E.U., with very little permitted GM cultivation, has become a major importer of food and animal feed (over 50 million tons per year), even though much of the land is fertile and productive. This is of direct economic benefit to U.S. farmers, but not E.U. farmers and consumers. Ironically, Europe is a major wheat producer, but a large fraction is now fed to animals not people. Presumably this has an economic impact on the people who might otherwise have access to this wheat.

        (For more discussion see http://appliedmythology.blogspot.com/2013/05/should-world-keep-feeding-europe.html)

      • hyperzombie

        I can’t think of any cons for GMOs,,,Hmmm, too much Awesomeness?

      • JTrone

        Actually if you look at the statistical trends and compare the increased use of biotech GMO (use of pesticides within the seed and changing the DNA structure) with the increased rise in neurological diseases (ALS, Alzheimer’s, Parkinsons, MS, ADD, etc…), gastrointestinal diseases, and food allergies/anaphylaxis to name a few you will see a parallel rising trend. This isn’t necessarily correlation however if you dig deeper into the neurological diseases you will find research that shows a likelihood of correlation. What I keep telling people is it isn’t the hybridization of plants which has been a practice for over a hundred years, it is the use of chemical components and changing DNA structure of plants which aren’t recognized by our bodies as safe thus the body reacts…such as neurological disease or an allergic reaction. In time you will see how this issue will cripple our economy due to the incredibly high population of people with neurological and food related diseases, more babies born with such diseases, and not enough money to pay for the chronic care that will be required.
        Now doesn’t it makes sense that the EU, Russia and China do not want our GMO food. This is just the beginning of a failing economy. It doesn’t take much sense to see that there is a problem here and to realize that humans are just a pin cushion. Recent push for legislation to protect GMO on a federal level shows who is in bed with who and it’s not the constituents….but I digress. So, who is up for a bag of corn chips with a splash of Round up…oh, doesn’t the label on Round up say that contact (skin or ingestion) with the chemical is dangerous? Hmmm, tell that to Monsanto and Unilever to name two major players in the demise of what we call ‘health’.

        • Hi JTrone—This is the perfect place to discuss your ideas. Please would you give us a link to the statistical trends in diseases you mention?

          Also, I don’t understand what you mean by “…chemical components and changing DNA structure of plants which aren’t recognized by our bodies as safe…“.

          • JTrone

            Thank you for your comment. I am concerned about food allergy safety as well. With the rise in food allergies parralleling the rise in the use of GM foods it raises my curiosity. Another concern is the use of nutrition science in research on changing DNA proteins in foods to enhance nutrition. Take Golden Rice for example; it was a product with good intentions but was not assimilable. There are other studies too that fail to mention including nutrition science in GM science to see if it actually will do what the food is intended to do.
            I have read various studies from countries across the globe. The following excerpt from a study on GMO salmon in New Zealand is one that points to the allergenicity of GM crops ‘There is also some concernthat some genes transferred via genetic engineering will maintain their allergenic properties and thus potentially pose a threat to allergic individuals through their presence in food not usually associated with those allergies (McLeod et al.; Super Salmon The Industrialisation of Fish Farming and the Drive Towards GM Technoligies in Salmon Production; University of Otago; 2006 ‘ Link: http://www.conversations.canterbury.ac.nz/documents/Salmon%20Report.pdf

          • Evidence please (not just correlation charts). There has been no rise in food allergies that parallel the introduction of GE food that could plausibly be linked to corn or soybeans. In the few cases there have been some rises, they are about equal in countries that consume GM products and those that do not. The article you cited suggests the possibility of allergens in GM salmon, which is true when any food is changed, whether GM or not. GM salmon has been widely tested and does not introduce any allergens. There are no allergens introduced by GE foods that would not be introduced by non GE foods. The only difference is that GE foods are tested for allergenicity and are not introduced if there is even a remote possibility of a serious allergen…they are in fact safer than untested non GE foods, including organic foods.

          • Karen Bracco Aguayo

            I have been reading The Genetic Literacy Project and all I see are shadows and mirrors, most of the time. Like the ridiculous article, that all armchair scientists link as the Holy Grail of GMO food safety! Where are these 2000+ studies proving their safety? I use the Genera tool often in my work, and I have found not one single study that proves the safety of GMOs. Can you link one, please?

          • While we await a reply from someone less armchairy than me (I’m a scientist, but not a life-scientist), do you have any pointers to _reputable_ studies which show the opposite? After all, it’s often said that science can disprove but not prove.*

            I mean this seriously, not as some rhetorical argument: do you regard there as being more credible evidence for harmfulness than against it, and if so, what? I think it’s evident just from the ridonkulous amount of GMO consumption worldwide over the last ~20 years and the lack of any plausibly correlated health emergency that if they are harmful, then they can’t be drastically so — if they were, there would be some genuinely compelling, causally-linked, controlled statistical data to make the anti-GMO case.

            [*] A glib characterisation that I don’t really like — can’t you just invert the question? I take it to mean that specific (sets of) theories-of-harmfulness can be and have been dismissed as incompatible with evidence, but the infinite number of complements to that set cannot be, because somewhere in an obscure corner of observable-space there may be a place where GMOs are not harmless. It’s impossible to carry out all possible experiments, hence that infinite set of theories can never be fully eliminated. Insisting that the potential, unproven existence of at least one bad point point demands a veto on all use is essentially the Precautionary Principle; it ignores the bulk of observations of safety in favour of the bogeyman of _possible_ problems, even when there is no indication whatsoever of such a thing. Plus, it ignores the equivalent possibility of such a bogeyman in whatever is the “current” way of doing things. It’s nonsense.

          • Mlema

            First of all, you can’t make any claims about GMO safety in general. Each GMO is individually engineered and presents possible risk which has to be assessed accordingly (because inserting genes and the technology which forces them to express a foreign protein is prone to disrupting the genetics and metabolism of the cell unlike traditional breeding)

            Beyond that, we haven’t been eating GMOs for years and years. We’ve been eating refined extracts like oils and sugars. These are less likely to contain any amount of any substance which might be harmful. Most GMOs are used in animal feed, and also in biofuel. And most animals are slaughtered at a relatively early age. Feeding test are typically on animals that will be eating that GMO as part of their diet. And those test are usually on very broad parameters: did the animal gain weight as expected? Did they reproduce normally? These sorts of studies don’t translate well to human safety.

            This isn’t to say that any GMO we’re eating now is unsafe. But the industry is pushing for more less regulation, while at the same time hoping to develop GMOs that we will be eating directly, and which carry a greater risk of unintended effects.

            If there were no evidence of harm while at the same time there were lots of studies on each organism – I’d say it’s wrong to claim we just don’t know. But as it is what we know isn’t a lot considering that the industry wants us to adopt more and more of different types of GMOs (and the pesticides that accompany them)

          • Thanks for that — these are thoughtful points. I think you are being pessimistic about the amount which can be inferred from the last 30 years of GMO animal feed in particular, though, and of course GM products do have to go through a fairly strict human-relevant testing regime in every jurisdiction I’m aware of.

            But (while I don’t have a relevant expert’s awareness of the literature), your points about the directness of exposure and detail of animal health issue monitoring seem a priori reasonable. So continuing the existing testing regime seems reasonable tome, especially where GM products intended for direct human consumption are concerned. As you say, there can’t be a blanket declaration of safety for all GMOs, but equally there is not really a common mechanism to justify the special treatment of all of them when it comes to testing regulations. Levelling the playing field by requiring new species and varieties from non-transgenic approaches wouldn’t be unreasonable, would it?

            And on the point about associated pesticides… well, it’s not like pesticides are unique to GMOs! And of course two of the best-known GM traits contribute to *reducing* pesticide usage and toxicity…

          • Mlema

            I hope I don’t come across as negative in my following response, because you’ve written in such a pleasant and reasonable manner, whereas I seem to be on a rather angry bent this evening. So please let me apologize in advance if I seem confrontational, I don’t mean to be.

            “…GM products do have to go through a fairly strict human-relevant testing regime in every jurisdiction I’m aware of.”

            What are you referencing here? What human-relevant testing regime are you saying a GMO must go through? I’m asking because I’ve spent a lot of time reading about regulatory requirements, and I’ve come to a different conclusions. If you read the FDA and USDA sites, you’ll find that there are only vague descriptions of how safety is assured. When you dig deeper at other sites, you find that there is little if any human relevant testing regime. We have lots of GMOs now, while the feeding studies done on mice or rats are very few, and certainly don’t include all the GMOs now in our food supply. I’m not saying I’m worried. But if developers start cranking out nutritionally-enhanced foods that we’ll be eating just like the other foods in our diets, I will be concerned. Plant metabolism can’t be engineered so simply and poses new regulatory questions. The risks of engineering different foods are relative. Closely related foods crossed using agrobacterium are less likely to evidence unwanted changes than are biolistically crossed distant species.

            I do agree that it makes sense to test any food where the development technology carries inherent risk of disrupting gene expression or messing up the plant’s secondary metabolism.

            As far as pesticides: glyphosate reduces nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the rhizosphere, is being used in exponentially increasing amounts as resistance is engineered into more and more commodity crops, and is lethal to amphibians. It’s also showing up in our water, all our food and its metabolites in our bodies. Proponents like to say it’s as safe as salt, but toxicology studies say otherwise. It’s also just been classified as probable carcinogen. Is it good that it’s in baby food? 1-2 yr old children are at highest risk of harmful exposure.

            Bt crops: reduced applied pesticide to fields where more pesticides were used! But there are other ag methods have been and can be employed, and engineering bt to be expressed throughout the plant and throughout the life cycle defeats the goal of integrated pest management. Growing resistance makes using those same relatively safe pesticides with periodic application useless. Also, the bt toxins adhere to certain kinds of soil and continue to be active.

            Resistance to glyphosate has spurred the development of crops that are resistant to pesticides more toxic than glyphosate. We’re also stacking multiple Cry traits, and no one really knows what the result of this will be.

            Many GMOs go through no testing at all. If the trait is considered safe, and the plant it’s engineered into is considered safe – the plant is considered safe, even though no tests may have been done to note changes in it’s proteins or other compounds. the industry has lots of justifications for this methodology, but many independent scientists say it’s not sound regulation.

            And did I say that I do think mutagenic bred crops should be evaluated as well?
            We know which breeding methods are most likely to produce unintended changes – mutagenesis is at the top, followed by various GE methods, with some GE being relatively as safe as conventional crosses between closely related species.

          • Hi again — don’t worry, it didn’t seem so angry to me! I’ve

            I’ve also tried to find information on approval and testing regimes, but had reached a different conclusion. My reading is that all new GM products under the FDA scheme need a manufacturer submission of key biochemical data for comparison to the non-GM equivalent, where it exists, to demonstrate an absence of divergence from equivalence; if there is no equivalent, more detailed testing will be required. There is a review of international testing regimes at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_the_release_of_genetically_modified_organisms – unfortunately also vague, but it does highlight the wide role and and some detail of “substantial equivalence” regimes. That approach seems pretty rational to me, since it’s the chemical rather than genetic content of food that has safety implications — or do you disagree? I wasn’t aware of an absence of animal testing with GMOs, indeed thought the oposite was the case: do you have a reference for that? (Not claiming it’s wrong, just interested.) I also didn’t find any evidence of “many GMOs go through no testing at all”, so a link to that information would be very nice. Thanks.

            On glyphosate, I think there are some factual errors or misrepresentations in what you say above. For example, glyphosate itself is not significantly toxic to amphibians — the surfaceants in some of its formulations are much more so (http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.pdf). That’s not wonderful, and I hope drives formulation developments to reduce surfaceant toxicity, but to put it in perspective, 99% of human exposure to surfaceants will be through the macroscopic amounts of soap that we use to clean ourselves and our homes & eating utensils. The (in)famous Seralini et al paper on glyphosate’s endocrine disruption effects actually shows that the surfaceants are again responsible for the bulk of any effect… and again, consider the proportionate exposure from other household sources. It should also be noted that the IARC “probable carcinogen” classification is rather a misleading name — it doesn’t make any judgement on risk and in the animal studies which showed correlation with carcinogenic effects the concentrations were much higher than realistic human exposure. It’s been widely criticised as an excessively precautionary decision, and for gifting soundbites to groups which have immediately misrepresented the decision as a risk assessment (see GLP summaries: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/03/glyphosate-carcinogenic-independent-global-scientists-weigh-in/ and https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/03/anti-gmo-activists-leverage-glyphosate-cancer-reclassification-to-resurrect-discredited-claims/). I believe Monsanto (whose patent, let’s remember, is long expired) are mounting a legal challenge on this basis: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/24/us-monsanto-herbicide-idUSKBN0MK2GF20150324. On the comparison with salt… NaCl is nasty stuff in large quantities: which comparative toxicology reports are you referring to?

            On the stacking of traits, do you have a link to evidence that glyphosate resistance has led to an increase in *non*-glyphosate resistance? If nothing better, glyphosate has acted as a stop-gap for several decades — without it, resistance to substitute pesticides would have developed much earlier. Combined action pesticides such as glyphosate + 2,4-D mix are specifically intended to address resistance by simultaneous use of two modes of action which in combination are far more robust against resistance mutations. I think it’s alarmist to say that “no-one really knows” the effect of Cry trait stacking… and I guess it is up to the regulatory regime to consider commercialisation of them carefully. Dealing with resistance will always be an arms race — the emphasis is on choosing strategies which slow the resistance generation process as much as possible for minimal biotech adaptations, so we don’t run out of technological handles on the problem: trait stacking and pesticide stacking are examples of this. The Enlist Duo EPA approval process and conditions seems to me like a good procedural template for both approaches: a careful and fairly lengthy approval process considering the evidence and permitting commercialisation, but with safety restrictions and warnings to not apply the stacked traits in areas where pests are already resistant to one of the components. Some aspects of how this plays out depend on responsible usage.

            Thanks again for your reasoned points. I think the evidence against glyphosate is far less strong than you have indicated, and of course it needs to be borne in mind that removal of it would just lead to other, most likely nastier, herbicides: no solution will be perfect, and glyphosate seems the best risk vs. effect trade-off available. Safety improvements in its formulations would be nice — although far more important from an environmental rather than human safety angle. I’d love to see your sources of information on lack of GMO animal testing and holes in regulatory frameworks which permit new GMOs to pass without any testing at all: those run contrary to my understanding (NB. the FDA’s ‘voluntary’ approach to safety data has never been exercised in practice). I’m not an expert, so am very happy to improve my understanding via new evidence 😉

          • Mlema

            “…GM products do have to go through a fairly strict human-relevant testing regime in every jurisdiction I’m aware of”

            “fairly strict” is a relative term. The US doesn’t require feeding trials. What do you think is required that you would call a strict testing regime?

            The common mechanism that would justify special treatment is the mutagenic nature of some methods of GE – it’s ability to change the metabolism and composition of the plant.

            Have had the pesticide discussion elsewhere, so please forgive me for not getting into that.

          • Given that the relevant concern is the chemical content of the plant, and that there is a balance to be struck between safety and onerous administrative/cost overhead, I think the current regime without the very significant extra expense of feeding studies is not unreasonable. Certainly while, as you’ve said, most current “GM foods” are derived ingredients like starch, sucrose, and oils. And the lack of any evidence of problems with this approach is a point in favour of the current balance.

            As GM organisms for direct consumption enter the market, there is _maybe_ a case for feeding studies — but from the graphic you’ve shown, a rational introduction of such a ruling would need to include at least mutagenically bred organisms, too.

            I had difficulty working out exactly what’s shown in that plot or on what basis it was made: there is no scale on the x axis, which immediately begs the question of whether there is anything quantitative behind it (and is the implied scale linear or logarithmic?) I also don’t understand the caption, which says that the dark part of the bar is the “relative degree of genetic disruption” and the tails are “the committee’s conclusions about the relative degree of the range of potential unintended changes”. As well as the cardinal sin of apparently conjoining two very different measures into the same plot components, this seems very, very vague… especially without a scale to indicate what this actually means in probabilistic terms (or whether these unintended changes are significant from the point of view of approval, consumption and safety). The grey bands for the techniques at the bottom are extremely wide in both directions: is that meant to indicate a large uncertainty about typical risk, or that all risks are possible? The text also says (twice) that different genetic modification methods, including traditional breeding, do not have the same probability of unintended changes, then in the next sentence says that the method is therefore not the issue… while showing a plot that indicates that they are at least highly correlated; this seems very confused and contradictory. In short, I just don’t know what to make of this part of the report — it’s so vague and contradictory that it could probably be read either as indicating a serious risk or none!

            And anyway, as we already discussed, the existing FDA (for example) testing regime is primarily based on testing of key chemical composition — which is exactly what changes to metabolism and composition would show up. The modified DNA itself is not really a concern. Of course changing the composition of a plant may be the *reason* for the modification, including more traditional breeding approaches. So if we interpret that graphic as indicating that there may be more risk of significant collateral genetic disruption with GE and mutagenic methods than with more traditional breeding, that justifies the existence of a testing regime to which all applications have so far submitted, and really puts the focus on why mutagenics do not fall under that regime. But I don’t see why it would indicate the necessity of expanding that regime beyond chemical tests and into feeding studies, when there haven’t been any indications of problems with the current way…

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            Most of them are in the form of study reports which are provided to regulatory agencies rather than being published in the peer-reviewed literature.

          • Mlema

            and performed by the developers

          • Ricky

            Hi Karen Aguayo, glad you asked. The following link for the Genetic Engineering Risk Atlas (GENERA) provides sources for all of the aforementioned studies. At least 600 of these are not funded by the private sector and are conducted by academic institutions that serve only to increase our scientific understanding. It should also be noted that the GENERA project is the result of an amalgamation of different governmental bodies that focus primarily on safety and risk assessment and have no vested interests.


          • Mlema

            You’ve got a couple of things wrong there regarding GENERA. It’s not a risk atlas. It’s not an amalgamation of different governmental bodies (! how did you get that?!) and it doesn’t focus on safety and risk assessment.

            GENERA is just a collection of studies that have some relevance to the topic of GMOs. It’s put together by a handful of pro-GMO scientists who have no expertise in epidemiology or toxicology. They’ve overlaid their subjective interpretation of these studies and developed charts that don’t accurately represent the collection.

            GENERA was developed just so that people who want to say there are hundreds of studies that show GMOs are safe can link to it and throw a person down a rabbit hole, and try to impress them with large numbers of papers.

            Here’s a metastudy that will introduce you to the current state of the literature, and which will lead you to other studies you can explore.

          • NoToGMOs

            “GM salmon has been widely tested and does not introduce any allergens”

            Provide peer-reviewed evidence of this, or else, you’re just blowing hot air, as usual.

          • unfortunately 44,000 pages, forced public from the FDA, have proven that no human, and no long term studies have ever been performed; and that such compounds, such as rBST, were approved by Monsanto..er the FDA… even though there was evidence that it was not healthy, just profitable.

          • Specific evidence please. You’ve provided nothing. The FDA data prove nothing what you claim, according to the FDA and every major science organization around the world, GMOs are as safe or safer, and certainly more sustainable, then organic or conventional foods.

          • AaPenny Lali
          • Mlema

            Wow. Make sweeping unfounded generalizations much? I can understand that Myr might not have the whole scoop on everything. None of us does. But I’m starting to think you really believe what you say. Why should we believe you? I know for a fact that no science organization has said that GMOs are as safe or safer than other foods. They’ve gone as far as to say that the foods now on the market are safe, and that the technology is safe. And not that many are even that blatant. Most have said that each should be tested individually. But for you that means: GMOs are safe. any and all, for any purpose.

          • Mlema

            “…GE foods are tested for allergenicity and are not introduced if there is
            even a remote possibility of a serious allergen…they are in fact
            safer than untested non GE foods, including organic foods.”

            GE foods aren’t safer than non GE foods or organic foods. And they’re not tested for allergenicity – they’re tested for allergens common to the parent plant. There’s no regulatory requirement for testing GE plants – only for testing the safety of the trait planned to be introduced. If there were some alteration that created a protein or toxin, we wouldn’t necessarily know. And, depending on the method, GE is more prone to such alterations.

            For instance, the Stax crop – which contains several bt toxins and glyphosate resistance was approved based purely on the fact that each individual trait was already considered safe. Most feeding studies are conducted on meat animals and look for only gross problems in a short amount of time. Anyway, the results from one study on one plant don’t transfer to any general statements about GMOs.

          • @JTrone—I’m still curious where you get your ideas about the causes of this variety of neurological diseases. Is this a just an impression on your part, or are you relying on a particular source of information? Very few people on threads like this work directly in these areas, so we are generally dependent on data and interpretations from other people.

            I was surprised that you cited the article about genetically engineered salmon, bit didn’t include their conclusion, “…current research in Gm salmon is using fish-to-fish genetic transfer and the possibility of novel allergen introduction is small. Do you disagree with the authors?

          • JTrone

            You are right to question since I cited only one study and didn’t add the conclusion. It is confusing since there are studies and even published books that contradict. I will continue reading to find answers.

          • Hi Pete,
            Couldn’t help but notice your request for a link to statistical trends.

            Could you please provide a link to the studies that show that GMOs are safe? There are already studies that show rBST hormone usage in dairy production causes more harm to a person than smoking 4 packs of cigarettes a day. And this is only increasing an existing compound….kinda the ‘dosage’ thing Rosalind mentioned above.

            Would also be interested in seeing the studies of combining rBST milk with GMO grains in processed foods, and the long term effects on Humans.

            Strictly from a consumer point of view, don’t you feel it would be wiser to actually test for long term effects rather than studying them after the fact?

        • bullish

          hey, the corn in chips is non-GMO you dolt. actually, that was mean to all the open minded dolts that dont spread fear as their only defense. 22 oz PER ACRE is the rate for roundup over the top of corn sprayed before the corn reaches 48″ no ear, no tassel, no ‘corn’ is anywhere to be sprayed with the miracle-juice.

          • JTrone

            Wow, you are quite bullish and aggressive. What is with the dolt comment; are you only 10? I was making a point that in time the ‘traces’ of chemicals that are seemingly harmless in minute amounts add up. So you can do the math adding every chemical exposure from biotech foods to pesticides to water to air to land pollution and you will realize that your defense is weak and immature. Remember you have to eat every day multiple times and should drink half your weight in water. I once did the math and found a child consumes an approximate 400+ trace chemicals each and every day tallying only food for an average American breakfast, lunch, dinner and snack using the principles of the USDA’s MyPlate nutritional recommendations. Multiply that by 365 days and for a 10 year old that is 1,460,000 trace chemical exposures from only food in case you don’t have your calculator handy. So how much is that per acre? Please post your facts that all corn in corn chips are non-GMO. I need proof.

          • bullish

            sorry about the immature dolt thing–its an inappropriate use by me of an endearing term used to describe a nattering naybob of false premises…sorry.

            btw, before i go down this other trail, whats so wrong with some trace exposure? don’t you ever poop? Maybe that would help you…did you know your body ‘gets rids of stuff?’ I know I need trace chemical and mineral ‘exposure’ in my human physiology…we all do…we are healthier and live so much longer and more productive lives…Regardless of all the other stuff I have ‘ingested’, I plan to spray Roundup on corn, beans and mostly weeds until I’m 80 or 90 years old..or older. My pops never dreamed back in the 60’s he would have the health and be as productive as he is now…we live in an amazing Agricultural time…and its getting more amazing-er!

            All food grade corn used by the evil multinational corporations is ‘food grade,’ is all non GMO. It is what the Industry calls ‘White Corn’ or ‘Blue Corn’…the stuff in chips. THE GRAIN HAS NEVER BEEN SPRAYED BY ROUNDUP!! It’s not the good stuff that most farmers plant, the #2 Yellow corn–you know, the stuff that has been fed without incident as trillions of meals to hogs, cattle and chickens over the last 20 years. Only in the last 2 years has GMO sweet corn been available to be directly consumed by humans… And boy was it tasty! (with no ear worms in the cob, too!)

            My point is and the fact is that there is no Glyphosate ‘trace’ on that food grade corn, it never has Roundup sprayed on the grain. Further, my point is that there is no Roundup sprayed on the cool, new GMO Sweetcorn ears, either, because the only legal way to spray on any corn plant is under 4′ tall–weeks before the grain is formed. In soy, its legal outer limit is at the R2 growth stage..(basically blooming, but not yet podding–again, long before grain is formed) But my impatience (and disrespect, and frustration) is with you and yours that have no understanding of how Ag really works or how cool this biology is, so spreading misinformation and fear (with numbers that are dreamed up) about all these things you don’t understand is your ‘thing’.

            The LD50 of Roundup is MUCH lower than the things you put in your body and much higher amounts everyday–like the Caffeine in your Mocha or vinegar in your organic salad, for example.

            Go ahead and use big math, you don’t scare me–here is some for you. i stole this next piece from another poster fair and square, its not my math, but all verifiable and i would welcome ‘peer review’…so spend some time on this. And enjoy your cornflakes. MADE WITH CORN THAT IS NOT SPRAYED (by law) WITH ROUNDUP. So this is a partially flawed premise, too…but the big math is funny.

            The LD50 of glyphosate is 5600 mg/kg and the maximum residue allowed in food is 40 ppm..

            A 150 lb. person is equivalent to 68 kg. That means it would take 380,800 mg.
            of glyphosate to kill you or 13.5 oz. The allowable amount of glyphosate
            residue in food is 40 ppm. That means to get 1 ppm of glyphosate in your food
            you would have to eat 13,500,000 oz. of corn. 13.5oz. is one part of 13,500,000
            oz. Take 13,500,000 divided by 40 and that is 337,500 oz. of corn to have 40
            ppm.. There is about 13 oz. of corn in a 24 oz. box of corn flakes. 337,500
            divided by 13 is 25,961 boxes of corn flakes. You would have to eat a box of
            corn flakes everyday for the next 71 years to get enough glyphosate to kill you
            if the box contained the maximum residue. And that does not take into account
            that in humans, glyphosate does not easily pass through the skin. Glyphosate
            taken in through the skin or by mouth goes through the body in less than one
            day. Glyphosate leaves the body in urine and feces without being changed into
            another chemical.

            Studies with rats showed that about one-third of a dose
            of glyphosate was absorbed by the rats’ intestines. Half of the dose was found
            in the rats’ stomachs and intestines 6 hours later, and all traces were gone
            within one week.

            On the other hand, if you are a coffee drinker, it would
            only take about 6 gallons of coffee to have enough caffeine to be toxic enough
            to kill you.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            You do realize that all food is chemicals, right?

