Hillary Clinton is Just Plain Wrong on GMOs

[eridani]

http://www.nationofchange.org/hillary-clinton-just-plain-wrong-gmos-1409579916

In her June 25 keynote address to the BIO International Convention in San Diego, Calif., Hillary Clinton voiced strong support for genetic engineering and genetically engineered crops. She earned a standing ovation that day by stating that the biotech industry suffers from a public perception problem and that it just needs “a better vocabulary” in order to persuade GMO skeptics who don’t understand “the facts” about genetic engineering.

And then Hillary proceeded to get the facts wrong.

Why does it matter what Hillary, who holds no public office and has not (yet) declared her candidacy for president, says or believes about genetic engineering and genetically modified crops and foods?

It doesn’t—unless she throws her hat in the ring for the Democratic nomination. And then it matters not just what her position is on GMOs, not just how deep her financial ties to the biotech industry run, not just how much she distorts the facts about the “promise” of biotech crops.

It matters, deeply, to more than 90 percent of Americans, what her position is on laws requiring mandatory labeling of GMOs in food and food products.

If elected, will Hillary support consumers’ right to know? Or will she support the DARK (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act, a bill introduced in Congress earlier this year, which if passed, will preempt state GMO labeling laws?

[HooptieWagon]

1. She's paid well to be wrong.

How much has Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland, etc, given her?

[AtomicKitten]

3. my guess would be

a lot

[area51]

116. +1 n/t

[LWolf]

60. Yes.

As are way too many Democrats.

[Enthusiast]

172. +1 a whole fucking bunch.

[HuckleB]

313. How much has the wealthy spent to subdue the science?

http://www.thenation.com/article/180988/can-gmos-help-feed-hot-and-hungry-world?page=full#

[Cha]

2. We agree on this, eridani.

[eridani]

4. It would be a good thing if Clinton supporters contacted

--Ready for Hillary and other such groups on this matter.

[Cha]

5. Yes, those who care about our environment. We're fighting GMOs tooth and nail so

to speak on the Islands here.

[HuckleB]

134. Yes, because we really want our candidates to ignore science!

Wait. What?

[eridani]

170. Why do some people thing that "science" = "corporate domination"?

There is nothing about science that intrinsically favors corporate dictatorship, and that's what Hillary Goldman Sachs is advocating.

[Generic Other]

180. Someone hijacked your whole thread to force feed us

[HuckleB]

299. I get it.

Reality is so much more complex than fiction-based fear mongering.

Still, it you are actually a progressive, you will go with reality.

[HuckleB]

298. Why do you think that you can ignore science by pushing bad propaganda?

http://www.thenation.com/article/180988/can-gmos-help-feed-hot-and-hungry-world?page=full#

[eridani]

320. Great--let's make monarch butterflies extinct with pesticides

As long is it's the excess pesticide that is directly responsible instead of the genetic modification that allows the plants to survive humungous doses of it, why that just makes it peachy keen, right?

"The explosion of the Roundup Ready market may have environmental upsides. One biotech researcher I spoke with noted that the use of Roundup Ready seed has reduced reliance on even more toxic agricultural chemicals, and US Department of Agriculture data concur. Roundup is considered more benign than many herbicides: it tends not to linger in the soil and is sometimes used even in places like nature preserves to beat back aggressive weeds. But few chemicals intended to poison plants or pests are entirely harm-free, and new research indicates that Roundup could be more damaging than previously thought: it may contribute to miscarriages and interfere with fetal development. And around the country, weeds that are resistant to Roundup are proliferating. Dow Agrosciences, a division of Dow Chemical and another major player in agribusiness, is about to release a new generation of genetically modified crops that tolerate a more powerful and persistent herbicide—2,4-D, a potential neurotoxin."

“GMO efforts may have started off with good intentions to improve food security,” Foley wrote in a column in the science magazine Ensia in February, “but they ended up in crops that were better at improving profits.”

Down the road, in Sebastapol, I found a small organic farm that made this convincing. Paul Kaiser drove up to meet me in front of his barn in a small green tractor, then walked me through the densely planted rows spanning his two acres of crop fields, filled with roughly 150 varieties of vegetables. “We earn over $100,000 per crop acre per year,” he says. (By contrast, the average revenue from an acre of California cabbages or cucumbers in 2012 was about $6,000 to $8,000, according to the state’s Department of Food and Agriculture.) Kaiser credits his soil-management practices for his financial success.

Before farming, he worked in agroforestry, restoring fields in the tropics that were so overgrazed they could barely grow grass. To Kaiser, the question of engineering any single plant is unimportant compared with a larger picture involving soil, water, bees, and the various other insects and birds that can thrive on an organic farm and provide natural pest control. Kaiser supports the ban in Sonoma County: “Unless we can prove that a GMO crop is fully safe and beneficial to everything that it touches—the pollinators, the soil it’s grown in, the watershed and our body—we shouldn’t be using it,” he says.

Just claiming safety for human ingestion is only a small part of the issue.

[CentralMass]

6. Here is a link to an NPR article on the decline of the Monarch Butterfly population

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/01/31/monarch-butterfly-population

To cut to the chase the plants that the Monarchs feed on during their complex migratory life cycle back and forth between Mexico and the U.S. are being wiped out by the use of weed killing chemicals such a Roundup being sprayed in the large agricultural fields on GMO crops designed to withstand them. Plants such a milk weeds are being eradicated. The researchers liken the drop in the Monarch population to the canary in the coal mine and that continuing down this path will kill biodiversity resulting in the loss of many species.

[pnwmom]

47. Here's one. There are plenty out there.

This is just the first one I found googling.

http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2012/may/26/twenty_years_ago_today_dan_quayle_announces_policy

Exactly 20 years ago today, Vice President Dan Quayle announced a new policy by the first Bush administration that declared genetically engineered foods to be “substantially equivalent” to foods that farmers had traditionally planted and bred for thousands of years.

With this single policy, the U.S. government radically altered the food supply, introducing novel genes into our food that have been genetically altered in laboratories and never before consumed by humans. While the technology of genetic engineering was brand new, corporate executives at Monsanto colluded with elected officials to make sure that their new “products” were place onto the market as quickly as possible.

The Bush/Quayle 1992 policy, crafted by former Monsanto attorney Michael Taylor, who had been hired by the Bush FDA to fill a new position of deputy commissioner of policy, was designed to fast track approvals of GMOs and guarantee the new seed technology avoid rigorous safety testing and labeling, or as stated, “burdensome regulation”.

Two decades later, Americans are still denied the basic right to know what’s in their food because of this infamous policy, despite the fact that polls regularly show that 90% of Americans believe in labeling GMOs.

SNIP

[bvar22]

102. BTW, that same Monsanto Attorney Michael Taylor you mention above....

...was appointed by President Obama as the "Food Safety Czar" at the Food & Drug Administration (FDA).


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/youre-appointing-who-plea_b_243810.html

[pnwmom]

104. That's unfortunate. n/t

[truedelphi]

107. Yep it is unfortunate. And it is unfortunate that over the last

40 years, neither of the Mainstream politial parties has yet to have a Presidential contender who was not totally supportive of the GMO crowd of companies.

[Enthusiast]

173. And what does that tell us?

What does it tell us about the President? I won't say it.

[Nye Bevan]

7. I don't see a huge difference between anti-GMO folks and anti-vaxxers.

Happy to see that Hillary has a sensible position here.

[CentralMass]

8. I don't think that your comparison is a good one.

As one example, there are GMO crops being designed to be resistant to very potent weed killing chemicals that are applied to kill any plants that are not modified. This kills off many other plants species that are a critical part of the ecosystem which in turn can kill off animal or insect specifies who feed on them.

[Enthusiast]

174. Plus one. You are correct.

It is the weed killing chemicals not the GMO plants themselves that are doing the harm. Monsanto would have us believe Roundup is as safe as mother's milk. That is not the case.

[HuckleB]

212. You are making many claims, but offering no peer reviewed evidence.

The comparison is quite valid. GMOs have been proven to be safe for people and the environment, often far more safe than other types of food products. Pretending otherwise is pure dishonesty.

[eridani]

9. Hillary is pro-Monsanto corporate sociopathology

GMOs exist so that Monsanto can control the food supply and sue the shit out of small operators. (Monsanto hasn't lost a suit yet.) Who the fuck are you or Hillary to tell us that we have to support that with our consumer dollars?

[Texano78704]

10. Exactly!

Thanks!

[pnwmom]

12. They are entirely separate issues. No one ever decreed in 1992 that henceforth

all vaccines would be deemed to be safe, unless researchers could prove there was a risk; and then prevented independent researchers from doing the research.

But that's what happened with GMO's. The GHWBush FDA declared that all GMO's would automatically be considered safe; and they also allowed producers to prevent researchers from having access to their seeds unless they signed contracts limiting their right to publish results.

[CSStrowbridge]

18. What?

"and then prevented independent researchers from doing the research. "

There have been hundreds of independent studies on GMOs. If your position is based on a lie, you should change your position.

[pnwmom]

22. They would not allow their seeds to be used in research unless these "independent" researchers

signed contracts agreeing not to publish without the permission of the producers.

So you might consider these researchers to be independent, but I don't.

We have no way of knowing how much GMO research has been suppressed by these "independent" researchers. All we know is that the producers retained veto power. If risks were found in any GMO product, they could suppress the results and we would never know. This way they could always argue that no GMO had ever been found to pose any risks.

From The Scientific American:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/

Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.

To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.

Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering. “It is important to understand that it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough,” wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University, in a letter to an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops), “but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how ‘friendly’ or ‘hostile’ a particular scientist may be toward [seed-enhancement] technology.”

Shields is the spokesperson for a group of 24 corn insect scientists that opposes these practices. Because the scientists rely on the cooperation of the companies for their research—they must, after all, gain access to the seeds for studies—most have chosen to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. The group has submitted a statement to the EPA protesting that “as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the tech­nol­ogy.”

SNIP

[Tumbulu]

40. No there have not been

Any scientist who wanted to study gmo's back in the late 80's got sacked, I know a few of them. They got rid of any scientist who questioned the safety of the technology and then putt major limits on who got to study the products.

Very sleazy and no way should any of these people be trusted.

[laundry_queen]

221. + a million

Sleazy is right. Them and their tactics...all sleazy.

[HuckleB]

78. Her position is based on old information.

It's the usual anti-GMO routine. Never, ever be fully honest, because you can't be honest if you want to con people into fearing plants developed by GE technology.

[jeff47]

21. That's 'cause the anti-GMO people don't have a mechanism for the GMO to cause harm.

Vaccines have known mechanisms of causing harm. We know something can go wrong, and kill people.

Nobody's managed to find a mechanism where GMOs could cause harm. Our digestive tract is pretty damn effective at reducing what we eat into its component parts, whether the food is GMO or not.

(ETA: That is independent of glyphosate or similar chemicals applied to the crops causing harm to the broader environment. But if your problem is glyphosate, ban glyphosate.)

Sure, there are people claiming "well, there could be some way they could hurt people". And I can come up with a way where your dishwasher could lead to a nuclear explosion. But until they actually produce a mechanism and demonstrate it is possible, there's as much reason to test GMOs for danger as testing dishwashers for risk of nuclear explosion.

Come up with a mechanism, and win a Nobel. Go down in history next to Pauling, Watson and Crick. Yet people keep failing to do so.

and they also allowed producers to prevent researchers from having access to their seeds unless they signed contracts limiting their right to publish results.

Nope. Want GMO seeds? Go to the grocery store. You can plant the seeds from the corn on the cob. Without signing any agreement. Wanna claim the US government would stop you? You do realize there are biologists in other countries, right?

[pnwmom]

23. They don't need one. We don't have a mechanism of action for many drugs

that we know have an affect, and have been used for decades.

Just because our knowledge of human physiology isn't advanced enough to prove a mechanism of action doesn't mean there isn't one.

[jeff47]

24. And we test them because we have even more drugs that cause harm

For example, allergic reactions. Or unforeseen interactions with other parts of the body. There are lots of ways that new drugs can hurt people.

We don't know of any way eating a GMO can hurt people. Every mechanism tested so far has failed. And we have zero evidence of harm in the greater population.

