Anti-GMO? Pro-GMO? Food Evolution A full-length doc on the science of genetically engineered...

[steve2470]

Anti-GMO? Pro-GMO? “Food Evolution” — A full-length doc on the science of genetically engineered food. Theatrical Trailer and Hulu Link: http://www.foodevolutionmovie.com/hulu/

Link to tweet

[longship]

1. All food is genetically modified, one way or another.

The anti-GMO crowd are just wrong about science.

[Johnny2X2X]

13. Yup

The Anti GMO movement is to the left what Global warming deniers are to the right.

Doesn't mean that GMOs shouldn't be monitored carefully, just that they have been shown several times over to be safe.

[longship]

16. In fact, there's absolutely no evidence that GMOs are unsafe.

The anti-GMO crap is just that. Crap pseudoscience.

[pnwmom]

70. If they contain allergens that a consumer isn't aware of they might be -- for a person

with that allergy.

For example, if wheat, which I can't eat, was crossed with something I normally can eat, I would need to know that.

We need full labeling.

[longship]

71. That is why there is regulations.

And labeling tells you nothing. People ought to know better about that.

[pnwmom]

73. Are you kidding? Why do you think Ted Kennedy pushed for a food labeling bill?

With some people, labeling of allergens isn't an option -- it can be a matter of life or death.

You're going to tell parents of a kid with a peanut allergy that labels mean nothing?

Wow.

[longship]

75. Genetic engineering, one of the most regulated things on the planet.

And even though people have been eating genetically engineered food for better than 15 years, there is zero fucking evidence that it is unhealthy.

If one claims differently, let's see the science.

[wasupaloopa]

77. Why are you afraid of labeling?

[longship]

81. Labeling gives one zero information.

Plus, the argument for labeling is fucking circular!

First it's: Why are you afraid of labeling?

Then, when you get labeling, it's: See, we told you GMOs were dangerous. Why else would they be labeled?

It's like all the rest of the anti-GMO pseudoscience, based on deception and lies. That and a lot of screeching about Monsanto and glyphosate. All of it counter to the science.

[LanternWaste]

90. You certainly seems wedded to that unsupported allegation.

"Labeling gives one zero information..."
You certainly seems wedded to that unsupported allegation.

But I get it... anyone who disagrees with your premise 'screeches' out of ignorance and 'pseudoscience' only.

[longship]

96. Well, just look at the anti-GMO argument.

What is the problem with labeling? People just want to know what they are eating.

Of course, once one gets labeling, it's inevitable that the argument will be Why label if it's safe?

It is a circular argument, based on rubbish pseudoscience, and a lot of lies.

When one has to lie to oppose science, there's nothing left to support ones position.

Being anti-GMO is just like being anti-vaccination, or anti-climate change.

Ignorance of science is no excuse.

[pnwmom]

72. If it's so great, then you should be happy to label it. That's all I want.

I have some food allergies, and I need to know what's in the food that I eat. In my state, the voters approved a measure to require GMO labeling, and the corporate GMO pushers fought to overturn it.

If it's so harmless, they should be spending their money educating consumers, not fighting labeling.

[womanofthehills]

18. Maybe the anti-GMO crowd does not want to eat Roundup

[longship]

20. What in the Sam Hell does that have to do with it?

I'll tell you what. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

The anti-GMO crowd's fixation on Monsanto and Round-Up is positive lunacy. It shows just how sad pseudoscience kookery can get.

Hint: most genetic research done on cultivars is public funded and has zero, zippo to do with Round-Up.

And of course the alternative to Round-Up is what?

That's right. It's what the organic Ag folks use a lot more of. Of course, organic Ag doesn't come close to being sustainable. But they don't talk much about that except to parrot, "Is, too. Is, too" with zero supporting evidence. Just like their claims about GMO.

[womanofthehills]

26. You are not going to find GMO's without Roundup - they were made for each other

Sounds like you love you some Monsanto.

Hey, the alternative to Round-Up is organic gardening. Actually Putin is now claiming that Russia is going to be the worlds largest producer of non GMO organic food. He plans to dominate the high end market for ecologically clean and high-quality food. Maybe, Trump will copy Putin. Trump actually knows about how toxic our food supply is:



He posted this when he was running for president.

[longship]

29. That is abject rubbish.

Most research on genetic modification has absolutely nothing to do with Round-Up. Or Monsanto.

To say otherwise is just plain made up rubbish.

Why lie about something that can be so easily falsified?

Here's some science:
* https://www.popsci.com/article/science/core-truths-10-common-gmo-claims-debunked

* http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html

* https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-genetically-modified-food/

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/06/29/more-than-100-nobel-laureates-take-on-greenpeace-over-gmo-stance/

That's after just a quick Google.

There's a whole lot more, but I don't want anybody to get overwhelmed. Well, the evidence of GMO safety is a bit overwhelming.

My best to you.

[womanofthehills]

34. Corn is the #1 crop of the USA and most of it is GMO - HELLO - it was modified to be Roundup Ready

There is just as much research on the other end of the spectrum, including many studies connecting Roundup to cancers and other disorders.

Roundup Cancer Lawsuit
The Secret Ingredients in Monsanto’s Roundup That May Be Killing Human Cells

While Monsanto continues to deny that glysophate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is a carcinogen, the World Health Organization’s cancer research department, the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC), has classified the substance as “probably carcinogenic.” In addition, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment now lists glysophate as a “known carcinogen,” while a prominent scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has found it to be “the most important factor in the development of multiple chronic diseases and conditions that have become prevalent in Westernized societies.” But recent research indicates that glysophate may not be the worst part of Roundup.
https://trofire.com/2016/09/02/secret-ingredients-monsantos-roundup-may-killing-human-c

ells/

[longship]

35. Bad science makes for bad results.

Where's the peer review?