        • Rosalind Dalefield

          So JTrone, is this alleged increase in neurological disorders found only in those countries where GMOs are consumed, or is it also observed in countries where GMOs are not consumed?

          • JTrone

            I realize that all food is made up of chemicals however my concern is the many synthetic chemicals that are added to food. There is a rise in neurological disease across the globe in developed and developing countries. I don’t have all the answers but it seems appropriate to say that with the rise of chemicals in our food/water/land/air there has also been rising diseases (respiratory, neurological, allergic, immune related) While there are not any studies to correlate it is a concern of mine that the continued consumption of processed foods, GMO and chemicals added to our food has a relationship to our health. Time will tell. In the mean time there has been much debate in European countries about biotech food related medical issues such as allergenicity. Here’s a link to begin: http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y0820e/y0820e00.htm#Contents

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            “there has also been rising diseases (respiratory, neurological, allergic, immune related)”
            Evidence to support this claim?
            If neurological diseases are more common in both developed and developing countries, isn’t it clear that GMO consumption is not correlated?

          • yes, there are millions of proteins on the planet, but only a very specific 147 left hand proteins are found in DNA. Life has been founded on these very specific proteins since its existence. Changing which ones exist in our food supply is reckless.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            Proteins found in DNA?! Wtf are you talking about? you don’t even know what DNA is, do you?

          • Rosalind, I admire your vigorous and informed responses on this forum, but I fear that you are being provoked by some people who have no interest in actually discussing the real science behind the original article. My hunch is that their real intention is to hijack the forum and distract from a serious topic. As tempting as it may be, sometimes the best advice is “don’t feed a troll”.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            Sage advice Peter. Thank you! I will ignore ‘Myr Silverleaf’ henceforth.

          • that hypothesis doesn’t hold true Ros, the US ships food to many developing countries

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            My name is not Ros, rude person.
            Developing countries have the option of declining to purchase GMO crops.

    • amosm

      I’ve made this point time and time again – if you’re going to argue against GMO’s you should understand something about science in order to effectively argue. Otherwise you end up sounding like an anti-science-luddite-douche, to use the vernacular (like the next commenter in this list.)

      It’s typical of Dunning-Kruger played out all over the blogosphere daily. And it’s embarrassing!

      Since you’ve posted anonymously, I hope you don’t mind me quoting your post, in toto. Brilliant!

      • Mark Bolton

        Thank you for mentioning Dunning – Kruger. I had only been vaguely aware of it. As one gains competence in a field one become more aware of the depth of knowledge in ones field. These with limited abilities don’t understand the what they don’t understand. Provided they sound plausible to themselves they are happy. I see it often in proposals for perpetual motion systems. Since they aren’t ideologically charged they provide a clearer model. Often an example like Moore’s Law will be used to demonstrate exceptional progress in technology. They Laws of Thermodynamics ? Meh !? Who knows what they will come up with next.

    • Nah

      1) I’m supposed to just believe you have a Ph.D.?
      2) That’s supposed to matter? Great, you got a degree. Unless you can point to the studies to back up your claims, your degree adds negligible value to your argument.

      • Richard

        Nah, you should have also mentioned the poor English in his comment…

    • Bob Bobert

      Exactly.. education doesn’t mean you know what your talking about… you can know the answers but it doesn’t mean you understand the question.

      • check your anti-beer bs here: ambersuds.com

        • Bob Bobert

          Your the editor… Im not gonna take your individual opinion as fact when I have felt the detrimental effects of bear myself. I have been through periods of my life when I have drank every day.. I have drank once a week.. Now the only time I drink is when I go to parties or go out to bars with friends. Clear thinking is impaired by drinking as is focus.. it gives me headaches if I drink too much. It causes inflamation and a whole bunch of other negative sideeffects.. I also smoke cannibis and have been through stages where I have smoked every day all day.. the effects? It lets my mind wander to places I would not do sober.. but still there is that unclear thinking, and if you smoke too much you feel foggy the next day, there is also a lack of focus again. Soberness? Clear minded, feelings of wellbeing, easy to focus but only for short periods on different things. There is no downfalls of soberness… Magic mushrooms? Though I don’t regularly partake.. I have quite a bit of experience over the space of about 4 years a while back.. Focus is increased incredibly.. Thinking is almost clearer than soberness.. there is this understanding of things.. its as if my brain speeds up and becomes more streamlined.. it gives you a chance to experience things as they are.. you lose preconceptions and this is an extreme advantage to creative thinkers. I would say although I spend most of my time now sober if I were to recommend people a drug of choice I would give different answers depending on what they want to experience.

          Alchohol I would recommend to those who wish to talk a load of nonesense around a table.. or to dance to music they wouldn’t otherwise enjoy. Someone with an addictive personality should not drink regularly.

          Weed I would recommend to someone who enjoys relaxing, thinking and being creative. Though again for people with addictive personalities I wouldn’t recommend regular smoking.

          Shrooms I would recommend to creative people and those who wish to understand themselves. I find it doubtful that many people will be eager to trip out every day.. but even if they did they would build tolerance and the effects would eventually just be good nutrition and enhanced dreams.

          • not asking you to take my personal opinion bob. the site has nearly 100 reference links to medical studies around the world over the past 50 yrs.

          • Bob Bobert

            The reason people have drank over the last few thousands years is not cause they thought it was healthy… its cause being drunk is fun … people have drank to get durnk that.. is not something you can argue against, its like me saying I smoke weed cause I think its good for my lungs and I don’t want to get stoned LOL …
            Beer is never going to have more benefits than negatives no matter how much you try to convince yourself that isn’t going to change and its damn right dishonest of you to show all the benefits without showing the harms. Just instead of looking for what you want to hear just for once try to research the other side of the fence.. Look at what a calorie actually is. Then research about what the calories in beer are made of. There is scientific fact that you are missing/ignoring or are too damn desperate to believe this to look up.

          • Bob? You are undoubtedly a frikin idiot when it comes to the positives of the world’s most prolific beverage, beer. You refuse to acknowledge decades of research, won’t bother to learn the truth, and maintain your narrow minded position, despite the reams of evidence against your position. Enjoy yourself in your little world where you know better than anyone else.

          • Bob Bobert

            Your not even responding to what I said here… you change the subject when you realise that Im 100% right and your bullshit has no grounds.

          • I change the subject? What are you smoking and where can I get some?

          • I HAVE done the research Bob. Funny that you won’t even use my name in a reply despite that I have used yours in every one. Disrespectful to say the least.

            A calorie is the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of one gram of water, one degree c.

            Shall we begin a scientific debate? an insult barrage, or are you willing to admit you are incorrect, and concede my point.

          • Bob Bobert

            Pmsl yea ok your right… beer is good for you.. go drink every day like you probably already do.. enjoy your fat belly and stupidity and I will sit here with an effortlessly strong body and sharp mind.. like I just said.. your a lost cause.. Im out… enjoy your health benefits of beer .. and Il enjoy my healthy brain.. cya

          • As a point of fact I do enjoy a beer a day, I also run 5 miles and can press my own weight. I also pay my MENSA dues regularly.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            Well, also because at many times in history it was safer to drink beer or wine than to drink water.

          • On this matter Rosalind? You have gained some of my respect. We do agree on this issue at least.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            Too bad you’ve completely lost mine, as a result of your bizarre rambling about proteins in DNA(!!!), and your evident complete ignorance of toxicology.

          • from your comment I can infer that for your definition of drinking beer has as its sole purpose, getting drunk. bad assumption of your part. I do NOT advocate over indulgence. For women 1 beer a day does WONDERS for men its 1-2, depending on their body mass.

            Do you know what the nutritional value of raw mushrooms actually is? Same as cooked mushrooms. NADA

          • Bob Bobert

            Well if your drinking to stay healthy and don’t want any intoxicating affect at all your an idiot.

      • Dean

        I think you mean “you’re” not “your”. “You’re” is a contraction; this means it represents the phrase “you are”. Your implies posession. In this context, you want to be using the contraction form of the word “you’re”.

        If you can’t speak properly, do NOT comment on science. Thank you.

        • Bob Bobert

          Im pretty sure when spoken they sound the same.. and last time I checked science wasnt english grammer.. Also Im english and scored A+ in my english GCSE’s.. you clearly understood what I meant so I couldnt care less about my grammer when commenting on the internet….. missing grammar doesn’t automatically mean I don’t know how to use it and If you understood I don’t understand the point of your comment.. Bird Brain

    • Cathy Schmiers

      Dear guest with a PHD. One: big a.. tumors on rats is not a good thing.His study was verified by other scientists and who is paying you .

      • John

        …who “is” paying you? This is the reason why only a select few have earned their PHD’s.

        • Eric Bjerregaard

          John, having a PHD is not really relevant in evaluating the worn out evidence free, lazy shill accusation. Sometimes I think my dogs could do it.

      • Rosalind Dalefield

        Sprague Dawley female rats are highly prone to those tumors, which are benign adenomas, by the way. It is a breed-specific phenomenon and is seen on all longterm studies of Sprague Dawley rats.

        • Mlema

          which isn’t really relevant to the criticism of the study

    • alsoafakename?

      You’ve touched on a couple of good points regarding ‘questioning everything,’ but that is what most people are on course of doing. I don’t mean this as an insilt, but I was questioning you based on having a PhD and having such grammatical errors. My undergraduate studies alone have taught me better… and yes, this is important to consider when the commenter is offering an opinion based on prestige, degree(s), and expertise. Just a little to chew on before posting an arrogant rant.

    • bart

      Essential oils, and specifically Yoga are fantastic practices that are much older and wiser than you and your Ph.D.
      Somewhere in your quest for knowledge, you should have learned to bite your tongue and accept different ways of healing. Peace be with you. You seem unhappy.

    • FakeDoctorWin

      I would think that Doctorate educated person such as yourself would be a little more eloquent and have a bit more tact when speaking about a topic as important as GMOs and their impact or lack there of maybe…
      Compelling argument Guest…

    • I am so glad you mentioned good science. Doesn’t ‘good science’ require testing of theory? Doesn’t ‘good science’ demand proof? Doesn’t it simply make sense that any alteration in what humans eat, performed by science, be tested (long term) before putting it on the shelves of our grocery stores?

      You mention ‘opportunists’ and I immediately think “MONSANTO”. Why? because GMO seeds are patent-able, farmers must sign contracts that the seeds they buy are one use only. Unused seeds cannot be used later and must be destroyed if not planted at the appointed time. GMO crops that are more resistant to pesticides, mean more sales of ‘Round-Up’ another Monsanto property…. so who is the real opportunist here? Considering that FDA officials and Monsanto officials seem to be interchangeable….

    • Utedude

      I actually love digging into this GMO discussion. Since you are a Ph.D. That has done research in this filed, would you care to post some showing GMO to not express more toxins, fewer nutrients? Because I can post research that states the opposite.


      Instead of name calling, or saying that people that fear GMO’s are illiterate. Please do us a favor and prove your points.

    • Paul

      As a scientist, also with a PhD in environmental sciences, I think I have the authority to say that the GMOs are dangerous… why? Because we are modifying the nature of the food without an entire knowledge of the biochemistry of food and the relationship with the human body. There is a lot of information missing, and if a scientist is arguing that everything about GMOs is known, cannot be considered reliable.
      The problem is simple… if you are agree with GMOs and you eat these products, is your problem and you should accept the consequences. But if someone else, e.g., me, is not agree with the GMOs, it doesn’t matter, because anyway is going to indirectly consume GMOs, because the GMOs are contaminating conventional crops, that is a fact!!!

    • Camilla

      Excuse me Mr., I would just like to ask you why you think GMO foods are good or useful. I have a project in school and all what I got from research is bad stuff about GM crops and people say they have evidence. So if you’re so sure that they are good please give me a few reasons about why you think that because I want to have another side to my argument. So why do you support GM, I mean go look at the test results on rats. They could actually happen to humans too. To be honest their is more evidence about GM crops being bad rather than being good. So prove yourself to me please.

    • Guest

      So why do you support GM, I mean go look at the test results on rats. They could actually happen to humans too.

      • Camilla, Not exactly sure what you are referring to but if it’s the Seralini study, when you look at the test results of those not fed GMO corn, they also got tumors. It had nothing to do with GMO feed. That’s why the study was retracted. It was junk/ideological science. There have been more than 2000 studies and not one in a major journal has shown any health problems related specifically to GM food. Not one. Zero. You are far more likely to get sick from eating bacteria-tained organic food from coli or listeria (and also die) than from eating any GM food–not even a cold has been linked to GM food consumption. Best to rely on science, not on scare stories from activist sites.

        • Camilla

          Thank you, but I really did research a lot about it and to be honest there is a lot of negative on this topic including the positive. But this is a really huge topic, and not you or I could possibly know everything.

          • Hi Camilla, I’m glad to hear that you have been researching this complex topic. Can you share your approach in doing this research? Can you share you main findings, especially in the context of the original article by Layla Katiraee?

    • Ek Chakkar

      Not all anti-GMO crowd is anti-science. You have to understand history of politics in global agriculture and its close relationship to sovereignty. Problem with laboratory-GMO technology is economics of seeds and pesticides. I leave science to scientists and understand it to be sound. On economics side, I see rich countries imposing a certain path of farming improvement through scare-mongering and bullying on wider trade agreements. GMO seeds and related pesticides bring debt and, in few cases, farmers suffer heavily; in most extreme cases, some commit suicide. Debt-suicide link existed before GMO. One hopes that such link can disappear after GMO, not stay stable or strengthen.

      For small farmers in poor countries, farming is more than just economics. It is culture and aesthetic tie to land. When rich countries heavily subsidise their own farmers and create unfair markets globally, it only adds to suspicion on non-science ulterior motives of laboratory-GMO technologies.

      Although laboratory-GMO science is sound, at least one major publication has documented trouble in overall science research.

    • Lizzy

      Well obviously you aren’t an English major, however I do agree with the body of your observation.

    • catalinadee

      Ive seen a few people on this site say “Big Organic Companies” .. can you explain what that means exactly, maybe with an example or two? as far as im concerned the whole ideology behind organics is a simple healthy sustainable method of food production. doesnt seem much room for those megalithic structures you speak of. But of coarse there are, most of those “Big O’s” are just other companies bought up by the same companies manufacturing genetically modified foods & food grade poison (general mills-monsanto). Its sounds to me as if you’ve really taken to heart any opposition to your superior scientific views. You speak of the anti-gmo movement as a threat to humanity as well as an insult to science as a whole. Giving it the Charlie Manson hippy cult feel. If science was as you’ve depicted; easily offended & indisputable, science as a search for knowledge, truth & advancement would be reduced to an ideal of times past. Without being challenged science never really progresses. & if everytime you criticize the work of a scientist they get offended and insinuate false notions about the opposing party, they don’t have the heart of a true knowledge seeking scientist.

    • Tyler

      I’m 14 and I read this to get a laugh. And I got what I wanted. For heavens sake, go to the links and then follow those link’s links. At that step everything begins to crumble.For example, the rat tumour study was flawed. I was given the URL of the study by my teacher and was told to study it. I quickly found out that the study was flawed by:
      – the researchers chose a rat breed that was reported to have extremely high tumour rates
      – the rats were fed with other things rather than GMO

    • Ira Bliss

      Amen! Excellent post, sir! In the words of my Advanced Organic Chemistry prof., “I am just a simple Organic Chemist….”

      I have great admiration and respect for the (true) scientific community. (I felt the need to qualify that statement with the word “true”, in an effort to exclude “scientists” that merely play science. 🙂

      I have been reluctant to engage in conversations with others about the topic of GMO’s because it has been my experience that people eagerly willing to have a conversations have little to no knowledge of the traditional sciences.

      This being the case, I understand the type of problems that arise from their inability to review “scientific articles” with a significant level of discernment.

      Even with a limited background in science, if a person where just willing to consider the source of “scientific data”, (as the author suggested in the article.) This would shed some light on the credibility of what people are saying/spreading.

      Example Dr. Mercola has tons of information by way of “scientific studies”, that prove the dangers of Splenda!!! just buy his book to learn all the things “THEY don’t want you to know!

      ha, the list goes on….Which is why I consult a real doctor from an Ivy League school! Dr. Oz. (Note: I know we don’t know each other. my name is Ira and I have a warped sense of humor….I was kidding about Dr. Oz, who I’m sure a great Man, in his own rite?

    • AidenHawes9001

      I very much believe this, sir, and I think that a lot of uneducated people just assume things and jump to uneducated conclusions.

      I am not as educated as a lot of people in this field, and so I am aware that not everything I say is 100% true, but I think that if the FDA was willing to watch what we produced and possibly sold, the things that have been genetically modified and are unsafe for consumption can be kept out of the united states.

      I am aware that this may sound naive and, as I said before, uneducated, but I think that what I say most likely has at least a little truth to it. So I think that you are right, sir, in that genetically modified foods are mostly fine, and people often jump to conclusions.

    • Mlema

      What’s depressing is that someone who managed to get a PhD would still be engaged in faulty reasoning: grouping everyone who’s against anything he supports together and then calling them names.

    • Perhaps it is by design. Monsanto has managed to get GMOs classified as ‘food’ avoiding all the testing usually required of man-made products, yet still have patents on their seeds.

      Their own press releases declare that no ‘human studies’ have been conducted in regards to this food substitute. The intro to this topic lists several attempts to do studies yet each one is categorically ‘pooh-poohed’ as non science. Where is Monsanto’s research? There is none.

      rBST, a growth hormone administered to cattle to increase milk yields was found to be passed along to those who consumed the product. It makes sense logically and ethically, to test these new products for safety before shoveling them into the food supply. Far better to know the truth beforehand than to say ‘Oops, guess these weren’t as safe as we thought’ as happened with fun things like DDT….

      GMOs aren’t real food, these are food substitutes not found by natural laws. These are not hybrids, but deliberate tampering with genetic codes to produce organisms that could not appear in nature.

      Over the past few decades, tobacco use, hazardous industries, automotive emissions levels have decreased in the USA, yet the number of persons receiving benefits from social security (over the age of 65) has declined by more than 10million beneficiaries since 2003. It always pays to get corroborative data from outside the discussed forum, to avoid tampered results and publications.

      Monsanto, the FDA and the EPA, regularly trade personnel. This is a matter of public record. This political maneuvering has allowed Monsanto to get their product classified as ‘food’, thus by-passing the legal need for testing, and making millions from unsuspecting test subjects (you and I) by refusing to label products made with GMO materials.

      While there is no testing that has proven that GMOs are hazardous, non has been done to prove safety either. The refusal to clearly label products has only one objective: to eliminate the possibility of future claims against Monsanto. They eliminate possible liability by making it nearly impossible to trace the causes of complications. Such actions are not only despicable, and unethical, but are flagrantly unconcerned with any damages they might be the cause of.

      It is not unreasonable to expect full testing of any man-made product, before it enters the marketplace; and GMOs are most assuredly man-made.

    • Henri Garcia

      True dat! The same can be said for climate change deniers. The vast majority of them have NO idea how much science goes into the conclusions.

    • reginabee

      Monsanto and the biotech industry’s faux science and propaganda that gmo is effective and safe, bully tactics in suppressing studies that show faults with their “products” and their denying consumers information which is so obviously wanted and needed by pouring millions of dollars into campaigns to suppress labeling, used to be kind of cute. Now, not so much.

      • JoeFarmer

        Don’t make claims unless you can back them up.

        • I checked out her Disqus profile, since I thought the name sounded familiar. She specializes is making wild accusations with zero evidence. A site devoted to “genetic literacy” may not be a good fit.

          • JoeFarmer

            They’d just adore her at Natural News…

        • reginabee

          yes, monsanto should certainly do that.

          • JoeFarmer

            You’re not very smart.

            Let’s see you try to support the “faux science” claim. It will be entertaining, that’s for sure.

      • “…millions of dollars…”
        This is like a mere accounting rounding error Monsanto’s budget. When I checked, by FAR the biggest contributor to the labeling initiative (as a fraction of sales) was Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps. I’ll leave it to others to speculate how GMO labeling affects a magic soap company, but I suspect that the reason is not science-based. Perhaps you have some insight, reginabee?

        • reginabee

          this pretty much sums it up. And science is very much on his side of the fence for your information. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bronner/gmo-pesticide-propaganda-_b_6775562.html

          • JoeFarmer

            So, you get your science information from a magic soap peddler…

            Do you realize how dumb that makes you look?

          • As far as I can tell, this is the source of the “science” she’s referring to:

            (BTW I always find Huffington Post to be a lighter read after wearying from reading the National Enquirer.)

          • JoeFarmer

            The most entertaining thing about Huffington Post is how Arianna Huffington sold it to AOL, yet the faithful had their heads so far up her backside, they didn’t realize it for months!

          • reginabee

            Do you realize how ignorant that statement reveals you to be JF? He is not a magic soap peddler but a very educated guy. Did you even read the article???

          • JoeFarmer

            Go back to Natural News. I’m sure they love your bullshit.

          • hyperzombie

            Wow, David Bronner is the President of the Dr. Bronner’s Magic soap company, so yes he makes his money selling “Magic” soap to people like you.

          • Michael McCarthy

            what exactly is the magic part of it? That people will pay that kind of money for soap?

          • hyperzombie

            I am sure that their accountant thinks it is Magic,, “You sell soap for how much???
            Wow, let me find you some tax deductions”

    • Fluoride Free Thoughts

      I know 3 Scientists which all have PhD’s and have much more qualifications than you. BTW-There’s no period in PhD;) Also, I’ve never heard or seen a scientist with the qualifications you claim to have so immaturely bash others. And your vaccine reference is beyond ridiculous and understudied due to the many life experiences and the hiding of information the CDC so blatantly does… Nothing of what you said here is true. Thanks for allowing us to see due to your illiteracy. I’m actually surprised at you! Godspeed!

    • MichaelFGYOG

      When Paul Sabatier won a Nobel Prize in 1912 for hydrogenation, he might have found it depressing for the general public to question his work. They did not. About 100 years later society began to outlaw hydrogenated trans-fat products due to negative effects on human health.

      When Paul Muller won a Nobel Prize in 1948 for DDT, he might have found it depressing for the general public to question his work. They did not. About 20 years later, society outlawed the use of DDT due to negative effects on the planet’s ecosystems.

      Peer-reviewed Ph.D.s can be short-sighted, just like the rest of us. Unintended consequences are a fact of life when we alter the natural state of things. To pretend that your field is immune to this phenomenon is not realistic.

    • KaWrt

      Overall we are human. Our parents NATURALLY procreated then we are NATURALLY born and to grow we must consume NATURAL foods to NATURALLY grow on this planet. We humans are just a grain of salt in comparison to this universe. So common sense people, money is not going to save your children and yourself from deformities. Because to them we are product. So all you working for the pro-gmo leaving comments. Stop the lies and bullshit because you are all sheep and putting your families in danger. You believe the lies and for that YOU are the easiest closet ones and first to be tested on. You sold your soul and your familes to a corporation for paper. Smh. Good luck with grandchildren since giving up morality.

    • The Mac

      Cigarettes imidiate impact on your health are minor, and at the time of introduction to the public markets it had no measurable, negative, impact on the consumers. However, as scientific methods got more sophisticated we soon realized that it was harmful. At this point millions of people suffered from KOL and lung cancer, but it was too late.

      New, man made, products made for consumption shouldn’t be released to the public markets before long-term effects are tested properly, regardless of how “proffessional” you think you are.

      And finally, with regards to GMO, the big problem today isn’t the fact that it might have negative long-term effects but the fact that your give big companys patents for foods. That’s the scary part. And when cross-polination occurs, the small farmers have to pay royalties to the big companies – because they use the big companies patented products. This is compete retardation from a legal point of view. FOOD should NOT be something you can have a patent for.. PERIOD

    • bastioul

      So how much do you get paid to troll the internet?

    • Asriadi Masnar

      what a nice scientist, are you really scientist? I have huge doubt regarding your comment, who are you ? you can type also you have more than 30…35..40.. years experience but no one trust it.

    • ken

      the old Chinese saying, when there’s a YING, you will have a YANG. if one side get dominated then the world would become so corrupted. now back to the topic.. regardless of what research said or scientist say, I’d prefer organic over GMO anytime though regardless of the marketing front runner.

  • Mistyblue0351

    If monsanto has nothing to hide with their Frankenstein crops then why all the years of secrecy and resisting putting labels on their food. Why are other countries banning GMO foods? We are not suppose to be guinea pigs for greedy companies to force us to eat their foods when there has been no independent tests done on these foods. Why the placing of monsanto vp’s in the FDA to stop any labeling. No people this whole mess with GMO foods stink to high heaven and I for one am trying to stay away from GMO foods as much as possible. Even consumer reports is for the labeling and at least giving us the FREEDOM to choose whether to eat this stuff or not. Just another freedom being taken away from us in this country.

  • Charlie

    The author is a “senior scientist in product development at an (unnamed) biotech company in California.” Hmmm. It’s hard for a non-scientist to tell who’s honest and who’s not in this debate. And scientists, too, are frequently wrong. But as a general rule, I’m always suspicious when there’s a conflict of interest (cigarette makers citing research that smoking is harmless), and I always look beyond our borders, to other countries, to get a more objective view. China has banned the import of all GMOs and Europe appears to be headed in the same direction. It seems like our entire population is taking an awfully big gamble — and for what — so that Monsanto can keep making money from its Roundup Ready corn? That doesn’t make much sense. The rest of you can keep on spraying Roundup on your kids’ breakfast cereal, if you want to, but I plan to keep it off my own. Trouble is, that’s not very easy to do. The stuff is everywhere, and it’s not even labeled.

    By the way, I don’t think that all GMOs are necessarily bad, but making corn that you can spray all day long with weed killer is a terrible idea. Unless, of course, you make both the corn and the weed killer. No conflict of interest there!

    • BioChicaGMO

      Hi Charlie,
      I work in a company that is not affiliated with Big Ag. If you want to look me up on LinkedIn go ahead. I don’t mention my employer because what I write about has little to do with where I work. I also feel that even if I worked for Monsanto or Dow, it shouldn’t matter if the information I provide is accurate.
      Regarding your comment about glyphosate or even pesticides in general, how would a label help? Pesticides are not exclusively used on GMOs, and even organic farming uses pesticides now and then. You’d need a “pesticide certification” label, not a gmo label. Also, I recommend that you look up how much glyphosate is actually used per acre. It’s surprisingly low.

  • Attilathehun

    Who cares about the science. Eat GMO’s and you die!