Just because our knowledge of human physiology isn't advanced enough to prove a mechanism of action doesn't mean there isn't one.

Just because or knowledge of thermonuclear physics isn't advanced enough to prove dishwashers can cause nuclear explosions doesn't mean they can't.

ETA: or to bring it back to your original reply, "Just because our knowledge of human physiology isn't advanced enough to prove a mechanism of action doesn't mean there isn't one." is something also frequently stated by the anti-vaxx movement.

[pnwmom]

25. Without labeling, there is zero way of determining zero harm in the greater population.

And we don't have labeling, as you know.

[jeff47]

27. Sure there is.

Many countries in Europe banned GMOs due to the paranoia surrounding them.

You now have a natural experiment.

If GMOs cause harm, you should see a large difference between people in the US and people in France. And that difference should be much greater than the difference between the French and Germans. And similar to the difference between the French and Indians.

ETA: Also, you should see a change in the trend of that condition that coincides with those countries banning GMOs.

ETA2: You could never trust people to accurately answer "have you ever eaten a GMO", even with labels. People answer such questions the way they want to be known, not with what they actually do.

[closeupready]

38. Hey, Mr. Science, what happened to "control subjects"????

Or do you disregard that essential just whenever you feel like it? Nice work, if you can get it, I imagine.

[jeff47]

71. They're the Europeans.

You're trying to measure harm from eating GMOs. The control is the Europeans, who aren't eating GMOs.

[closeupready]

79. Nope, wrong answer. Some are, some aren't.

I expected better knowledge of the scientific process from you.

I haven't been to college for decades, and even I know what a control subject is. I guess when you want to just pull stuff out of your ass, you just kind of make stuff up as you go along, huh?

[jeff47]

95. I listed two countries where GMO food is banned

I haven't been to college for decades, and even I know what a control subject is. I guess when you want to just pull stuff out of your ass, you just kind of make stuff up as you go along, huh?

I'm afraid it's you spewing the bullshit.

The control subjects are the ones who are not exposed to the thing under test. We're testing eating GMOs.

We have populations that are eating GMO foods. And unless you're going to claim there is a massive smuggling operation to bring GMO food into France and Germany, we can be reasonably sure that they aren't eating GMO food.

Thus we have our experiment (US and India were the examples I used) and our control (France and Germany were the examples I used).

It would be a better experiment to lock up two populations for 20 years so that we could absolutely control their food intake, but that seems a tad unethical.

[closeupready]

96. Sorry that you're training in science was so incompetent.

When you've had more education in how a study is conducted, please do check back in here, kid.

[jeff47]

99. If you actually weren't spewing bullshit

you'd actually be able to explain why that is not an adequate control.

Instead, you're just spewing insults. Kinda demonstrates you actually have no clue what you're talking about, you just don't like the result.

[closeupready]

100. lol

[cascadiance]

160. There is a difference where GMO foods affect our environment at large...

... whereas medications affect those that it is given to (and if perhaps at times science isn't careful perhaps their offspring too).

The reason why Europe and other countries are banning it is because of the precautionary principle, that we've seem to lose sight of with our increasingly "Libertarian" approach of letting the courts decide damages after the fact when something has been harmed by the actions of corporations, etc. instead of ensuring that we don't allow them to do something that can permanently damage people or our environment beyond simple repair and say it can be fixed later by providing financial disincentives to continue that damaging practice after the damage (perhaps catastrophic damage) has already been done. Should we just let the nuclear power industry do anything and say well, maybe later after we've had a nuclear accident, we can assess damage and costs and if it is too big a price, then companies will stop manufacturing power that way? Should we have another Fukushima or Chernobyl happen here before we do anything. There's a reason why we have the Price Anderson act (our government!) provide financial support in event of tragedy since no insurance companies are stupid enough to try and offer private industry liability insurance themselves.

Another case of precautionary principle the rest of the world is employing where we aren't is in the case of mad cow disease. Though we now ban the feeding of cow parts to other cows to prevent it from happening, we don't ban the feeding of pork, chicken, or other animal parts to the cows, and cow parts back to the chickens and pigs too. Europeans and Japanese are concerned that there is research that shows that even though pigs and chickens themselves don't get mad cow disease, they can carry it, and therefore, by feeding parts between different animals, they can still keep the disease spreading. They ban all of the feeding of animal parts to other animals to prevent this, where we don't. We always let corporate America dictate the rules of our "regulatory oversight".

India is an "experiment"? It really has absolutely FAILED then! Indian farmers hate it to the point of having epidemic levels of suicides as a result of their using GMO seeds for farming instead of their old traditional methods.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-seeds-of-suicide-how-monsanto-destroys-farming/5329947

We're at a critical time to get GMO labeling where it should be so that traditional farmers that don't want to have their crops INFECTED by the DNA of these unnaturally raised crops don't have to pay extra to ensure that their products are clean of it so that they can have organic labeling themselves for consumers that want choices free of this crap. They are being asked to pick up the tab for the costs of GMO pollution in our environment and the marketplace that these big companies want to externalize on to them.

Vermont was one of the first states to pass through their legislature GMO labeling laws and they're under legal assault with tons of lawsuits from the likes of Monsanto.

Oregon wants to be the first state (or perhaps one of a few this fall) to pass GMO labeling laws through a ballot initiative this fall, and this initiative is getting endorsed by the Democratic Party amongst many other players here. Just the last week or so, suddenly big money is being spent by the GMO industry to try and shut this down and spread a lot of disinformation like labeling will increase food costs, when it is the GMO industry that has in effect raised our costs of getting GMO-free "organic food" that we didn't have to endure earlier when we didn't have GMO pollution to worry about. They are already labeling their foods for export to other countries that require them to have these foods labeled, so how much more can it cost to use the same supply chain management and oversight that they use for those exports to sell these same products here in states with labeling laws?

http://www.blueoregon.com/2014/08/myth-gmo-labels-increasing-food-prices/

Another reason why Oregon is a big target for them now is that just in the Spring in primary season, one of the big victories in this state was when two Oregon counties, not necessarily "liberal" hotbed counties like those in Portland, passed local propositions by voters to ban GMO farming in those counties. These counties happen to be also in the heart of where a big chunk of the world organic seeds are grown and harvested here too, so local farmers were heavy to support these propositions. GMO companies I think sense that this proposition could get more bipartisan support here in this state than in other states.

[HuckleB]

201. Unless you are arguing against all hybrid technologies, you got nothing!

[cascadiance]

202. Are you even responding to my post or still just parroting GMO marketing propaganda?

Nature does a lot of "hybridization" in terms of natural selection when species affect each other by proximity, etc. For the most part this system has achieved balance after thousands of years our many forms of natural life (NATURAL life) affecting each other. Now perhaps even natural selection might be harmed if we allow climate change to dredge up DNA and other biological remnants of ages many centuries or even millenia past to enter our current environment through the ice sheets melting, etc. But that again is where we upset the balance with human actions that are putting the delicate balance of earth's life in jeopardy.

We aren't GOD!

Let me repeat that, in case Monsanto still has that sense of being that seems to spread to whomever it chooses to buy for its services.

WE AREN'T GOD!

We don't know what will happen with the many variants of effects this GMO-altered life will have on our planet. That is precisely why we have in the past had controlled experiments where we CONTAIN its effects to keep it from affecting the environment around us. GMO "experiments" ARE affecting the whole planet. And if we get it wrong by making critical mistakes, WE ALL DIE!

As I said before. At least with immunizations, etc. and the science that goes there, we can control who we expose these vaccines, etc. to and can pull back from affecting the planet in general if we find that those getting the vaccines have severe and potentially contagious side effects.

With hybrids, you aren't spraying in the air unnatural DNA not found in nature that can forever change the life species it effects that it contacts. You are far less likely to screw up our system the way nature itself might change it through natural activities of the life around us.

[HuckleB]

213. I'm responding to real world content.

You are simply spouting off anti-GMO fictions without context.

Do you have any ability to discuss any matter? It appears that you do not. Please prove me wrong.

[cascadiance]

222. I think YOU don't have any ability to discuss issues, when you have NO DETAIL...

... backing up simple assertions that mean NOTHING without facts!

I can't prove you wrong, because you provide me with nothing than just a simple statement of

"Unless you are arguing against all hybrid technologies, you got nothing!"

Got nothing of WHAT???

That statement by itself makes NO sense in context with arguments presented well by many others here that GMOs are harmful to us, which you just choose to dismiss without any constructive criticism. I'm not the only one in this thread that you CAN'T dispute what we are saying, so you just resort to irrelevant one liners that mean absolutely nothing.

[HuckleB]

297. In other words...

you refuse to look at the full evidence, and then you make ridiculous claims without having looked at the evidence.

Nice try.

Now, if you are truly progressive, it's time to wake up.

http://www.thenation.com/article/180988/can-gmos-help-feed-hot-and-hungry-world?page=full#

[jeff47]

225. If you want to ban glyphosate, ban glyphosate.

Don't stupidly lump all GMOs into Monsanto-created glyphosate-resistant GMOs.

If glyphosate is such an environmental danger, it should be banned regardless of GMOs.

[cascadiance]

238. No, YOU are lumping all of our arguments under your scripted "glyphosate" anecdote.

There are plenty more issues than just this, and YOU brought it up, not me!

And often times, the reasons that are given for using GMO rather than natural crops that are supposedly more weed resistant, over time have bred "super weeds" that adjust to this and affect crops anyway. Now we have both the farm crops and these super weeds growing with other side effects and no benefits for having the GMO strain any more other than giving the Monsantos of the world "ownership" of the crop seeds instead of the farmers, which keeps farmer from growing their net year's crop from last years seeds without paying the piper, which is why many Indian farmers are committing suicide now.

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-superweeds-epidemic-spotlight-gmos.html

[HuckleB]

305. Exactly.

Of course, banning glyphosate will lead to the use of far worse pesticides/herbicides.

Oh, goodness.

[pnwmom]

48. There are too many confounding variables for this to work, without even knowing

what products individuals were exposed to.

Epidemiologists are able to trace problems with other food items because people can name what they eat. They trust people to answer as accurately as possible, and there is no reason this wouldn't work with labeled GMO's.

[jeff47]

72. You're making a claim that there is large-scale, significant harm

If that is true, it's going to be quite apparent even with the other variables. And you minimize those variables by comparing multiple GMO-banned countries and multiple GMO-legal countries.

It won't be enough to find a small effect. But that isn't the claim being made about GMOs.

there is no reason this wouldn't work with labeled GMO's.

It's already failed multiple times with people who claimed to only eat organic. They didn't, but claimed they did. There's no reason to believe people wouldn't similarly lie about labeled GMOs.

[pnwmom]

94. No, I am not.

I'm saying that without knowing the results of ALL the testing ever done on GMO's -- not just the testing that the producers allowed to be published -- and without adequate post-market surveillance, which requires labeling -- these products cannot be deemed universally safe, as the Dan Quayle-led FDA proclaimed they were, back in 1992.

[jeff47]

98. Either you are, or you're wasting everyone's time.

For GMOs to be unsafe, they have to cause large-scale, significant harm.

You are claiming they may be unsafe.

Thus you are claiming they may cause large-scale, significant harm. And you're saying they are likely to cause that harm, otherwise there wouldn't be the need for more testing, right now.

Yet you can't come up with a reason why that is the case better than you don't trust Dan Quayle.

And despite being shown how to get around your "testing that the producers allowed to be published" canard, you're clinging to it. After all, that's the only way you can get around the problem of no one being able to show harm....much less come up with a mechanism to cause harm.

[pnwmom]

103. Wrong. We don't require foods/drugs to be unsafe on a large scale before they are regulated.

If they are unsafe on a small scale, they are still regulated. Or at least, in the case of foods, they are identifiable. We have ingredient lists on foods for this very reason.

Many drugs have been released only to find out, after market, that they had serious effects on a small number of people who were given them. These effects didn't show up in premarket testing but did once the drugs were "tested" on the general population. And if the effects were serious enough, the drugs were removed from the market. If they were allowed to remain on the market, labeling allowed people who were at risk to avoid them.