[pnwmom]

74. This was peer-reviewed.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)70134-8/abstract

[longship]

76. Bad link. nt

[pnwmom]

78. It works if you copy-and-paste. n/t

[wasupaloopa]

79. The food industry has a history of putting out information that is biased in its favor. Because you

google something does not mean it is in your interest.


Show me where GMO was designed to give you better nutrition

[longship]

82. Golden Rice!!! nt

[womanofthehills]

88. Golden Rice Is Not So Golden

So far, Golden Rice has swallowed up millions of research dollars over the past two decades and filled our media outlets with hype — but has failed to deliver. This failure is particularly harmful when one considers the enormous opportunity costs of the effort: diversion of attention, precious resources and support away from the established solutions that really work.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-marcia-ishiieiteman/golden-rice-not-so-golden_b_3882900.html

[PufPuf23]

66. Few GMOs are cultivars, you mis-used the term cultivar.

Genetically modified are plants with characteristics resulting from the deliberate implantation of genetic material from a different germplasm. GMO may form a cultivar but this is usually not the case. Generally most cultivars are from selective plant breading or cloning, GMOs may form cultivars but usually do not in practice

Cultivar usually refers to an assemblage of plants selected for desirable characters that are maintained during propagation. Most cultivars arose in cultivation, but a few are special selections from the wild. There is a process and form for naming cultivars that is an aspect of plant taxonomy. A GMO can be a cultivar and a few are but generally GMOs are not generally accepted as or "named" cultivars.

You are mixing several separate topics in your post and you are confusing the issues.

There are valid issues to be addressed about glyphosate.

Based upon what you have written here you have no qualification to talk of the issues at hand. I am not addressing the OP but what is in this post. You have zero business talking about the specific science if you mis-use the simple term cultivar as you have.

But I doubt you give a flying fuck.

[longship]

67. Well, obviously I am not an Ag guy.

I just follow science. My field is physics.

So I might not know the proper vernacular. Don't shoot me.

But the anti-GMO crowd are just like the anti-vaccination crowd, packed with pseudo-science claptrap. Everything is somehow Monsanto and glyphosate, which isn't even close to being true.

We've even got a post in this thread citing Joseph Fucking Mercola, a certifiable lying idiot. And he connects GMO to... you guessed it... autism!!!!

Such tactics do not at all help ones position. The same with the Monsanto and glyphosate screeching.

Why should anybody take such arguments seriously when all of the science says the complete opposite?

[PufPuf23]

69. Obviously you are not an ag guy.

I agree that there is lots of pseudo-science but also that there are also valid issues.

Genetic engineering is a huge leap in technology and mistakes will be made. DDT and 245T were once considered revolutionary substances. By no means do I condemn GMOs as a class.

[wasupaloopa]

83. Look, I don't want to eat GMO. That does not make me a kook. I want the right to choose what I eat

[longship]

84. The anti-GMO crowd absolutely does not only want choice.

They want no choice for anybody based on claptrap pseudoscience, and lies.

That's what this is all about. Compare, the anti-vaccination lunatics.

I stand for the science.

[womanofthehills]

89. Again I say it, Monsanto's science

You just made a claim about "golden rice" when everyone knows that never worked out.

[mythology]

104. Literally everything you eat is genetically modified

Even if you go buy everything at a local farm. The only difference is the time over which it is modified. Evolution is a thing, whether it's nature or farmers choosing to bred specific type of cows together or scientists in a lab.

[wasupaloopa]

108. We are talking about GMO!

[PatSeg]

91. Here we go

It is the same old arguments with the same people yet again. Their talking points and belittling methods have not changed, making it almost impossible to have a reasonable discussion about the issue here.

Meanwhile, health conscious people are doing everything they can to avoid toxic chemicals in their food, in spite of the Monsanto apologists. And most stores are carrying more and more organic and GMO/Roundup free foods.

Good to see you again!

[lunasun]

100. Monsanto doesn't like the labeling trend of non organic non gmo foods . Cuts into their profits

An example is del monte foods it's not organic but many of their products like their corn, carry non gmo on the can now.
Priced the same as other non organic brands , people have started to reach for the labeled can
Marketing strategy or whatever it still puts money in non gmo ag
The farmers will keep up with order choice demands and Monsanto loses
The film has close ties to ACSH

What happened to some of those old same ol same ol here that claimed they would drink a glass of roundup to prove it was harmless?? Never saw the videos , are they out there?

[PatSeg]

101. Well

They probably aren't still out there if they DID drink a glass of roundup!!! Of course, some of them could have grown a conscience. We can always hope.

[lunasun]

102. Well if you call this guy on it then you are a complete jerk!

[PatSeg]

103. "I'm not an idiot"

Oh, it never gets old and apparently he IS an idiot if he said something that stupid on camera.

[womanofthehills]

111. Hi - always like it when the intelligent, rational folks post

Good to see you again too.

[PatSeg]

112. Apparently some things

never change. I can't believe the same people are saying the same things. I've spent a lot of time on DU this past year and its funny how I rarely see some of them unless the name Monsanto comes up.

[progressoid]

113. If you are trying to avoid toxic chemicals in your food, then maybe Organic isn't the right choice.

The USDA keeps a list of chemicals (both synthetic and "natural" ) that are permitted to use in certified organic farming. Like bleach, copper sulfate, boric acid, calcium polysulfide, sucrose octanoate esters, sulfurous acid, chlorhexidine, furosemide (aka Lasix — a diuretic drug), oxytocin (a hormone that induces labor) etc.