  • anon

    I believe Dr. Katiraee hit the nail on head with the comment regarding pesticide certification vs GMO labeling. The argument between GMO vs non-GMO foods should be more focused on the methods and consequences related to GMO foods, not the foods themselves. I am less concerned with the fact that an apple was genetically engineered to be a brighter red than I am with the apple being genetically engineered to withstand pesticides that may end up causing environmental harm and disease. Is the incidence of food-related chronic disease on the rise? Does the long-term use of pesticides lead to soil and water contamination? How do we reasonably balance the positive outcomes of genetic manipulation technology vs the obvious (and not so obvious) harmful effects? We need more information and less unsubstantiated opinions – although I am grateful, of course, for the opportunity to express mine! Thank you Dr. K and others here who are taking the time to post information for the rest of us.
    And by the way, Attilathehun, we all die, whether or not we eat GMO foods. We should concern ourselves with how we want to live. Fight the good fight, my friend.

  • Calamity

    Too bad you guys can’t come up with any real facts to back up your”scientific” claims. garbage science is garbage science. I would love to meet one or two of the hacks you have producing this stuff. None of it has any scientific standing. Here’s a tip. Saying it’s science doesn’t make it science. Publishing is as easy as clicking “Print”. These pro-GM papers are riddled with inconstancy and paradox. You folks have a lot to learn if you are going to put your lives in the hands of these shysters.

    • @Calamity—Rather than resorting to a barrage of ad hominem attacks, let’s get back to Layla’s article, which discusses some of the popular anti-GMO “smoking guns”.

      From your extensive reading of the scientific literature, please would you highlight a single article and tell us why you believe it provides the most compelling evidence for a concern about the safety of GE crops. It could be one of those in Layla’s piece, or anything else that you find most persuasive.

  • Aaron Marschner

    Have the writers of this article forgotten the obvious fact that there are three major industries producing GMOs, and they design the modified seeds so that they can’t reproduce, forcing the consumer to continually buy new seeds and funding these organizations more and more money! They aren’t doing any of this for the good of the people! It’s just a monopolization on the agricultural industry!!

  • Crissy Dobson

    Regardless of what current studies do or do not show, one thing is true… There is a fast amount of information about biology/genetics/human health that we still do not know.

    Gene therapy works in theory, but not in practice… does anyone truly understand why? No.
    Often in laboratory studies, introducing new genes into cells (human or otherwise) has off target or unexplainable results. Simply put, there is no way to know with certainty that there are no effects from consumption of GMO products. Could there be effects that we currently do no have the knowledge base or technology to monitor? Could there be no effects? Could the effects be long-term or as a result of cumulative exposure?

    Those answers can’t be answered now. But we can look at the history of laboratory made products and human health… for example pharmaceuticals. There is a desired effect, however there are often unforeseen off target effects. Many times the product is deemed safe.

    …and only after the product is released to the public for some time do the effects become evident and what was thought to be safe indeed isn’t. The patients who died, went blind, or suffered a number of “side effects” are the test subjects.

    Anything new, man-made for human consumption is an experiment. Only time will truly tell the impact. Maybe they prove harmless, but based on our history, I choose not to be a test subject.

    Biochemical Researcher

    Ps. As a scientist, I can say that in general, scientists are ignorant of their own ignorance. We have a history of thinking what we “know” to be true is “gospel” only to have much of current knowledge disproved by future generations.

    • @Crissy—I think it is a mistake to use pharmaceuticals as an analogy. Drugs are DESIGNED to change the functioning of the human body, and all drugs are toxic. Often the “therapeutic window” is very small, and toxicity limits the useful dose that is permitted.

      In contrast, the vast majority of current GE-derived products are designed NOT to have an effect on the human body. The obvious exception is the variety of animal cells (and even plants) used to produce drugs and vaccines. In this case, the drugs require the normal testing, and GE technology is just a convenient method of production. Human gene therapy is a different matter altogether, since it is specifically designed to alter the body—with all the possible unintended consequences.

      Regarding your argument that we don’t know everything, this sounds like a version of the so-called precautionary principle—which is really a philosophy of paralysis in the face of uncertainty. If you truly believed your idea about “off-target” effects of genes, then you surely would not be willing to eat hexaploid wheat, with its intricate shuffling of about 100,000 genes.

      As far as “being ignorant of their own ignorance”, most scientists I known are acutely aware of the limits of their knowledge. In fact, science is about confronting uncertainty, not avoiding it. Yes, individual scientists tend to believe their own ideas, which is why we work as a community to help debunk one another’s fallacies and false data.

      GM crops still require an inordinate amount of lengthy and costly testing and regulation, while seeds engineered using traditional methods are largely unregulated. Ironically, this means that we probably have GREATER confidence about the safety of a new GM crop than a conventional one. I have little doubt that if an unexpected consequence DID show up, we would surely identify it much sooner in GM crops, since they are subject to so much scrutiny.

      • Joe Campbell

        Peter says “I have little doubt that if an unexpected consequence DID show up, we would surely identify it much sooner in GM crops, since they are subject to so much scrutiny.” This is hilarious! Take a look at the DIGESTIVE problems the population is facing today buddy!…..lol. This crap has been in our food supply since 1992! Guess what…..it DID show up and surely no one has identified it sooner! It’s been over 20 years pal! What a load of bologna! The choice is simple. If you want to stay healthy eat Organic. If you want to be an delirious idiot and have digestive problems for the rest of your life with unexpected consequences eat GMO’s! Case closed.

        • @Joe—Which specific digestive problems are you referring to? Can you share some data on prevalence, or is this just a gut feeling?

  • Joe Campbell

    Science NEVER trumps Ideology. What kind of idiotic statement is this anyway? If it wasn’t for Ideology, science wouldn’t exist! Everything starts with an idea. The creators and supporters of this site are so high up on their horses thinking they know everything about how everything works and know next to Nothing. Time reveals ALL you Idiots TIME! Hybrid plants such as broccoli have been around for over 2000 years! They have been proven to be healthy. Hybrids are still completely organic. Your pathetic GMO’s are but 20 years in the making and are mutated. Look at the countless cases of digestive disorders, cancers, the list goes on and on…..The number is staggering. The health issues surrounding GMO’s are staggering! The amount of digestive disorders and skyrocketing cancer rates was unheard of 20 years ago. You truly are what you eat. I’m sticking with organic. The rest that support GMO’s you can be the lab rats. Take your GMO’s and choke on em you bastards! By the way, if GMO’s are so safe in all your glorious scientific knowledge then why the hell aren’t we labeling them? In addition, why have 60 other countries across the globe banned GMO’s? You don’t have a leg to stand on. Case closed.

    • Good4U

      Joe: I agree with you for challenging that first sentence in your post. Science ALWAYS trumps ideology, as it always has throughout human history. The very definition of science is that it seeks the truth. Anything other than science is simply belief, supposition, often superstition, most of which lead to ideologies that are detrimental to the human condition by creating fear, animosity, war. That’s why biotransformation of food/feed crops & animals via transgenics is making good headway in the world, because it turns back the envelope of ignorance that some people wrap themselves in. Briefly, GMOs will either succeed or fail on the basis of science. The science today, as best we know it, is that GMOs that have been developed & deployed are safe, and if anything, are making our lives even safer as new ones continue to be deployed. Nothing you can say or do will prevent the science from prevailing. Most of what you stated above is not based on science. It’s hyperbolic fear mongering, which will always fail.

      • Joe Campbell

        Good4U: What is actually Failing in the world….especially America is the people’s health. What basis or foundation do you have to stand on saying “The science today, as best we know it, is that GMOs that have been developed & deployed are safe, and if anything, are making our lives even safer as new ones continue to be deployed”. You must be joking right? How can anyone in their right mind say something so ignorant when it’s only just over 2 decades old! Effects can take a whole generation pal. How is any of this making our lives any safer? You must be one of those who support the big Homeland Security and love the NSA because it makes you feel safer when you go to bed. Gimme a break! We were plenty safe LONG BEFORE GMO’s were even an IDEA in anyone’s mind…..ooops did I say IDEA? Kinda sounds like IDEOLOGY doesn’t it. Wait a minute earlier you said Science trumps Ideology right? This is where I clearly destroy your statement with actual logic. Without Ideology, science would NEVER exist. You see, you must have and Idea first to create Science! You sound like a lobbyist and one who clearly knows Nothing of the long-term effects that GMO’s can cause to the human body as well as the environment. Do me a favor you stick to a GMO diet and I’ll stick to my Organic one. We’ll see who ends up healthier in the end. How’s that for Ideology?

        • Joe Campbell

          For those of you who study REAL science which is the study of how NATURE works, I suggest you educate yourself. Genetic modification IS NOT science. It’s playing around with natures source code that has already been written perfectly. Think you can write better code after thousands of years? Be my guest.

          • Good4U

            Joe, here are a few things you don’t know, but which you should keep in mind before ranting any further on the GMO topic:

            1) Splicing genes from one species to another has been done since the beginning of life, approximately 2 billion years ago. Viruses splice genes from one organism to another as they enter cells and begin their replicative processes. Some viruses are themselves mutagenic, i.e. cause gene changes in their hosts (people, animals, plants). Bacteria also carry DNA from one organism to another as they spread from one host to another. Scientifically speaking, the processes of gene transfer from one species to another, and even between plants and animals, is taking place every minute of every day, and none of those processes are in the least bit controlled by humans.

            2) Humans have been changing genes, and even creating new species, for thousands of years before targeted transgenic technology was developed. Most agricultural crops never existed before humans invented them. Wheat (Triticum aestivum) was one of the first, which was created by humans from two other species of grasses. Corn, or maize, was another. Monkeys in the jungle never eat bananas because bananas were created by humans about 150 years ago; and they don’t grow in jungles. Citrus fruits of several types, red grapefruits for example don’t exist in nature. Just about every species of plant or animal that we consume are the result of intentional human intervention which changed existing genomes, or created new genomes. Many of those changes were engineered by humans through the use of mutagenic chemicals (colchicine for example) or by intensive radiational bombardment of their embryos. The results of those changes have been to increase the palatability, nutritional complement, biomass productivity, reduce toxicity, and improve the overall efficiency of agriculture. None of this was natural, nor did humans control the outcome of their experimentations in the least. Our forefathers in science & agricultural technology simply selected the best ones for deployment.

            3) Not all GMOs involve gene insertions. Some involve gene deletions, or gene silencing, both of which involve stopping a plant (or animal) from doing bad things, such as creating substances of proven toxicity to humans and livestock. For example, the Innate(™) potatoes produce vastly lower levels of asparagine, which turns to acrylamide when the potatoes are cooked. Plus, they produce lower levels of polyphenol oxidase, meaning that they will generate significantly less waste than currently used potatoes. Those are huge advantages when it comes to protection of human health and the protection of the environment.

            I don’t wish to carry on any more dialog with you or anyone else that could be counterproductive to understanding on this important topic. If any responses of a negative tone are received, they will be shut out with no further response from me.

          • Joe Campbell

            Good4U: I simply cannot allow this erroneous information to spread. I feel I would be doing the public an injustice if I did. You stated “Viruses splice genes from one organism to another as they enter cells and begin their replicative processes. Some viruses are themselves mutagenic, i.e. cause gene changes in their hosts (people, animals, plants).” You could have saved a lot of space and time just by typing CANCER. Yeah everything you said pretty much sums up all kinds of viruses linked to cancer. Your point on the Innate(™) potato seems to have good intention behind it. However, the road to hell is paved with good intentions as well…..Messing around with the potatoes genes is not the answer. Keep in mind just a single extra copy of chromosome 21 in a human embryo’s DNA results in Down Syndrome. But hey…come on it’s just one tiny little extra copy. And that’s a copy not a deletion and look what can happen! Human beings simply don’t have the understanding and never will without their precious computers doing all the calculations for them. Not even close to the brain power to fully understand the human genome. That’s why it has taken a ridiculous amounts of money, well over a decade to complete, and hundreds if not thousands of computers working full time to put all that code together and try and make sense out of it! Unknown effects and disastrous results can occur when you manipulate the Natural code. Anytime you force the natural code, nature always bites back, usually with negative health consequences. From splitting the atom to messing around with DNA, we can learn from all these experiments but should not experiment on the human population with them without the population’s consent. I’m just curious as to what your answer is on why GMO’s are not labeled? if you claim they are so safe this should not be an issue. My next question is your occupation; perhaps your field of expertise if you wouldn’t mind sharing it with the group.

          • @Joe—Your argument about chromosomal duplication causing Down’s syndrome is curious. Wheat has three times the number of chromosomes of its three different parents, and these related chromosomes have shuffled extensively over the years. The result: a crop that is now the world’s leading source of dietary protein.

            Humans ran a massive experiment in natural selection, with very little knowledge of what they were changing, or how they were changing it. Personally, I think that this is a magnificent accomplishment.

            You claim that, “Anytime you force the natural code, nature always bites back, usually with negative health consequences.” Where do you get this all-encompassing insight from? Is is through logic, evidence or divine inspiration? Should we ban all commercial crops because we don’t understand all the intricacies of their gene regulation?

            No, through a combination of human ingenuity and massive numbers of almost random changes, we can now feed a substantial fraction of the world’s population. But we still have a lot further to go, and it would be perverse not to try to exploit the huge progress we have made in molecular biology over the past half-century. All human activities involve risk. Bring it on! Perhaps the larger risk to our society is the paralysis of inaction.

            BTW Joe, I think it a sign of desperation when someone on a thread has to resort to questioning someone else’s source of income, motivation or expertise. If you believe that these are important factors in someone’s credibility, then please illustrate this do us by sharing yours first.

          • Good4U

            Thanks for your rebuttal, Peter. Unfortunately I doubt that Joe will understand it. I think he’s lost in his ideology. Joe certainly doesn’t know the fact that the potato famine in Ireland was due to a disease (late blight), which continues to plague agriculture in all countries where potatoes and other solanaceous crops are grown. He seems oblivious to the concept that potato late blight and other important diseases of crops could be prevented by transgenic technology, thus reducing fungicide usage by about 10x from what it is today. I have now tuned Joe out, as stated above, and will focus my efforts on people who can learn.

          • I think that the unspoken paradigm of so many people is that old/natural = good/safe, while new/man-made = bad/dangerous. This is a false dichotomy.

          • Mlema

            This is very true. But it can’t be used in a debate about the safety of transgenic crops.

          • Joe Campbell

            Peter: Here is the truth about Paragraph 1=People today have serious digestive problems and many can no longer tolerate gluten! The result: A crop that is a menace to society and clearly destructive. If you think this is a massive accomplishment than you eat it! Hitler also thought he was doing a massive accomplishment too. “All human activities involve risk.” You got this one spot on. I fully accept this statement. However feel free to be the lab rat when it comes to testing it. I’m not risking my health with something we know very little about. From what I have observed, the health effects from eating this GMO crap are quite harmful indeed. Questioning someone’s income, motivation or expertise is an absolute necessity and one that needs to be asked more often if anyone is to gain the truth. In fact I’m questioning you now even more for making such an illogical and unscientific statement. I guess we shouldn’t question people who run our food supply anymore should we Peter. After all they know what is best for us right. Yeah until more money is to be made else where. Anyone who doesn’t question anyone’s motivation for doing something is an idiot. I guess we shouldn’t have questioned Hitler either. Peter I surely hope you don’t put yourself in this category because it is purely ludicrous and idiotic. And definitely not a scientific one!

  • Joe Campbell
    • BioChicaGMO

      Hi Joe, the paper you’ve cited is number 9 in the article above.

    • This “journal” does not show up in the PubMed index of over 25 million bioscience papers. In 2014 the journal included a mere four articles with primary research data! It is good evidence that if you are desperate enough you can your work published somewhere.

      Assuming you read the article you cited, in your opinion, what is the most compelling conclusion?

      • Joe Campbell

        Peter: In my opinion, the most compelling conclusion to date is a rather simple one. Look at the increase in digestive problems most Americans face today. Look at the ulcers, Crohn’s disease, Celiac, colon cancer….the list goes on and on. Take these well known health issues that are on the rise by the way and ask yourself why they are so abundant today. It doesn’t take a scientist or even a doctor to see a pattern or a trend. GMO’s were pushed into the food supply back around 1992, without many knowing by the way, and over these 2 decades it has proven itself disastrous to the digestive tract. The study I cited of the effects it has on pigs is jaw dropping. As you know pigs are extremely close to humans as far as body composition. Educating yourself by observing, reading, and perhaps using a bit of logic can go a long way. Forget about the science for once and focus on the outcome from all of this. The final outcome is what really matters. At the very least GMO’s should be labeled so the public can make an informed choice.

        • @Joe—You say that, “It doesn’t take a scientist or even a doctor to see a pattern or a trend.” Clearly you haven’t actually looked at the trends: colon cancer incidence is DECLINING. (A protective effect of GMO’s, perhaps?). http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/colorect.html

          U.S. Celiac disease prevalence peaked before GMO crops became widespread; it has increased even in Scandinavian countries with low GM food consumption.

          U.S. Crohn’s disease incidence has increased from about 300 to about 350 per 100,000 over the past couple of decades (hospital discharges). The prevalence is about the same in Europe, even though they have much lower GMO food consumption.

          Sounds as though you may be going on “gut-feeling” rather than evidence or logic.

          As far as the 2013 Carman paper on giving GMO feed to pigs, can you tell us which piece of data you found most jaw-dropping (rather than your speculation about what it implies for human health)?

        • hyperzombie

          The study I cited of the effects it has on pigs is jaw dropping.

          Yes, it is Jaw Dropping. Who does a study on sick pigs, over half of them had serious pneumonia, the researcher should be punished for animal cruelty.

          Educating yourself by observing, reading, and perhaps using a bit of logic can go a long way.

          You should try it..Actually read the studies that you cite.

          Forget about the science for once and focus on the outcome from all of this.

          Sounds like a great plan, forgetting about science would work out so well,,,,LOL

  • guest

    just a random comment that has nothing to do with gmos

  • Ellen

    Are you kidding? There are dozens of studies on the harmful effects of glyphosate and health issues associated with it.

    • Hi Ellen—I’d love to discuss this. Which study do you find most compelling?

  • Andrew

    Here is a direct quotation from the International Journal of Biological Sciences, “A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health (2009),” which states “These are the longest in vivo tests performed with mammals consuming GMOs” and that “the data we required for this analysis were obtained either through court actions (lost by Monsanto)…or by courtesy of governments or Greenpeace lawyers.” Here are some important insights: 1) “Patho-physiological profiles are unique for each GM crop/food, underlying the necessity for a case-by-case evaluation of their safety;” 2) “we…conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity;” and 3) the researchers do caution that analysis is still not long enough, nor has large enough samples, to accurately conclude the presence of toxicity due to the GM corn. However, the tentative results do merit further investigation that meets these criteria. The case IS NOT closed. There DOES seem to be toxicity from either the GMO itself, or the associated pesticides and/or herbicides. More research is needed to conclude this; the paper mentions that the current regulatory standards for identifying this toxicity and potential harm are not sufficient.

    • BioChicaGMO

      Hi Andrew, the paper that you’re quoting from is not novel feeding study. The authors took existing studies and re-evaluated the data and used very poor statistics. If you read the section about the stats they applied, you’ll see that it was a fishing expedition because they didn’t use standard methods and ran multiple tests on the data without explaining why.

      There are several long term feeding studies. Here’s a literature review: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399

      • Mlema

        “…it was a fishing expedition because they didn’t use standard methods…”

        Like the ones that Monsanto used to disappear evident harm to kidneys and liver.

      • Mlema

        All different species, few isogenic controls, different parameters, etc. And even so, there are signs of problems. How do the authors conclude that GMOs are safe? Even if all the results were good, we can only say what the data shows for each event.

  • Me

    The fact that Glyphosate is ending up in the body is enough for me not to eat GMO’s. End of story.

    • hyperzombie

      The fact that Glyphosate is ending up in the body is enough for me not to eat GMO’s. End of story.

      You do know that Glyphosate is used on Non GMOs as well. Have fun trying to avoid it.

      • Joe Campbell

        hyperzombie, with a name like that you sound like a little 18 year old that just took his first biology class in highschool and now thinks he knows everything…..lol. Let me guess, you probably are HYPER from eating all that delicious Glyphosate and tons of sugar your parents keep feeding you. In addition you probably got the name ZOMBIE because that is what you are becoming from eating all your GMO’s you seem to be defending…. lol. I’ll tell you what, if you’re going to quote peoples work, please use the proper punctuation ” “. Just thought I’d help you out since you apparently never learned that in English. Just to set the record straight, pesticides which includes glyphosate are PROHIBITED from being used on crops that are certified Organic. Just thought I’d school you up on that a bit.

        • Joe, pesticides are not only not prohibited on organic foods, they are used more widely than on most GMO foods and more toxic. Glyphosate is less toxic than salt, according to the EPA and even the European community, which just relaxed its assessment of its toxicity: http://www.bfr.bund.de/en/the_bfr_has_finalised_its_draft_report_for_the_re_evaluation_of_glyphosate-188632.html ALL organic farmers extensively use pesticides, though not mild glyphosate. Here is a link to the US government list of synthetic and natural chemicals used by organic farmers…it’s about 15 pages long: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1025eb0e6b67cadf9d3b40&rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:

          • Joe Campbell

            Jon, thanks, the extra input has been noted. I understand organic pesticides are tolerated to be sprayed on organic produce, however I buy organic from local farms that use zero pesticides and are 100% organic. This proves my point. What I don’t buy is the statement that glyphosate is less toxic than salt for a minute. NACL or sodium chloride is put together very simply by nature and a requirement for the body for cells to absorb water. Glyphosate is NOT! If you want to put that in your body than be my guest. I don’t know why you are buying this ridiculous, clearly erroneous information just because the EPA wrote it. It’s an agency and we all know agencies are corrupt. The FDA has retracted countless statements saying food was safe such as trans-fats which they clearly admitted are no longer considered safe for human consumption and that’s just trans fats! Any agency is run by MONEY and we all know money talks. This is clearly one of those times. I suggest you go back to school and STUDY this all yourself and get YOUR opinion perhaps as a scientist rather than simply reading what someone else is brainwashing you into believing. Life is a journey you must experience on your own and understand it for yourself. Reading other people’s findings will only lead you down their path. Don’t be a sheep Jon. You know what’s good for humanity. It’s been growing in your back yard for thousands of years and guess what, it’s proven to be healthy sans GMO sans pesticides. Case closed. Lets bring back Organic. Lets bring back the local farms. Lets bring back America Jon.

          • Good4U

            Joe, are you back again? I thought you had possibly studied up on science since you lost the last argument. You are the one who should quit being a sheep. (ha!).. but since you insist on being a sheep it seems you are getting what you deserve. Every time you spout off with your irrational temper you lose.

          • Mlema

            Jon, you show no concern for accuracy. The Newcastle and Stanford metastudies which compared organic and conventional foods both found 81% less risk of pesticide residue, fewer numbers of different pesticides on organic, and less toxicity of the residues that existed on organic.

            Glyphosate is NOT less toxic that salt. The EPA describes it as causing kidney damage and reproductive difficulties. And we now know that it’s probably carcinogenic.

            Please, show where the EPA says glyphosate is less toxic than salt, as you’ve claimed it has.

        • hyperzombie

          “Just to set the record straight, pesticides which includes glyphosate are PROHIBITED from being used on crops that are certified Organic. Just thought I’d school you up on that a bit.”

          Ha , Ha…. Looks like your the one that just got schooled…. Organic pesticides and their effect on bees…


          • Joe Campbell

            Ok I admit it. I should have said organic pesticides instead of implying ALL pesticides. I can admit when I’m wrong. Thanks for schooling me back.

          • hyperzombie

            Gave you a +1 for being honest and admitting your mistake, even though you called me names.

        • hyperzombie

          includes glyphosate are PROHIBITED from being used on crops that are certified Organic.

          Yes, but 50% of organic crops test positive for banned pesticides.


    • BioChicaGMO

      As hyperzombie pointed out below, glyphosate use is not restricted to GMOs. There are many reasons why it is used: it doesn’t bio-accumulate, it has a short half-life, its mechanism of action doesn’t exist in mammals, etc.

      • Joe Campbell

        Cough ……cough….Bullshit!!! Enjoy eating your GMO’s I feel 10x better after switching to Organic and don’t have digestive issues anymore. Explain that smarty pants.

        • BioChicaGMO

          Can you outline what part of my statement was inaccurate?
          And yes, as a Canadian, I enjoy eating Smarties over M&Ms, so it makes sense that I’d occasionally get some on my pants.

          • Mlema

            OK, even though I don’t basically agree with what you’ve said on this page, that was humorous 🙂

      • Mlema

        “..glyphosate use is not restricted to GMOs”

        That’s true. In the US lots of foods have glyphosate residue. Even baby food carrots. One study claimed that 60% of people have the metabolites in their bodies. The BfR said: it’s plausible. Of course, the industry and regulators (who base their assessment on the industry’s studies, and don’t include inactive ingredients in that assessment) say: no problem.

  • Bob Bobert

    Food is perfectly fine as it is.. I love how the argument for gmo’s is always “it could feed starving children with nutrients they aren’t getting, do you oppose that?” yea so could those nutrients.. it doesn’t mean we should subsitute good food when we ARENT starving for something with relatively no testing or thorough research yet every supermarket is full with this shite.

    • Good4U

      Bob, where is the thorough research on “organic” food, whatever that is? Biotech crops are waaay more thoroughly studied than those which have come via traditional breeding techniques, or from chemical or radiational mutagenesis. You don’t seem to know very much about where your “good food” comes from, i.e. the agricultural technology that has been developed over the past 150 years. Before that, everything was “organic”. That’s when the world only held about half a billion people. It’s different now. Wake up & learn!

      • Bob Bobert

        Are you a retard? Organic food has been tested since the dawn of mankind.

        • Good4U

          Bob: It would be easy to revert some foul language in the vein that you have chosen, but that would simply lower myself to your demonstrated base level of intelligence. Instead, I’ll just point you to the statistics on life expectancy, where even a partially evolved ape such as yourself can see that his life expectancy has more than doubled over the past 150 years, and has increased by 12% over the past 50 years:


          As for all of the “natural” BS, spare me that. I’ve seen enough of that marketeering tripe from the trader aldis, hole foods, and that sort. The only way they can justify their baloney is to monger fear among an unsuspecting subset of dupes.

          • Bob Bobert

            Those studies you pointed to are incredibly biased… the results are based on the fact that our society now saves children that would otherwise die because of the cruelty of nature.. The average age for healthy people who would naturally survive past the age of 5 is lower.

          • Good4U

            Bob, all I can conclude from your responses is that you can’t read graphs. You really should examine the facts behind what you are talking about before posting anything.