[jeff47]

226. Because, again, we have a mechanism by which they could cause harm.

And once again, we have no mechanism by which eating GMO food causes harm.

And btw, we're now back to your argument 4 replies ago. If it doesn't work the first time, just go back to it again later, right?

[pnwmom]

228. No, because there was EVIDENCE that they caused harm because of research

that could be conducted because they were identified and labeled.

No mechanism of action would be necessary -- just the epidemiological research showing the harm.

[HuckleB]

141. Reality is not the friend of anti-GMO folks.

Of course, the funny thing is that some of the same DU folks who rant against vaccines, even though they're "not against vaccines," also push other anti-science tropes like the anti-GMO routine.

It's nothing short of bizarre

[rhett o rick]

157. And of course you know what "reality" is. Philosophers struggle explaining reality, but YOU

know. And funny thing is YOUR reality parallels the reality being push by our Corporate Overlords.

[HuckleB]

161. "Corporate overlords" = philosophical bent.

Science = science.

Whoops. You walked into that one.

Now maybe you could try to be a true progressive, and go with science. Make the world a better place for everyone.

[rhett o rick]

163. Why would you deny the public their right to know?

Did my use of "corporate overlords" strike a chord? Sadly we have a lot of people, some even claiming to be liberal that are willing to give up their liberties and freedoms to their corporate overlords. I guess they feel safer siding with the biggest bully.

[Enthusiast]

175. "claiming" is the operative word.

[HuckleB]

184. The public already can know.

And you have failed to answer any of my questions, which shows that you don't care about reality, period.

[rhett o rick]

189. You keep trying to change the argument to whether or not GMO's are safe and away from the

argument that the public has a right to know which specific foods contain GMO's.

[HuckleB]

192. You're the one who fails to respond on topic.

Why can't anti-GMO folks stay on topic?

Oh, that's right. They don't have an actual, reality based argument. Hmmmmmm.

[rhett o rick]

219. What a bunch of crap. This has nothing to do with anti-GMO. This has to do with truth in

labeling. The topic is labeling. But you and Monsanto think that the American public are too stupid to make a good decision so you want to hid the truth from them.

Supporting Monsanto is not a liberal position, in fact it's a conservative position. Do you have something you want to confess?

[HuckleB]

248. No, it doesn't.

You have been shown reality, and you simply choose to continue pushing baseless fear mongering.

That is unethical.

http://fafdl.org/gmobb/gmos-an-introduction/

[mopinko]

279. nice link. thanks.

thorough.

[Generic Other]

167. Why do you care what I do or do not want to eat?

What's it to you? All my life I have had an aversion to fish. Being part Asian, my mother found this an affront to her cooking. She tried force feeding me, pretending I was eating something else, denying I hated fish (totally absurd tactic), etc. Now you do it. You insist I have no right to condemn your junk science shit food, that I have no right to refuse to eat it, that I have no right to reject your product. I thought we lived in a free country where we were allowed free choice. You wanna eat bread with jellyfish dna inserted in the grain -- fine -- your choice. You want to eat corn chips accidently contaminated with carcinogenic plastics meant for industrial use not human consumption -- help yourself. You want to eat rice my grandfather would burn his paddies to get rid of, go right ahead. More than ten generations of farmers in my family say their rice is better than rice doctored with bits of the "greedy asshole" that Monsanto scientists bred into it.

You can call me and anyone else anti-science, anti-vaxxer or anything you like. You simply make me more determined not to eat your poison. Calling me names for not wanting to eat your product. Great customer relations and doomed to fail big time. And basically the worst marketing strategy in the history of advertising. Who do you think you are kidding?

Eating natural and feeling normal. Tossing the GMO products in the trash.

[HuckleB]

186. I don't.

Why do you want to force the government to promote one corporation over another, using baseless fear?

That's what this is all about, or hadn't you figured that out yet?

[Generic Other]

209. I do not want to consume your product.

Don't try and forcefeed me.

[HuckleB]

301. No one is force feeding you. Please don't pretend that they are.

If you want to waste your money on products that are no safer, and no better, great. You can do that.

However, if you want everyone to pay more for food for no good reason, then you're just being an elitist who doesn't actually care about people.

THAT sucks!

[Generic Other]

318. I don't want to consume your what you arer selling

You aren't entitled to force feed me through fraud or phony baloney science.

[Veilex]

37. "The GHWBush FDA declared that all GMO's would automatically be considered safe"

Would you happen to have evidence/links to this? I'd be most interested in reading about it.

[G_j]

62. --

http://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/publications/aba_health_esource_home/aba_health_law_esource_1302_bashshur.html

The FDA regulates GM foods as part of the “coordinated framework” of federal agencies that also includes the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”).16 This framework, which has been the subject of critical analysis and calls for redesign,17 is available online18 and contains a searchable database that covers “genetically engineered crop plants intended for food or feed that have completed all recommended or required reviews.”19 The FDA policy (unchanged since 1992)20 places responsibility on the producer or manufacturer to assure the safety of the food, explicitly relying on the producer/manufacturer to do so: “Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the producer of a new food to evaluate the safety of the food and assure that the safety requirement of section 402(a)(1) of the act is met.”21 So it is the company, not any independent scientific review, providing the research that is relied on to assert safety. FDA guidance to industry issued in 1997 covered voluntary “consultation procedures,” but still relied on the developer of the product to provide safety data.22 There is currently no regulatory scheme requiring GM food to be tested to see whether it is safe for humans to eat.23

[closeupready]

80. Monsanto's 2013 Net Revenue was approximately $2.4 billion

according to Wikipedia (footnoting Monsanto's annual report).

So the claim that labeling is too expensive is sheer nonsense.

[HuckleB]

82. What does Monsanto's revenue have to do with it?

http://gmoanswers.com/studies/costs-gmo-labeling

[closeupready]

83. The claim that labeling is too expensive, that's what.

[HuckleB]

85. There is no connection whatsoever.

Read the link.

[closeupready]

89. I am not your servant. If your link is important, summarize it here.

And the idea that there is no connection between cost of doing business and company revenue is self-evidently absurd, requiring no interpretation on my part.

[HuckleB]

121. Ah, so you're just spouting off, without knowing what you're talking about.

And you won't bother to actually learn about the matter.

Lame.

[closeupready]

125. "Lame" that "you won't bother learn[ing] about the matter" - yeah,

yeah, kind of like learning which of your food products contain GMO ingredients and which don't!

Ooopsie! Was I not supposed to draw attention to that????

[HuckleB]

126. That's so cool.

Of course, you have no idea why it would matter, because you haven't looked into it. You just bought into the fear.

Now, can you read? If so, why won't you?

[closeupready]

129. Hoisted on your own petard?

Aww.

[HuckleB]

131. And you have no response.

I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you!

[HuckleB]

81. And yet GMOs go through the USDA for approval, with a great deal of oversight.

Other forms of hybridization? Not so much.

Hmmmmmm. Why is it that everyone is worried about the most predictable technolgy, which is also the technology that is researched far more than any other? It just doesn't make sense.

[Veilex]

91. Hmm...

That's not quite the "all GMO's would automatically be considered safe"- article I was hoping to see.

[NRaleighLiberal]

13. Wow. broad brush used on a very complex topic.

It isn't a black and white thing - there is much grey to consider on this - since it is not just about GMO and food, but long term effects, impact on pollinators, impact on seed saving for those who wish to maintain open pollinated crops, control of our seed heritage. And that is not even considering the economic/monopoly aspects of it all.

The first GMO food was the Flavr Savr tomato in 1994, which wasn't widely consumed (no flavor difference, just faded into oblivion). Long term consumption health studies therefore really cannot have happened.

It is worthwhile reading this entire article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies - in particular the section on Health, which gets into what sort of testing is done, and not done.

[closeupready]

15. Yes, when stymied, change the subject. Well done, Lucian.

[Live and Learn]

20. It is not anti-GMO, It is Pro-lablilng GMO.

Don't you request info on the vaccines and other medication you are receiving? Why should food be any different?

[cascadiance]

162. If GMOs are so good for you, then these companies should WANT it labeled...

... so that customers that WANT GMO foods can find food that has more of it in it. Fact is, they KNOW it is not what will help people or is what people want, so they want to HIDE that it is in there and continue to manipulate the laws, etc. to funnel more profits and "ownership" of plant seeds, etc. for themselves.

[ZombieHorde]

26. Yep. Anti-science strangeness.

Oh well. Diversity is the spice of life.

[eridani]

56. Or anti-corporate sanity. If I choose not to support corporate dictatorship over our

--food supply, who the hell are you to tell me I shouldn't be able to? Monsanto has sued hundreds of small farmers over drifting of their patented genetic material and won every time.

[rhett o rick]

32. Not at all surprised to see you take a stand on the side of H. Clinton-Sachs and Corp-America

in lieu of standing with the 99%. Some choose to side with the biggest bully.

[Enthusiast]

176. PLUS ONE!

[Tumbulu]

36. Yes, this is the ridiculous latest meme from you guys

right after that it is the same as real plant breeding and all the rest of the lies.

Until they are tested and you can prove that the plasmids are not moving out of the gmo plants and into the soil microorganisms, or mammalian gut microorganisms, then you had best be quiet.

And after that tell me why the EPA allowed the gmo Bt toxin into plants without testing it AT ALL. After that tell me why they allowed at the glyphosate residues on food crops without establishing tolerance limits based on actual toxicology.

It goes on and on, just don't dare pretend that they are safe or tested or even neccesary for anyone.

[jeff47]

93. It doesn't work that way.

Until they are tested and you can prove that the plasmids are not moving out of the gmo plants and into the soil microorganisms, or mammalian gut microorganisms, then you had best be quiet.

Plasmids aren't used to modify plants. Because plants are eukaryotes and plasmids only affect prokaryotes.

A plasmid can't get into a eukaryote's nucleus, so it can't cause the desired effect - there's no transcription mechanism outside the nucleus or mitochondria.

Very early GMO research was done with viruses, but that proved too difficult. It required making lots of custom viruses and then infecting the plants. To control the spread of the modifications, the viruses had to fail to reproduce themselves. So you had to manually construct very large numbers of plant viruses in order to insert the modifications.

The primary method used today is to coat gold nanoparticles with the DNA you want to insert, and then shoot those nanoparticles at a layer of plant cells. The cells where the nanoparticle ends up in the nucleus are grown into full plants. This method is used because it's easy to do to a whole lot of plant cells at once.

Which means it can't spread as you fear.

(There are plasmid-like structures in eukaryotes known as episomes, but those are caused by cancer or viruses.)

And after that tell me why the EPA allowed the gmo Bt toxin into plants without testing it AT ALL.

Because they tested Bt toxin back when they started spraying Bt toxin on fields in the 1920s. The fact that it's produced by the plant doesn't change its lethality.

After that tell me why they allowed at the glyphosate residues on food crops without establishing tolerance limits based on actual toxicology.

Glyphosate is highly water-soluble. Farmers/harvesters/packers are supposed to thoroughly wash the plant before packaging it and sending it to market. That would remove the glyphosate.

Additionally, there are restrictions on how close to harvest glyphosate can be applied to the crop. It's supposed to be applied long enough before harvest for it to be broken down by the time the crop is harvested.

In fact, glyphosate's high water solubility means we have to be concerned about glyphosate pollution due to surface runoff. As opposed to something like DDT, which isn't water soluble. So DDT is much more difficult to remove from plants, but doesn't cause surface runoff problems.

[Tumbulu]

112. All your "science" is inaccurate

Last edited Tue Sep 2, 2014, 05:01 PM - Edit history (1)

while it is true that CURRENT genetic engineering no longer depends upon these techniques, the currently grown gmo corn, cotton, soybeans and canola were all engineered using plasmids to introduce the gene sequences along with the markers in this way. They all are potentially infecting microorganisms that actually do have plasmids as their means of enjoying some potential genetic variability. These plasmids are absolutely not confined in any way to the engineered plants and this is the testing that should have been done prior to release into the environment. Look back for yourself, back to the late 80's to see how these first generation gmo plants were engineered.