The dirty little secret that the huge organic food industry doesn't want you to know is that "certified organic" produce is not grown with no pesticides, just different ones. And often in higher, more toxic doses. The nonprofit Pesticide Action Network calls organophosphates “some of the most common and most toxic insecticides used today.”


Actually, if you want to avoid pesticides in your food, you probably shouldn't eat at all...

About 99.9 percent of the chemicals humans ingest are natural. The amounts of synthetic pesticide residues in plant food are insignificant compared to the amount of natural pesticides produced by plants themselves. Of all dietary pesticides that humans eat, 99.99 percent are natural: they are chemicals produced by plants to defend themselves against fungi, insects, and other animal predators.

We have estimated that on average Americans ingest roughly 5,000 to 10,000 different natural pesticides and their breakdown products. Americans eat about 1,500 mg of natural pesticides per person per day, which is about 10,000 times more than the 0.09 mg they consume of synthetic pesticide residues.

http://potency.berkeley.edu/pdfs/Paracelsus.pdf

[customerserviceguy]

2. Thanks for posting this!

Sprint gave me free Hulu, I will have to look this up. I'm glad that the narrator is Neil DeGrasse Tyson, he's both smart and cool at the same time!

[Archae]

3. This documentary won't make any difference.

The anti-GMO hysterics and grifters will continue to spout their "Science iz BAD!" for decades to come.

No matter how fraudulent or simply stupid their claims.

This picture (from "Natural News" of course,) will dominate the propaganda.

[womanofthehills]

19. YUM! YUM! Love all that Roundup on the GMO's

Can't get enough!!!! I want to eat Roundup until i salivate and twitch.

[GulfCoast66]

4. Anti GMO is the same as anti-Vaccine

Which leads to anti climate change and then to Adam and Eve were prancing around the Garden if Eden 7000 years ago.

Either you believe in Science or you believe in Woo.

[Archae]

5. I don't "believe" in science.

I know it works, it's a tool.

Science is not to be "believed" in, like religion.

The anti-GMO and anti-vaxxer hysterics and grifters try to muddy the waters by saying people "believe in" a science or not.

[womanofthehills]

36. Well, there is "science" by Monsanto and other "science"

[TheFrenchRazor]

7. anti-gmo IS pro-science. there is plenty of scientific evidence to at least question the safety of

GMO industrial farming.

[Archae]

9. Show me.

[TheBlackAdder]

11. GMO does decrease biodiversity, so if there is a blight it will have far more impact on crop yields.

.

Also, in my global economies for emergin countries course, the claim that GMO crops creates more food is actually becoming more of a myth than a reality. The truth is that advancements in agrocultural engineering is advancing slightly faster than population growth, since the late 1960s. We actually do create arond 10-20% more food than there are people on this planet, it's just that economies, and food distribution prevents a lot of people from eating it. Food waste is unbelieveable. The food waste from the first largest city in Austria can feed its second largest city.

For the past couple of decades, there is little evidence that crop yields are increased by using the GMO seeds.

.

[GulfCoast66]

14. You totally neglect to explain the reason food production kept ahead of population growth:

Norman Borlaug and his green revolution that the left attacked and still attacks for the same reason they hate GMO. Evil Corporations. Mr. Borlaug prevented a billion starvation deaths yet still got hammered. And not by anti-science right but left. He was unapologetic and before he died was working to insure the public supports GMO because he knew it is the next step in feeding our growing population. Surely you are aware of this background, knowledge of which is critical to honestly discussing GMO.

BTW, Mr. Borlaug was a huge proponent of population control then the real secret of a sustainable earth rest.

[TheBlackAdder]

40. I didn't say anything about hating GMO, that's a projection of thought.

Agricultural equipment, research in crop growth, food relivery systems, water delivery, etc.

There are numerous reasons why crops were able to outpace human consumption. Monsanto, Cargill, Pioneer and others were trying to sell the benefits of GMO seeds as being a major contributor to this growth in food production, but they were just bullshitting people to increase sales and stock values.

[GulfCoast66]

48. All the things you stated played a very small role

But they pale in what improvements in genetics did.

With no changes in the things you mentioned genetics resulted in 2x and more improvements in yield.

The introduction of short stem wheat, which was a result of genetics was almost 100% responsible for that improvement. And following wheat was rice.

Since you teach a class in the economics of food you surely know that. Or have you not studied what was behind the unbelievable increases in yields in the 60s and 70s. Within 3 years Pakistan, Mexico and India were having trouble finding places to store all the grain they were producing

It sure as hell was not Agriculture equipment, research in crop growth(whatever the fuck that word salad means), food relivery systems(give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant delivery, which had absolutely nothing to do with the green revolution). I could go on.

Remember that on DU we have people who know pretty much everything. I have learned the hard way not to BS here.

The only meaningful reason we have not had billions of people starve on this planet, as everyone predicted in the early 60’s was plant genetics, mainly brought about by Norman Borlaug. Who won the Noble Prize for his efforts. That man saved a billion people from starvation buy using genetic manipulation.

[TheBlackAdder]

54. Then why are you BSing about the significance of GMO's in the last 40 years?

You know I am narrowing my discussion to the 70s and current years. Early genetics did help, but that was overshadowed by late sixties and more recent developments in agriculture, which did not have anything to do with genetics. Sure, I learned of the man who saved a billion people, but his initial efforts were later paled by other technical advancements. More recent pushes for GMO, by Monsanto and others, are just more of a sales pitch to sell a product than actually reap a true benefit.

[PufPuf23]

68. Borlaug's wheat and other work are examples of plant breeding, of creating

desirable cultivars. His work had nothing to do with genetically engineered plants.

His work was the product of genetic science but was not by genetic engineering but by selective propagation and clones, traditional methods of genetic manipulation that are not GMOs.