          • Bob Bobert

            Sure … even though that graph specifically states there is no increase in the last 150 years. Sure its me who can’t read graphs…

          • Good4U

            Bob, let me help you here. I didn’t mean to be rude. My granddaughter can’t read graphs yet, but she can type on the computer. Anyway, the graph says that in 1850 the average life expectancy was slightly under age 40. In 2000 (14 years ago) the average expectancy was slightly less than 80. That means that life expectancy has roughly doubled over the past 150 years, which is in fact a huge increase. Even if you wish to parse out the men vs. women who reached age 60, their life expectancies have increased over the past 150 years, much of that within the past 100 years. So, the statements that you made in your post above that “100 years ago people had the highest life expectancy of any recorded time in history and that span has decreased relatively and significantly over the last 50 years” are definitely false. That means the truth is quite the opposite of what you stated.

            Does this help? Is there anything else of a scientific or technical nature that you might like to learn? If so, I’ll be happy to help. If not, please do not reply to this message, or use foul language such as “bullshit” and “retard” that you reverted to above. When you use those types of words, particularly on a weblog site such as this, they make you appear to be a poorly educated, possibly uneducable, subhuman sort of miscreant. Possibly you have been assaulted with those types of words by others, which is a shame if you simply have a learning disorder. I shouldn’t have implied that you might be a partially evolved ape, because that unnecessarily raised some ire in you. I promise never to do that again. Regards.

          • Bob Bobert

            If your granddaughter can’t read graphs… its probably because you tried to teach her.. I wasn’t trying to be rude but now I will be since your clearly an idiot.. Instead of trying to convince me with your opinion on these averages which are not an accurate way to measure over time in the first place.. Why don’t you click the different age groups and actually read the text at the top of the graph instead of assuming you understand what your reading. When you click on women aged over 60.. it clerly fucking says at the top of the page “Life expectancy of women who reached the age of 60 has not greatly increased since 1850” Also if you look to the mens 60s section it also claerly shows that the increase in men’s age is even smaller than women’s. Now after click aged 5 and birth and you will see where your getting confused.. Because the graph basically shows that more children are surviving but the average age for the oldest people is staying the same.. which overall indicates a DECREASE in the general overall public since if more are surviving and the number of the highest age group is staying the same THEN PEOPLE ARE DYING YOUNGER…. So please next time you try to patronise someone… learn to fucking read the graph you use to try and do it with!

          • Good4U

            Well, Bob, all I can say is that you really did validate my earlier comment. Your response is full of crude words that depict you as someone who is not worth my time. You are tuned out. Don’t bother replying because I won’t read it. ‘Bye.

          • Bob Bobert

            Reply to what? All this reply says to me is “I have no more to argue with since you have proven me wrong”

          • Bob Bobert

            Il explain it so even a trained chimp would understand… lets say we have 10 people and 5 of those die at 1 the others die at 10.. then 50 years later 5 die at 4 and the others die at 8.. the average of the first lot is 5.5 while the average of the second lot is 6 yet the first had the highest in the healthy range.

          • Bob Bobert

            Then we have things to take into account like world wars… disease outbreaks… add all the other factors and you see that the average is not something you can use to measure accurately.

          • Bob Bobert

            Infact… the study you pointed to proves my point lol.. use the men aged 60 and women aged 60 data and there basically no increase so if you consider what I just said you see from the study you just pointed to… that there is a decrease in the highest age range..

      • Bob Bobert

        I also never mentioned organic.. you can buy food that is naturally grown. If you wanna eat chemicals and drink puss go for it.

      • Bob Bobert

        Just incase you have anything else to add to your misguided bullshit.. I’d like to inform you that 100 years ago people had the highest life expenctancy of any recorded time in history and that span has decreased relatively and significantly over the last 50 years

        • Rosalind Dalefield

          References to support that assertion, please.

    • Canadian_Skeptic

      Look at all this research that apparently doesn’t exist

      An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research

      Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review


      • Bob Bobert

        Maybe you don’t know but the people who do these safety tests are previous monsanto employees.

        • Canadian_Skeptic

          Really Bob? All of the people involved in all of these studies worked for Monsanto? Wow. Monsanto must be the biggest employer the world has ever seen!

          You’re completely wrong. Look at the author affiliations for the second link. None of the authors who reviewed the studies were (at the time of publication) affiliated with industry. Yes, some of the studies reviewed in this paper were conducted by industry scientists, but definitely not all. In fact, many of the long-term studies (everyone I checked in fact, but I haven’t checked all yet) were conducted by non-industry scientists. By the way, I know that this paper is behind a pay wall. I don’t like that fact, but I can’t change it.

        • Ricky

          Complete nonsense. When scientific research is conducted and the paper is drafted, it is sent to a number of impartial academic professionals to verify and offer an impartial opinion on the quality of the study. As a postdoctorate at a UK university, we receive studies to peer review and we are not ex-Monsanto employees, or funded by them. We strive only to further our scientific understanding of the world around us, with no financial motive.

          • Bob Bobert

            You have specifically recieved genetically modified plants to review.. and you know exactly how to deem whether they are safe? THAT is complete nonesense.

          • Ricky

            If you read my first response properly, you will find that I never stated that ‘we receive genetically modified plants’ to review. What I actually said was that we receive drafts of scientific studies to review, a process that involves the scrutiny of the study’s approach, findings and experimental design and analysis. This is the peer review process to which all studies prior to being published are subjected. The opinion expressed is based purely on scientific merit, not financial gain. When research is conducted on the safety of GM crops, the results are peer reviewed in a similar manner and assessed on their efficacy. All GM crops are rigorously analysed using an array of safety tests before experimental field testing is permitted, a process that can take up to two years. These decisions are not made lightly and each step is reviewed by many impartial, government funded research scientists working in non-profit organisations. Public safety is the priority and it is of interest to no one to inflict harm or danger.

          • Bob Bobert

            Sorry but you don’t seem to have any clue what your talking about.. UK has only just started to test GM crops.. the first being flax.. and that has already found problems with killing bees.. despite that there is no official data.. But I guess if killing off the foundation of our ecosystem isnt enough.. and eating actual pesticides which are spliced into plant dna isnt enough to put you off than your probably a lost cause. Regardless I will try to make you see sense…

            As for your scientific review process… how can you even test for satefy? Poisoning is an accumulative process… it doesn’t happen overnight. How can you even test for a type of poisoning that didn’t previously exist. How would you even know what to look for when results are different to theories? A lot of the white rice you can buy is snided with arsenic and you bet that eating it constantly for a long period of time will result in arsenic toxicity but yet its still sold and goes through regulation processes.

            Monsanto originated marketing a way to make farmers more money through higher crop yields. That is financial gain right tehre… Agriculture directly affects government assets.. Not to mention once farmers start growing this stuff they are pretty much trapped since their crops get contaminated and the super bugs that result from the chemicals kill other plants.

            If you look at this graph… you see an example of “the revolving door” which has been a big concern whenether evaluating gmo’s.

            When you see the government ties with this company it becomes quite clear that something is corrupt.


            Sersiously though… I shouldn’t have to be educating people on this.. I post in hope that maybe I can influence just a single person to avoid this shit, there are plenty of documentaries that prove the harm better than I could possibly describe here( watch The world according to Monsanto all the way through) yet many people choose not to watch them and just believe what suits you best without actually learning from unbiased sources.. I chose this article to post on because its clearly pro gmo and is using the same snake in the grass mindwarping bullshit you see on bodybuilding articles telling people they need mountains of meat to gain muscle.

            The problem with your line of thinking is.. you read rigorously analysed.. and you think to yourself “ohh there cant be anything wrong with that then cause science knows everything” “if its been tested by scientists it must be ok” I could go on… but I think you will get my point.

          • Mlema

            “All GM crops are rigorously analysed using an array of safety tests before experimental field testing is permitted…”

            What tests are done?

            “These decisions are not made lightly and each step is reviewed by many impartial, government funded research scientists working in non-profit

            What are the steps and what scientists in government funded non-profit organizations are you talking about?

            The industry develops and tests as part of development. When they have a plant they say is safe, they tell the FDA and the FDA says – OK, we expect you to be true to your word

          • Bob Bobert

            So you receive scientifically based opinions basically… I’m not sure I’d place my health in the hands of well guided opinions based on tests that may or may not know what dangers to look for in plants that have not been around long enough to test toxicity over long periods of time. By all means tho go ahead and make yourself the test subject..

      • Bob Bobert

        Maybe you don’t know the history of monsanto.. lets just say they don’t have such a great track record for telling the truth… they have been proven time after time to lie to government. The test results they release are only half of the research they have.. documents have been leaked proving by their own scientists that there are very real risks involved.. 10 years of research isn’t a 10 year trial period. The longest trial they have had in test conditions is 90 days. How long does cancer take to develop? Or any other serious illness? Smoking can take half a lifetime to cause lung cancer but it still causes it.

        • Canadian_Skeptic

          I don’t care about the history of Monsanto. I’m not basing my argument on Monsanto, nor have I claimed they have a sterling reputation and that we should trust whatever the company says. I’m pointing to peer-reviewed articles.

          “The longest trial they have had in test conditions is 90 days. ”

          >>Apparently you didn’t even READ THE TITLE of the second link.

          • Bob Bobert

            This company only cares about money… they don’t care if half the human race is wiped out if it lines their pockets with cash. They bribe, lie and only release the “evidence” that they want to release. You need to watch “The world according to Monsanto” if you actually believe that gmo’s are harmless. How could a company possibly make it illegal to label foods as gmo? because they have employees who work in the regulations and who decide whether food is safe or not. I doubt they eat this shit themselves. Why do the animals that eat gmo feed have to be pumped with antibiotics whereas animals fed a natural diet don’t? Why does the milk of cows that have been fed gmo’s taste like shit while organic tastes fresh? Seriously.. if the research doesn’t make you believe just buy yourself some regular milk from a large commmercial supplier and then buy some organic milk or from a local farm and tell me after that there is no difference in quality.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Bob, I just said I don’t care about Monsanto. None of my arguments as based upon a claim that the Monsanto has a sterling reputation. But I have seen that film. I prefer peer-reviewed science. Show me some peer-reviewed articles if you want to impress me.

  • wayfarer

    I believe half of the people posting here, Crissy, Joe, Clamity, etc, will die of pesticide laden GMO rat tumors. The other half will probably die of something equally benign.

  • Charlie

    The bottom line is people need to be informed. Take responsibility for what you eat. Do your research. Do you know where your food comes from? Do you know what is put into it? Do you know the manufacturing processes by which it is made? Are you going to rely on someone else telling you that antibiotics in your food cause no human harm or are you going to decide simply not to consume them? It’s your body and your decision. But the more you find out about where your food comes from and how it’s made and the chemical process that go into it, the more skeptical you’re likely to become. The whole problem with the food industry is that it wants the entire process to be opaque. No disclosures. You can’t know what’s really going into into your food. They don’t want you to know. Because once you find out you’re likely to change your eating habits and that might cost them money. The fact is that most people don’t want chemicals in their food. They want real food. Not chemicals, additives, and pesticides that scientist tell them are safe. Is that what you really want to eat? Scientists, even if they’re honest and not industry shills, have been too often wrong in the past and much of the time they’re merely guessing. They don’t know the real long-term effects of these products. So it’s up to individuals to do their research and vote with their dollars. That’s the only thing that will change the equation.

    • Canadian_Skeptic

      “The fact is that most people don’t want chemicals in their food.”
      >>What exactly do you mean by “chemicals”? That’s a very, very generic term that can actually mean the very food itself. The word “chemical” often evokes fear from people. But did you know that everything in nature is made up of chemicals? Plants produce tonnes of chemicals, many of which are even toxic to humans. Even the plants we eat. Throwing out terms like “chemical” or “toxin” is pretty much meaningless unless you define exactly what group or class you are talking about.

      “Scientists, even if they’re honest and not industry shills, have been too often wrong in the past and much of the time they’re merely guessing…So it’s up to individuals to do their research and vote with their dollars.”
      >>>So scientists might be wrong, but by doing “research” the public can inform themselves??? Just what is it that you think scientists do? If, according to your comment, scientists (i.e. people that have extensive training and do research full-time) in the relevant fields can’t be certain, then the average citizen doesn’t stand a chance.

      • Charlie

        “Did you know that everything in nature is made up from chemicals?”

        I learned that in tenth grade, but you know very well I’m not talking about bioflavonoids or beta carotene or other naturally occurring compounds that our species evolved eating, but pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics, preservatives, and the like – toxins like 2,4-D, the active ingredient in Agent Orange, now being reintroduced by the Bayer Corporation, paired with glyphosate (RoundUp) in a new herbicide called Duo. I’m talking about hydrogenated oils, which are banned in most European countries but in the US have GRAS (generally regarded as safe) status (they’re made by superheating oil in the presence of a cadmium or nickel catalyst, forming a new molecule that keeps the oil solid at room temperature). Yes, I’m talking low-grade poisons – phthalates, BPA, or addictive combinations of sugar, salt, and fat. The deeper you dig into the industry, the more disturbing things you’ll find. Food is very rarely food anymore. The chemistry set is routinely being mixed up with our meals, so we don’t really know what we’re eating. Our diet has become an experimental one. No generation in history has ever eaten like us, and we don’t know what the long-term results will be (but how do you like them so far — 1/3 of Americans are morbidly obese, 1/3 are overweight, and ¼ are diabetic or pre-diabetic; plenty of cancer and heart disease; and epidemic rates of depression – which, yes, can be a nutritional problem, as 90 percent of serotonin is produced in the GI tract).

        As for “scientists,” the sad truth is that you really do need to become a kind of scientist yourself, because no one else is looking out for you. I can’t speak for Canada, but in the US, the FDA and the USDA certainly don’t have your back. They mainly serve the industry from which its members are drawn.

        Finally, the argument that science and scientists are on the side of the food industry is ludicrous. Companies like Syngenta, Tyson, Cargill, and Monsanto employ thousands of scientists, but they clearly have a conflict of interest, much like the Tobacco council, when it comes to proving food safety. With independent scientists and doctors, professionals who don’t owe their jobs to corporations, those informed about how food is made are appalled by what’s going into it and the horribly unhealthy society that it’s creating.

        So I repeat myself – don’t let the foxes tell you the hens are safe. Find out where your food comes from. Get educated. You’ll be shocked. You’ll be angry. And you’ll change the way you eat.

        • Good4U

          Charlie, as someone who purportedly is interested in science and/or the regulation of technology, you don’t really have a handle on much of what goes on. You are operating from a position of sheer supposition and suspicion. The conflict of interest that you ignore is the vested interest that the “organic” industry has in casting conventional agriculture in a bad light just so they can gain a competitive advantage over an unsuspecting public (such as you). The “Trader Aldis” of the world, hole foods, and all of the other smarmy, touchy-feely organic marketeers are the authentic villains out there. They will charge you more for their “organic” crap and advertise that their stuff contains no GMOs, even though they really do (as they should). They are nothing but crass hucksters that bilk you for being naive enough to be led down their advertising primrose path. Only in the airy-fairy world of fat, ignorant people in the industrialized world could anyone succeed with that line of B.S.

          As for the U.S. regulatory agency that regulates GMOs, you haven’t a clue. Hint: it’s not the USDA, or the FDA. You are way off base on just about everything.

          As a final note, I WANT GMOs in my food supply. I have concluded after careful balancing of the facts and risks that GMOs that have been deployed to date are safer, more sustainable, more protective of the environment, and far more beneficial to the world’s human species, than their conventionally bred counterparts. My family and I look forward continued deliberate deployment of transgenic crop plants and livestock animals into the food supply, and we will seek them out preferentially in the marketplace. We will freely advise anyone else who cares to listen of the reasons for our preferences.

          • Charlie

            How sad. Most GMOs are not created to make a more nutritious apple. There’s no money in that. All the R&D goes into making commodity crops — wheat, corn, and soybeans — resistant to herbicides. You sell the seed and then you sell the herbicide, with a potential market of 230 million acres that you capture on both ends. The rest is chump change. When you say you’re looking for nutritious GMO foods for your family what you’re mainly buying are grains heavily sprayed with glyphosate, which Monsanto patented as an antibiotic (check out the abstract on Google patents). Good luck to you and your family. You’re going to need it.

          • Good4U

            Bzzzt! Wrong again. Glyphosate is not an “antibiotic”. It is a herbicide, i.e. a pesticide. Its biochemical mode of action is specific to plants. Its residues in food & feed crops are insignificant in a dietary sense, even in transgenic crops. The U.S. EPA, and its corresponding regulatory agencies in other countries have consistently reached that conclusion, as evidenced by its published tolerances (maximum residue limits) worldwide . I can help you more on that subject if you wish to learn.

            As for “chump change” regarding applies as a potential target for GMO technology, apparently you are not aware of the ‘Arctic’ apple concept that has been proposed for deployment. Its main benefit is reduced waste due to browning of the pulp when the apple becomes bruised or wounded during harvesting & storage operations. The specific mechanism involves silencing of genes for production of polyphenoloxidase, which in addition to reducing spoilage and waste, could potentially make the Arctic apple safer for human consumption than those which do turn brown. My family & I definitely look forward to the approval of the Arctic apple (by the USDA, by the way, since it doesn’t involve any pesticidal aspects) so that we can buy them ASAP. There are many, many more good examples where transgenics can make the food & feed supply safer and more protective of the environment, if only they weren’t stigmatized by the anti-GMO faction. Anyone who truly understands the positive potential of transgenics would get firmly behind and work as hard as they can to make it happen. Charlie, do you wish to understand, or have you closed your mind?

          • Charlie

            is an herbicide. It is also an antibiotic. Why is that a contradiction? I work
            in AgriBusiness. Reading your posts I get the impression that you have never
            been to a farm. Any idea what they grow there? It sure as hell isn’t apples
            (which, by the way, are probably the most heavily sprayed fruit crop in the
            US). Farms mainly grow corn, soybeans, wheat, and hay. That’s about 90% of all
            the acres planted in the U.S. That’s where all the money is, and that’s where
            Agribusiness puts its dollars.

            and most of the people in this thread are missing the point. It’s not that GMOs
            are inherently evil. They won’t make us grow horns or tails – even though we
            have no long-term peer-reviewed studies proving they are safe. We simply don’t
            know the long-term effects. We can’t, because they haven’t been around long
            enough. Certainly there are both risks and benefits to every new GMO. If you can
            engineer drought-resistant corn that keeps people from starving to death in
            the third world, then it’s probably worth the risks. If you’re a typical
            overweight, over-nourished American, then maybe not.

            point is, that’s not where the market has gone. The market has gone almost
            exclusively to one particular kind of GMO – the herbicide resistant kind. RoundUp
            ready corn. Dicamba-resistant soybeans, etc. Corn and soybeans, in one form or
            another, are processed to go into virtually everything we eat. Most people
            aren’t aware of this. And it means that herbicides are going into virtually
            everything we eat. Especially the meat and diary, which concentrate as you move
            up the food chain. (It’s important to know that glyphosate is an antibiotic,
            not because it’s toxic to the cells in your body, but because it kills the
            beneficial bacteria in you GI tract, which you need to be healthy.)

            it’s not GMOs that are the problem (as far as we know today), it’s the
            pesticides and herbicides they’re engineered to tolerate. And because of the
            economics – it’s always about the money –
            more GMOs means more pesticides and herbicides in our food. That’s the main issue here.

          • @Charlie—Glyphosate has antibiotic activity against certain bacteria at HIGH concentrations—as do salt, vinegar and sugar. There are some unscrupulous folks on the Internet spreading the “antibiotic” meme, but I can’t find any evidence to suggest that this based on evidence or logic.

          • Charlie

            BTW, you’re wrong about the USDA. It does regulate GMOs. The EPA regulates the pesticides and herbicides that GMOs are engineered to tolerate. You can verify this information on their respective websites.

          • Good4U

            Bzzzzt on the USDA regulation of pesticidal GMOs. Taking Bt proteins for example, the crops themselves are regulated by the EPA, specifically the Biopesticide and Pollution Prevention Division. Any proposal of a transgenic crop to be used for pesticidal purposes (i.e. a plant incorporated pesticide) must be submitted to, reviewed, and approved (registered) by the BPPD before it can be deployed. The website that describes the process for plant incorporated pesticides is here:


            Even with glyphosate resistant crops, which do not involve any plant incorporated pesticides, the EPA must approve the deployment and use of the crop first with regard to any potential human or environmental exposure to the pesticide (glyphosate) that will be used on it. USDA gets involved only after the EPA has done its work.

            You should familiarize yourself with the regulatory systems that govern human safety and environmental integrity.

        • Canadian_Skeptic

          Thanks for the clarification Charlie. I share you concern about pesticides and food additives. I have a pretty good understanding of my food. I am aware that foods containing HFCS are linked to obesity, for example, and that our bodies respond differently to HFCS than other sweeteners like honey. I eat lots of fresh vegetables and frequently prepare meals from scratch.

          My point was simply that one needs to be specific when talking about “chemicals” or “toxins”. But I’d also like to point out that peer-reviewed science is the best resource for finding out more about potential risks. Some might even say it’s the only reliable resource. Be careful not to get sucked into the hype from non-objective sources, like NaturalNews or Mercola.

        • Rosalind Dalefield

          2,4-D is not a toxin. A toxin is a poison synthesized by a living organism. 2,4-D is not synthesized by a living organism. If you’re going to pretend to be a toxicologist, please at least learn the terminology.

    • Rosalind Dalefield

      Most people don’t want chemicals in their food? You do realize that proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, vitamins, and trace elements are all chemicals, don’t you?

      • while everything is comprised of chemicals, certain combinations (and certain impurities found from various sources) can create different, and sometimes lethal results. Personally I prefer CO2 produced as a by-product of yeast fermentation in my beer rather than having CO2 produced by metals and acids injected into it. While there may be no difference in the actual CO2 itself, what trace elements can be found? No system of ‘purification’ can eliminate all the residuals involved.

      • AaPenny Lali

        I think the idea is that when flora and fauna evolve on their own, their genetic make-up fits with the environment. “Nature” will allow some genetic modifications to occur and others that do not help adaptation die out. Nature seeks balance and diversity overall and it has done a pretty good job for billions of years. When we introduce new elements in our environment, we force the issue regardless of its impact on our environment, and that includes GMOs, which are forcibly manipulated. We are a short sighted and greedy species, so studies on the impact that these new scientific foods may have overall is always accompanied by human bias. I don’t trust studies anymore because variables can often be manipulated to reach a desired (and profitable) outcome. Same with statistics. When you look at studies you also have to look at who funded the study, what conditions were looked at blah blah blah. If science wants to reign then it has to prove its integrity. Yes all food (all everything) is a complex chemical substance, but no, I don’t feel safe when humans decide what chemicals (or genes) to add to nature’s creation because more often than not, its self-serving and dangerous. Kinda like cigarettes and the chemical make-over they got.

        • In your romantic view of the god of Nature, how did Nature “allow” organic Ruby Red Grapefruits or Italian wheat that makes up the bulk of the world’s pasta supply come into being….and 2700 other foods that were developed by subjecting them with gamma rays and chemicals in laboratories. Those artificial engineered foods are now sold as organics. No food that we eat today was “allowed” by Nature–it was engineered by man. Science literacy is the key to informed discussion on GMO foods–perhaps doing so more informed reading on this will add some nuance to your thinking, as you obviously care. But facts do matter.

          • AaPenny Lali

            Interesting but a little one-sided again (your condescending tone with God as Nature is peurile here as you are a product of nature my dear). I have a compost in the city and I’m not much of a gardener but without a laboratory on my back terrace, tomatoes, peppers, all kinds of citrus and other plants grew without my assistance. I naively call this “nature,” though you probably have a much better name for it. I don’t think you read what I wrote correctly either. I said we force foods into being, that had nothing to do with natural selection if you will, and being part of this time/space location, I too eat foods that humans made but I do try to avoid pre-packaged dinners etc just like my grandma did. Keeping things as simple and as “natural” (as much as that is possible) works better for me and my husband. This we know through changing our eating habits and FEELING better. However, I would much appreciate and I would thoroughly read any articles that you have about gamma rays and 2700 foods (I avoid pasta, makes me sleepy) made by man so as to gain “science literacy” as you clearly have.

          • AaPenny Lali

            Interesting but a little one-sided again (your condescending tone with God as Nature is peurile here as you are a product of nature my dear). I have a compost in the city and I’m not much of a gardener but without a laboratory on my back terrace, tomatoes, peppers, all kinds of citrus and other plants grew without my assistance. I naively call this “nature,” though you probably have a much better name for it. I don’t think you read what I wrote correctly either. I said we force foods into being, that had nothing to do with natural selection if you will, and being part of this time/space location, I too eat foods that humans made but I do try to avoid pre-packaged dinners etc just like my grandma did. Keeping things as simple and as “natural” (as much as that is possible) works better for my husband and myself. This we know through changing our eating habits and FEELING better. However, I would much appreciate and I would thoroughly read any articles that you have about gamma rays and 2700 foods (I avoid pasta, makes me sleepy) made by man so as to gain “science literacy” as you clearly have. Though please keep to studies made by independent laboratories. Otherwise THIS HAPPENS: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/

  • Bob Bobert

    Why don’t you people who support gmo’s have a look what happens to animals that are engineered… it affects their lifespan.. enviropig is 1 example.. they have a lifespan of six months.. as opposed to 8 years.

    • Canadian_Skeptic

      Transgenic plants and animals are produced by completely different methods. Then there’s also the fact that one group is composed of animals and the other of plants, which, in case you’re not aware, have dramatically different physiology. You can’t compare the two directly.

      Where did you get the claim that the Enviropig has a life span of six months???

      Here’s a paper that looked at the physiology of the pig.

      Figure 1C looked at weight gain of the pigs up to 200 days of age. That’s more than six months. I haven’t found any data on an upper limit of their life span, which is why I’d like to know where you got that claim.

      • Bob Bobert

        My point here is that foreign genes introduced into animals shortens their lifespan. When we eat plants or animals we consume the dna.. that dna becomes a part of us.. these genes are being introduced to us. Plants have evolved to be compatible with us.. we don’t eat many plants because they are toxic to our cells. Therefore by consuming these plants were consuming genes that are not compatible with our body, the effects are likely somewhat diluted but it will theoretically shorten lifespan indefinitely.

        • Canadian_Skeptic

          Hi Bob,

          Yes, eating plants and animals involves the consumption of foreign DNA.