Second, the Bt toxin expressed by the natural Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria produces the toxin all packaged up as a pro toxin in the form of a crystal which requires a pH of over 10 to dissolve into raw protoxin. This protoxin is viable for a few hours at the most. Using this natural crystal form for registration of genetically engineered crops is beyond ridiculous. The gmo plants produce raw toxin, a form that would only be found for moments in an insect's gut, a form that appears to not biodegrade. But we are all exposed to it now and it is currently being found in over 90% of blood samples collected and tested in Canada....This is beyond bad science, beyond sloppy science, this is criminal.

Glyphosate residues were never found in plants before they were engineered to withstand them. Thus there were no tolerance levels calculated. One cannot wash it off the plants- IT IS A SYSTEMIC herbicide. Then come the gmo plants- now why wouldn't tolerance testing have been carried out to find LD 50's etc as are calculated for all normal pesticides? Good scientists left the EPA over this, but perhaps you are too young to know about this. It happened in the early 90's.

Again, science bought out by industry in not science at all.

[HuckleB]

135. So you would prefer the older, much worse pesticides/herbicides.

Your preference is acknowledged.

[Enthusiast]

178. Yeah! Bring back DDT! It was thoroughly tested!

[HuckleB]

185. Thanks for the pointless response.

[Tumbulu]

235. Oh, here you are!

Read my posts before making lies up, oh. I forgot it is on the job description of the lot of you.

[HuckleB]

252. Your posts are filled with lies.

We've been down this road before. Why are you still trying to pretend?

http://fafdl.org/gmobb/gmos-an-introduction/

[Tumbulu]

245. please list for all of us here how you have reduced pesticide use in your own life

and across the world.

What field of agriculture do you work in that you can claim any knowledge of the subject?

[HuckleB]

253. Name one pesticide that I use in my garden.

Then, explain, what this distraction has anything to do with anything?

You are showing us all that you have no argument or evidence to support the BS you push.

http://fafdl.org/gmobb/gmos-an-introduction/

[PatSeg]

140. Thank you!

Another GMO thread is being hijacked. Thank you for your sane and informed voice.

[Enthusiast]

177. +1 an entire shit load.

[sendero]

266. I'm sick and tired of folks who claim..

... that people who are not real happy with GMO foods being "anti science". No, I know science when I see it and bullshit is not science.

Bottom line: GMO has few benefits to anyone other than the commercial interests of Monsanto and it's analogues. It has risks that we can't possibly understand because no real studies done over the long term by financially-neutral parties have even been done.

Therefore there is no good reason to eat this SHIT and no one should have to.

[Tumbulu]

277. Well stated!!!! Thank you nt

[HuckleB]

293. You can be sick and tired all you want.

However, you are choosing to be dishonest about GMOs, and I'm rather sick of people being dishonest about GMOs.

[Crunchy Frog]

50. I don't see a huge difference between pro-GMO folks and pro-lifers.

Anyone can play this game.

[sabrina 1]

51. Hillary's position is a right wing position on this. You should have said 'anti-environment 'folks'.

Killing off species essential to the life of the planet is a crime and hopefully now that over 30 countries last I checked have finally banned Monsanto's poisonous products, some day it will be a crime, on the books.

Not surprised at all at Hillary's position. Which is of course why she will never be president IF she is hoping to get the Liberal vote. Maybe she'll get the right vote if she continues to take their issues as her own, but no one who pushes Bush foreign policies and Monsanto will get the Liberal vote. Just as she didn't last time.

[Enthusiast]

179. PLUS ONE, a whole bunch!

[Feral Child]

61. Regulation.

Oversight.

Unrestricted independent research.

[HuckleB]

73. Exactly.

The politicians who do their research know that the anti-GMO crowd is full of BS.

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/1/5954701/neil-degrasse-tyson-gmos-dangerous-safe

[alp227]

11. So is the scientific community I suppose.

[eridani]

14. Fuck safety. This is about corporate dictatorship, period

The purpose of GMOs is Monsanto domination of the food supply, with concomitant lawsuits against farmers who won't go along. Who the hell are you to tell us that we have to support this shit with our consumer dollars.

(OK--golden rice is an exception. The research is being done by a non-profit corporation and they are giving away the seeds. Not really enough beta carotene to boost Vitamin A levels significantly, but it could get better and at least can't do any harm.)

[rhett o rick]

33. So why do they fear fair and honest labeling? nm

[alp227]

35. I have answered that loaded question 100s of times already.

Labelling has more costs than benefits given the misconceptions about GMO's among the general public in the first place.

[rhett o rick]

39. Asking for honest labeling and you call it a loaded question? Honest labeling has too high of costs?

What I hear you saying is that dishonest labeling is ok because the public is so stupid that honest labeling would hurt sales.

There are two sides in this class war. THe corp-America side and the 99%.

[Orrex]

49. If the goal is "honest labeling"

Can we require "organic" products to carry a label declaring that such foods offer no anti-cancer benefit and have not been shown to provide a greater health benefit than their GMO counterparts, despite costing significantly more?

After all, what's the harm in a little honesty?

[jeff47]

76. Honest labeling is not what you're actually looking for.

Honest labeling would be "When consumed, this plant is no different than anything else you eat". Because that is what all the evidence says.

What you want is a label that means "Might be dangerous, so stay away!". Much like anti-abortion people want to force doctors to talk up possible complications of abortion in order to make it scarier.

[rhett o rick]

114. Once again you are preaching for secrecy to protect the stupid public. That's very

strange attitude for a so-called politically liberal poster.

If most of the public misunderstands the dangers of GMO's then educate them don't lie to them.

[HuckleB]

122. And you want to label one technology, but not all technologies.

That's an awfully strange attitude.

And pushing a fiction about the dangers of GMOs? Well, that's not a liberal stand either.

[roody]

44. Labels change all the time. It's called marketing.

[sabrina 1]

52. So you agree with Dan Quayle and Bush Sr. I remember when the Left was totally opposed to that

sneaky bit of legislation Quayle pushed through, denying Americans the right to know what they are eating. We grow our own now, so not worried about eating their poison, but other people do not have that option.

And just how is it that OTHER developed countries are able to label THEIR food? Seems to me from your explanation that 'money' is the problem, iow, when people learn what they are eating they won't buy it. Nor should they. We don't.

Profit before People. You know, if there are so many 'misconceptions' about GMOs that should be easy to correct with the FACTS. Seems to me they've ample time to produce those facts, they haven't, they have chosen to deny Americans the right to make the choice of eating real food over chemically altered food and THAT is against the very principles of ANY democracy. Shame to see it being supported here though.

[alp227]

53. I keep seeing "right to know" thrown around about GMO labelling.

And what exactly do GMO labels seek to inform the consumer about? The evidence so far just shows that they're no different from "warning: evolution" stickers on biology textbooks.

[sabrina 1]

55. I want to know what is genetically altered and what is not. Why do you want to control

what choices I have regarding the food I and my family eat? Since I am denied that simple right, I do not eat their poison, I assume it is poison because they are trying to hide from me what I am eating. If they don't want people to make that assumption, then explain why it is wrong and label the food so WE THE PEOPLE know what we are eating.

Am I really having this discussion on DU? Seriously? Last time I engaged in this kind of discussion it was on a right wing dominated forum about six or seven years ago. Same old arguments, same old 'you don't need to know' 'just trust us Major Corporations like Monsanto' etc etc.

NO, I don't trust them so I don't buy their garbage. As more and more people are doing.

If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear. They ARE hiding something which creates fear in consumers who are finding other ways to feed their families.

[HuckleB]

77. All our food plants are genetically altered.

And you can know what's not GE, by companies doing so voluntarily. There is no justification for mandatory labels.

A PRINCIPLED CASE AGAINST MANDATORY GMO LABELS
http://fafdl.org/?p=161

[closeupready]

58. So Monsanto hasn't done well? What are their revenues like?

If your argument is labeling is too expensive, then say so.

[truedelphi]

108. Baloney. What the big companies do not realize is that

until food is labelled, many of us refuse to et anything that does not have an organic label on it.

This would be impossible to do except for the wonderful farmer's markets that exist.

So by not labelling, they are losing a lot of business.

[HuckleB]

84. Why do you want to label only one technology?

Especially when knowing the technology tells you nothing about the specific plant food you are purchasing?

It makes no sense. Period.

[rhett o rick]

115. Why is it so very important to keep it a secret from the public? If the public misunderstands,

the big corporations have enough money to educate them, but instead chooses to keep them in the dark, because, apparently the public is too stupid to make a good decision.

[HuckleB]

123. No one is keeping anything secret.

Why do you want to label something for no good reason?

Why do you want to label one technology, while letting all the others off the hook?

Why are you pushing fiction-based fear? Do you think that's a legitimately liberal thing to do?

[rhett o rick]

150. Transparency is the liberal thing to do. As is fighting the dominance of big corporations.

"Why do you want to label something for no good reason?" The "no good reason" is Monsanto's meme. Most of the public don't believe it.


"Why do you want to label one technology, while letting all the others off the hook?" I have never said anything about letting anyone off the hook. If you are intimating that I should let GMO's "off the hook" because I am letting others off the hook? Weird logic.

"Why are you pushing fiction-based fear?" I am "pushing" truth in labeling and that's not fear. There is no excuse for keeping information from the public about what's in their food.

[HuckleB]

151. And you want selective transparency, which is, well, dishonest.

Also, you do realize the knowing the technology that created the food gives you no information, right?

Oh, you didn't realize that?

Hmm.

[rhett o rick]

159. Apparently you can't put forth an argument without putting words in my mouth.

I support total transparency.

Why shouldn't the public know?

[HuckleB]

187. You have not asked for total transparency, ever.

I am only pointing out the reality of your hypocrisy.

[rhett o rick]

191. That's a distraction from the issue. Why doesn't Monsanto want the public to know

which foods have GMO's? That has nothing to do with me at all.

[HuckleB]

198. Nothing contains GMOs.

GE is a technology. Perhaps if you had tried to respond to my actual posts you would have discovered that by now.

[rhett o rick]

214. "Nothing contains GMO's" Seriously, now that's your argument. "Don't worry, nothing contains GMO's

trust Monsanto."

I don't trust Monsanto and question why you do?

[HuckleB]

216. And the usual, "I can't respond to reality, so I'll just shout, 'MONSANTO'!" response...

hits the board.

Dude. Really?

WOW!

[rhett o rick]

220. I can tell when a poster has nothing left when they resort to "Wow."

And again, the only reality you know is your reality. Don't be so audacious to think you know the reality of others.

Monsanto is not friendly to the 99%. If you want to refute that with something more than, "Wow", I am interested. If not, we are done.

[HuckleB]

254. You've never had anything to say

Your post is a ridiculous response.

[Enthusiast]

181. If there is no label, it is secret. We want consumers to make the choice.

Most of us prefer to eliminate GMOs from our diet. You are welcome to continue to eat GMO plants if that is your preference.

[HuckleB]

188. So, why weren't you clamoring for labels for other hybrid technologies?

I mean those have been going on your entire lifetime.

Why the hypocrisy?

[Enthusiast]

239. It is hardly hypocrisy as hybridization is an entirely different technology

with none of the inherent dangers we see in GMOs. I'm all for hybridization.

[HuckleB]

309. It is a different technology, but the dangers are actually greater.

It's much less predictable, plus there is almost no folllow-up research done on the resulting seeds.

You really should, uh, try to pay attention before posting.

[Enthusiast]

321. Pfft!

Your bullshit ain't gonna fly brother. How much do they pay you to peddle that Monsanto nonsense?

Hybridization is more dangerous than nuclear genetic modification? Oh, that dangerous corn! My neighbor gave me some pollen for my sweet corn! Lord have mercy! A hybrid!

At least with hybridization we keep it with the same species.

Pay attention? To you?!!! You're going to have to add some camo. [URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Donald Ian Rankin]

149. Because they know people are stupid and ignorant.

"Is GM food safe" and "will people boycott GM food" are very different questions.

[Tumbulu]

42. bought off and paid for by corporate masters

if you were not in a lab in the late 80's you would not know the shenanigans they played. I was there. I saw great scientists lose their careers. The Republicans followed their methods in politics, and see where we are now.