Note I am not commenting on GMOs. Most are beneficial. Many Nightshade plants are yummy, tomatoes, but some will kill you.

There have been unfortunate dead ends in agriculture science (think DDT, 245T).

The "Green Revolution" was a set of technologies that did not include genetic engineering, and time wise (1930s to 1960s) occurred before that technology existed.

I agree with you about Borlaug and the Green Revolution which have nothing to do with GMO technology.

There is a set of developing technologies in equipment and irrigation and soil fertility and conservation that went hand and hand with the Green Revolution, traditional plant development methods, and now with GMOs (and agriculture technological development continues, this is what scientists and engineers do).

[GulfCoast66]

87. His breeding techniques were definitely not the same as GMO

But he was manipulating genes in a contrived manner that would have never happened in nature since the strains of wheat he used came from many different parts of the world. But again, it was a traditional technique humans have used for thousands of years.

GMO is just taking that amazing technological step to a new place.

So often when you listen to GMO opponents they pay lip service to the science on which subject they have a losing hand and go straight to Monsanto, roundup, Monsanto...as if they refuse to understand that round-up resistance in just one of hundreds of GMO applications.

How we choose to used GMO is a legitimate question as is the way we regulate the corporations that develop the science. But having that conversation is made difficult when we continually are given junk science as an attack on GMO.

I appreciate your addition to the matter.

[progressoid]

39. "Monoculture" farming was happening for decades before GMOs.

Agricultural routines and economics are the drivers behind decreased biodiversity, not biotechnology.

[TheBlackAdder]

43. The push for selling GMO seeds, the false claims of a better/cost effective product are drivers.

It doesn't seem to impact the 4,000 different varieties of apples, but corn, soy, etc seems to be easier to manipulate by agriculture firms, and the decline of those varieties is plummeting. Hopefully, it won't take the route of the banana, where only one variety is worldwide. While there are different types of bananas, the ones we generally eat shares a genetic commonality, making a blight extremely damaging to that crop.

[progressoid]

51. Claims of a better/cost effective product have been drivers whether they are GMOs or not.

There are currently 19,780 different samples of corn from around the world at the Dept of Ag's Plant Introduction Station in Ames, Iowa. Nearly all of which you won't find at your grocers because they aren't cost effective to grow or people, and/or animals won't eat them.

The USDA asked farmers why they grew GM crops. Here's their response:

Also, Bananas are a perfect example of how monoculture has absolutely nothing to do with GMOs. Panama Disease afflicted the non-GMO Gros Michel banana production in the 1950's. New versions of Panama disease now threaten today's non-GMO Cavendish banana. Ironically, it may be GMOs that save the banana.

[TheBlackAdder]

56. Since you love the charts, get some more recent data, say from the 2015 or later.

There has been a recent realization that the farmers were duped by many of the hard sells that were put on them by the large ag suppliers. A lot of farmers have lost their family farms, or were forced into coops or acreements with Big Ag firms because they started to not make the profit they were promised and the costs of seed and herbicides were starting to drain their tight margins.

[progressoid]

80. That's rich.

You've made quite a few anecdotal claims. Where's your data to support your suppositions?

[womanofthehills]

23. Yea, pesticides and herbicides and vaccines are becoming all the same

Seems like herbicides are sneaking into vaccines esp. those made with eggs because of the high levels of glyphosate (Roundup) allowed in animal feed and Trump eliminating the glyphosate FDA testing program.

FDA Suspends Testing for Glyphosate Residues in Food

Government testing for residues of an herbicide that has been linked to cancer has been put on hold, slowing the Food and Drug Administration’s first-ever endeavor to get a handle on just how much of the controversial chemical is making its way into U.S. foods.

The FDA, the nation’s chief food safety regulator, launched what it calls a “special assignment” earlier this year to analyze certain foods for residues of the weed killer called glyphosate after the agency was criticized by the U.S. Government Accountability Office for failing to include glyphosate in annual testing programs that look for many less-used pesticides. Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world, and is the key ingredient in Monsanto Co.’s branded Roundup herbicide line.

Glyphosate is under particular scrutiny now after the World Health Organization’s cancer experts last year declared the chemical a probable human carcinogen. Several private groups and nonprofits have been doing their own testing, and have been finding glyphosate residues in varying levels in a range of foods, raising consumer concerns about the pesticide’s presence in the American diet.

The FDA’s residue testing for glyphosate was combined with a broader herbicides analysis program the FDA set in motion in February of this year. But the glyphosate testing has been particularly challenging for the FDA. The agency was finally forced to put the glyphosate residue testing part of the work plan on hold amid confusion, disagreement and difficulties with establishing a standard methodology to use across the agency’s multiple U.S. laboratories, according to FDA sources. Equipment issues have also been a problem, with some labs citing a need for more sensitive instruments, sources within FDA said.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/carey-gillam/fda-suspends-glyphosate-r_b_12913458.html

[lagomorph777]

106. Are we allowed to talk about GMOnsanto now?

I've gotten alerted in the past for that.

[TheBlackAdder]

6. Thousands of farms were acquired by Monsanto & Pioneer in South America using GMO seeds.

In a global economics of developing countries course, there was highlighted one practice of GMO abuse. Large agriculture would come to countries and offer 'free seeds' to farmers, who mostly lived on family farms that were owned for a hundred years or more. These farms used 10% of their crop for seed two cycles later, and all of the seeds were legacy and unadulterated by anything besides selectivity. BigAg made deals with governments to assist these farms by offering seed to "help" the poor farmers who only made enough to care for their fields and family, often just making arounf $2.50 USD a day. Many of these farms took this free seed deal as a way to save money, and after two years, when their legacy seeds would no longer germinate, were on the hook to purchase seed, which could not be used in future crop cycles. These farms were on the hook for essentially $2 a day in seed costs and most of them were lost or sold to BigAg within a several years.