          No, oral consumption of foreign DNA does not result in the foreign DNA becoming incorporated into the genomes of our cells. That is categorically incorrect. Fragments of foreign DNA may end up in the bloodstream following a meal, but that is not the same as incorporation into the genome of a cell. Not by a longshot.

          No, plants have not evolved to be compatible with us. We have evolved such that our digestive systems are able to handle certain foods. We have improved the foods available to us by directed breeding.

          No, edibility of plants has nothing to do with the compatibility of the plants genes with our own. Whether a plant is edible or not has to do with the chemical compounds a plant produces.

          I would be happy to go into further details if you’d like. For what it’s worth Bob, I have a PhD in plant biochemistry.

          • Bob Bobert

            Sorry but your points here contradict each other…

            “No, edibility of plants has nothing to do with the compatibility of the plants genes with our own”

            “We have evolved such that our digestive systems are able to handle certain foods”


          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Ok, let me rephrase so that it is abundantly clear.

            The edibility of plants has nothing to do with toxic effects directly related to the genetic material in a plant. We have evolved digestive systems that can break down the starches and proteins in certain foods.

            The point is, DNA is not toxic. However, the proteins encoded by certain sequences of DNA as well as the metabolites produced by some proteins can be toxic to humans.

            Is that clear?

          • Bob Bobert

            I will ask you 1 question.. if these plants are harmless.. then why does the EU want no part of them.. why has Kenya… a third world country.. completely banned them? Why are the people in areas that consume the most gmo’s now having increase in Cancers and genetically related diseases? Please just go and watch the documentary “The world according to Monsanto” not everything I have against them comes from watching this but it shows how the majority of data on them is selectively chosen to be shown to the public.. it shows proof of Monsanto bribing regulators and also shows that Monsanto employees are integrated into the companies that decide whether such plants are safe or not.

          • Bob–The facts are EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what you write.

            There is no increase in cancers in the US; cancer rates have been going down continuously over the past 15 years, and there is no increase in genetically related diseases. As deaths are DOWN 20% over the time of increased GMO consumption (http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/cancer-statistics-report-deaths-down-20-percent-in-2-decades ) I guess you it can be argued that GMOs lead to a decrease in cancer.

            Eu wants no part of them? Actually, the European Commission, like every major independent organization in the world that has reviewed the safety and health issues involving GMOs, has commissioned its own independent studies over 25 years and found foods with GMOs to be as safe or SAFER than conventional and organic foods: http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf

          • Bob Bobert

            I find it increasingly amusing that don’t give me straight answers.. you answer as if I typed something different.. Your answer implies that the whole of the US is eating gmo’s when thats not true at all.. certain parts of the US have much higher concentrations and I’ve even found video’s interviewing densely black populated areas. Interviews with public which show that nearly every 1 of these families has lost somebody to cancer.. and that the average age in these areas is much lower.. but a global study clearly wont show this which proves again how data is selectively released.

            Secondly I live in England.. I went to tesco a few days ago and bought myself plenty of vegetables.. guess what.. on every single fucking packet is clearly states that tesco do not import ANY GMO’s for their own brand and they take pride in this.

          • Like the Kenya example, the fact that Tesco don’t stock own-brand GM means nothing other than that they don’t think they’ll sell. That’s why all UK supermarkets took a GM-free policy direction nearly 15 years ago; it had nothing to do with either medical or ecological evidence, and everything to do with tabloid-driven “Frankenfood” paranoia.

            You will find plenty of articles online documenting how supermarkets have been relaxing those self-imposed limitations in recent years as polls increasingly indicate that the public is relatively unbothered. I’m guessing you know that, as you were careful to specify Tesco own-brand.

            You’ll similarly find that the EU has relaxed its anti-scientific position on GMOs, and China seems to be doing the same. I suspect that in both cases it served as a useful excuse for a protectionist import policy that disadvantaged the US, while ameliorating “environmental” campaigners.

          • Bob Bobert

            Look maybe there are certain strands that are safe but I can guarantee you now that what america has right now is not safe.. well at least not all of them.. UK are having the first TRIAL this year that means they are not sure yet whether they are safe or not… problem with this trial is.. it has already shown that any benefits that these crops may hold are negated by the fact that the chemicals used to grow them kill off our bees .
            The trial has also shown that these plants will not cross pollinate with naturally grown plants of the same species which proves my point further that our bodies will likely not recognise them in the same way we recognise natural foods.

            If you don’t know this already.. humans NEED bees… we can’t survive without them.
            I don’t think I need to why that is a bad thing do I?




          • It’s nonsensical to lump all GMOs together, they are extremely different. And why can you “guarantee” that current US GMOs aren’t safe, when a myriad of studies indicate that they are?

            Other issues with your comment: synthetic pesticides are used for crops other than GMO ones – they are often more benign than ones used in organic agriculture; and cross-pollinating (or otherwise) has *nothing* to do with human edibility — see above.

            Finally, the bees/pesticides link is very unclear and almost certainly not as straightforward as you hyperbolise. In fact, you even cited Jon Entine’s Forbes article which tells a very different story to what you’re implying! Anyway, by drifting off-course into unfacts about pesticides and open, very uncertain research areas about bee colonies, you’re undermining your equally unconvincing direct arguments about GMOs…

          • Bob Bobert

            LOL sure tell me that its nonesensical AFTER I mention it despite you grouping them together several times in your past arguments… go to bed kiddo

          • There’s a distinction between the grouping of GMOs in legislation (which I think is nonsensical, but it’s still what was done and what I discussed) and grouping them together when talking about modes of biological action. My previous comment was about legislation and business approaches to GMOs, which are largely decoupled from the science. Again, have you any evidence at all to back up “I can guarantee you now that what america has right now is not safe… well at least not all of them”?

          • Bob Bobert

            And your arguments here are just not true… full blown bullshit. The chemicals that rely on gmo’s ARE killing bees.. that is fact. Its been tried and tested as John Entines article proposes.. saying its not certain is one thing but that article explains how it is very likely not that it isn’t certain.. your rewording of things is quite insulting to my intelligence. Your also missing my point on cross pollination completely or your too reluctant to comprehend it… as I previously stated not that I should need to it is basic common sense… if a plant of the same genome cannot pollinate it.. it therefore doesn’t resemble the same species.. … therefore it is unknown whether our bodies would accept it the same way as the mutated species and before you give me some bullshit reply to that… you can cross breed a lion and a tiger… A fucking lion and a fucking Tiger.. nature is a lot more complicated than many scientists would like to admit since many like to think just like you do.. that you know everything. If your going to state your opinions and give them as fact do it to somebody who isn’t going to notice right away.

          • GMOs don’t uniquely rely on those chemicals (nor, as you put it, do the chemicals rely on GMOs). You can grow GMOs without neonics, many non-GMO crops are grown with neonics, and many non-neonic pesticides have stronger evidence of toxicity to pollinators than neonics do. Sure, neonics in strong concentrations can kill bees — of course they can, they’re insecticides. But that doesn’t mean that they are responsible for colony collapse disorder in a realistic field setting, and in fact the stats are rather unconvincing about the reality of CCD at all. So this offshoot into neonic criticism is not only vague but really has nothing to do with GMOs, the topic of the article.

            I guess I must be missing your point on cross-pollination, because you’ve not indicated how genetic sequences can have anything to do with digestibility. Sure, if species can’t interbreed then they’re not the same species. Sheep and cows can’t interbreed; corn and cucumbers can’t interbreed; … and I can happily eat them all. Microscopically, my digestive system does not examine the DNA sequences in my food for compatibility, and most of what we eat is not DNA. We digest by variously breaking down complex molecules to simple ones via well-understood biochemical cycles… and genes/DNA play no role in those cycles. If we cannot digest them, they get excreted. If GMOs were indigestible we would extract no energy from them, and produce an awful lot of GMO-poo. Here’s a short summary of human metabolism re. GMOs as part of a course on environmental hazards http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/gm/absorb.html And here’s a couple more articles on that: http://hisscienceistootight.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/what-to-talk-about-when-youre-talking.html http://hisscienceistootight.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/gmos-part-2-how-digestive-system-works.html

            I certainly don’t know everything — don’t know where you got that from. Actually I’m quite rusty on biochemistry, so please correct me if I made mistakes above or missed some important exceptions. If you want references, please ask, but I think it’s a bit rich to take me to task for “stating opinions as fact” when you’re banging on about an idea which runs contrary to very established science. Scientists actually tend to have at least as much reverence for the complexity of nature as anyone else, but shouting about “f’ing lions and tigers” doesn’t mean that your argument has any weight. Science can tell you why lions and tigers can interbreed (not so crazy really, I’d be much more impressed if lions and potatoes could interbreed), but what on earth does that have to do with digestibility or GMOs?

          • kurzweilfreak

            If the EU “wants no part of them”, how do you explain this search form on the European Commission website where you can search for all of the GMO crops and their authorization dates? Obviously, you are wrong here.

            Kenya banned GMO products in response to the hilarious Seralini controversy. Is a third-world country that falls for such junk science really the example that we want to follow?

            “Why are the people in areas that consume the most gmo’s now having increase in Cancers and genetically related diseases?”

            Citation please. I’ll provide you with the opposite citation:

            Even if you can show that cancer rates are rising, you still have to provide a mechanism for it. If you can show that somehow the genetic engineering process produces carcinogens, you’d win a Nobel Prize. So far, no one has done so. It’s not enough to just say “cancer rates are rising” without taking into account tobacco use, obesity, pollution, longevity increases, and a multitude of other factors before saying “it’s teh evil GMOs!”

            Anyone can get ahold of a GMO ear of corn, soy, or any other plant and run whatever tests on them that they want. Why is no one doing this if it would be so easy to prove how “dangerous” it is?

          • Bob Bobert

            You claerly didn’t read any of my other posts.. and theres plenty evidence for both sides… only the difference is that the evidence against comes from scientists who aren’t looking for a fat paycheck.

          • Bob Bobert

            Cancer rates ARE rising theres so much proof youd have to literally dismiss everything you read on the matter to argue otherwise… all you have to do is google it just try it.. the first pages you find show an estimation of an addition 70% increase by 2030 as well as well as proven studies showing the increase over the last 100 years. As for the mechanism… have you ever taken a pet to the vets? How do you think they treat most illnesses? Through their diet.. they tell you to eliminate certain foods that they may be allergic to or that are causing whatever problem they have… Same goes for farm animals.. But don’t take my word for it… Here read this..

          • You may have a crystal ball to predict the future, but since the introduction of GMOs, cancer is down sharply. I think there is no relationship but to claim the opposite in defiance of the empirical evidence is delusional.

          • Bob Bobert

            Since your incapable of doing the searching yourself I have taken the liberty to find you some articles and factual studies. Your living in a fantasy… nevermind my crystal ball how about you use your magic wand and flip all these victims of modern society back to good health.

            What is delusional is the fact that people ignore the fact that there is literally no need at all to take a vegetable and add extra genomes. I mean what other possible motive other than money is there? Some people may argue to feed the starving… but thats bullshit.. there is a tree called moringa that is native to africa.. a man could literally live on the leaves of this plant and nothing else and they would achieve good health.. better than most westerners.. yet they can’t because american companies steal their land and force them to live on the crap they deliver in helicopters.

            Heres your evidence for cancer rates smartass… enjoy






          • Bob Bobert

            The key to finding trustworthy information is to search for something other than gmo’s but that will give you factual information that is indefinately related

          • Bob Bobert
          • Mlema

            Cancer rate has increased in 4-15 year olds. Not all cancers, but most.
            I think there is no relationship but to claim the opposite in defiance of the empirical evidence is delusional.

          • First Officer

            Huh, that article doesn’t even mention cancer. Did you read it yourself?

            And the ACS begs to differ with real data.


            Is that pig study worth its bacon?


          • Bob Bobert

            You must not have read it… read it and then give me a reply please.

          • First Officer

            Ah, you got me. Not the word cancer but carcinoma.

            I give you your moment but, alas, a moment is all i can spare.

            No cancer or carcinoma was actually found. Carman decides to speculate as to the possible causes of inflammation found. Funny, she didn’t have the tissues tested for such causes.

            However, even if such causes exist for the inflammation found, there is little connection to the GM diet used.


          • Bob Bobert
          • First Officer

            LOL ! No age adjustment made in those. The first article even comes out and says, “we’re living longer” !

          • Bob Bobert

            The oldest people may live longer… but thats based on averages which assume that everyone lives to the same age… when the oldest people can live to over 100 it brings those averages wayyy up.

          • Bob Bobert

            Plus.. that wasn’t the argument… you say less people get cancer.. I show you proof of otherwise… more people survive cancer… yet more are inflicted with it. So now you change subject since I show you proof your wrong? Argue with yourself why don’t you.

          • First Officer

            No, i challenged that cancer RATES are rising. They are mostly falling as adjusted for age. Your argument is like saying that, since more people are dying( due to more people are in existence), life expectancy must be less.

          • Bob Bobert

            You are extremely hard to explain rational thinking to…

            put it this way..
            say you have an average age of 50 between 100 people..
            say that 70 of those live to 60…
            now say you have 500 people and the average age is 60 but 300 of those 500 live to 120 and 100 live to 20… that is why you cannot use averages.. because the higher tier obvious have access to better living conditions and the people living shot life spans are being brought up in the average…. I hope that makes sense to you… its like saying your family is rich when in reality you earn an average wage but have 1 rich uncle who makes your families average very large.

            Your argument assumes everyone lives to the same age.

          • Bob Bobert

            And cancer rates ARE rising… the death rates are decreasing….

          • Bob Bobert

            Also my argument is not like that at all.. my argument is that cancer is a modern thing and is clearly caused by pollution and poor diet… the rates of cancer in antiquity were none existent.

            But my argument on age expectancy is like I said.. more people LIVING LONGER… not dying….. more people living longer by a large amount will raise an average even if more people die younger.. did you not do maths in school?

            Heres an example so you can comprehend it… 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, you have an average of 2 right?
            1, 1, 1, 6, 6 .. now the average is 3…. yet the majority of the numbers are lower.

          • Bob Bobert

            I also want to bring to your attention how stupidly silly it would be to use averages to decide whetehr something is safe or not which is what that study you linked is trying to do.. For 1… Cancer isn’t something that develops overnight.. and maybe some people can eat gmo’s and not get cancer but it doesn’t mean its safe. Yes pollution and tobacco use may cause cancer… but like every other cause… ITS ACCUMULATIVE… key word.. if one was to poison themselves with this crap for a year they might even be fine.. but 5, 10 maybe even 20 years later just like smokers they will start to suffer the effects.

          • kurzweilfreak

            Your point here would actually make sense were it not for the fact that no one is able to identify any magical carcinogens that are present in GMO crops that are not present in the isoline crops. Do you even know what that means?

            You keep saying the word “poison” like it has meaning, but show me what the poisonous component of GMO food is compared to the exact same plant without the inserted gene. The only people who continue to use arguments like that are the ones that show that they don’t really have any knowledge about genetics, transgenic engineering, or biology in general.

            You can’t just say “omg it’s teh GMOS!1111”. You have to also show a plausible mechanism. No one yet has ever answered that question for me. It probably has something to do with the GMO food being only one gene different than the isoline plant. Imagine that.

          • NoToGMOs

            Only a properly conducted long-term carcinogenic feeding study of a GMO and its isogenic line using an animal relevant to human health will be able to tell if that GMO has any ‘magical or not’ carcinogenic effect. As of now, there is no such study of even one currently grown GE crop.

            The actual process of GE can introduce unintended consequences such as novel proteins, allergens, toxins etc. Biotech companies never conduct ‘-omics’ studies to determine what kind of unexpected molecules can turn up due to the GE process. The only proteomics study I can find on a GE crop found 43 proteins (!) were up or down-regulated due to the insertion of a single gene into the maize genome (event MON 810) by particle bombardment. Forty three!!!


            Imagine what changes in expression/function of 43 proteins can do to the plant! It’s not as simple as you all try to make it out to be: “only one gene is being changed…….what could possibly go wrong?”

            Why don’t you put all that knowledge you have about genetics, transgenic engineering, or biology to good, honest use??

            “You have to also show a plausible mechanism. No one yet has ever answered that question for me.”

            Here’s just one possible mechanism of harm:

            -Bt toxin is a potent adjuvant (something that enhances the immune response), as potent as the Cholera toxin. Proof in the following paper:


            -Researchers studying food allergies usually make their test animals allergic to peanuts or other food by feeding them the respective food along with an adjuvant like Cholera toxin. Go to google scholar, look up almost any study of food allergies using animals and you will see this is how they make them allergic.

            -Then look at this little factoid:


            “According to a study released in 2013 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, food allergies among children increased approximately 50% between 1997 and 2011.”

            -Note the timeline and see that it corresponds with the introduction of Bt crops into our food supply.

            Now, put 2 and 2 together and imagine what all that active Bt toxin produced in all those millions of acres of Bt GMO crops are doing to us when we consume them.

            You have to get over the myopic, tunnel-vision view you all seem to have of the GMO issue. You have to look at it with a holistic, multi-disciplinary approach to make sense of it all.

          • Your links are broken.

          • NoToGMOs

            Thank you for letting me know. I have fixed them.

          • kurzweilfreak

            If you’re worried about a proteomics analysis showing changes in protein expression due to genetic engineering, you must be absolutely terrified by all the changes that occur from random genetic shuffling, mutagenesis. Fortunately, I already asked the experts about this particular topic and it was discussed here:

            Feel free to add to the discussion if you feel you have something to add. Seriously, these are the people you should really be having that discussion with since they actually know what they’re talking about. I have a feeling that you aren’t quite that brave though.

            It’s not enough to say “omg its different!” and tell people to imagine how dangerous it is; you have to actually show some danger because of it. Hey, a hypothesis to test. Except that it has been tested, in multitudes of feeding studies all showing no harm from GMO foods compared to non-GMO. Even your proteomics study only shows up/downregulation of existing proteins, not “novel proteins, allergens, toxins”. Other studies have shown that environment has a much larger effect on gene expression anyway: http://www.proteomesci.com/content/11/1/46

            BT toxin as an adjuvant. Sounds like a great thing to test for. Another hypothesis! Yay! Here’s a relevant test on just such a hypothesis showing no adjuvant effect on feeding BT maize:

            Relevant citations here:
            “Our study shows that not only does Bt-maize consumption not influence the induction of an allergic response to an unrelated protein like OVA, there is no effect on the exacerbation of an allergic response in an animal with pre-existing allergy.”


            “In summary, our current study indicates that consumption of a Bt-maize containing diet did not influence allergic responses to the experimental, unrelated OVA-induced disease initiation and relapse of allergic asthma. This study differs from previous studies in that the mice were provided Bt- and nGM maize included in their diets, which is physiological and more relevant than administering purified Cry proteins via alternative routes. Taken together, our data show that there is no adjuvant effect on an allergic response to a non-crossreactive protein upon Bt-maize (Cry1Ab) consumption in a mouse model.”

            Point 2 makes your point 3 seemingly irrelevant. If you want to make correlations, according to USDA data, total certified organic acreage increased from 914,800 acres in 1995 to 5,383,119 acres in 2011, an almost 600% increase. Might that have something to do with rises in food allergies? Do correlations sound ridiculous now?

            You have to get over the hypothetical what-ifs and actually look at or produce actual data rather than just making guesses and blaming your preferred boogieman. You’re cherry picking single studies (single study syndrome) that goes against the vast, vast majority of scientific literature. If you believe that the scientific community is missing something in their specializations, form an institute, recruit the varied scientists needed to test your hypotheses and win your Nobel Prize if you find something that the rest of the world has missed.

            I invite you to bring your arguments to biofortified.org if you really do want to have educated discussion with people actually in relevant fields that have the knowledge and expertise to discuss these issues rather than random strangers on the internet.

            Good discussion, thanks. 🙂

          • NoToGMOs

            “…you must be absolutely terrified by all the changes that occur from random genetic shuffling, mutagenesis”

            Ah, yes, just as I thought….you bring in mutagenesis. As I mentioned in another post, I would love it if there were safety tests conducted on mutagenically developed varieties. However, my bigger concern now are transgenic crops and products from them, because they are most prevalent on our farmlands and constitute over 80% of the food we eat in this country, especially corn and soy and their derivatives, which seems to be in almost everything. Unlike mutagenic varieties of which only a small percentage is used as food (many are just ornamental plants) and even the food varieties are not as prevalent in our food as transgenic varieties. But no, I have no problem with safety testing for these as well.

            Thank you for the invitation, but unlike you, I’m no fan of biofortified. Just like this website, it is mainly a propaganda site made up mainly of people whose careers and livelihoods depend on defending GMOs and to promote their continued usage. Their main aim is to ‘debunk’ anything and everything ‘negative’ about GMOs, at whatever cost. They may impress many people with their scientific qualifications and knowledge of the technicalities of this field, but they lack the all-round, multi-disciplinary view that is needed to address the various aspects of the GMO issue. How many medical doctors, immunologists, veterinarians or even epidemiologists are on that site? How many environmentalists? How many people specialized in patent law? How many people representing the interests of the developing nations that Biotech wants to impose its GMOs on? None, as far as I know. It’s mainly made up of plant scientists with highly technical knowledge of how GMOs are created but blind to the possible negative health and environmental consequences.

            Even your proteomics study only shows up/downregulation of existing proteins, not “novel proteins, allergens, toxins”. Other studies have shown that environment has a much larger effect on gene expression anyway”

            Up and down regulation of existing proteins can be bad enough. That’s why long-term feeding studies on relevant animals looking for toxicological and/or carcinogenic effects are needed. Monsanto and other GM seed developers conduct neither proteomics/other -omics studies or even any long-term feeding studies. They follow the time tested practice of ‘don’t look and you won’t find anything’. People are realizing that that is not enough.

            If you believe that the scientific community is missing something in their specializations, form an institute, recruit the varied scientists needed to test your hypotheses and win your Nobel Prize”

            Ah, yes, why didn’t I think of that?? Smh.

            Thanks for the link to the Bt/adjuvant study. I haven’t had a chance to go through it in detail, but from a glance at the abstract, two things I noted: it was a very short-term study (up to 34 days) and it looked at the development of allergic asthma. While asthma does fall in the spectrum of allergic disorders, I was thinking more in terms of how Bt toxin can act as an adjuvant in the development of food allergies, which as I linked to in my post has risen as much as 50% in children between 1997 and 2011. I wish the researchers had looked at that instead of asthma and also did the study for a much longer time, but anyway, it’s a start and I’ll read it as soon as I get some time. Oh, and unlike most pro-GMO’ers, I will refrain from trying to discredit that study based on the fact that it is published in an open-access journal 🙂

          • Bob Bobert

            I know you wrote this ages ago… but what your saying here is actually part of the problem.. people know they are doing something harmful and there is plenty of examples of the harm they have caused… but no one seems to be able to specify exactly what that is or prove it indefinitely.. And in our world … its innocent until proven guilty… In other words… healthy until proven otherwise..

          • kurzweilfreak

            No, what you’re saying is the problem: people are assuming that there must be some kind of harm based on the organic industry propaganda that keeps insisting there must be SOME kind of harm because GMOs are “different” somehow and that they’re “untested” even though that’s not true and “hey, our natural organic food doesn’t cause cancer wink wink”.

            There are no examples. If there were, please cite them.

          • Bob Bobert

            Thats a ridiculous argument…. organic food doesn’t need to pitch sales that way because gm’s are not competition in most places… they don’t even sell them where I live yet.. I don’t need examples because of that fact.. if they do no harm then why is the majority of data on them unsearchable to general public? You search for how organic food is grown and you can basically learn how to do it yourself.. can you say the same for gm’s?

          • Bob Bobert

            I really don’t see what your trying to argue.. are you trying to say there is somehow something wrong with organic food? I’m not argument for organic.. I don’t care about increased anti oxidant levels in organic food as theres no proof that is even better for health.. what I care about.. is food that needs to be unlabeled just to sell because of the amount of downfalls and potential dangers. Food that has been messed with on a genetic level so that you have no idea what is really in it.. food that any thorough research done has been repressed and hidden from public eyes for whatever reason…

          • Bob Bobert

            Are you going to tell me wilkipedia has false information that has somehow been verified and that the sources are all lying when they prove animal as well as human health improves when eating organic food…. the improvement in health is proven.. but the reason why is not..


          • kurzweilfreak

            You picked one quote out of the entire article and skipped all the rest that show the opposite. You’re cherry picking.

          • Bob Bobert

            How am I cherry picking… I directly replied to what you wrote… showed you reliable sources and yet you tell me that the sources I find are unreliable and then show no counter evidene… I’m not gonna waste any more time arguing with someone who will only accept proof if it suits their views.

          • Mlema

            The reason new transgenic crops should be thoroughly tested is: the process of introducing the trait and forcing its continual expression is disruptive to the genome and can cause unwanted changes in the plant, including altered metabolism. The industry does what it can to minimize these changes, but we don’t really know the full extent of what those changes may be. Proteonomic or metabolomic testing would reveal information that we don’t necessarily know how to interpret at this time. Research does show that certain kinds of GE plants (created using specific methods) exhibit changes in gene expression, and sometimes pleiotropic changes. Sometimes insignificant, sometimes significant – mostly poorly understood (or maybe that’s just me 🙂

            Anyway, testing is done by the industry, not the regulatory agencies. There are no feeding trials required. Most are approved based on prior approval of the parent plant and the trait itself – not the actual GE plant. There are some studies that indicate we ought to look at some of these plants more closely, especially in combination with the pesticides used in conjunction.

            independent scientists say that each GMO should be tested separately. It’s your job to show us that that’s happening. What are you basing your opinion on when you say: they’re tested. What kinds of tests are done and by whom?

          • kurzweilfreak


            Pick your favorites and start reading. Let me know how many is sufficient. If you don’t think 2000 is enough then just admit that there is no level of testing that would satisfy your impossible requirements for safety that you hypocritically don’t require of other food where hundreds of genes are shuffled around with no safety testing at all.

          • Mlema

            I guess you haven’t actually looked at the list that’s linked to in that post, or read any of the studies – otherwise you’d know better than to say “pick you favorites and start reading”. There’s no conclusion to be drawn from those studies as far as the safety of GMOs. It’s like saying “plants are safe” or “cars are safe”. Many of them have nothing to do with the actual science, and the ones that do are mostly investigating aspects of the technology other than safety. Here’s a metastudy considered impartial that can get you started in investigating the literature pertinent to GMO safety. It’s really not as big an undertaking as reading 2000 studies, because there are only a fraction of that amount.