[HuckleB]

137. Prove it.

Oh, and answer this question: Why are anti-GMO people using classic Republican fear mongering, based in fictions?

[Caretha]

264. Well that begs the question

why are you acting like a "classic Republican"?

[HuckleB]

265. I'm not.

Try again.

[NYC_SKP]

88. Except for the AAAS, these organizations are, in this case, shills.

And, to their credit, the AAAS statement says nothing about labeling.

[alp227]

90. Are those organizations wrong about all science then?

Including evolution, global warming, etc? Science: you can't pick and choose what you accept from it.

[NYC_SKP]

92. Talk about your non-sequitur. What I mean is that there is a bias and an agenda.

The EU, for example, has to watch out for the EU and commerce and enterprise.

It might not be as bad as, say, the US Chamber of Commerce, but it's not without an agenda.

I've read the statement by AAAS on labeling, which refers back to the other organizations positions, interestingly, and is few years old.

In any event, I want full disclosure on my foods and drugs, even if the science says there's nothing wrong with GMO's I stand by a right to know if they're in the food or not.

[HuckleB]

138. Indeed. The organic industry works hard to foment fear in order to increase profits.

That's a great example, and it's only the beginning.

[jeff47]

16. If you're going to claim factual errors, you better not make them yourself.

As scientists release studies, each one more alarming than the next, revealing the devastating health and environmental hazards of the herbicides required to grow GMO crops

Wrong.

Some GMO crops are engineered to resist herbicides. Those herbicides are not required to grow those GMO crops, as this article claims. The crop will grow without the herbicide.

Other GMO crops are not resistant to herbicides, and would die when exposed to those herbicides.

Hillary would do well to go back to her science books. Here are the facts, as understood by every biologist. Seed hybridization occurs when the seeds of two compatible parent plants, within the same species, are crossed, either in a controlled environment or in nature.

Wrong. Hybridization between species can occur.

First, there's the separate species that can breed together. Ever heard of a boysenberry?

Second, grafting has been used for centuries. A process which most definitely requires "human intervention". Despite the article's claim that "human intervention" is unique to GMOs.

She does this by focusing on GE drought-resistant seeds—as if engineering seeds for drought-resistance were a major focus on the biotech industry.It’s not

Because time never marches on. We're still doing the same science today that we did in 1970.

If we’re truly serious about averting a global warming disaster, reducing carbon emissions isn’t enough. We have to acknowledge, and harness, potential of organic, regenerative agriculture to reverse global warming by sequestering carbon.

It is not possible to grow enough plants to fix enough carbon to stop global warming. GMO or not. It is even less possible when you restrict it to the lower tonnes/acre of organic farming.

Stopping global warming is going to require drastic changes in how we live, in order to reduce CO2 emissions. Well beyond farming.

A recent ABC News poll revealed that 52 percent of Americans believe food containing GMOs are unsafe, while 13 percent are “unsure.”

48% of Americans believe we are being visited by extra terrestrial species.
57% of Americans have bought lottery tickets in the last year, presumably believing that they were going to win.
Significant numbers of people will claim that a newly-built cell phone tower is causing headaches....before it is powered on.
Here's a bunch of things the public are sure will kill you....when they most likely won't.

"The public believes it" is about the worst possible proof you can have of something. The public believes all sorts of things that aren't true.

[CSStrowbridge]

19. The progressive movement must be a fact-based movement.

The progressive movement must be a fact-based movement and the anti-GMO crowd is more akin to the anti-vaxxers and the chemtrails crowd than it is to a fact-based worldview.

You don't have to trust Monsanto, I certainly don't, but the science is sound. Instead of freaking out about GMOs, get money out of politics and you won't have to worry as much about Monsanto.

[HuckleB]

74. EXACTLY! Alas, it's so frustrating to see how powerful fiction-based fear remains.

[rhett o rick]

41. In other words it's ok for Corporations to lie to the American public, because the public

is basically stupid. I think what you really mean is profits trump human life.

H. Clinton either gave up her integrity when Georgie Bush asked, or she never had any.

[jeff47]

70. Where is the lie?

There is zero evidence of harm from eating GMO crops. None. Including independent studies that took place outside US law, so you can't claim US law blocked publication.

The OP claims Clinton was lying, yet the OP makes plenty of claims that are false.

[rhett o rick]

117. I can see that if your reality parallels the propaganda of the Big Corporations and their

H. Clinton-Sachs, then of course whatever they say would be the truth to you.

If GMO's were not harmful why are the Big Corporations breaking their neck trying to hide the fact that they are in our food (THE LIE).

All the public wants is the truth and apparently you want to deny that.

[jeff47]

227. Again, where is the lie?

How odd you couldn't manage to list one. Almost like there isn't one there.

If GMO's were not harmful why are the Big Corporations breaking their neck trying to hide the fact that they are in our food

Because 47% of the public thinks we're being visited by extra terrestrials.
A large majority believes air travel is more dangerous than car travel, despite that being 100% wrong.
And a whole lot of whites think blacks are thugs who should be shot by police and left in the street for hours. And then they donate to the cop's campaign and vote Republican.

They're fighting labeling because people like you are spewing massive quantities of FUD.

If GMOs are dangerous, show the data that they are. If you have no data, stop using anti-corporatism as an excuse to lie.

[rhett o rick]

232. Lies, lies and more lies. I never once "spewed massive quantities of" whatever FUD is.

I have said over and over and over, that I support transparency and truth in labeling.

What lie am I telling? Give us a quote.

[HuckleB]

284. Yes, you did.

And you don't give a crap about transparency.

You want to demonize one thing while blindly supporting another.

Lame stuff, and that's being very kind.

[rhett o rick]

288. You continue to try to make this about me. I will restate my position.

I support transparency.

I support honest labeling along with most Americans.

Monsanto's goal is profit and IMO they care little about human health.

Monsanto's has demonstrated that they aim to kill off small farmers.

Monsanto has a extremely poor track record with regard to the common people around the world.

I don't trust Monsanto. I don't like it when they try to use their enormous power to stifle transparency.

Now what in the above would make you say that "you don't give a crap about transparency."

What in the above would make you say, "You want to demonize one thing while blindly supporting another."

Why in the world do you side with Monsanto against the American public?

[PatSeg]

291. Companies that have nothing to hide

have no problems with transparency.

[HuckleB]

300. You forget that the organic industry is focused on profit.

It gets to bigger profits by lying and fear mongering about GMOs and other matters. This process leads to higher food prices for everyone with no good reason for the prices to be higher.

Oddly, you don't seem to care about that.

[rhett o rick]

322. "Oddly, you don't seem to care about that." This is not about me.

This is about Monsanto wanting to hide the fact that food contains GMO's. They want to hide the fact. How do you reconcile that?

[wyldwolf]

68. Not to mention that EVERY reputable scientific body disagrees with the OP's article.

[William769]

17. Thank God for Norman Ernest Borlaug!

How many people would have died over the past 40 years without him?

People that don't learn from history are bound to repeat it.

Just saying.

[Tumbulu]

46. He was a traditional plant breeder

and this getting the plants to put most of their carbon into seed/grain rather than stem and root is a great way to turn chemical fertilizers into food, as long as those fertilizers are inexpensive. But as the cheap nitrogen fertilizers become less cheap and eventually run out, plants whose roots are incapable of searching the soil for nutrients and water will no longer be able to produce these high yields.

Plant breeders are always breeding for what works at the time. The need for plants whose roots are capable of foraging for water and nutrients will return and the plant breeders will breed for these plants, and the yield of the grain will go down, as the sequestered carbon into the soil will go up. But a genetic engineer, only bringing a single gene into the plant, from a foreign source, with the tools of plasmids and promotors cannot address this sort of stuff. We are dealing with many multiple genes regions. The science of understanding genes is very very different than infecting plants with foreign genes and markers such as antibiotic resistance (I mean how good of an idea is this???). Science requires knowledge and testing, none of which the plant gmo folks used.

I had a conversation with the president of Genentech back in the early 90's who was convinced that the idiotic plant genetic engineers were going to destroy the entire industry with their rush to market of products untested. In the pharmaceutical world, all the genetically engineered products are quite properly tested and nothing is released into the environment to possibly infect other organisms helter skelter. But this is what these jerks did in the agribusiness world. I remain shocked that they got away with it. I do not know if our soils will ever recover. thank goodness the Europeans, Japanese and most of the rest of the world slammed the brakes on the entire industry.

[HuckleB]

75. Yup!

[glinda]

28. I seriously want someone else as our candidate. She is NO friend to the planet.

[brooklynite]

59. well, the, better get working on that...

...or is it someone else's job to find a candidate acceptable to you?

Think what you will about Hillary - she has millions of supporters who ARE working to get her to run.

[glinda]

64. Sometimes it is a good idea to

think about "tone" in response.
At 60 and taking care of my father's chemo currently and my husband's ALS, I am not actively out there organizing like I used to be. I myself am sick and cannot afford my surgery. So the best I "can do" is donate about $10 to a candidate I care about.
I have every right to express that I would prefer another candidate. There are others that perhaps feel the same way. I no longer respect Dems that do not represent what I consider critical immediate issues. Having always voted as last resort for Dems I will but am fed up with the lack of spine regarding the environment.

[littlemissmartypants]

29. "Just plain wrong" what kind language. . .

Did Hillary lie?

Did she kiss ass?

Is she "paid" by the word or the speech?

Peace, Love and Shelter.
~ littlemissmartypants

[littlemissmartypants]

30. Kicking. Thank you, eridani. nt

[Cleita]

31. I agree. It seems GMOs are affecting our ecosystem in

bad ways. We should have at least had the benefit of labeling to know what we were getting, but big agri stopped that.

[rhett o rick]

34. k&r. Thanks for posting. nm

[KauaiK]

43. This is why I cannot support Hillary

Kauai is ground zero for GMO's. The Kauai Ordinance that passed was overturned at the Federal Level and all it did was require the GMO seed companies to disclose what they are spraying. GMO's are back fucking news.

[Cha]

54. Thank you, KauaiK~ It's the Environment Stupid.. to borrow frrom her era.

[truedelphi]

110. People in Kauai have worked so hard and fought so much.

I am very sad to hear that their efforts were overturned at the Federal level.

[KauaiK]

118. We're not done until we run them off island

Follow the money. The seed companies are are throwing money at any politician AND sued for that the County could not accept free legal defense from the SurfRider foundation or Earthjustice.

[truedelphi]

128. Can you explain how it is that the County was sued so it could not accept the

Free legal defense work from Surfrider etc?

That is confounding.

[KauaiK]

217. I'm not sure... I think

it had something to do with the County could not legally accept outside legal services - which I thought was stupid since they hire outside law firms all the time. Keep in mind, the Mayor of Kauai is a GMO supporter and vetoed the bill (follow the money/political donations). He was dead set against having Surfrider or any other organization help.

[HuckleB]

130. Kaua’i anti-GMO ‘Witch Trials’ continue, as Mayor faces death threats for bill veto

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/11/05/kauai-witch-trials-continue-as-mayor-faces-death-threats-for-bill-veto/

[cstanleytech]

45. Well if some of you really want GMOs off the market

you are going to have to work to get the science on your side first as without solid science to show that they are bad its unlikely that they will be removed from the market.
Even then its not a sure thing as look at how cigarettes are still being sold even though the science is solid about the link to cancer to them.

[KurtNYC]

113. 2-4-D plus RoundUp plus ???

GMOs were supposed to reduce dependence on toxins. They have increased them and now the GMO industry wants to double down on the defoliants:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2014/06/22/superweeds-choke-farms/11231231/

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2014/08/13/epa-to-decide-whether-to-boost-use-popular-weed-killer-24-d/

Packages of cigarettes are LABELLED, food from GMO sources is not. All we want is choice. Your analogy is flawed.

[HuckleB]

127. You are convoluting substances.

Glyphosate use is up, but that's because the use of much worse substances is down.

Oddly, you fail to realize that there is almost no regulation in regard to "natural" chemicals used on organic farms.