Having owned a farm and having lived in a farm community, the use of RoundUp Ready 2 crops is becoming prevalent. I personally do not like my foods treated with an Agent Orange derivative, which is actually starting to cause the formation RU2 resistent weeds, leading to more and heavier treatments to the crops.

[Phoenix61]

10. Exactly

For me it's not that the plant is GMO per say. It's that it's been soaked in a highly toxic substance that it polluting the environment and that weeds will eventually develop resistance to. It is decreasing genetic diversity in our crops which leaves the food supply more vulnerable to blight/virus/fungus attack. The push to increase crop yield is leading to top soil erosion. The reliance on nitrogen based fertilizers is the main cause for the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. There are a whole host of problems in our food supply that need to be addressed and that Monsanto has no intention of doing so.

As a side note, the entrance tunnel of the Global Seed Vault, buried in the artic circle where seeds from just about every food crop are stored, flooded this year due to significant ice melt in the perma frost.

[progressoid]

12. If you are worried about global warming...

A global ban on genetically modified crops would raise food prices and add the equivalent of nearly a billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, a study by researchers from Purdue University shows.

Using a model to assess the economic and environmental value of GMO crops, agricultural economists found that replacing GMO corn, soybeans and cotton with conventionally bred varieties worldwide would cause a 0.27 to 2.2 percent increase in food costs, depending on the region, with poorer countries hit hardest. According to the study, published Oct. 27 in the Journal of Environmental Protection, a ban on GMOs would also trigger negative environmental consequences: The conversion of pastures and forests to cropland - to compensate for conventional crops' lower productivity - would release substantial amounts of stored carbon to the atmosphere.

Conversely, if countries that already plant GMOs expanded their use of genetically modified crops to match the rate of GMO planting in the United States, global greenhouse gas emissions would fall by the equivalent of 0.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide and would allow 0.8 million hectares of cropland (about 2 million acres) to return to forests and pastures.

"Some of the same groups that want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions also want to ban GMOs. But you can't have it both ways," said Wally Tyner, the James and Lois Ackerman Professor of Agricultural Economics. "Planting GMO crops is an effective way for agriculture to lower its carbon footprint."

...http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2016/11/ban-gmo-crops-would-cause-hike-greenhouse-gas-emissions

[womanofthehills]

46. In farming towns, the rain contains glyphosate

The GM farming system has made exposure to Roundup herbicide a daily fact of our existence, and according to the latest US Geological Survey study its probably in the air you are breathing...

A new study from the U.S. Geological Survey, accepted for publication online ahead of print in the journal Enviromental Toxicology and Chemistry, titled, "Pesticides in Mississippi air and rain: A comparison between 1995 and 2007," reveals that Roundup herbicide (aka glyphosate) and its still-toxic degradation byproduct AMPA were found in over 75% of the air and rain samples tested from Mississippi in 2007.

The researchers evaluated a wide range of pesticides currently being used through weekly composite air and rain sampling collected during the 1995 and 2007 growing seasons in the Mississippi Delta agricultural region.

http://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/archive/2014/15326-glyphosate-weedkiller-found-in-75-of-air-and-rain-samples

[Phoenix61]

47. Don't even know what to say

Lead in paint was bad but this seems so much worse.

[progressoid]

15. uh...wut?

It seems you are confusing genetic modification with patent laws.

Patents have been around longer than GMO seeds, for most of a century. In fact, outside of older heirloom varieties, most seeds today start with some form of patent protection—though some breeders release them without restrictions into the public domain, according to Jim Myers, professor of vegetable breeding and genetics at Oregon State University:

In all but a few cases, all contemporary varieties developed by private breeders are protected, and most public varieties are protected as well.

Also, weeds become resistant to all sorts of herbicides regardless of genetic modification. It's called evolution. Here's a database of herbicide resistant weeds.

[TheBlackAdder]

42. I've taken biology courses, as recently as a year ago. That evolution point failed its target.

The smaller farms bought into a free seed delivery program long enough to find that they could no longer fall back on their legacy crops to break their dependency on the GMO suppliers. This is not about GMO seeds directly screwing over the farmers, but the need to purchase seeds now from one of the major ag firms. The farms saw all of their profits go towards seeds and they could no longer support their farms or families.

The only confusion is your comprehension of my post.

[herding cats]

8. At this point all Im really worried about is if its contaminated with E. Coli, listeria, etc.

Those are huge health risks in our food supply right now and the FDA is understaffed and under budgeted to properly keep us safe

I’m sorry, but the GMO war is just going to have to wait until we have another Democrat in office to castigate. Until then we have much more serious matters to deal with.

[womanofthehills]

21. and Roundup is rampant in our food supply & Monsanto patented glyphosate as an antiobiotic??

Under Obama, the FDA finally started testing for glyphosate in our foods, but i guess the testing program has gone BYE BYE. Gee, seems like all our foods were over the levels allowable........ so they just stopped testing. Some private labs are testing and it's not good. GMO'S and Roundup are like two peas in a pod.

[womanofthehills]

17. Problem is Roundup (glyphosate) is sprayed & poured heavily on GMO's

[longship]

22. No. The problem is not Round-Up. It's anti-science kookery.

There is zippo science to support anti-GMO claims. That won't stop people from making such fraudulent claims.

I trust the science.

[womanofthehills]

24. So you trust Monsanto I guess

[longship]

25. No, I don't trust Monsanto.

But then again, Monsanto isn't the only organization doing research into genetic modification. Most research is publically funded.