            A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plantshttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412011000055

          • Mlema

            Are you suggesting that that database of nearly 2000 studies shows that GMOs are safe? How silly. Look, I’ll say it again: I’m not overly concerned that at this point in time anyone’s going to die from eating a GE plant extract. But saying that GMOs are safe because there’s been a lot of papers written (many of which have nothing to do with safety, or even related) is just throwing a pile of titles at someone. Why don’t you look at the “consumption” list towards the bottom and collect the studies you feel illustrate GMO safety. It’s so ridiculous to say “GMOs are safe”. It’s like saying “cars are safe”.

          • First Officer

            “Anyone can get ahold of a GMO ear of corn”

            As evidenced by this:

          • Bob Bobert

            This is a late response… but Kenya is at a point where living standards and technology is increasing rapidlly.. also would it not make sense that an area ridden with disease and illness would be the very best place to research such a thing? Just read through some of these… you attempts at mocking me just leave me with little effort to explain … infact… don’t read any of these… go adjust your diet so that your eating only gm ingredients and animals fed on them too.





            Every single cancer study you find will tell you the number 1 cause is diet.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Bob, whether a country or group of countries bans something or not, says nothing about the risk of that product. You have to look at the evidence behind the ban as the ban itself is absolutely not evidence. This would be like a prosecutor saying that a suspect’s arrest is proof of his or her guilt. It’s the evidence that matters. Bans can, and frequently do, happen for political reasons.

            “Why are the people in areas that consume the most gmo’s now having increase in Cancers and genetically related diseases?”
            >>Why do places with more police officers have more crime? Do police cause crime? Correlation is not causation. You need to understand the difference.

            “Please just go and watch the documentary “The world according to Monsanto” ”

            >>I’ve seen it. I’m not talking about Monsanto. Nothing I’ve said is based on Monsanto or based on the belief that Monsanto has a good reputation. Monsanto is a red herring.

          • Bob Bobert

            As for enviropig lifespan I had to use a cached version of a study because someone clearly realised they were unwittingly showing negatives … here is the cached page.. just use ctr f and type in six


          • Canadian_Skeptic


            First, that isn’t a study. It appears to be from a book written by a reporter.

            Second, no where does it say that Enviropigs are unable to live longer than six months. There is a single line that says, “Over his six-month lifespan, Piggy will produce about 450
            kilograms, or about 1,000 pounds, of solid and liquid waste combined.”

            The lifespan mentioned here sounds like an industry imposed limit (i.e. off to slaughter after six months). But most importantly, IT’S IN REFERENCE TO REGULAR PIGS!

            I find your insistence borderline insulting to my intelligence. You fragrantly ignored the peer-reviewed paper that I gave you showing Enviropigs lived beyond six months and your counter “evidence” doesn’t even pertain to the same type of pig!! Unfortunately for you Bob, I’m not a simpleton.

          • Bob Bobert

            dispite clever name enviropig I just made you read the fact that these pigs harm the environment which was my actual intention of getting you to read that study.. the fact that you ignore the negatives shows your 1 sided view…. your arguement seems to be that adding dna strands to animals doesn’t lower their lifespan which was my original point and that point still stands you havn’t disproven it and all the studies on animals that have been engineered show that they don’t live as long. None of this data is in reference to regular pigs it mainly compares the environmental impact of enviro to regular and shows clear negatives and few positives. Your right your not a simpleton… your much worse than that.. your the kind of person that uses your intellect to spread disinformation.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Bob, nowhere did I see anything even approaching a “fact” demonstrating that environmental damage is caused Enviropigs. Did I miss something? If so, please point it out specifically to me. Show me the quote.

            “your arguement seems to be that adding dna strands to animals doesn’t lower their lifespan which was my original point and that point still stands you havn’t disproven it”

            >>Oh goodness. Bob. Bob. Bob. You need to take a Logic 101 class. If you make a claim, then YOU HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF! Your claim isn’t automatically valid unless someone can prove it incorrect. It’s invalid until you present direct, positive evidence in support of it. This is really basic stuff Bob. If you don’t even understand how basic logic works, then you don’t have a hope of ever convincing anyone that your opinions have any merit.

            Feel free to contact me again, AFTER you have learned the basics.

          • C_S,
            I fear that this may be a case of casting pearls before swine.

          • Bob Bobert

            Secondly to the dna info that you clearly don’t understand as you would like to think.. only white blood cells contain dna.. and it is white blood cells that fight disease and fortify our immune system.. so wouldn’t messing with something like that that we don’t even fully understand scientifically be a stupid thing to do?

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            What the heck are you talking about???

            None of what you just said has any relation to the FACT that eating plant DNA is harmless. It doesn’t matter is we put DNA from Yersinia pestis (the bacteria that causes bubonic plague) into the plant. The DNA itself would still be perfectly safe to consume (though I wouldn’t eat the rest of such a plant).

          • BioChicaGMO

            “Only white blood cells contain DNA”. Absolutely not. Although red blood cells do not have DNA, they’re an exception. The vast majority of cells have a nucleus and have DNA.
            So you’re eating DNA ALL the time, whether it’s from the cells in the sausage patty in an Egg McMuffin, or in the cells from the spinach leaf in an organic salad.

          • Bob Bobert

            Exactly… we eat dna all the time…. DNA that our bodies RECOGNISE…. unlike the genes introduced in a way that our bodies DON’T RECOGNISE

          • BioChicaGMO

            Bob, our bodies don’t recognize the DNA in anything we eat. The DNA from the food we eat serves no purpose. It gets broken down in our digestive tract.
            If you have a peer reviewed study that suggests that eating DNA from food is harmful, please let me know.

          • Bob Bobert

            Have you never heard of Leukemia ?

          • Canadian_Skeptic


          • @C_S, I fear that someone may be pulling your chain.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Quite possible. That really seems to be the only rational explanation for the bizarre claims he’s making.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Oh. That was supposed to be some sort of point? Let me know when you get around to getting to your point.

          • Bob Bobert

            Let me just make it clear why I mentioned leukemia… You said… “No, oral consumption of foreign DNA does not result in the foreign DNA becoming incorporated into the genomes of our cells”

            Well is blood not a part of our body? Do White blood cells not have a very important process in our health? You make statements that are misleading to back up half facts..

            Eosinophils are what stop us from getting cancer… they are a part of white blood cells.. the dna in gmo’s directly gets incorporated in the genomes of Eosinophils.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Bob. Bob. Bob. I said GENOME. Not “part of the body”. Yes, ingesting foreign DNA does bring it inside of the body. But that is irrelevant. For foreign DNA (with the exception of DNA viruses), it must be incorporated into the GENOME (i.e. genomic DNA) for it to have an effect. Even in the case of DNA viruses, the DNA must be carried into cells. Viral DNA is not naked either. It is highly protected by viral and host derived proteins.

            Partially digested foreign DNA fragments in the blood are not even remotely similar to DNA that is part of the genome.

            “You make statements that are misleading to back up half facts”
            >>You’re in no position to make any such assessment. With all due respect, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Even someone with an undergrad degree in biology could see that you don’t understand this subject, and I happen to have a PhD in biochemistry.

            ” the dna in gmo’s directly gets incorporated in the genomes of Eosinophils.”

            >>No. That is absolutely incorrect. There is no evidence to demonstrate that that happens. None whatsoever. You are wrong.

          • Bob Bobert

            After the chemical mediators of the acute response subside, late phase responses can often occur. This is due to the migration of otherleukocytes such as neutrophils, lymphocytes, eosinophils, and macrophages to the initial site. The reaction is usually seen 2–24 hours after the original reaction.[26] Cytokines from mast cells may also play a role in the persistence of long-term effects. Late phase responses seen in asthma are slightly different from those seen in other allergic responses, although they are still caused by release of mediators from eosinophils, and are still dependent on activity of TH2 cells

            Straight from wiki of Food Allergy….

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Bob, I can’t make any sense of this gibberish. You’re functionally illiterate when it comes to biology as far as I can tell.

          • Hi C_S,
            I totally agree. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with ignorance (we’re all ignorant of something), but the best cure for ignorance is asking good questions, rather than pretending to understand.

            Looking at this thread, and many others like it on the Internet, I have to wonder how many anti-GMO posters are honestly interested in gaining a greater understanding, versus merely enjoying the sparring.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            We said. I’m freely admit my ignorance of many subjects (GM plants just happens to not be one of those). It sometimes takes a degree of courage though to admit you don’t know something. I see ‘pretending to understand’ as a defense mechanism in some people.

            If you’ve ever had the privilege of teaching, it’s interesting to notice which personality types in the classroom are most likely to ask for clarification or admit when something doesn’t make sense to them, versus those that plow ahead blindly and make mistakes.

        • Canadian_Skeptic

          Oh and Bob, you seem to have completely ignored the question I asked. Where did you get the claim that Enviropigs only lived for six months?

        • Benjamin Edge

          “Plants have evolved to be compatible with us.. we don’t eat many plants because they are toxic to our cells.”

          So why haven’t all those toxic plants evolved to be compatible with us? Nature doesn’t care whether we eat plants or not! Plants over the years have developed various methods to keep animals from eating them. Humans have selected plants that happen to have mutations that we find beneficial.

          “Therefore by consuming these plants were consuming genes that are not compatible with our body,”

          Really? Try naming a GM food that contains a gene that our bodies have not been in contact with or consumed before? The particular EPSPS gene from bacteria that is in RoundupReady plants would be the most unique, but we already consume plenty of bacteria with EPSPS genes, with who knows how many variations.

          • Bob Bobert

            Because not everything evolves in the same way… I should have said really… humans and plants have evolved to be compatible with 1 another… 1 plant may develop poison because more of the poisonous variations of that plant survive.. therefore the most toxic are the most likely to still be around… on the other hand a plant that is very healthy for people will be transported, grown and spread across the land for that reason (keep in mind how long this has been going on ) evolution just means something survives because of a trait that will allow it to reproduce… in regards to plants.. normally poison or desirable food.

            We may have been in contact with pesticides before because farmers have been using them a while now but that doesn’t mean they are good for us.. and its 1 thing eating plants that have had pesticides used on them and another to eat plants that have pesticides WITHIN THEIR GENES where you cannot get them out.. I mean really if eating it kills insects that would otherwise be getting a tasty meal it can’t be that healthy.

            On top of that problem there is the fact that many animals destined to end up on dinner plates are being fed strict Gm only diets.. with the levels of whatever poisons are in these foods building up in toxicity inside the animal.. then you eat it or drink its milk.

            Where I live most of the plant food I have access to is not gm.. but because meat is shipped in and there is no way to tell most of time.. I have been avoiding most meats and I feel so much healthier.
            I suffer some insomnia so I have plenty of time to surf the internet on random subjects like this and Ive found plenty of reasons to avoid Gm’s and plenty of “debunking” Gm are bad claims.. but every time I see a debunker.. most of the arguments they put forward are easily disproven if you take the time to look up the facts.

    • as to GMOs, you and I see eye to eye…these things are killers, and while there is no ‘proof’ there is an amazing correlation of health care per capita and which countries allow GMOs in their food supply.

      • Bob Bobert

        Glad to see we can agree on some things 🙂

  • Guest

    Thank you for the information!

  • melissa

    I wonder how much science is influenced by a trillion dollar industry, I mean if one corporation can buy the full faith and credit of the US government, what else , and who else can they own.

  • NoToGMOs

    Okay. It would only be fair to now present and critically analyze 10 scientific studies that prove GMOs are NOT harmful to human health. How about it, Ms. Ph.D in molecular genetics and senior scientist at a biotech company??

    • BioChicaGMO

      Your comment is very timely. I just wrote an article about “proving” that GMOs are not harmful. I can provide you with proof that GMOs are not harmful if you can provide me with proof that invisible dragons do not contribute to earthquakes. http://frankenfoodfacts.blogspot.com/2014/12/quit-asking-me-to-prove-that-gmos-are.html

      • NoToGMOs

        Lol! What a cop-out! Are you disagreeing with your own ‘side’? They are the ones who keep throwing out the ‘thousands’ of studies from the GENERA database saying that these studies prove GMOs are not harmful to human health. All I’m saying is take 10 out of those ‘thousands’ and let’s see how well they ‘prove’ GMO safety to humans.

        Yeah, and your ‘article’ is nothing but spin and twisted propaganda……the null hypothesis and all the other tired ol’ talking points repeated ad nauseum by your fellow PR shills.

        • BioChicaGMO

          So the null hypothesis which forms the basis of much of modern research is just a talking point?

          Also, you didn’t read the article. “THIS is why scientists stress the number of studies that have examined GMOs. THIS is why scientists stress the statements made by academic and scientific societies about GMOs. Because no single study proves safety: its the sum of the studies, the body of data, the totality of research that’s been done which suggest that the current GMOs on the market are safe.”

          • Mlema

            So it shouldn’t be hard to provide ten studies showing that one or two, or five, or ten particular GMOs are safe. This isn’t the null hypothesis. The technology is mutagenic, and when we start eating bt foods, it will be a first to ingest those proteins in that amount. And then there’s the chronic pesticide exposure: most GMOs are engineered to withstand pesticide applications – now to pesticides more toxic than glyphosate. I’m not saying GMOs aren’t safe. But we really don’t test them appropriately to the technology as far as I’m concerned. We’re not even sure how to do that. We can look at metabolomics and proteonomics, but we don’t always know how to interpret them. And there’s no requirements to do that analysis anyway. Can you say with assurance that we don’t have crops out there that have ended up expressing characteristics the developers didn’t anticipate? I think there’s evidence that they have.

          • Mlema

            I note the use of the word “suggest” – because it’s poor reasoning to say that GMOs are safe, although that’s what the industry wants people to believe. It’s like saying cars are safe. No one says that. They’re safer than they used to be, and some of them are safer than others. But it’s possible for a genuinely unsafe car to come off the assembly line if something goes wrong in production and quality control misses it. This is about our quality control (regulatory system) – which I submit isn’t up to the task of assuring that GE crops are “safe”. If we currently have no “unsafe” GMOs on the market (and that’s debatable) it’s because 1) the industry is doing their best to prevent it 2) we’ve been lucky 3) we’re not engineering or using plants that would be most likely to pose the kind of dangers scientists say are possible.

          • @Mlema—I think you have hit on the key confusion in this field: genetic engineering is a technology or delivery system (rather like a plough or the US Postal service), not a product. The debate needs to be about what is being delivered, not the technology or delivery system. A plough can be productive—or destroy a flower garden; a parcel can be a box of chocolates—or a bomb.

            You also raise the important point about what “safe” means. Safety is not an absolute property—it’s relative. There will never be any way of guaranteeing that any food (or environmental exposure) is safe, but we can use our best judgement to decide where to focus our concern. The current range of 100+ approved GM crops were designed to be safe and beneficial. I am not aware of any reason to be concerned that they are any more or less risky than the thousands of other crops that are grown and consumed, by humans or animals.

            You have a legitimate concern—that we cannot assess all the possible hypothetical and un-forseen problems that might arise from genetically engineered crops. Life is short, however, and it is important to focus on the risks that we think are most likely to be real. With all due respect, your comments on this (and similar) threads have a strong element of Devil’s Advocate: this may be an intellectually amusing activity, but I think it’s important for us to apply our knowledge and reasoning to the most LIKELY risks that we face. I have little doubt that you could apply your knowledge of science to raise concerns about almost any food that we consume—broccoli and tofu seem pretty scary, for example. Instead, I urge you to step back, and put the topic of a handful of new crops in the context of our existing world. If, instead, you have evidence or a rational for why recent technology is INHERENTLY more dangerous, then I think you need to lay out a more comprehensive case.

          • Mlema

            The inherent danger is that, depending on the specific method used, trangenic crops carry a greater risk of unanticipated changes that could prove to be deleterious.
            Relative risks aren’t the same between these various breeding methods. I’ll just copy this from my own recent comment elsewhere:
            GE methods like transferring genes between closely related species using A. tumefaciens are relatively “safe” (regarding unanticipated changes) – in fact their relative risk is comparable to selective breeding of the same. But biolistic methods, between distantly related species are only less risky than mutagenics.

            Currently, we don’t require the kinds of tests that would reveal whether or not unwanted changes have occurred to the proteins or metabolism of the plant cell. Research has shown that these changes can be something seemingly simple – like a change in glycosylation – which changes the functional structure of a protein. This kind of research is done “after the fact”. And as we move into “nutritionally-enhanced” patented foods, there are more complex mechanisms to consider.

            The industry pundits wish us to believe that this technology is surgically precise. It’s not. And our current regulatory assessments aren’t geared towards protecting the public. And, I’ve said this several times in these discussions – that doesn’t mean anything’s wrong, it just means we don’t know. It’s not scientifically sound to say “they’re just as safe as any plant”.

  • Cathy Schmiers

    I think big a.. tumors on rats is probobly not a good thing.It was caused by eating BT corn. Enough said.And other scientists varified his findings.Of course the Monsanto legions of greed will say otherwise.

    • BioChicaGMO

      Hi Cathy,
      The study that you’re referring to is #4 in the list above. No one has verified the findings.

    • Rosalind Dalefield

      No, it was not caused by eating Bt corn. It is a strain-specific phenomenon of the strain of rat used, the Sprague Dawley. Sprague Dawley female rats are extremely prone to getting those mammary adenomas, which are benign by the way. The rats fed the Bt corn on that study did not have higher rates of mammary adenomas than rats in the control group. A high prevalence of mammary adenomas in female rats is found in all chronic studies that use Sprague Dawley rats, which is a reason why there is a general trend to using Han Wistar rats instead.

      • Mlema

        Rats fed the GMO/pesticide developed tumors multiple times more quickly than the controls. Well before the 2 yr mark.

  • Alex Reid

    Yeah, you want to discredit the Institute for Independent Research becauses it advocates for the elimination of GMO’s from our food supply.. We know why Jeffrey Smith founded the institute, it is not a secret, unlike you trying to pass yourself off as independent… “Finally, the findings from Seralini’s paper are contrary to other long-term feeding studies”. … what kind of fuzzy logic is that? Because Seralini’s findings are different they must be incorrect… Oy vey, this is a piece of industry hack-work

    • BioChicaGMO

      Hi Alex,
      Thanks for your comment. Actually, the “Discussion” section in any scientific publication consists of putting the results of the study into context with respect to previous studies, as well as how the results may impact future studies. I wouldn’t say there’s anything “fuzzy” about highlighting that Seralini’s findings are contrary to previous studies. Please see #11 in this infographic on spotting “bad science”. http://www.compoundchem.com/2014/04/02/a-rough-guide-to-spotting-bad-science/

      • Mlema

        Seralini’s results are contrary because he followed protocol to the letter and reported accurately.

  • poooop

    GMO is good for u it makes u healthy

  • sam

    Why does anyone want to eat genetically modified food?

  • Rosalind Dalefield

    ‘Some chemical compounds behave differently among species, and both Bt‘s Cry1Ab and chocolate are examples of this.’

    Interspecies differences in toxicity are the norm, rather than anything unusual. Furthermore inter-strain or inter-breed differences in metabolism and therefore toxicity are extremely common in laboratory and domestic animal species.

  • Sharon

    The Seralini study used the same rats Monsanto used in their 90 safety testing on GMOs. To omit this point is to mislead the reader and leaves the possibility that other references of importance have been omitted in your reporting. Always lots of omission with you guys.

    • Benjamin Edge

      Actually, the Seralini study used the same STRAIN of rats that Monsanto used in their 90 day safety testing, if we are being picky. The next job I take I’m going to be sure to ask to get paid 700 days worth of pay for working 90 days, since obviously they are the same.

  • Robin
  • AaPenny Lali

    “Additionally, there’s the “so what” factor. Humans lack the receptors for the protein, so it has no impact on us. Did you know that chocolate is toxic to dogs? Are you concerned that it might be toxic to you? … Some chemical compounds behave differently among species, and both Bt‘s Cry1Ab and chocolate are examples of this.” So why are we torturing animals by the millions in scientific experiments if the results can easily be brushed off as a “so what” factors? Your article is a lot of weird fluff that uses many ‘may’ and ‘may not’s, and I can see who you are paid by: “Layla Katiraee, contributor to the Genetic Literacy Project, holds a PhD in molecular genetics from the University of Toronto and is a senior scientist in product development at a biotech company in California. All opinions and views expressed are her own.”

  • whathefox

    People just want their food to be listed in the ingredients, if all of the science proves that they are perfectly safe then what is the problem with putting them in the ingredients list? Not a warning label, not even an extra mention on the labeling, just in the ingredients.

    • Good4U

      I DO NOT WANT more labeling on the food that I buy. There is no need for any labeling more than the “organic” claim that appears on some of the garbage that I see in the grocery store. Most of it is half rotten by the time it arrives at the store. It doesn’t get any better with age.

  • kevin fogg

    anyone can see you have a motive here. You either are afraid of the GMO companies(Monsanto) or you are on some GMO’s payroll. Yoy cannot possibly refute everyone of the claims citing inproper studies can you. The only testing done is by the makers of this junk then lightly overseen by the FDA and USDA, and we know those depts have been infilttrated with ex-industry people don’t we. Hell the GM makers ca send a product directly to market without first consulting our food safety depts?! and you call that oversight and protection of our people by our gov’t! honybee depletion linked to neonics? Monarch butterfly populations decreased by 50% and that is just a few of what we’re seeing in 15ish years of commercially planting this junk

    • Good4U

      Kevin, I’m not afraid of any “GMO companies” (your terminology), and I’m not on any GMO payroll. I don’t have a motive. I’m just very much in agreement with the article. Ms. Katiraee has accurately depicted the consensus of the scientific community and the regulatory agencies around the world that know something about biotechnology.

  • Arne

    Nearly all these critiques point to data that was not included in the studies. This may undermine the certainty of conclusions we can draw, but is not an indication that the conclusions were wrong. Also, peer-review, while a laudable tradition, is an institutional stamp, not an epistemic requirement. Universities do not have a monopoly on truth

  • Hi Layla, I’m not clear why you’re re-posting your article. Did you make any changes?

  • Bob Bobert

    Some of you people claiming to be in the scientific fields here defending GMO’s… Your stupid!.. Yea, and no amount of textbook reading is going to change your inferior brain structure .. Even if you actually believe eating actual pesticides is not harmful then you should at least know how the ecosystem works being scientists n all.. So please could you expalin to me how a crops that is proven to kill bees is somehow beneficial to humans?
    Fire away retards. 😉

  • Bob Bobert


    A little table I found showing some insight as to why GMO’s aren’t labelled.. aren’t properly moderated and aren’t banned!

    • Good4U

      Your thumbnail is empty. Maybe you knew that.

      • Bob Bobert

        Yea that must mean I’m wrong about everything ….

  • armen

    I wish I had gone into genetics. I would spend my career miniaturizing rhinoceroses so that they could be kept as household pets and making cherries the size of watermelons.

    • Good4U

      I’m with you on that. Maybe then the rhinos wouldn’t be going extinct, and we could get cherries from far fewer acres of orchard land. Count me in!

  • pineapple

    I notice when I eat organic foods for a while, I’m much more relaxed, open minded. I don’t feel like i have to lie on the couch after eating. And best of all my headaches go away. Sometimes I’ll eat something I know has gmo in it (part for tolerance and avoid being a complete shut-in) after eating it, I’m often hypertensive, say things I don’t mean, lazy and get a harsh headache that can last for several days. gmo’s appear to be harmful to this human.

    • Good4U

      I eat only non-organic foods. I feel better than when I eat “organic” ones. Mostly because I can’t stomach the rotten stuff that comes with it. All the “hole foods” marketeering and the diatribe that comes with it makes me sick.

  • wolffpart .

    Are GMOs safe? Who knows, they are too new. And so many of our human designs are not fail-safe, for example, nuclear reactors. Here’s the real question: what are GMOs for? So that we can spread glyphosate all over our environment, thus eliminating some labor, and causing unknown effects downstream?? It’s depressing! Enrico Fermi asked, “Where are they?” Intelligent civilizations evolve, but then self-destruct.

    • GMOs are not a “thing”; it’s a process, and quite old. GE allows for the tweaking of 1-3 genes, much more precise and safer than conventional breeding. Glyphosate has replaced for more toxic chemicals and has been a dramatic benefit for the environment and human safety. You are operating with some very unscientific notions about crop breeding.

      • $145261074

        That person is operating with ‘unscientific’ notions!? You are in no position to sit in judgement where scientific notions are concerned are you? Where is your legitimacy to arbitrate on science? Please respond to this critique of your ‘scientific’ approach. And do not just dismiss the link with the cliche ‘activist website’. Rebut the criticisms. http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15669-why-jon-entine-s-trillion-meal-study-won-t-save-us-from-gmo-dangers

        Science or political lobbying? I think we know.

        • Good4U

          He did respond. He said that GMOs are old, not new. He said that genetic engineering is precise, which is a fact. As for the nuclear reactors, that’t off topic. Science is a very diverse thing. In case you didn’t read the article, please do so now. Learn something yourself about genetic modification, and all of the techniques that humans have used for tens of thousands of years to produce and improve food. Spend some time in agriculture yourself. Invest some time in authentic learning experiences instead of wasting time on gas-brained advocacy blogs such as gmwatch and their ilk. You can do (much) better than that.

          • $145261074


          • $145261074

            What on earth are you talking about here?

            How do you know I’m not ‘in agriculture’?

            How do you know what my qualifications are or learning is?

            Why are you not prepared to tackle a valid issue but just want to brush it aside because you don’t like a certain website?

            And have I mentioned nuclear reactors here?

            I did not. Neither does that link on GMWatch which you do not want to address. While you are at it, why don’t you address Philpott’s piece on Entine which implies he is not credible due to his links with certain vested interests? Or is Philpott to be attacked – not on the basis of what he says – but because you do not like him as well? You can and should do much better than this!

            You quote opinion as fact. GE is not precise – see here (includes scientific references): http://earthopensource.org/gmomythsandtruths/sample-page/1-genetic-engineering-technique/1-2-myth-genetic-engineering-precise-results-predictable/

            GE is not old. See here (with references): http://earthopensource.org/gmomythsandtruths/sample-page/1-genetic-engineering-technique/1-1-myth-truth/

            To quote your words back at you – Learn something for yourself with ‘an authentic learning experience’ instead of wasting your time on gas-brained sites!

            Your response is typical – don’t like an article – won’t even address the article (even when peer-reviewed science is listed – as in the links below) – so I will just hurl abuse at the site and try to discredit it or anything that appears on it. Easy option isn’t it?