[KurtNYC]

148. Dow has petitioned the EPA to approve another herbicide bc weeds are now Round-Up Ready

BTW, you are missing the phrase "limit to the paperwork and government oversight required" between "no" and "regulation" in this sentence:

there is almost no regulation in regard to "natural" chemicals used on organic farms.

But the expensive and cumbersome organic certifications processes and insurance requirements have nothing to do with what goes on in most farms on most of the farmland in the US so why bring up organic in the context of a discussion about GMO. Back to the issue at hand...

Glyphosate use is up because of Round-Up (glyphosate) resistance in the weeds that plague conventional farms, such as the millions of acres of conventionally farmed corn and soy in Iowa:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2014/06/22/superweeds-choke-farms/11231231/

Dow is asking the EPA to approve Enlist Duo with the thinking that since amaranth that is glyphosate/Round-Up Ready is now quite prevalent, affected farmers should be allowed to use glyphosate PLUS Enlist Duo.

That's more use of pesticides when the promise was for less.

[HuckleB]

153. Yes, Dow has.

Of course, that is something that will be an issue whether or not GE technology is in play.

Oh, and, whoops, but, uh, so much for the baseless fear mongering about glyphosate.

Perhaps you could realize that your POV is WOW?

[Generic Other]

287. Glyphosate has been linked to breast cancer

Autism, Parkinson's, Alzhiemer's. The major ingredients in Round-up when it is merely sprayed on weeds harms people. Who in their right mind wants the same ingredients forever altering our food supply? Poison that makes a dandelion turn black and shrivel ten minutes after spraying it is not a chemical that belongs in my food.

Women don't want it in their milk, their DNA, their children's DNA.

But Monsanto's investors want it. Trouble is no one is buying what the pusher is trying to sell. We "stupid" consumers have that much sense. Monsanto is losing everywhere in the world.

[cstanleytech]

183. Yes you want the labels and I would like them myself however

the problem is as far I am aware there is as of yet a lack of science to support that GMO foods might for example cause cancer where as with cigarettes there is alot of evidence to support that smoking can cause cancer.
So I doubt they will require labeling simply because people are afraid GMOs might one day turn out to have a bad side effect.

[eridani]

237. Who gives a shit? I think I am entitled to avoid supporting with my consumer dollars

--companies that exist only to dominate the food supply by suing small producers out of business. Who are you to say that I can't have the information necessary to be able to make this decision?

[cstanleytech]

260. 1. You are certainly allowed to choose on how to spend your money.

2. I'm in favor of the labeling actually but I just do not believe what we want will be enough to get a label law passed if it doesnt have any science that shows there is a problem with GMO foods other than our apprehension over them.

[eridani]

261. There certainly is a problem with them--monarch butterflies are dying off

--due to the extra helpings of pesticides that GMOs exist to enable.

[cstanleytech]

281. Thats a problem for the milkweed plant and the butterflies but they arent going

to force labels to be used for that.
The only way labels will probably be required is if it can be proven that the GMO plants can be proven to be a health risk to humans.

[truedelphi]

133. Yes thank you for pointing out the existing parallel between what is happening

These days with the GM seed, food and crop issue, and linking it to what happened in the past with cigarettes.

Back in the day, the industry-controlled science over the studies purporting to discover the safety of cigarettes and the lack of any nicotine/cigarette link to lung cancer is exactly what we are seeing now: that industry science purports to tell us that Gm food is safe, but they started saying it was safe before there was even time to assemble data.

I mean, for Pete's sake, Mike Taylor merely PROCLAIMED that food from Gm crops was of nutritional similarity to conventional crop. He certainly did not utilize science, as the new Gm foods were only entering our food chain around that time in history. (1993, if memory serves.)

There were no decades of data to provide any studies by which he could frame an argument for or against Gm foods.

We now have a Corporate-based "science" that is similar to what we used to have when the Holy Roman Church issued proclamations about what to believe in terms of how the Church "knew" that the sun revolved around the earth.

Meanwhile, Prevocet, Zantac and other stomach remedies are increasingly profitable on account of the fact that the Gm foods are not digestable. Colon and stomach cancers are going up in rates that are unbelievable.

[Scuba]

57. ... and a flotilla of other issues.

[marym625]

63. The demobots in this country

That rely on talking points for their "news" and "facts" are why what she says is important, regardless of what office she holds, doesn't hold or runs for.

I have never understood the push for her to run. Couldn't pay me to vote for her. She's a warmonger and against civil rights.

Regardless, I agree that she is doing great damage with her pro GMO stance. Nice post. Thank you


On the "demobot" - I am a life long Democrat but I don't deny there are those in the party that just don't do the research they should on certain issues. Sadly, for some, on any issue.

[Generic Other]

65. Why is she always on the wrong side of every damn issue that matters???

Why $hould any of u$ take her $eriou$ly? All $she care$ about i$ collecting donation$ to $hill for the corporate termite$ in charge. Let her find her donation$ and her vote$ among the 1%. $he $houldn't earn a $ingle vote from anyone in the 99% unle$$ we are damn fool$.

[Shivering Jemmy]

132. Well this issue doesn't matter

at least.

[HuckleB]

147. How is this the "wrong side" of this issue?

You'd prefer that she ignore the science of the matter?

Really?

WOW!

[Generic Other]

155. Shill it to someone who cares

Corporations don't have a right to force feed people to eat engineered crapfood. That is the bottom line. Science or no.



That's science too. I want no part of it.

[HuckleB]

158. I get it. You prefer fiction-based fear over science.

That's your thing.

The shill gambit is always as lame as it ever was.

[Generic Other]

168. Why do you think you have the right to force feed me???

I said "no thank you" [politely. You come back with "It's good for you." I said, "No thank you. I like Nature's way better." You say, "You are anti-science." How long before you just stick a hose down my throat and pump the shit in?

Where do you get off attacking people for not wanting to sit at your banquet and eat your poison? You don't have that right. Simple fact. We are all allowed free choice in this matter. I will not spray that crap in my yard, kill bees by supporting the products or ever stop demanding that you quit tampering with and adulterating my food.

[HuckleB]

190. No one is force feeding you.

Why are you force feeding baseless fear, and attempting to use the government to help you do so?

[Generic Other]

196. I don't wish to consume your product

Your putrid, nasty, fetid, moldy, maggoty, rancid, stinking, rank, loathsome, rotten, repellent, nauseating, gross, abominable product. Go peddle it to people who desire more dreck in their food. I am not a butterfly killer. A bee killer. And I don't want to eat what kills them.

[HuckleB]

197. I do appreciate the bizarre confession.

Thanks.

[Generic Other]

199. I do not want to consume your product

Sell it to extraterrestrials.

[HuckleB]

200. No one is making you consume anything.

Why are you trying to make the government do something that makes no logical, science-based sense?

[Generic Other]

208. I want to know when your product is in my food because I do not want

to consume your product.

[HuckleB]

250. I have no product.

You have no basis for your desired label. You are pushing an unethical stance.

http://fafdl.org/gmobb/gmos-an-introduction/

[Generic Other]

286. I don't want to consume what you are pushing

You can argue until you are blue in the face and fall over dead in a puddle of your own stomach fluid, but I do not wish to consume what you are selling.

NOTHING you say will change my mind. And I am not the only one who feels this way which is why you care so much.

[HuckleB]

307. You don't have to eat safe foods.

You can spend much too much money on "organic" foods. And you're good.

Right?

Why force poor people to eat even less than they do now?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. Maybe Hillary should have a GMO label..er...logo attached.

[L0oniX]

258. GMO as in Goldman Money Org?

[wyldwolf]

67. Another site that says someone is 'wrong' on science but doesn't quote science

[Warren DeMontague]

69. Genetic engineering is a process. A tool.

"GMOs" aren't inherently bad or good, nor are they intrinsically or inherently "dangerous".

Unfortunately, as with any discussion around science in this country, there tends to be a lot of knee-jerk noise and hyperbole.

I think it is a legitimate question, for instance, if the best use of this powerful and promising technology is to tweak food crops to sell more pesticides- that's a really debatable point. But it's not the idea of genetic manipulation itself; humans, of course, have been "genetically manipulating" plants for 10,000 years- it's the use.

I also think labeling and transparency is a good thing. If people want to avoid GMOs, for wnatever reason, that should be their right.

[eridani]

87. Those ancient Mesoamericans were really geniuses

--what with figuring out how to insert salmon DNA into tomatoes. Monsanto is attempting to control the food supply. It has won every lawsuit against farmers for "stealing" their patented material that escapes and contaminates the crops of the independent small fry. (OK-that's an aside--I agree with your general position.)

People have a lot of reasons for avoiding GMOS. My problem is Monsanto, not genetic engineering. I don't have a problem with golden rice at all. The work is being done by a non-profit foundation and they are giving the seeds away. Rice already has a gene for beta carotene--just in the leaves and not the grain. Inducing expression in the grain has much less potential for harm than say, introducing genes for pesticide resistance.

[Warren DeMontague]

97. That's pretty similar to the point I'm trying to make.

I don't think making the world safer for roundup sales is a particularly noble goal.

[CanSocDem]

101. Try to keep up...

"... if the best use of this powerful and promising technology is to tweak food crops to sell more pesticides..."

It's about who controls your food industry. If you let Monsanto own the plant, they will soon force you to eat it. And arrest you if you try to eat something else.

The last 40 odd years of fast food has made the American mind mushy.


.

[Warren DeMontague]

119. Oh, yes, I live on McDonalds and as such I'm vulnerable to the spooky Monsanto conspiracy.

Actually, neither.

Monsanto isn't coming to get you.

Try to keep up.

[HuckleB]

136. Farmers work to use less pesticides.

Do you know why?

[truedelphi]

111. Warren DeMontague -- there are huge differences between what humans have done with

Selective breeding, and what goes on with the GM efforts.

For one thing, no matter how hard anyone worked at selective breeding, using traditional methods, they could not insert the genes of a salmon into a strawberry.

And selective breeding never involves utilizing a viral bit of matter in order for the genetic selcetion to actually insert itself into every single cell of the plant.

[Warren DeMontague]

120. I'm not terrified of the technology, like I said it's a tool.

The best use of that tool, as others have noted, may not be to sell more roundup. However, making rice more nutritious and potentially eliminating some blindness in the 3rd world? Sounds like a winner.

I do support the right of people to know whether their food contains GMOs. But the technology is coming, and for the rest of humanity, I think it holds significant promise.

But, then, I happen to still think science can achieve great things.

[JaydenD]

86. I wonder who to trust on this matter, Arundhati Roy or Hillary...

I don't recall Roy selling any crazy sniper stories

[mmonk]

105. No third way Democrat for president can convince me to vote

anymore. I will concentrate on the few candidates I can (being a gerrymandered voter) but Hillary on the ticket will not motivate me to vote. Neither will their false framing anymore. I will vote issue to issue and fight in the streets and courts. The US is lost to representative government and I am no longer naïve to think otherwise. Therefore, movement politics is my quest for future generations.

[99th_Monkey]

106. And if Hillary can't get even THAT one right, God help us if she becomes POTUS ~nt

[truedelphi]

109. Mrs Clinton might be wrong, but she has the power.

Unike the rest of us.

[HuckleB]

124. She's right, and showing that she will go with science is a good sign.

[PatSeg]

144. I know you are not that naive

She is NOT going "with science", she is going corporate and everyone here knows it. Give it a rest.

[HuckleB]

146. I'm not naive. That's why I know she is going with the science.

That's the progressive thing to do.

[PatSeg]

154. Sounds like

a Monsanto talking point, not something a liberal or progressive would say.

Definitely sounds like something good old Frank Luntz would come up with though.

[HuckleB]

156. So you have no actual evidence to support anything you are "supporting."

Got it.

[PatSeg]

164. I have plenty of evidence

as do MANY people here. I've seen you do this before and its like you are following a script.

Most of your comments in this thread are snappy little one-liners with little or no actual substance or gravitas. Instead of addressing what people actually say, you come back with zingers that are really attacks more on the person, than the evidence or information that they present. Feels a lot like the old playground taunt: "I know I am but what are you?"


Keep it up, maybe someone will take you seriously!