But the anti-GMO crowd want to keep telling the abject lie that GMO is all about Monsanto and Round-Up and nothing else. That does not jibe with the facts. I find that position a bit troubling. Why make something up like that?

And BTW, GMO research is highly regulated. In spite of that, no genetically modified cultivar has been demonstrated to be harmful.

Worried about Round-Up? Wash your veggies before eating them. (You do know that glyphosate breaks down quickly, don't you?)

[womanofthehills]

27. It's not just glyphosate in Roundup - the adjuvants are worse

Roundup Revelation: Weed Killer Adjuvants May Boost Toxicity

Although the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup is generally thought to be less toxic to the ecosystem than other pesticides, concerns about its effects on human reproduction persist. In a study in Ontario, Canada, exposure of male farmers to glyphosate-based herbicides was associated with an increase in miscarriage and premature birth in farm families. Seeking an explanation for these pregnancy-related problems, researchers at France’s Université de Caen investigated the effects of the full Roundup formulation and glyphosate alone on cultured human placental cells [EHP 113 16–720]. The herbicide, they found, killed the cells at concentrations far below those used in agricultural practice. Surprisingly, they also found that Roundup was at least twice as toxic as glyphosate alone.

Virtually all previous testing of Roundup for long-term health damage has been done on glyphosate rather than on the full herbicide formulation, of which glyphosate makes up only around 40%. The remainder consists of inactive ingredients including adjuvants, chemicals that are added to improve the performance of the active ingredient. Roundup’s main adjuvant is the surfactant polyethoxylated tallowamine, which helps glyphosate penetrate plant cells.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257636/

[longship]

30. Now we have the inevitable special pleading.

Sorry. I'm not going to play that game. I see that some here are also citing an autism link. Does everything folks don't like cause autism? One is tempted to ask if those folks vaccinate their children.

The science is firmly on the side of GMOs as safe.

[womanofthehills]

38. Actually, glyphosate messes up so many pathways in our bodies - interesting study with Danish cows

So being anti Monsanto equals anti-vax......you forgot to throw in the chemtrails. You guys usually throw that in. Monsanto talking points. Hey, I prefer my food to be organic - SO I MUST BE CRAZY!!

There are differing opinions about the safety of this herbicide because long-term toxicology
studies have not been conducted and the EPSPS enzyme is absent in
humans and animals [6]. However, inhibition of EPSPS is not the
only activity of glyphosate in warm blooded animals. Other inhibited
pathways are reported such as Cyp450 aromatase inhibition, genotoxic
activity [7], teratogenic activity [8]
and trace element chelation [9-11].

https://www.gmoevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Glyphosat-D%c3%a4nemark.pdf

Journal of Environmental & Analytical Toxicology

[Cha]

55. Total Organic Eater here since the '70s,

womanofthehills. Thankfully there are plenty of wonderful organic farmers here who try to keep those damn seeds away.

Mahalo for all your patience in posting the reality of gmo. I stay the hell away from roundup.. I moved to the other side of the Island because when I came back to Kauai in 2010.. Monsanto had taken over the West side.. and I saw them out there spraying roundup.

Lawsuit accuses Monsanto of manipulating research to hide Roundup dangers

snip//

In a statement to CBS News, Monsanto said “These allegations are false. Monsanto scientists did not ghostwrite the paper.” The company reiterated “No regulatory body in the world considers glyphosate to be a carcinogen.”

But in California, a judge recently ruled the state can legally require them to warn customers the main ingredient for Roundup has the potential to cause cancer.

MOre..
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lawsuit-accuses-monsanto-of-manipulating-research-to-hide-roundup-dangers/

[womanofthehills]

61. I'm a total organic eater too, Cha

Luckily, NM has many organic farms and organic grocery stores. The Santa Fe market in the summertime is just filled with organic growers. I live in a ranching community so I only eat grass fed local beef. A member of my book club sells the beef and she doesn't even finish with corn - so no GMO worries. I have my own chickens and i feed them only organic grains and vegetables. Right now in my passive solar house (south side all windows) I have cherry tomatoes and greens growing all winter.

[Cha]

62. I'm so jealous! I love New Mexico!

And, I can imagine all the variety of fresh organic produce you get in season.

I use to live in California and actually worked on a bio-dynamic farm in the 80s .. and I was on a trip down south from New York in August 2008, when we went through Marietta, Georgia and stopped at a Natural Food store.. So much color and variety!

Good on you!

[womanofthehills]

31. Also, washing your veggies won't help because glyphosate is systemic

[longship]

33. More special pleading?

Sorry. I cannot go down that Yellow Brick Road with you. I have to stand behind the science.

[womanofthehills]

41. Glyphosate is in the water, and the plant takes up the water - and like magic - it's in the roots

Also glyphosate is in eggs according to the FDA - will you be washing the yokes? The highest levels are in grains and most people do not wash their wheat. Good to sing while cooking: "I'm going to wash that glyphosate out of my wheat."

Of course you are not going down the Yellow Brick Road, you turned right onto Monsanto Lane.

[longship]

49. More Monsanto and glyphosate screeching?

Is that what you think genetic engineering in Ag is?

Maybe you would prefer the herbicides that glyphosate replaced? Or the ones that the organic farmers are using? You need to do some reading, my friend.

I hope that you do.

[womanofthehills]

53. Here is some interesting reading - Monsanto being sleezy again.....

Monsanto’s Fingerprints All Over Newsweek’s Opinion Piece, a Hit on Organic Food

"The campaign for organic food is a deceitful, expensive scam," according to a Jan. 19 Newsweek article authored by Dr. Henry I. Miller of the Hoover Institution.