            Yes, science is a very diverse thing – although when you do not like certain findings your ilk jumps on a bandwagon to smear. Check out the long list of scientists who have been attacked because their (peer reviewed) science stated what the industry hated to hear. The following link lists those scientists and shows how the industry tries to vet scientists and institutions who intend to carry out research on GMOs. Talk about control and censorship!


            Oh wait – Open Earth Source is a gas-brained advocacy ‘blog’ so you can just ignore everything that report says.

          • Good4U

            Right, you now have it. Earth Source is certainly a gas-brained advocacy blog. You have finally learned something. Good for you!

        • As delightful as it might be to be distracted by taking a shot at GMwatch (fish in a barrel?), I suggest that if you have concerns about the validity of the van Eenennaam study of livestock, you make your comments on one of the GLP threads devoted specifically to this topic, where they may provoke useful discussion.


          Layla Katiraae presents a critique of ten studies in this article: do you have a specific science-related comment or question, or is your interest primarily politics?

      • Mlema

        “GE allows for the tweaking of 1-3 genes, much more precise and safer than conventional breeding.”

        You’re supposed to be educating or communicating GMO science to the masses. This is awful. GE isn’t more precise, it’s a mutagenic process that disrupts the genome. Only agrobacterium transfer between closely related species carries a similar risk of unintended consequences.

        • Mlema

          correction: Only agrobacterium transfer between closely related species carries a similar risk of unintended consequences as traditional breeding between close relatives.

          • Good4U

            Your statements above are myopic. It’s not only A. tumefaciens that conducts genetic transduction and transformation, i.e. moves genes from one species to another. It happens all the time, in the natural environment, in your own gut. Gene transfer from one species to another has been happening since the beginnings of life on this planet, and none of it is controlled by humans. You just aren’t aware of it.

          • Mlema

            GE methods like transferring genes between closely related species using A. tumefaciens are relatively “safe” (regarding unanticipated changes) – in fact their relative risk is comparable to selective breeding of the same. But biolistic methods, between distantly related species are only less risky than mutagenics.

          • Good4U

            Again, Mlema, you remain unaware that genetic transduction occurs all the time, even across species that are totally unrelated. It’s happening in you right now, and in the entire world around you. If the transduced genes confer some sort of evolutionary advantage, the recipient organism “keeps” them and uses them to out-compete their neighbors. If they prove to be neutral or a disadvantage to natural selection in the recipient organism, they either remain silent or become obsolete. That’s the reason that such a large proportion of genes are shared, even between plants and animals.

  • GaryNull

    The Progressive Radio Network would like to notify the
    viewers of this thread that we have several articles and shows that pertain to this matter available to stream for free on http://www.prn.fm , follow us and like us to keep up with The World’s leading news for progressive minds.

    • Rather than simply linking us to your home page—forcing us to search your website and sit through your material—it would be more useful for you to respond specifically to the topic of the article.

      • $145261074

        No one is ‘forcing’ anyone to do anything. People have a choice to go to that site – unlike with the GMO biotech industry that will not label, thereby forcing people to eat food that contains GMOs.

        • Benjamin Edge

          Interesting how your last sentence contradicts the first. No one forces anyone to eat food that contains GMOs.

  • whathefox

    Hahaha. Nice try with all the scientists Monsanto can buy to tell us how safe they are, why can’t they just produce the scientific independent peer reviewed studies to prove it. Better yet, why can’t they just spend the few dollars it would take to label them in the ingredients? I will just stick with common sense myself. I want natural, time tested real food. Food not genetically modified to blow up bugs stomachs or resist roundup (which if anyone has ever used roundup knows, kills everything in its path). Most people don’t know or care about what’s in their food, so let them be your guinea pigs. At least then years from now when science proves the truth, you’ll have some defense. Just label them!

    • Good4U

      Whathe… If you used common sense you would grow your own food. No one is stopping you from doing that. Meanwhile, the rest of the world’s 7 billion people want GMOs. They want them now. They don’t want more labels. They want the food. You obviously are not starving. You are one of those airy-fairy, bloated, arrogant, self-centered and uncaring millennials in the developed world who has never gone a day without food and all of the other pamperings that led you to bang away on a computer all day with nothing of value to say. You don’t know jack about agriculture or genetic modification. Your drivel is nothing more than parroted garbage from TV sensationalists that get paid to scare their audience. Do the earth a favor: go rot somewhere.

  • loesje

    Any respond welcome. Hitler believed in a superior human race that would be blond and have blue eyes. What if his dream would have become reality.. could it ever be superior over a long period, or would it referring to incest degenerate and finally destroy itself. We don’t manipulate tens of thousands or millions genetic codes, we use just one key and multiply the code for all crops/seeds/plants or not?
    This is my question to you scientists, biochemical researchers…

  • luke

    Genetically modified foods and plants could be toxic, toxicity in human body, could change the blood composition and have harmful effects on the tissues of the human body.

    • Arthur Doucette

      No different then saying “Organically grown foods and plants could be toxic, toxicity in human body, could change the blood composition and have harmful effects on the tissues of the human body.”

      See its all about EVIDENCE.
      Got any?

  • Waxil Davidson

    Its not black and white, to treat it as such is stupid. Most GMO is harmless, it’s things like “Round-Up Ready” corn that are the problem. But these morons take this one thing, and then act like it’s all bad, which it’s not. Everything humans eat has been manipulated by man somehow. Watch the “Kirk Cameron Banana Video”. That’s how dumb you are if you think all GMO is bad.

    • Good4U

      You are correct on most points that you have stated above. I would add that synthetic chemicals and their related technologies which have been subjected to intense scrutiny by key regulatory agencies (U.S. EPA, FDA, Canada PMRA, FSIA, etc.) tend not to be problems. It’s the ones such as so-called “natural” toxic chemicals that have not been tested which are potential problems. The risk assessment process that is applied to synthetic substances is much more rigorous than for natural ones because the toxicology database is usually more complete on the former than on the latter. The natural toxins which have been studied are highly risky, such as the trichothecenes, zearalenone, fumonisins, aflatoxins, and several plant alkaloids. Judicious use of synthetic materials and the technologies that are employed to deliver them has been proven to reduce the risks from natural toxins. We need more intervention in how our foods are produced, not less.

  • ChrisB

    Why is Monsanto cited (and, speaking of literacy, “cited” is spelled with a “c,” not an “s” as in the article above) as if it is a “scientific” source? I recognize that there are interests involved in the anti-GMO camp, but beejeezus, Monsanto is the company that sues organic farmers for “stealing” their products when their GMO crops pollinate neighboring farms, contaminating them. I live in the heartland; Big Ag is a way bigger threat than “Big Organic.” Big Ag is killing small farms, justifying the use of embedded pesticides that may be responsible for colony collapse of our pollinators, trying to cover up its experiments that have big money, not health, as the bottom line. And if Monsanto pays for a study, I’m sorry: it is not credible. Even science can be manipulated to serve economic ends. I wonder for what biotech company the author of the article works? Perchance, I don’t know, a biotech company heavily invested in genetic modification?

    • Jackson

      Monsanto is the company that sues organic farmers for “stealing” their products when their GMO crops pollinate neighboring farms, contaminating them

      This doesn’t happen. Can you name a single case where this has happened?

      justifying the use of embedded pesticides that may be responsible for colony collapse of our pollinator

      There is zero evidence, and no reason to believe, that Bt crops contribute to colony collapse.

      I wonder for what biotech company the author of the article works?

      Followed up nicely by a shill accusation.

  • strnsfr

    @Guest from your grammar It is obvious that you are, by no means, a PhD.

    As many have said, there is still A LOT we don’t know about biology and genetics. It might be that there are undiscovered dangers regarding GMO. Even with “healthy”, natural food we have been PROVED wrong (trail mix, tuna sushi, light yogurts to name the few). Even totally natural food turned out to be dangerous. Even natural food. Now imagine what we might find out about unnatural GMO. If I am wrong, then so be it, but I am not going to risk my health. Thank you.

  • Hot dog

    Shriveled up hot dog!

  • Mlema

    Monsanto was forced by a German court to reveal its raw data from its investigation on MON863. The data showed a statistically significant number of kidney and liver lesions. The study had other problems besides how it reported it’s results – it also failed to use isogenic feed controls or make any sex distinctions.

    I’ve made numerous comments on this page. But every time I try to reply to one comment in a discussion between myself and Rosalind Dalefield that took place earlier on this very subject – in which Rosalind claims that Seralini “tortured” the data in order to get his results – my comments disappear.

    The facts are out there – the raw data was online when I looked at it a couple of years ago.

    • @mlema,
      As a government official responsible for reviewing such material, you obviously are very current with such topics, and probably read more about these topics than almost anyone on this thread. Rather than stating that the information is out there, for all to find, it would be a great help to visitors to this site if you would post actual links to the information, so that we could review it ourselves. You have made numerous recent generalizations on this site, but it’s really hard to discuss them without more specifics to substantiate your conclusions. Thanks.

      • Mlema

        “Monsanto was forced by a German court to reveal its raw data from its
        investigation on MON863. The data showed a statistically significant
        number of kidney and liver lesions. The study had other problems besides
        how it reported it’s results – it also failed to use isogenic feed
        controls or make any sex distinctions.”

        Where’s the generalization? You’re obviously insinuating that I’m making stuff up, and you’ve decided to instead say that you’re interested in helping visitors to the site. You read the earlier conversation between myself and the author of the OP. I have no bookmark for the raw data. If I come across it I’ll let you know. You should be able to find it yourself unless your repeated searches of Google for pro-Monsanto talking points have skewed your search results.

        “As a government official responsible for reviewing such material, you obviously are very current with such topics…”

        I’m not a government official responsible for reviewing GMO studies. I’m just a concerned citizen.

        • Mlema

          I actually spent a few minutes trying to find the raw data for you.

          You know, these issues are way more complicated that even specifics in a comment like this can deal with. Here’s a wiki page that will allow you to familiarize yourself with the contentious nature of pre-deregulation and follow up research. Perhaps if you read some of the papers and articles the wikii page links to, you’ll get some idea of what’s involved.

          • Mlema

            I found the paper with the raw data. Monsanto didn’t want to release it – claiming trade secrets would be exposed. It turns out Monsanto’s report not only dismissed significant data, but had a number of problems that cast doubt on whether any of the results could be legitimate.
            Monsanto MON863

          • Profound apologies for the mistake! Since you did not disclose your identity (and I mistakenly relied on a little Google searching), you can understand how I confused you with Martin A. Lema, a South American official who coincidentally has played an important role in evaluating GM crops:

            You have clearly followed this field in great detail, and I value you contribution to the dialog on several Internet discussion threads where I have read your comments (assuming you are the same ‘mlema’ who is a frequent Internet contributor on this topic). Thanks for posting the link to the 1139-page report from Monsanto—I was not familiar with this. You will forgive me for not having read it all, but I acknowledge you as a ‘concerned citizen’ for being so familiar with such an esoteric report. What do you consider to be the most relevant observation?

            Regarding my use of the term “generalization”, I was not in any way implying that your material was made up—just that you made broad conclusions without supporting your ideas with any data. Again, no offense intended.

          • Mlema

            Peter, I’m so sorry. I obviously misinterpreted the intent of your comment. The raw data is towards the end of the paper. You’ll see where the kidney and liver differences were noted.

          • Good4U

            I have now downloaded and reviewed the study report. Thanks to the commenter who provided the link. It appears to be a routine 90 day subchronic toxicity study, done in preparation to apply for registration of the MON 863 transgenic (Bt cry3Bb1 protein) “event”. As such, it would have been submitted and reviewed by the U.S. EPA, and perhaps other regulatory agencies around the world, prior to deployment of the MON 863 Bt corn for outplanting as an agricultural crop. The report is not signed, but it appears to be in final form ready for signature, so I will presume that it was subsequently signed at some point and formally submitted to the regulatory agencies. Your assertion that the raw data were somehow “forced” by Germany to be submitted is bogus, and your comment suspiciously pejorative. The regulatory agencies always receive full reports, including raw data which are contained within. This one is no exception

            In the report, the pathologists who read the histopathological materials and statistical comparisons of the results, and who signed their portion of the study report (page 105), concluded that there was no significant effect of the MON 863 transgenic groups (feeding groups 3 and 4), as compared with their respective non-transgenic counterparts (feeding groups 1 and 2, respectively). As I reviewed the report, I focused primarily upon the liver and kidney findings, which were the organs mentioned by the previous commenter as his primary concern. From my reading of the results, I would concur with the toxicologist, hence this study evidently did not raise any red flags pertaining to the MON 863 transgenic technology.

            To an untrained reader, particularly an attorney, who may be unfamiliar with the technology or the types of studies supporting transgenic technology in general, the liver and kidney effects described in this report, in and of themselves, could appear to be problematic. Perhaps it would be worthwhile for the report to have explained why treatment groups 2 and 4 (non-transgenic and transgenic corn respectively, both at 33% dietary levels) both produced effects that were evidently significantly different from the six reference treatments (feeding groups 5 through 10) which also received 33% dietary corn. Since the original commenter above is not a toxicologist (but is a concerned citizen), and since neither he nor I are intimately familiar with the MON 863 transgenic event or the feeding regimes used in this study, perhaps it would be worthwhile at this time to have someone else comment on this facet of the study. More detailed explanation at this point (particularly since this study is more than 10 years old, thus past its useful lifespan as a proprietary study) could effectively allay the fears of lawyers and other sorts of people who are not well trained in the science of toxicology or the regulatory framework involving biologically active materials.

          • Mlema

            Good4U, I am the original commenter and also the one who supplied the link. It’s not easy to find online, but I had located it quite some time ago and I’m glad I was able to share it. It was prepared for the release of MON863 in Europe, where feeding trials are required (not the US/EPA). Regulatory agencies in Europe didn’t have access to the raw data (at least not in France) – and that’s where Greenpeace got involved. They petitioned a German court, which then ordered Monsanto to release the data – and that’s what you’re looking at. Seralini re-evaluated the data on his own, but he wasn’t the scientist who was commissioned by Germany to review the data. However, that scientist apparently came to the same conclusions. So, the reason this event has become so contentious, and has finally spawned “The Seralini Affair” is because Monsanto scientists decided that THEIR OWN study had good controls and that THEY THEMSELVES reported all significant findings. This isn’t uncommon. In the US, biotech companies also do their own testing and the FDA, EPA, USDA review it and then make the companies promise that if there’s any problem they’ll take responsibility. Newer GMOs don’t undergo the same scrutiny because they include the same traits, even if they’re stacked. And all of this even though we know that every event has a different effect on the plant and can give rise to unintended consequences. Scientific organizations say that each new GMO should be evaluated on its own.
            Here’s Seralini’s re-analysis:

            PS – I don’t think we have any lawyers weighing in on the toxicology. The lawyers got involved because Monsanto didn’t want to release the data.

          • Good4U

            You may be correct about the data on MON 863 not being released to France, at least initially. The pesticide regulatory process in the EU requires the data (feeding studies and much more) to be reviewed by the rapporteur member state (RMS), which in this case is Germany. Only when the RMS conducts a thorough review, and only if they approve of the proposed technology, do the other member states have a crack at the data. I don’t know about the case of MON 863 in the EU, or whether it even got as far as being proposed for approval in France, but if (as you say) Greenpeace got involved, that says a lot…. I won’t go there, and I certainly won’t comment on the
            Great Seralini circus showman. He doesn’t deserve any more attention than he’s already gotten.

            You are definitely incorrect on the U.S. regulatory process. The EPA (which is the lead agency, NOT the FDA or the USDA, for all pesticidally related technology) definitely DOES require feeding studies, i.e. toxicology studies, and in most cases environmental effects studies, on all pesticides and pesticidally related biotechnology. In the case of MON 863, the Bt corn is regulated by the EPA, and the EPA has sole authority to approve or disapprove of it before it is permitted to be sold (“distributed” per EPA terminology). The EPA would have reviewed this particular study in its entirety, as well as all other relevant data that the registrant (Monsanto) had generated in preparation to register MON 863 in the U.S. You should look into the EPA registration decision docket on MON 863 for a more detailed listing of the studies that they reviewed, and the findings of the regulatory experts who reviewed it..

          • Mlema

            I’m pretty sure MON863 was already growing in the US when Monsanto applied for EU approval. Greenpeace wasn’t the only group that requested release of the raw data. The Swedish Board of Agriculture was also a part of the request. Deregulation in the US is a cooperative effort between the USDA, EPA and FDA, depending on the plant. There were no feeding trials. In the US, the particular bt toxin is manufactured using microbes, and then tested for digestibility and allergenicity. The engineered plant isn’t investigated – even though the secondary metabolism of plants is much more complicated than bacteria – and able to produce unforeseen compounds. And again, I feel I must say: I’m not saying that happened. But without appropriate investigation, there’s no way to know what the resultant plant actually poses.

          • Good4U

            Your statements above about there being no feeding trials and the engineered plant not being investigated are obviously not correct. Those are what the study (the one that you provided) was all about! Do you understand what toxicology studies are, and for what reason they are performed?
            Also, we’re not talking about deregulation here at all. The MON 863 Bt corn is a regulated commodity. According to the U.S. EPA website it was registered in the U.S. in 2003, and its registration expired in 2010, thus is no longer active. In the U.S., the EPA, and only the EPA, is responsible for the regulation of plant incorporated protectants (PIPs), which are plants containing substances that mitigate pests, i.e. pesticides. What led you to believe the USDA and the FDA would be involved in the registration process involving pesticides or PIPs? Perhaps you should look into how the registration process works.

          • Mlema

            I thought I had explained: the Monsanto study was done for purposes of deregulation (which means it can be made commercially available) in EUROPE. The USA does not require such feeding studies.

            The USDA, FDA and EPA are all involved in regulatory oversight of GMOs. Do you want me to explain more or try to find a link where you can read about it?

          • Good4U

            Wrong again. The U.S. certainly does require feeding studies; and you are not at all familiar with the regulatory framework that pertains to this technology.

          • Mlema

            The US doesn’t require feeding studies. If you’re going to tell me I’m wrong again, please provide some evidence – since it’s impossible for me to provide evidence of something that’s not required.

          • Good4U

            Mlema, the evidence is in the EPA Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) document on glyphosate that I have cited several times, here once again:


            All of the feeding studies on glyphosate are listed there. All you have to do is look.

          • Mlema

            That’s an interesting coincidence on the name. I live in Indiana. 🙂

    • Good4U

      See my comments below (chronological order) on the MON 863 subchronic tox study. In addition to those comments, your allegation about not making sex distinctions among the raw data is incorrect. The data were clearly parsed between male and female test subjects, and once again you have made incorrect assumptions about the role of the German authorities with regard to their review of the raw data.

      • Mlema

        Between sexes there were differential sensitivities in triglycerides, and phosphorus and sodium excretions. But more important is the fact that Monsanto failed to report these – along with signs of hepatorenal toxicity.

        But the research needs to be redone by someone that both pro- and anti- GMO advocates are willing to trust. Because it seems that Monsanto didn’t use appropriate feed controls, and no one likes Seralini.

        • Good4U

          Wrong again. The data that you refer to are right in the report (the report that you linked, and which I reviewed, as stated below). You are making up a lot of junk, and don’t really know anything about the regulatory process.

          • Mlema

            Whatever man. How am I supposed to reply to that? I just told you what the data actually says. Monsanto failed to report statistically significant data. The report I linked you to wasn’t published. That’s what the fuss was all about. The data is only available for review by you and me because it was ordered to be made public, and it’s online, and people like me hunted it down and linked you to it. You ought to say “thank you”.

  • asyanagawa

    Don’t you think this author might be a little biased? She holds a high ranking position at a biotechnology company.

  • Ken Haas

    Thank you for the article. I have often felt frustrated when discussing any number of topics with those whose political views trend either to the right or left when certain hot button topics are raised. Arguing that there is no actual evidence to think that GMOs are known to be harmful with many of my liberal friends is usually as fruitless as trying to convince some of my more rightward leaning acquaintances of the possibility of human caused climate change. A look flickers across their face, and a mind slams shut. This depressingly too often seems to be the case even with intelligent, educated people. GMOs may possibly prove to have negative effects on health. Climate modeling is notoriously difficult. Unfortunately, too often people don’t seem to be arguing the actual matters at hand, but fleshing out a political or an almost religious stance that has little to do with data, science or anything other than a visceral reaction to what is perceived as a threatening idea.

  • FredLaMotte

    Just sayin,’ the far right denies science about climate change, the politically correct left denies science about GMO’s. The is the age when our politics dictate what science we select or reject, just as in the past age our politics dictated what Bible quotes we select or reject.

  • Top scientists just warned Monsanto’s herbicide probably causes cancer. It’s huge news and US regulators are scrambling to respond. But Monsanto is going all out to get the report retracted! Only a massive public campaign can get this poison suspended. Join the urgent call:


    Dear friends across the US,

    Top scientists warn the most commonly used herbicide in the world probably causes cancer! Monsanto is demanding the World Health Organisation retract their ground-breaking report. And experts say the only way to ensure the science is not silenced is if the public demands action, now.

    The regulatory system is renowned for being secretive and captured by the agro-chemical industry. But we have a unique moment right now — the US is officially reassessing glyphosate, with similar processes underway in Canada, Europe, and Brazil. And the Netherlands, Sri Lanka, and El Salvador are all looking at a ban.

    The threat is clear — this poison is used on our food, our fields, our playgrounds, and our streets. Let’s get it suspended. Join the urgent call and tell everyone:


    Monsanto is up in arms. Glyphosate brings in $6 billion per year. It is the basis of RoundUp, the chemical cornerstone of Monsanto’s Genetically Modified empire. The company says the WHO report ignored studies showing glyphosate is safe. But these scientists are 17 of the world’s top oncology experts, not a bunch of crazies! They comprehensively reviewed independent studies, excluding those done by companies seeking product approval.

    Regulators rely mainly on tests done by the companies trying to sell the poisons! Key results are kept from the public because they contain ‘commercially confidential information’. And last year the USDA did not even test food for glyphosate residues because, according to a spokesperson, it’s “extremely expensive”. It’s nuts, but that is the system we have. And that’s why it’s going to take all of us to make sure this crucial independent report isn’t ignored.

    Some countries have already put bans on glyphosate. Now with the EPA, the EU, Canada, and Brazil all reviewing it, we have an incredible chance to turn the tide worldwide.

    Fifty years ago Monsanto’s pesticide DDT was everywhere until the seminal book Silent Spring showed it could cause cancer — a decade later it was banned. If this could cause cancer, let’s not let it be sold for ten more years. Let’s demand emergency precautionary action now. Join now and spread the word:


    We’ve done it before — we helped win a moratorium on bee-killing neonicotinoids in the EU and stop a Monsanto mega seed factory in Argentina. Now let’s protect our health and make sure we aren’t being used as lab rats. This could be a breakthrough moment in the fight for the safe, sustainable agriculture our world needs.

    With hope,

    Bert, Marigona, Antonia, Oliver, Alice, Emily, Danny, Nataliya, Ricken and the whole Avaaz team

    More information:

    New study points to link between weedkiller glyphosate and cancer (FT)

    Monsanto seeks retraction for report linking herbicide to cancer (Reuters)

    Weed Killer, Long Cleared, is Doubted (New York Times)

    The Real Reason to Worry About GMOs (Mother Jones)

    Groups seek EPA glyphosate review after WHO ‘carcinogenic’ link (Agri Pulse)

    More sources:

  • Biologist

    You can’t say that an argument provided by an anti-GMO group is untrustworthy when you have cited an argument provided by Monsanto in the example directly above it.

    • science teacher

      ???? You’re a biologist??? (stay outta MY garden!)
      Just because you say something doesn’t make it true.
      Just because Monsanto says something doesn’t make it false.

      You’re a biologist??? You gotta be kiddin.’

  • Timmay!

    I began reading this “rebuttal”, hopeful that it contained authentic, contrary evidence to the most urgent and important concerns, as articulated by the “anti-GMO” narrative.

    I am notifying “Plos One” regarding your intentionally-misleading statements, using one of their peer-reviewed papers as evidence. The paper itself clearly supports the exact opposite conclusion, providing well-documented experimentation, measurement
    and results. Did you bother reading it at all?

    The Research Paper in question: “Complete Genes May
    Pass from Food to Human Blood” Published: July 30, 2013 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0069805.

    There is good reason why Plato tirelessly and successfully
    argued to make “Sophistry” unlawful and a punishable offense in
    Greece during his lifetime. Cicero famously revisited Sophistry’s nefarious and destructive measure, in order to save the Roman Republic of his time.

    Recognized as most insidious and undermining throughout
    history, our own legal-system has created and refined severe disciplinary measures for any, most specifically Attorneys, who would try “Sophistry” in any formal State or Federal court proceeding.

    Yet you employ, albeit incompetently, its practice for your own purpose of swaying opinion; with seemingly no care or thought of
    consequences, by its function or your intended result.

    Or, do I mistake Sophistry for shabby ignorance?

    Either way is no defense for libel, slander, fraud, etc.,
    notwithstanding the implications, were your superfluous reasoning the cause of unrestraint and catastrophe by your own pleadings to the contrary.

    The proliferation of “Genetically-Modified Organisms”
    (GMO) is a matter of permanent, terrestrial affectation, with as yet several, insufficiently addressed, long-term, potentially deleterious consequences.

    Given its engineered proclivity to overwhelm several
    species deemed “adversarial” by official-agreement, is it not reasonably warranted to provide overwhelming evidence of genetically-intact, survivability for all “non-adversarial”

    Are you aware of the necessity of natural “food-chains”?
    Have you any competent, empirical data supporting unhindered continuation and survivability of essential species inside the myriad of these comingled chains?

    Is it not for exactly these types of reasons that, in the
    not too distant past, the purveyor of such narrowly-focused mischief would have been branded a scoundrel, tarred, feathered and run out of town, bound-up, rear-facing on the back of an ass?

    The above referenced article, “Complete Genes May
    Pass from Food to Human Blood”, is but one of several cited sources that report findings in stark contrast and/or of a completely different conclusion to your representation of them.

    Were you hoping that nobody with sufficient aptitude would
    bother making an inquiry or comparison?

    Be advised that I am notifying the authors and/or copyright claimants of any others I subsequently discover.

    Your article contains documentable, libelous
    claims and assertions. All of these appear to be intentional when viewed according to the obviously biased “slant’ of this article’s content and form. Sadly, it is Sophistry in its most pedestrian form, crude and almost undeserving of even that description.