[HuckleB]

251. No, you don't.

Why are you pretending?

http://fafdl.org/gmobb/gmos-an-introduction/

[MrMickeysMom]

139. Actually, she has power of the GMO based corporations for whom she carries the H2O...

… But not the power of most people in this world.

I'm not ready to be compared as "the rest of us" to this corporate power. It's the kind of thing one would say when taking a defeatist position…

GMO's need to be defeated in our food chain or, "the rest of us" will cease to be.

[HuckleB]

143. That's quite the hyperbolic rant.

Let's see the consensus of peer reviewed science that supports your hyperbole, uh, please.

Thank you.

[MrMickeysMom]

171. I don't think there is a preponderance of peer reviewed scientific studies, much due to the industry

Uh… is that an answer for you?

This is no hyperbole… but, it's more than a cautionary note that GMO in the food chain has a direct relationship with poor health outcomes.

Your response seems, "so… show me peer review science, or your talk is nonsense"… It is not.

I see this the same way I see what has happened here in PA with a similar argument with the gas and oil industry. Because the state general assemblies pas laws (ALEC sourced) like Act 13, which forces infiltration of ground water and toxic air (causing poor health outcomes) and allows this industry to not have to release proprietary agents that go into hydraulic fracturing, the GMO companies' refusal to release information are tolerated here, not even requiring labeling of their products.

This is a safety issue, and I have no scientific peer reviewed journals that I can cut and paste without membership to the blue journals. I doubt this is the first time you've heard this. It is a great frustration voiced by others like me, so you may call my concern, "hyperbole", but I call it a safety issue to to the genetic alteration of the food chain.

Do you also want to gag unhappy consumers or those who demand labeling due to health concerns so that they can at least make informed decisions? Until the needed information is released to the public, we need to join other countries in doing this.

The problem is one of the GMO companies' making; they have only to release full details of what the added sequences make to let the public (or public interest groups) find out what dangers may lurk in those sequences (if any).

But you want the science first, or I should just be quiet? Dkembi says, "no-no-no-no! Get that weak shit outta here!"

[PatSeg]

194. Some people don't want evidence or logic,

they just want to argue and put people down. It appears if you throw enough evidence at them, they just move on!

Nonetheless, I appreciate your articulate comments!

[HuckleB]

195. There are 600 plus independently funded studies that have been done.

The rest have been reviewed by independent scientists.

No other technology can claim such a massive evidence base for safety in regard to food plants.

Uh, you were saying?

[PatSeg]

204. Pseudo-Scientific Defense of GMO Safety is Smoke and Mirrors

From Jeffrey Smith, author of Genetic Roulette

<In my initial challenge to the GMO industry, I sought rigorous, independent scientific data that would enrich the global discussion and better characterize GMO risks. But the posts written by biotech apologists Bruce Chassy and David Tribe demonstrate without doubt how flimsy and unsupported the industry's claim is that GMOs are safe. Their evidence is neither independent nor rigorous. Instead, Chassy and Tribe merely dust off the same old false assumptions and blatant fabrications that have long been exposed as hollow and even shameless. GMWatch describes it as "disinformation and ad hominem attack dressed up as 'the open-minded search for truth.'"

Dr. Brian John offers this take on the new site:

The whole exercise is utterly grotesque—and is based on the hoary old line that they (Chassy and Tribe) represent "proper" science and that anybody who disagrees with them or who provides "inconvenient" evidence is by definition either a charlatan or a nutter. Their line is that proper peer-reviewed science always shows that GM products are entirely safe, and that on the other side there is nothing but "misinformation." That of course is a grotesque distortion—there are scores of peer-reviewed papers that Chassy and Tribe have to explain away as aberrations or as based on fraudulent research. In a bizarre sort of way, one has to admire their strange obsession, and one cannot dispute the vast amount of effort that they have put in to their latest exercise in vilification. Poison pours off every page on the web site.

Jeffrey Smith's great sin, it seems, is to let the science speak for itself. This is the opposite of what Tribe and Chassy do. They grab a selection of worrying scientific findings that are foregrounded in the book. Then they engage in a childish game of wild speculation and distraction in a desperate attempt to make the data mean something other than what they obviously do mean. . .>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/pseudo-scientific-defense_b_528477.html

[MrMickeysMom]

206. I appreciate your reply, PatSeg...

It will be met with (no doubt) and "Uh"...

[PatSeg]

210. You're welcome

I fell for all this before when Neil Degrasse Tyson told anti-GMO folks to "Chill out" and the pro-GMO people were all over that thread. I took the bait a few times and then I saw their routine very clearly. A lot of button-pushing and smug remarks, very little if any substance. The point evidently wasn't to inform, it was to ridicule, which I must say they do very well. The end result often is the thread shuts down, because people get frustrated or upset. I was determined not to let that happen again!

[HuckleB]

249. So you don't understand the terminology of pseudoscience.

You are choosing to ignore reality.

http://fafdl.org/gmobb/gmos-an-introduction/

[MrMickeysMom]

207. Well then...

By all means… name them here and we'll all take "uh" look!

[PatSeg]

211. Yes

I would take a "uh" look!

[HuckleB]

256. You would?

You'd actually care about evidence over baseless fear mongering?

Really?

http://genera.biofortified.org/viewall.php

[PatSeg]

267. Snarky

and "uh" I have read that.

Time for another sarcastic answer.

[HuckleB]

271. You've read the nearly 1800 studies that have shown no concerns about GMOs?

Really?

[PatSeg]

280. 297 scientists and experts agree GMOs not proven safe

<Dr Angelika Hilbeck, chair of the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), which published the statement, said, “We’re surprised and pleased by the strong support for the statement. It seems to have tapped into a deep concern in the global scientific community that the name of science is being misused to make misleading claims about the safety of GM technology.”

The statement indirectly challenges claims by EU chief science adviser Anne Glover that there is no evidence that GM foods are any riskier than non-GM foods.[2]

Dr Rosa Binimelis Adell, board member of ENSSER, said, “It seems that Anne Glover chooses to listen to one side of the scientific community only – the circle of GMO producers and their allied scientists – and ignores the other. Thus she is giving biased advice to the EU Commission. For a science adviser, this is irresponsible and unethical.”

"To demonstrate the safety of GMO products, one must begin by assuming that they can be harmful, and carry out sensitive tests that are capable of detecting harm. As with other technologies like aeronautics and nuclear power, those who manufacture the products must not be the definitive source of safety data. Because rigorous safety testing has not happened with GMO crops, I remain skeptical.”>

(Emphasis mine) http://www.ensser.org/media/0713/


Einstein said: "It only takes one study to prove a whole theory wrong – no matter how many scientists believed in it."



<As scientists, physicians, academics, and experts from disciplines relevant to the scientific, legal, social and safety assessment aspects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs),[1] we strongly reject claims by GM seed developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists that there is a “scientific consensus” on GMO safety[2] [3] [4] and that the debate on this topic is “over”.[5]

We feel compelled to issue this statement because the claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist. The claim that it does exist is misleading and misrepresents the currently available scientific evidence and the broad diversity of opinion among scientists on this issue. Moreover, the claim encourages a climate of complacency that could lead to a lack of regulatory and scientific rigour and appropriate caution, potentially endangering the health of humans, animals, and the environment.

Science and society do not proceed on the basis of a constructed consensus, as current knowledge is always open to well-founded challenge and disagreement. We endorse the need for further independent scientific inquiry and informed public discussion on GM product safety and urge GM proponents to do the same.>

http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/


I await sarcastic one-liners and juvenile redundancy. Are you going off of a script???

[HuckleB]

282. Claiming to be a scientist doesn't make you one.

You might want to look at the reality of that list again. It's been shown to be full of fools.

Also, can you name that logical fallacy?

Do you have an actual evidence-based argument against GMOs, or do you just have the same old line of BS, as always?

[PatSeg]

289. Right back at you dear

Please tell me who the "fools" are.

There is plenty of "evidence-based arguments" against GMOs and you know it. I, however, know that it is a waste of time trying to convince you. My main concern is educating myself, not trying to convince people who obviously have an agenda. You are not here to share information or enlighten others or debate the issue or to learn something new. You are hear to antagonize, ridicule, and disrupt.

[HuckleB]

311. No, they are not!!!!

You are lying. Do you have a conscience?

The science is ridiculously clear. It is unethical to push anti-GMO fear mongering. PERIOD.

[wyldwolf]

314. dozens... hundreds of scientist deny global warming or that it's man made.

[PatSeg]

319. Why don't you discuss this with HuckleB?

He would be very receptive to your point of view, though you probably have met already.

That's it, I'm done for the night!

I'll leave you with a little Monsanto "fear-mongering" humor!







Please, please do not feel its necessary to reply.

[HuckleB]

255. So you didn't know this?

Really?

Umm. WOW!

http://genera.biofortified.org/viewall.php

[MrMickeysMom]

270. Mono-symbolically speaking...

Last edited Wed Sep 3, 2014, 11:32 PM - Edit history (1)

… "uh", "Umm" and "wow" is such a limited way to discuss the science that has already been presented in the thread.

[HuckleB]

272. "Sybolically?"

And ignoring a link to the hundreds of studies that show GMOs are safe is just sad.

If you can't offer up anything else, and we both know you can't, then admit that the fear mongers conned you, and that you should really take a look at the matter again, by using the actual evidence.

Thank you.

[MrMickeysMom]

278. You can probably get people who want to believe like you do to agree...

…but, you haven't shown anything on the science, much less discussed it... just sarcasm.

It would be good to realize that links to the science are up for discussion. You prefer kurt remarks. You've been given a chance to present evidence, and you respond with, "hundreds of studies that show GMOs are safe." Right there, you lost more than 99% of any scientific community.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[HuckleB]

285. Actually, I have, repeatedly.

Pretending otherwise is dishonest BS.

Please don't lie about me.

Thank you.

[PatSeg]

276. Ah, give it up!

The fear mongers have gotten to you and now you need to be deprogrammed!

[HuckleB]

283. Says the non-thinking programmer.

The irony is amazing.

[PatSeg]

290. You know

I've been called a lot of things, some accurate and some not, but NO ONE has EVER called me non-thinking. You need to pick your insults a little more carefully.

Geez man, give it a break already.

[HuckleB]

294. In this case, you might want to try thinking for once.

I'm only being very honest. VERY, very honest.

[PatSeg]

308. You know, I think you are right

I gave everything you've said some serious THOUGHT and decided that I really should stop responding to your taunts, snarks, and insults. Sure felt a lot like being in grade school, but not in a good way though. I really do know better. Maybe it was the boot avatar or your folksy name, HuckleB, it certainly wasn't your cogent and persuasive arguments.

So I will end our little exchange. This will give you more free time to engage someone else, if there is anyone left who will debate you. If not, can I recommend a movie to fill your time?

Or

Just kidding, I know you won't and probably have commented over at YouTube as well!


""

[HuckleB]

310. Awesome! Fiction-based propaganda is so cool!!!!

If you're actually able to sleep at night after posting that, well, that's scary.

[marions ghost]

142. Another good reason

not to back Hillary.

[HuckleB]

145. Because she doesn't kowtow to anti-science BS?

Really?

[marions ghost]

152. Hillary has no clue

about science. Her support of big Agra is noted.

But there are plenty of other reasons not to support Hillary.

[rhett o rick]

166. Because she kowtow's to big Corp-America and does not represent the people.

She either gave her integrity to Georgie Bush or proved she never had any.

I hear her running mate in 2016 is going to be Goldman-Sachs. The SCOTUS ruled that if corps were people they could run for office.

[cascadiance]

169. Has been tried, but corporatists don't want to fight these battles and court rejects them...

http://www.harikari.com/politics/first-corporate-person-candidate-for-congress.html

Apparently they aren't a person enough to be a U.S Citizen and 18. Non-citizens are prohibited from contributing to campaigns unless they have a green card as noted here...

http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_general.shtml#Can_nonUS_citizens_contribute

Hmm... I wonder if we have the basis to overturn McCutcheon based on this case where the candidate was turned down for running for office because it "wasn't a U.S. Citizen". If they ruled that corporations aren't U.S. citizens, as a means of keeping them off of campaign ballots, then it would seem that they should also be kept from contributing directly to candidates too, as they as "corporate persons" aren't citizens by this court ruling, and therefore aren't entitled to contribute money to campaigns as "people".