If that name sounds familiar—Henry I. Miller—it may be because the New York Times recently revealed a scandal involving Miller: that he had been caught publishing an article ghostwritten by Monsanto under his own name in Forbes. The article, which largely mirrored a draft provided to him by Monsanto, attacked the scientists of the World Health Organization's cancer panel (IARC) for their decision to list Monsanto's top-selling chemical, glyphosate, as a probable human carcinogen.

Forbes removed the story from its website on Wednesday and said that it ended its relationship with Mr. Miller amid the revelations."

https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-propaganda-newsweek-2528277875.html?utm_campaign=The+Organic+%26+Non-GMO+Report&product=RebelOutreach&utm_medium=RebelMouse&utm_source=Facebook&utm_campaign_id=98397470347

[lunasun]

57. Dicamba in use now also

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dicamba-drift-monsanto-defends-herbicide-farmers-say-it-harms-crops-n814716

[womanofthehills]

59. If a farmer uses dicamba and it drifts into your yard it will basically kill most everything

Lots of lawsuits.

[lunasun]

60. A dicamba/glyphosate herbicide mix is being sprayed on some crops like soybeans

Monsanto's GM soybeans that are tolerant to both herbicides.

[longship]

65. Organic farming is a scam.

It's not sustainable. Let's start with that. Don't get me started about their use of pesticides, something the anti-GMO crowd do not generally acknowledge.

It's late. Hope you have a good night.

[lunasun]

92. Del Monte is sourcing many products from non GMO and is not organic . No GMO does not mean organic

https://www.delmontefoods.com/frequently-asked-questions
In 2016, we worked with the USDA to verify our sweet corn products as non-genetically modified resulting in the USDA certification, "USDA Process Verified Non-GE/GMO". Del Monte is the first consumer products company ever to meet USDA’s strict criteria to qualify for their Non-GMO process verification program. This process goes to great lengths to ensure that Del Monte’s sweet corn is not mutated or impacted by “drift” pollination that can occur when our specialty sweet corn is grown in areas near genetically modified commodity corn. Look for the USDA Process Verified Non-GE/GMO claim on our corn products some time later this year.

WHY ARE ONLY SOME OF DEL MONTE'S PRODUCTS LABELED "NON-GMO"?

The fruit, vegetables and tomatoes we use in our products have always been Non-GMO, but some of our added ingredients for sweeteners or flavorings have been sourced from genetically modified crops like corn or soybeans.

In 2015, Del Monte Foods began labeling many of our vegetable and tomato products as Non-GMO (70 products in total). In 2016, we will be labeling all of our vegetables, fruit cups and many more tomato products as Non-GMO. In addition, efforts are currently underway with our suppliers to verify their ingredients’ non-GMO status, and, where necessary, to assure a consistent supply of replacement ingredients in order to label our remaining qualified products as non-GMO

[longship]

93. Non-GMO means non-science based agriculture.

Anti-GMO only means pseudoscientific rubbish.

One can only make up so much science before the real science overtakes one. Making shit up doesn't help.

[lunasun]

95. Just pointing out that non gmo and organic are not necessarily the same and that's not made up shit

My reply was to your response about organics tangent in a gmo thread .

[longship]

97. Anti-GMO is by definition made up shit.

Just like anti-vaccination. Just like anti-climate change.

They are are all pseudoscience, meaning that they are all absolute rubbish.

If one wants to promote genetic engineering as a bad thing one has better have science behind one. Unfortunately, there is no science behind it.

It is basic biology. All food since the beginning of agriculture is genetically modified. You have a huge proportion of bacterial genes in your DNA. You share over 50% of your genes with a fucking banana!

This is high school science!

[lunasun]

99. Again ...my response was to your comment bringing up organic farming . You seem all over the place

Non gmo does not mean organic was my point which you seem too angry to understand
I was just making the point that what ever you say about organic farming is not really important as it is not the only option for non gmo and that is why I gave the example of del monte foods
maybe your knowledge of farming only allows certain limited replies

[longship]

105. By far, anti-GMO means pro-organic.

That may not be universally true, but the trend is definitely there. Both are pseudo-scientific; both make falsified claims. As far as I am concerned, they are two in the same. The same Web sites which support organic, support anti-GMO.

And get this, organic is a marketing term, not anything scientifically meaningful, just like anti-GMO. Both are equally falsified. Maybe that's why they seem to go together from the scientific perspective.

Plus, organic farming is non-sustainable in the 21st century, just like non-GMO farming will be. Any arguments to the contrary goes against a whole lot of science.

How does one feed over 10 billion people in 2050 with organic farming? That's right. One cannot. Many will just starve. The same question for the anti-GMO crowd yields the same answer. People starve without it.

As others here have stated it, Norman Borlaug was correct. The anti-GMO crowd are tragically wrong.

[nolabels]

28. Monsantos Roundup Herbicide May Be Most Important Factor in Development of Autism and Other Chronic

The fact and the problem is that the crap effects the bacteria in your digestive tract. The bacteria in that area out-number the rest of the cells in your body almost ten to one.

Monsanto’s Roundup Herbicide May Be Most Important Factor in Development of Autism and Other Chronic Disease
Story at-a-glance
Two key problems caused by glyphosate in the diet are nutritional deficiencies, especially minerals, and systemic toxicity
Glyphosate is possibly "the most important factor in the development of multiple chronic diseases and conditions that have become prevalent in Westernized societies,” according to researchers
Your gut bacteria are a key component of glyphosate’s mechanism of harm, as microbes have the pathway used by glyphosate to kill weeds
Glyphosate causes extreme disruption of microbes’ functions and lifecycles. What’s worse, glyphosate preferentially affects beneficial bacteria, allowing pathogens to overgrow
Two key problems in autism unrelated to the brain yet clearly associated with the condition are both linked with glyphosate exposure: gut dysbiosis, and disrupted sulfur metabolism/impaired sulfate transport

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/06/09/monsanto-roundup-herbicide.aspx

[GulfCoast66]

32. Now you are posting the most nutbuggery of the nutbuggery

The reason westerners have less gut flora are many and no real science ties it to Autism.