    In conclusion I ask, with all sincerity:
    Is there not anyone among us, possessing the honesty, integrity, expertise and functional literacy, proficient in the necessary writing and forensics skills, without personal, emotional, and or agenda-driven bias, who is able and willing to provide factual evidence that sufficiently dissolves the most urgent and pressing life/safety concerns, both near and long-term, to humans, plants, animals and the environment?

    Or shall we instead, pin our hopes of our existence upon
    the non-existent, sub-standard or “classified” testing-results and reassurances from those most handsomely rewarded by our subjugation to their endeavors? Only the incurably-ignorant and the insane would knowingly choose thusly.

  • Al Thompson

    Is it possible to be allergic to GMO. I been sick many years. Been poked tested for many things but no solutions. I’ve been switching foods without GMO and haven’t been vomiting .food stays down but nastu yellow oily looking fluids come up.

  • Doc brown

    I read the first paragraph… Don’t have to read anymore don’t have to read anymore your a fucking idiot. Dogs are not allergic to chocolate ask my 10 year old lab. You have no concept of how nematodes work. Jackass

    • Farmer Sue

      Your poor dog. Obviously you don’t take him to the vet to ask about chocolate for dogs. Do you vaccinate your children?

      And if you are going to call someone a F* idiot, please correct your grammar. It’s “You’re,” not “your.”

      I feel very sorry for you, your children, and your dog.

    • gmoeater

      The angrier you get, doc, the more you spew nonsense as well as vulgarity.

      “Dogs aren’t allergic to chocolate” — No, it’s not an allergy, but it IS toxic.

      Hey, why do you call yourself a doc if you know nothing about this? Weird.

  • Doc brown

    IG Farben the nazi company was split into its four largest original constituent companies, which remain some of the world’s largest chemical and pharmaceutical companies. The current main successor companies are AGFA, BASF, Bayer (also Monsanto in America) and Sanofi. If they control the food they control the health, they control the enviroment , the control the reproduction of the plant, they now control health care, they now control the america’s economy. Germany who makes all the poison will not allow it into their country. Do you work for them? Jackass!

    • hyperzombie

      BASF, Bayer

      BASF is the worlds largest chemical company and Bayer is the 3rd largest. Monsanto doesnt even crack the top 50.

      Germany who makes all the poison will not allow it into their country. Do you work for them? Jackass!

      Germany uses 2x more pesticides than the US per acre, including the herbicide made by Monsanto.

  • Doc brown

    As a beekeeper you all in america are going to bee fucked very soon. There is NO nature in GMO you will soon see the half life of 19 years will soon take this ignorant country down. You have no idea I’ve been in the Field 25 years. I see what the immune inhabitors and the fungicides with the repelents do and the round out up and the GMOs and many many more do. It is not one but a combo of poison that will destroy the stupid American.

    • hyperzombie

      It is not one but a combo of poison that will destroy the stupid American.

      Wouldn’t that apply to the EU more so considering they use 2x more pesticides per acre on average than Americans

    • Good4U

      Doc, don’t you remember the first principle: “Physician, heal thyself”. If you really are a “Doc” then you should refrain from using vulgar terminology such as “bee fucked” & the like. When you do that, nobody wants to hear anything more from you.

      • Doc brown

        When you work with all farmers across the u.s.a. , chemical farmers , cattle farmers, hay farmers, organic farmers, fruit farmers, nut farmers, hog farmers, turkey farmers and all types of american farmers. You get to see the big picture past fringe science. A half life of 19 years (for poison crops) you all may be fucked is a good term for the effects to the environment. I can’tlist all the many virables of effects and toxic concoctions that effect every chemistry in different ways. But after many years of beekeeping…
        when the canary dies in the mine shaft who’s next? To know nature you have to live in nature.

        • Good4U

          Doc, it appears that you fell off your rocker; not a good thing for someone at any age. In contrast with your dismal view of the agricultural world, I hold just the opposite opinion as you have expressed. In my long and varied career, I’ve worked with many types of farmers, including several of those that you listed. I find them to be generally well educated on their usage of modern technology to grow crops and raise livestock. I find them to be among the most responsible people when it comes to protection of the environment and the health of their customers, including themselves (they do eat their own food, you know). The more competent farmers in our society today have put aside the “fringe science” (the sort of airy-fairy baloney that justifies “organic” marketeering, homeopathy, naturalistic miracle cures, aromatherapy, and the like), and rely upon well founded research that comes from the land grant institutions that have proven to be successful in protecting our food supply from diseases and pests.

          By the way, though, there’s no such thing as a “chemical farmer” per your terminology. Since you are a self-professed “Doc”, you should know that chemicals are what all living things are made of. In plain fact, you are just a pile of chemicals. Just quit making the rest of us sick with your blatant profanity.

        • gmoeater

          Hey, doc; lots of speculation. Lots of fear. Lots of paranoia about science. No credibility or compelling / documented points.

    • If English is your second language, why not ask for some help in writing your comments?

    • Loren Eaton

      Come again??

      • Sounds like a threat, to me. Perhaps he keeps killer bees?

  • Michael Javert

    A lot of what you say here is also flawed. One example is, you cited that chocolate is toxic to dogs, but that we don’t think about it might being toxic to us… Dogs aren’t effected by the chocolate itself. Caffeine and theobromine is what is toxic to dogs. Not chocolate itself. Also milk chocolate contains 44-64 mg theobromine per ounce of chocolate — so
    an average sized 80-pound Lab would need to ingest approximately 30-50
    ounces of milk chocolate for a toxic dose. That is almost 3 pounds of
    milk chocolate! However, unsweetened baking chocolate contains 450 mg
    theobromine per ounce of chocolate. That means that same 80-pound Lab
    would be at a toxic dose after only 3.5 ounces!

    Also, this derails the topic. We aren’t talking about chocolate. We are talking about genetic modification which is done for the purpose of putting more chemicals on food which has made people and their dogs sick, which has also killed people, and their dogs. So to say that GMOS and Glyphosate is not harmful, you’re either profoundly stupid, or you work for the biotech industry and are a liar. I find it odd that Dr. Oz, Dr Sanjay Gupta, and Dr. Joseph Mercola only get called a quack AFTER they speak up about roundup and GMOS. Never before.

    • Good4U

      Your statement about genetic modification being “done for the purpose of putting more chemicals on food” derails the topic. It’s done for just the opposite purpose. Your brain is rotating 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Your statements depict you as a Dr. Oz type, i.e. you are either profoundly stupid or you work for the big business industry that uses terms like “organic” to sell food to people with more money than brains.

      • Michael Javert

        You’re a hypocrite. The topic is not derailed and those of you that think that GMOS are okay, and that vaccines are the problem are the one with wrong way thinking. You are either profoundly stupid or you work for Monsanto. And the only one that has more money than brains is Monsanto and the pharmaceutical industry they work for.

        In case you are profoundly stupid, which if you are, I might as well be having this conversation with my dining room table, but I am going to try and explain this to you anyway. Pay careful attention.

        Food is being genetically modified to withstand “roundup” because otherwise, “roundup” will kill it. Roundup kills everything. In genetic modification, they switch on ALL cells. Every living thing has cancer cells in it. When you go switching cancer cells of that seed on, you are creating a plant that can also cause cancer in everything that consumes that plant, and it is done for the purpose of surviving the roundup that is sprayed on it.

        Just the fact that I have to explain this to you, suggests you’re profoundly stupid, and if you deny it, the obviously, you’re a liar. Dr. Oz isn’t profoundly stupid, and funny thing is, NO ONE had a problem with him, until he went after Roundup and Monsanto, specifically. So it’s highly likely you’re a part of the “Monsanto Mafia” AKA a corporate NAZI that only cares about money and don’t care who you make sick, or who you kill to get more money, which is genocide. You’re the very definition of a Nazi, and you’re also a liar, and you throw up shadows to try and derail the truth by saying I am derailing the topic when I have not.

        • hyperzombie

          When you go switching cancer cells of that seed on, you are creating a plant that can also cause cancer in everything that consumes that plant

          Wow, i really think you need to learn far more about genetics, cancer, and agriculture. All crops are naturally resistant to at least one herbicide, there are plants that are resistant to glyphosate .

          NO ONE had a problem with him, until he went after Roundup and Monsanto, specifically.

          No, I think it was when he started promoting magic beans.

        • Good4U

          Bzzzzzt! You lost! You missed me by a mile with your “work for Monsanto” shot. I don’t work for Monsanto, never have, You must feel like a fool every day of your life with your shooting yourself in the foot all the time. You’re probably just an angry little man with nothing more to do than spout mindless drivel. People don’t wish to be near you when you speak, what with all that spit-spewing from your pie-hole.

          It’s often been said that one learns nothing from speaking, only from listening. So, Michael, try to listen and pay careful attention here…..
          Food (some food) has been genetically modified to AVOID being killed by “roundup” (your terminology). That means the food is not dead. It’s alive. Only the weeds are killed. Now do you get it? Probably not, but at least I’ve tried. Some people just can’t get past kindergarten.

  • Jari Natunen

    The fact is currently, that there is NO scientific concensus that GMOs would be absolutely safe as the lobby wants to claim.
    This is true because
    1) WHO has indicated the herbicide glyfosate as a probable carcinogen and there is residue of it with round up(glyphosate) resistant GMO-products. There cannot be consensus on all product if there is no concensus on this single type.
    2) There is scientific consensus that the data about GMOs is still inconclusive even with regard to existing products.
    I wish to warn about non-scientific generalizations, that it would be possible make general conclusions for technology or products in general based on a few product on the market. The technology can be used to create human immunogenic or allergenic product on purpose or by accident, and there are limitations in testing such activities.


    • JoeFarmer

      If you were really a PhD biochemist, you wouldn’t be trotting out a link to ENSSER!

      • hyperzombie


        I dont even know how ENSSER even posted a web page, wifi and fire resistant plastics cause all kinds of illnesses, maybe they typed it up on a old fashioned typewriter and sent it to a web publisher via pigeon?

        • JoeFarmer

          It would be interesting to know how much contribution to environmental pollution is caused by the anti-GMO bunch’s internet footprint.

          • They only use organic Internet providers, so all their opinions are sustainable.

      • Jari Natunen

        I’m experienced scientist and PhD in biochemistry,
        and it would not be any problem to prove that.
        You may google my thesis 1999 University of Helsinki.
        Possibly you Joe would like to show your academic
        credibility to make claims on sciences?

        My understanding is that
        a) WHO has made reasonably good work with glyphosate and cancer.
        This would also support the then inconclusive rat cancer studies
        by Seralini and colleagues 2012 (and I know that you may have
        an opinon about Searalini, even though you likely not have
        read the article and studied real facts).
        b) The arguments presented by 300 real PhD/professor level
        scientists in a peer reviewed jornal and ENSSER web page, that there is no concensus on GMOsafety are solid to my understanding.
        They agree with the WHO glyphosate finding. As glyphosate residue would most likely exist in round-resistant food products
        there is reasonable concern about these GMOs.

        Scientific judgement should be made based on scientific
        facts, not opinions of blogists. Toxicology or medicine are apparently not the best skills of plant genetics scientist

        • @Jari — It’s really courageous of you to use the (retracted) Seralini 2012 paper to support your argument! Please tell us exactly what you conclude is the most credible result—and why.

          The ENSSER declaration relies heavily on Seralini and Carman—wouldn’t it be wonderful to ask the 300 signatories to publicly defend these two scandalous papers?

          • Jari Natunen

            Reason is simple: I have read the article and arguments for and against. I have also considered later arguments by WHO, which consider glyphosate probable animal and even human carcinogen. Seralini 2012 was retrected by Elsevier and republished under peer-review in aSpringer journal. Bellow is link to letter explaining the reasons for retraction.There is no mistake or abuse, it just that the cancer/mortality data is inconclusive, which appears not to be eligible reason according to journal rules. The publication was made based on the correct toxicology standard of OECD and includes non-disputed data about liver and kidney toxicity. The standard requires reporting also potential tumor data. Following document looks like correct and original though available from a political source like this blog.


          • Jari Natunen

            Actually the board, which decided about retraction contained originally professor Richard Goodman, a former employee of Monsanto, who was appointed as a GMO editor by Elsevier after Seralini publication. It would appear that the conclusion of the highly skilled toxicologists, that there was no abuse or mistake in Seralini 2012, may at least partly include Goodman, who appears to be respectd by this forum.
            To me the Seralini saga appears to be a high caliber witch hunt, and a possible role of Monsanto cannot be excluded by a critical reader.
            So Peter Olins, its your turn to defend your position about the scandal.

          • @Jari — Rather than debating the politics, since you are a self-declared PhD Biochemist, please tell what YOU consider to be the most compelling CONCLUSION from the Seralini 2012 paper, including your reasoning. I have read it three times, and each time it was more depressing. Debunking the study design would be a great exercise for an undergraduate biology class, and I can only conclude that the “University” of Caen has minimal academic oversight.

            But Jari, please convince us otherwise, preferably with actual science. Just don’t resort to links to activist websites: that’s what graduates of Google University would do.

          • Jari Natunen

            “self declared” .. I do not recognize an academic scientist from the arrogant way of presenting opinions.
            I have referred to my understanding correct documents of publisher Elsevier, here is link to original site http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0278691513008090/1-s2.0-S0278691513008090-main.pdf?_tid=5fe3af48-faf7-11e4-81db-00000aab0f27&acdnat=1431690290_e3d85cb769f11994082919f3297b8c19

            I don’t have the original Seralini-paper, but I have understood the Springer 2014 republished version is essentially the same. This may possibly be reason for the disagreement?

            You are most welcome to debunk the arguments and the two journals with your graduate class

          • @Jari — The Seralini group administered glyphosate in the drinking water at four concentrations, over the lifespan of the rats (zero, 50 parts per TRILLION, 400 ppm, and 2250 ppm). The total number of tumors found (palpable, non-regressive) for the four doses were:

            males: 13, 8, 8, 16
            females: 19, 26, 21, 30

            How can you possibly say that this paper supports the idea that glyphosate is carcinogen?! Did you truly read the paper? Perhaps I missed something critical, if so, I’d be glad to be corrected.

            (BTW The “republished” Seralini actually has several changes from the original, but that is a separate issue).

          • Skeptologist

            It gets even weirder if you look at the mortality data in that paper. Male rats drinking water laced with RoundUp lived LONGER than the controls.

          • Of course, the other confounding factor is that one of the co-authors has a Diploma in Homeopathy—let’s hope he wasn’t responsible for filling the rats’ water bottles. Or perhaps 50 parts per trillion is still in the “toxic” rather than protective range?

          • Jari Natunen

            I think there is an agreement at least in the 2014 paper that the cancer data of Seralini is inconclusive with regard to the OECD cancer standard. Having said that the total tumors is one thing and how early they occur is another.

            If there is a possibly inconclusive suggestion of earlier cancer incidence in a paper done, by a standard requiring reporting the tumors, what would a scientist do: A) Start a witch hunt, B) look for a possibility for further studies to clarify the issue

            As you suggest that there is no good data in Seralini, I think that the liver, kidney and other toxicity data have not been disputed by Elsevier or others. It would appear that these would be the same standard elongation of the Monsanto studies with indication of similar effects.
            If your science class can show with scientific arguments that all the results of Seralini are wrong, I would be happy to arrange the class showing that there is at least equally good reason take the undisputed results seriously.

            With regard to homeopathy argument. Seralini tested full round up formulation, which with the lipid/surfactant part is a drug delivery system against the plants, and may well be similar with regard to mammalian GI tract.

          • @Jari — “Inconclusive” is a strange choice of word: I think that “meaningless” is more appropriate. If I take a coin, toss it three times, and it comes up “heads” every time, does this mean that it is a 2-headed coin? Or is the experiment simply “inconclusive”?

            It is relatively easy to calculate how many coin tosses would be required for there to be a high likelihood that this really is a 2-headed coin.
            Biological research is obviously much more complicated, and requires both careful experimental design and cautious interpretation (especially when it causes suffering to a large number of animals). The 2012 Seralini study had many obvious design flaws (verging on the comical); they also chose not to apply the most straightforward statistical tests. I think the reason for this is pretty obvious: no conclusions could be drawn!

            In my opinion, the real scandal was that reviewers showed a remarkable lack of competence, and the editor still has his job.

            Seralini could easily have republished his work, including all the data he claimed “would not fit into one paper”, and revising his interpretation to address the many complaints from his critics. He chose not to.

            As I suggested earlier, if you continue to be impressed by the Seralini paper, please refer to a specific set of data and interpretations (or provide a link to more detailed analysis, if you wish). I would also encourage you to review the numerous letters to the Editor from members of the scientific community:

            (BTW The homeopathy comment was meant to be a joke—clearly not a very effective one).

          • Jari Natunen

            Elsevier or the critics I’ve read have not contested the toxicology data, only inconclusive carcinogenesis data, which according to the toxicology OECD standard used was not even aimed to be conclusive carcinogenesis (like the Monsanto model). The data was accepted after peer-review 2014 in another journal including more material. Basicly the article has been peer-reviewed 3 times including the Elsevier retraction, which could not find any mistake or abuse.
            There has been beside other findings also inconclusive date in numerous other articles such as the earlier Monsanto paper, but this has not been a scandal.
            There is clearly two opinions in this matter, there has been professor level discussion that the editor editor made a big mistake by retracting the article, e.g.:

            Environ Health Perspect. 2014
            Feb; 122(2): A36.
            Published online 2014 Feb 1. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1408106

            Here is evidence, that many of critics hide their conflicting Monsanto interests, which is a violation of scientific conduct.

          • Jari Natunen

            To ensure the ethics quality of this discussion,
            I declare no conflicting interest in this matter,
            except eating food, breathing air, visiting parks and drinking water.
            What about you Peter?

          • Solutions not judgements

            Hey Jari, follow my friend Sage Thinker. He has some really good thoughts on what is occurring in the human gut microbiota. I think you would be interested to read what he speaks about. Speaking with people like Peter olins, rod herman, and many other chemical and biotech promoters they have not provided sufficient information. You are wasting your time speaking with these gentlemen. Also, at times, they aren’t quite so gentle men.

  • guest

    This article claims that all of the studies in
    this article are not credible since several hidden factors were not
    considered in many of them, and the information obtained from them do
    not directly prove that GMOs were what caused the harm. However, this
    fact should be a reason against GMOs in and of itself. Why should you
    eat some mysterious byproduct of mixing genes of two different
    organisms, when scientists don’t even know for sure the direct effects of doing
    this? Better be on the safe side, and stay with non-GMO products, so you
    don’t purposefully make yourself the lab rat in this giant experiment
    the government is allowing scientists to play on us.

  • Art

    It is like “It is scientific, the cigarettes are good for you”… oh yeah it is scientific the GMOs are good for you now, but I saw at least 20 studies that GMO wheat crops poisoned guinea pigs, created lots of different types of cancers. I haven’t seen one single proper study proving they are safe. Could you share couple?

    • hyperzombie

      “It is scientific, the cigarettes are good for you”

      When did science say that cigs were good for you? The first study linking cancer to tobacco was back in 1903.

      but I saw at least 20 studies that GMO wheat crops poisoned

      Strange because there is no GMO wheat.

      Here is a link to over 1700 studies proving that GMOs are as safe or safer than conventional bred plants.


  • beth hunt

    This is what we do know: The chemical/seed companies
    (Monsanto) are SO protective of their seed and they WILL not support
    anyone (independent researcher) who is not in their pocket to
    research their product (Monsanto is heavily funding Universities that do their
    studies). They (independent scientists) have been asking for samples of the
    pre-modified and modified version of their seed for testing and have been
    flat-out denied. Does Monsanto care to ensure the public on the safety of their
    products, allowing different perspectives? It is happening with or without their helo WE Americans are buying and consuming this food that occupies 80% of our grocery stores. Don’t American’s have the right to question this without being slapped down for it?

    • Evidence, please, before indulging in rhetoric.

      • Bee

        So what I hear you implying
        is that research on GMO seeds/crops
        are permissible without signing any agreement restricting it? And that any
        scientist that state otherwise are misleading the public? Peter can you tell me what authority
        you have on this subject to be able to confirm or deny allegations made by the
        private scientific community making these claims?

        • I’m not implying anything, I’m asking a question. Can you share a source of actual information? I find it hard to have an opinion without information.

    • hyperzombie

      They (independent scientists) have been asking for samples of the
      pre-modified and modified version of their seed for testing and have been
      flat-out denied.

      Why didn’t they just go to the local Ag supply store and buy some? It is not that hard really. Or they could have just bought some for the feed suppliers.

      • Bee

        Monsanto and other GMO companies restrict access to their seeds for independent researchers. Anyone who buys Monsanto’s patented GM seed has to sign a technology agreement saying they will not use the seeds or crop for research or pass them to anyone else for that purpose. Even if permission to carry out research is given, companies typically retain the right to block publication if the results are ‘not flattering’, according to Scientific American. – See more at: http://newint.org/features/2015/04/01/monsanto-science-safety/#sthash.jiLAfPOq.dpuf

        • Beth, sorry to disabuse you of that myth, but it’s not correct. That was true in 2007, but is no longer the case–that’s been well reported. Claire Robinson, who wrote that screed, is head of a well known anti-GMO/anti-Monsanto propaganda group, and the site is pure journalistic horse manure. Follow real science sites and you will not swallow such propaganda.

          • Bee

            I am thankful that the American
            people are becoming aware of GMOs. GMOs
            are a great solution to starvation and drought, but research needs to continue. To me the bigger and more important question
            is, who are the companies involved with GMOs and would/have they put public
            heath before corporate greed? What is their past- record? Have they ever put
            public health at risk? Monsanto (Google their history), the
            leader of GMO seed has put the public health at risk more than few times; therefore,
            I am VERY concerned about the GMOs that they are producing. I’d like to see GMOs up for discussion, not dictated.

          • hyperzombie

            Monsanto of today is not the same as the old Monsanto, they sold the chemical bussiness many years ago and now just focus on Ag products and services.

          • Bee

            The herbicide Roundup (Monsanto) is sold in
            stores today and generously used on GMO products. The World Health Organization released a report that roundup is
            CANCEROUS. I’m sure they will dispute this as well. Here is the document
            released by WHO:


            Agent Orange used on Vietnam by Monsanto and Dow company, will be also be available at you local grocery stores soon!


          • hyperzombie

            The herbicide Roundup (Monsanto) is sold in
            stores today and generously used on GMO products.

            By generously you mean 16 oz per acre, try spraying a large soda evenly over an entire soccer field and then explain how that is generous?

            Organization released a report that roundup is

            Well it is a suspected carcinogen, right up there with orange oil, coconut oil, some soaps, hairdressing and shift work, but way lower than coffee, booze and sunshine.

            Agent Orange used on Vietnam by Monsanto and Dow company, will be also be available at you local grocery stores soon!

            LOL, you mean 2-4-D,,,,you can buy it today it is in Weed n Feed type products and your grandpa was probably buying it, it has been around for over 80 years now.

          • “Generously” is an extreme rate of application—usually it’s just “doused” or “drenched”.

          • hyperzombie

            Flooded with glyposate is the best one.

          • Farmer Sue

            Ha! Ha! As if farmers want to spend that kind of money “generously” “dousing” or “drenching” their fields! haha!
            So NOT the case.
            Bee, honey, talk to a friggin’ farmer, will you?

          • Actually the facts are the opposite of what you claim. Per acre toxicity if herbicides has fallen steadily for 20 years and use of insecticides where BT crops are used are down 10 fold. facts matter.

          • Good you admit you were wrong. As for moving to “pesticide free farming”, that’s impossible and no farmer, organic or conventional, supports that. Many organic farms, depending upon the crop, use far more pesticides than do organic farmers. You views sound silly. All crops–ALL–have natural pesticides built . Engineering them in such as in Bt crops-is the words most sustainable technology. targeted synthetic pesticides that do not harm beneficial insects are far superior to some organic practices. Your rant against all pesticides including those built in plants naturally is dangerous and right wing/reactionary. Are you a shill for the Republican Party? Sounds like it.

          • Farmer Sue

            “Dictated” ??? Who dictates use of gmo seeds? To whom? You don’t really think farmers are forced to buy genetically engineered seeds, do you?

      • Bee

        If you were to escape a law suit by Monsanto who files 500 patent infringement cases against independent/organic farmers a year, for cross-contamination. You don’t think they would discredit the article? See what Monsanto is doing to the farming industry : http://law.emory.edu/elj/_documents/volumes/64/1/comments/wilson.pdf

        • hyperzombie

          If you were to escape a law suit by Monsanto who files 500 patent infringement cases against independent/organic farmers a year, for cross-contamination.

          There has never even been one case of patent infringement cases against any independent/organic farmers ever, for cross-contamination.

          It has never happened, Monsanto does sue farmers, for stealing the tech, but only about 150 times in the last 20 years.

          The OSGATA couldnt name one case where Monsanto sued for cross contamination.


          • Bee

            The Organic Seed plaintiffs’ complaint detailed Monsanto’s abusive business and litigation tactics that have put several farmers and independent seed companies out of business. They also detailed Monsanto’s history of ruthless patent enforcement, going so far as investigating as many as 500 farmers each year for patent infringement by trespassing onto their land.


            Ruling by United States Court of Appeals
            for the Federal Circuit:: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/12-1298.Opinion.6-6-2013.1.PDF

          • hyperzombie

            that have put several farmers and independent seed companies out of business.

            No one was put out of business, everyone of the farmers are still farming or renting out their land. The only one that may have gone out of buiness is the seed cleaner Mr. Mo Parr, but advertising that he would clean Roundup ready soy so farmers don’t have to pay Royalties, was his down fall. I mean really, He was warned 3 times, yet still kept advertising the same way, you cant prevent stupid.

            going so far as investigating as many as 500 farmers each year for patent infringement by trespassing onto their land.

            Not per year, total since 2009. Considering that they have millions of customers, not many at all.
            Always, remember if you patent something, or anything really, if you dont protect that patent, you loose the patent.

            Once again OSGATA lost because they could not show one instance of any farmer being sued for cross contamination.

          • Farmer Sue

            Right. And seeds have been patented since 1930.

          • hyperzombie

            And some crops are not just patented they are trademarked as well, like Canola and Pink lady Apples.

          • The claim was 500 cases of trespass per year (evidence?). These must be pretty wimpy farmers: any farmer I have ever known would have said “get the fuck off my land”, but in this case a lawsuit was the obvious remedy.

    • Some strong claims, here, Beth. Can you share some more detail to support them? I am truly interested in where people get the information that influences their opinions.

  • Tink

    I haven’t read the comments yet, so I don’t know if this has been mentioned, but your link to the criticisms of the Seralini paper in #4 is broken – it takes you to a “Page not found.”