[HuckleB]

193. Got fiction?

That's all you got.

[rhett o rick]

203. And what have you got? Corp-America? We are in a fight to reestablish our

liberties and freedoms and Monsanto isn't on our side. Nether is H. Clinton-Sachs.

[HuckleB]

215. The consensus of science shows GMOs to be safe.

If you're pretending otherwise, well, it would appear that you are the one pushing corporate propaganda, and, BTW, pushing higher food prices for those who can afford it least.

LAME!

[cascadiance]

224. So are you also going to tell us that the "consensus of science" says there's no climate change too?

Sounds like the next absolute with no links to back it up...

Here's a large group of scientists that would disagree with your notion of "consensus"...

http://www.ensser.org/media/0713/

[MrMickeysMom]

230. Right here^^^^^^^^^Buddy

[HuckleB]

247. Wake up, Buddy.

http://fafdl.org/gmobb/gmos-an-introduction/

[HuckleB]

246. Ensser had been debunked over and over again.

Those who fight GMOs are in line with those who deny climate change.

Try again.

http://fafdl.org/gmobb/gmos-an-introduction/

[cascadiance]

165. She's also tried to use a "better vocabulary" to support the H-1B program...

Another case and point where Third way corporatists feel they can lie to the public about programs that have ugly details that hurt middle class Americans and workers worldwide in the case of H-1B program which looks to institutionalize indentured servitude. She can use that "better vocabulary" all she wants, but those who pay attention to the facts just AREN'T GOING TO BUY IT!!!!

[truedelphi]

182. Why, isn't she special?!?

She pretends that We Americans are uneducated illiterate drooling slobs, compared to her and her precious "well educated" foreigners.

The fact is, the jobs that were outsourced over the last thirty years included many, many research positions that Americans had mastered, until they got pink slipped so their CEO could move the company to Singapore or Shanghai.

We don't need to "re-educate" and "re-train" our citizens, we need to start letting dastardly people like Mrs Clinton know that due to their pretence of blindness to what they have done to our nation,we simply won't vote for them any more.

[PatSeg]

205. Just curious

Do the pro-GMO folks here expect to persuade people by being glib and insulting to people that disagree with them. Broad generalizations and sarcastic remarks won't win any converts, but it often shuts down debate, which I think may be the purpose of all the belittling that goes on whenever GMOs come up.

[wyldwolf]

218. Just curious

Do the anti-GMO folks here expect to humored and coddled when they continue to deny science?

So let's get a few definitions clear. No one here is necessarily 'pro-gmo.' We're pro-fact and pro-science.

And if your issue was really some corporate agenda with GMOs and not the GMOs themselves, we'd see a lot more threads like 'Stop evil corporations from monopolizing harmless GMOs.' But we don't see those threads.

[cascadiance]

223. But there are many people who don't even respond to our details here...

If Indian farmers who have been roped in to using GMOs are all committing suicide because their farming life has been destroyed with this newer methodology, how is that helping them? NOONE answers that amongst other things I bring up, they instead tell me that unless I complain about all "hybrid solutions" that I shouldn't even argue anything. That's just crap, and doesn't seek to try to break down the truth, but just trying to intimidate others in to not saying anything.

Certain corporate interests must have a lot of money flowing in to some people's pockets in some of these threads. Not understanding the emotional reactions for GMO farming here. I could see people being skeptical and asking for explanations of what is wrong with them, etc. if they don't know, or if they do know, asking a lot of questions to those who do have concerns to narrow down how they think their truth is more accurate than others who post here. But the way the talk is going here, like PatSeg must noted, doesn't seem like an effort to have a real honest discussion on the value or no of GMO farming, but just trying to push it on to us as "inevitable" like some other things are being pushed on to us. I hope that some here will attempt more to have an honest discussion on where "we have it wrong" or pull back on the intimidation tactics. It's conversations like this that lead many to leave DU. Perhaps that is by design, since perhaps that's what some may want here.

[PatSeg]

229. I think you nailed it

The primary purpose of the GMO advocates appears to be intimidation, not discussion. I've noticed that they challenge people to present scientific evidence or post links and when people comply, the challengers move on.

In the several threads I've seen on this subject, I have actually learned a great deal and it motivated me to seek out even more information. I also learned not to let people push my buttons so easily.

I know a lot of people who have left DU or who rarely come here anymore, and they all say pretty much the same thing. It is too contentious and people are too rude and close minded, not what we were drawn to originally. Now I'm beginning to understand why.

[MrMickeysMom]

231. …"But we don't see those threads…"

No… No, we see threads that do a pretty good job of inviting all the posers of science to inflect their subjective and weak attempt at scientific discussion.

You remind me of all those people in the Dungeon (DU2), or Creative Speculation. You specialize in mercenary cognition.

[HuckleB]

257. +1,000,000 ... 000

[MisterP]

233. they're ideologues: "I've given my decree: why are you still DISAGREEING WITH ME?!"

[PatSeg]

234. And a lot of schoolyard taunting

Very smug and condescending. I've seen them dominate more than 50% of a thread, mostly with their scripted one-liners. We have some professional disruptors here I'm sure.

[LittleBlue]

236. Haven't made up my mind on GMOs but I want them labeled

There are many reasons that consumers might want GMOs labeled. There is nothing wrong with many of the ingredients in popular foods, like certain dyes. And yet they are labeled so that consumers have a choice.

We don't even object to labeling foods "kosher" and "halal", even though there is no scientific basis for God. You could argue successfully that consuming these products will cause no physical harm. In some countries within the EU it's required to label halal and kosher meats. This is due to the moral beliefs that unstunned animal slaughter is wrong. And yet, if one believes that GMOs are harmful, those beliefs aren't respected.

Why should consumers get a choice when it comes to harmless ingredients and harmless meats, but not get a choice in a food they believe harms themselves or the ecosystem? The only argument against it is that, if given a choice, consumers might not choose to eat GMOs. How is a an anti-GMO consumer who doesn't like Monsanto's business practices any different than animal rights activists who objects to slaughter practices? How is that any different to a mother not wanting her children to eat high fructose corn syrup? Moneyed interests is the answer, and their unfortunate anti-choice crusaders cloaking themselves in science.

[NYC_SKP]

241. Safety aside, I want labels so that I can choose not to support Monsanto, et al.

Safety of the food is one thing, what companies like Monsanto do to farmers and communities is quite another.

Add to that environmental impacts and there's plenty of reason not to want to buy GMOs and every reason to want products labeled.

[PatSeg]

243. We are on the same wavelength

I just wrote something similar. I make an effort to avoid anything Monsanto related because of their long history of deceptive and destructive practices, as well as their effect on the environment.

I want my products labeled and I want to make my own choices.

[cascadiance]

263. It was "reporting" on Monsanto and firing reporters that gave Fox permission to LIE to us!

Court cases that ultimately said Fox had the right to fire any reporters that wouldn't LIE for them in their reports after a set of reporters refused to lie about their coverage of what Monsanto's growth hormone was doing in people's milk.

http://disinfo.com/2013/03/its-official-news-media-can-legally-lie/

That has set the precedent for the crap that corporate media has become today too! So Monsanto extends its domain in how it has screwed up our lives beyond just what it does with our food supplies, etc.

[PatSeg]

268. Their reach and power

is frightening. Decades of corporate deregulation has brought us to this dangerous place and we will be lucky if we survive it. I can't believe that actual human beings come on this site and advocate for them in the guise of being pro-science.

[eridani]

244. ^^^This!^^^ n/t

[PatSeg]

242. Well said

This attitude that GMO foods should not be labeled because the consumer is ignorant is very insulting and condescending. I'm quite sure companies resisted labeling the ingredients in their products when it was first required by law, much as they have resisted almost every regulation that benefits the consumer.

This is about far more than whether genetically modified foods affect our health. It is how these companies affect our world overall with their deceptive and coercive practices; the damage they cause to the environment and to the economies of poorer nations; their ability to buy politicians and infiltrate the government agencies that regulate them. This is a complex issue and can't be discussed with simplistic one-liners about being anti-science and anti progress.

Love your description of the GMO advocates that show up all over the Internet: "Anti-choice crusaders cloaking themselves in science". Attaching the world "science" to whatever one is selling, doesn't make it above scrutiny.

[HuckleB]

315. The attitude that GE technology should be labeled is sick corporate fear mongering.

It's the most predictable and researched seed technology around.

Labeling the technology gives no one any information about the product.

Please stop pretending otherwise.

Thank you.

[rhett o rick]

240. This is no surprise. H. Clinton stands with Big Corp America. She makes no pretense otherwise.

She knows where the money is. Goldman-Sachs gave her $400,000 for her personal wealth.

[L0oniX]

259. If GMO food is so good why try to hide it?

[cascadiance]

262. You would think that they would LOVE the "free advertising" of labeling!

Why don't they? Because they want to be able to LIE to us about what is in our food and not be called out on it. The only thing they give a rat's ass about is making money at OUR EXPENSE (in health and dollars!) and control over "patents" over our food supply to have another monopoly control everyone's lives...

[PatSeg]

269. For the most part

companies have resisted labeling since it was first required by law. They initially fight any regulation and pronounce dire warnings of how said regulations will cause them to layoff workers and raise prices. Transparency is their enemy.

[HuckleB]

312. Of course, the reality is the opposite.

You want to fight for the organic industry by lying about GMOs.

Whoops!!!!

You didn't think anyone would notice, as you worked to increase food insecurity for no good reason, other than profits!!!

[cascadiance]

316. So how is IDENTIFYING when GMOs are in food LYING about them?

You seem to be a bit confused with reality sir!

[mopinko]

273. no, no she isnt. lumping monsanto's corporate misbehavior in with the ALL the science

is a serious blind spot throughout the left.
we need all the tools we can get. TONS of research using genetic manipulation is being done outside of monsanto's labs.

good on her for not pandering to the cynical and stubborn.

[HuckleB]

274. Exactly!!!!!!

Thank you for your integrity!

[mopinko]

275. you schooled me well hb.

big part of my du education.

[HuckleB]

296. I'm not smart enough to "school" anyone.

I got to where I ended up because I had a truly open mind to the evidence.

You're in the same boat as I am. And that's good!!!

[mopinko]

317. you showed me where to find the evidence,

and how to spot the bs. i admit my time in the hot tub helped, as evaluating whether a link was to a bs site was part of the job.



still think we should have a du cruise.

[PatSeg]

292. Hillary needs to listen to the American people

Is she going to opposed labeling as well?

[HuckleB]

295. Fear mongering works!

Thanks for acknowledging that.

Now, can you actually justify the ridiculous costs of labeling something that gives the customer zero information about the product?

I'm sure that families who are not eating tonight are waiting to hear the answer to that question.

[cascadiance]

302. Why do you NOT want to know what you are eating?

Do you have complete faith in what's in your food to TRUST anyone who would sell it to you?

What if there weren't rules to have ingredients on the packaging of our foods at all. I'm guessing given your stances here, you would like that BETTER than what we have now, since according to you, then you probably could get your food cheaper and you would still believe God would make it safe for you then huh, or make it so that even if you eat some ingredients that a health condition you have causes you to die, then this would be ok as being God's will huh?

[HuckleB]

303. I do want to know what I'm eating.

I also know that I will know zero about the food product by knowing that it was developed by GE technology.

Why don't you want to know EVERYTHING!? Why do you think it's legitimate to label one of many technologies, but not the others, and not how much pesticide/herbicide was used, and what type?

Hmmmmmm. This is the problem.

[cascadiance]

304. But you are basically saying that you'd rather know nothing than everything here!

Did I say that I didn't want what pesticide/herbicide is being used? NO! How would you propose labeling that that would make GMO labeling more useful than the way it is proposed by doing so? Why don't you ask for that instead of asking that we have NO LABELING of GMO?

[HuckleB]

306. You have made it clear that you are focused on one thing.

A little intellectual honesty goes a long way. Are you able to do that?

Yeah, I didn't think so:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/208808