When did you switch from vaccines to roundup as the cause of autism. Because both are total woo.

[womanofthehills]

45. Actually, Monsanto patented glyphosate as an antiobiotic - "might mess up your gut"

and it messes big with with your amino acid uptake and it binds your minerals - it chelates zinc, manganese, selenium, chromium and cobalt. However, from the original patent it sounds like it will kill any parasites you might have. But keep eating Roundup because we can see American's are all so slim and in such good health, and most likely, have NO PARASITES.

Patent US7771736 - Glyphosate

Protozoan parasites of the phylum Apicomplexa include some of the most important causative agents of human and animal diseases, in particular, malaria. The discovery that an organelle found inside parasites of this phylum probably stems from a plastid of plant origin has stimulated research on the effect of chemical herbicidal agents on Apicomplexa. Importantly, the growth of these parasites can be inhibited by the herbicide glyphosate, suggesting that the shikimate pathway will make a good target for the development of new anti-parasite agents. The present invention discloses the use of the herbicidal agent glyphosate in combination with the polyvalent anion oxalic acid for the prevention and therapy of these pathogenic infections.

http://www.patentbuddy.com/Patent/7771736

[nolabels]

50. I am sure you are one or in contact with a microbiolgist

For some who do not understand the topic you can start reading

Role of the normal gut microbiota

Abstract
Relation between the gut microbiota and human health is being increasingly recognised. It is now well established that a healthy gut flora is largely responsible for overall health of the host. The normal human gut microbiota comprises of two major phyla, namely Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes. Though the gut microbiota in an infant appears haphazard, it starts resembling the adult flora by the age of 3 years. Nevertheless, there exist temporal and spatial variations in the microbial distribution from esophagus to the rectum all along the individual’s life span. Developments in genome sequencing technologies and bioinformatics have now enabled scientists to study these microorganisms and their function and microbe-host interactions in an elaborate manner both in health and disease.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4528021/

Or try

[progressoid]

37. Mercola: The left's version of climate change denial.

[ismnotwasm]

98. One of my grandsons has autism and fuck this noise

Thank god my daughter—who understands nutrition from a good foods, combined with good healthy choices (probiotics, anti-free-radical etc ) also understand what garbage this bullshit is.

[StarryNite]

64. Thanks for posting this.

Not everybody cares but I prefer having healthier options.

It wasn't all that long ago when people denied the fact that smoking cigarettes was dangerous to ones health. Many woke up to that fact and quit, some in time but for others it was too late. In about a three year period I personally knew of five people, three of them family members, who died due to smoking related illnesses. And still there are people smoking like chimneys, it's their choice.

[CentralMass]

44. Article - 10 ways to keep your diet GMO-free

https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/25/health/upwave-gmo-free-diet/index.html

[Archae]

52. This article is pure bullshit.

The first "expert" cited is none other than Jeffrey Smith, the Maharishi Yogi "college" teacher of "Yogic Flying" and non-scientist.

And as many of use have pointed out, even "organic" produce, meats and milk are already GMO's.

[womanofthehills]

58. If produce is genetically modified, you should see a five digit code sticker beginning with 8

Organic produce codes start with 9, genetically modified with a 8

What do PLU codes say about your produce?
Consumer Reports News: May 07, 2010 11:52 AM
You know those little stickers on fruits and veggies? They’re called price look-up (PLU) codes and they contain numbers that cashiers use to ring you up. But you can also use them to make sure you’re getting what you paid for. Here’s what to look for:

• A five-digit number that starts with a 9 means the item is organic.

• A four-digit code beginning with a 3 or a 4 means the produce is probably conventionally grown. For example, regular small lemons sold in the U.S. are labeled 4033, large are 4053; small organic lemons are coded 94033, large are 94053.

• A five-digit code that starts with an 8 means the item is genetically modified (it has genes from other organisms). You won’t see many of those because only genetically modified versions of corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, papaya, and squash are now widely sold. And because PLU codes aren’t mandatory, companies can label those items as conventional. The problem is that although an estimated 60 to 70 percent of food items sold, including packaged goods, have genetically modified ingredients, little is known about the long-term effects of consuming them, and concerns have been raised about an increase in allergies and other health issues. For more info, visit the Non-GMO Shopping Guide website.
https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2010/05/what-do-plu-codes-say-about-your-produce/index.htm

[StarryNite]

63. Good info!

Thanks! Although some people don't seem to care, many of us do and should be able to distinguish organic from GMO. It's difficult to stay away from GMO entirely but we can at least cut back on it when possible.

[CentralMass]

85. Thanks.

[GulfCoast66]

107. Funny you put a photo of a lemon...

Has someone slipped in GMO citrus while I was not looking cause last I checked the are not GMO fruits on the market. Perhaps I missed it.

And you cover GMO and Organic both of which are niche markets. How would one identify non-organic, non-GMO which makes up a huge majority of the produce we eat.

[womanofthehills]

109. GMO papaya is on the market

most conventional fruit and vegs have a four digit number beginning with 3 or 4 if you read the above.

[CentralMass]

86. A list of some GMO free foods.

http://nourishedkitchen.com/gmo-free-food/

[womanofthehills]

110. Good list - I know one of our organic grocery stores in NM

makes a big effort to not sell any foods containing GMO's. They don't even sell any produce that is not organic.

[ismnotwasm]

94. This thread is going to be great!