Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
Sun May 11, 2014, 10:22 PM May 2014

Republicans are working on a bill to prevent states like Vermont

from passing GMO labeling laws.

I understand completely why Republicans, backed by large corporations, would take positions against consumer choice and truth in advertising.

What I don't understand are the "progressives" who side with the Rethugs on this issue. People should be able to make up their own minds about whether they want to buy GMO foods or not -- and they can't do that without labeling.

http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2014/05/08/food-industry-to-sue-over-vermont-gmo-foods-law

The Vermont law takes effect in mid-2016, but opponents said shortly after the bill signing that they would file a lawsuit. The Grocery Manufacturers' Association said government has no compelling interest in warning consumers about GMO foods. Another obstacle to the state law looms in Congress as Republicans work on a bill that would forbid states from passing and enforcing laws requiring GMO labeling.

Critics of GMO foods consider them environmentally suspect and a possible health threat. But many in the food industry say the food is safe, the technology boosts food production, and its use is less environmentally harmful than traditional farming methods.

In signing the legislation, Shumlin asked for support Internet-wide, announcing the launch of a new website to help the state raise funds toward a court battle with agribusiness or biotech industries.

"We are asking people all across America, and all across the great state of Vermont, to go to (the website) and make a donation, so that we can win the Vermont Food Fight Fund fight not only for Vermont, but for America," Shumlin said.

167 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Republicans are working on a bill to prevent states like Vermont (Original Post) pnwmom May 2014 OP
So much for states rights....eh. Historic NY May 2014 #1
Wait, be fair, remember republicans hate America, in that context this makes sense randys1 May 2014 #54
Well said. Louisiana1976 May 2014 #65
That's not true Fumesucker May 2014 #79
So much for the invisible hand of the free market. DetlefK May 2014 #56
Considering how much they claim the commerce clause has been abused Nuclear Unicorn May 2014 #66
YOU ALL OWE ME MONEY FOR THE SUNSHINE!!! JackRiddler May 2014 #71
I suppose states rights only matter when those rights are aligned with conservative interests. nt ohnoyoudidnt May 2014 #120
That's the Republican committment to states rights for you. n/t Crunchy Frog May 2014 #2
And freedom. Jamaal510 May 2014 #13
But the Republican notion of freedom is the freedom of corporations to hide food ingredients. Enthusiast May 2014 #33
The fact the you put progressives in quotes answers your own question. Revanchist May 2014 #3
+++ 1,000 +++ n/t RKP5637 May 2014 #4
normally I'd agree with you, but I disagree on this issue.... mike_c May 2014 #5
I don't agree that the paternalistic choice is the correct one. pnwmom May 2014 #6
Post removed Post removed May 2014 #7
you know what is every one thinking? wisechoice May 2014 #8
Companies fighting labeling are proving they have no confidence in their prioduct. MohRokTah May 2014 #11
Exactly.. chickenshits are scared to death people are going to see the GMO Cha May 2014 #30
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. Scuba May 2014 #35
no, they oppose labeling because they know that scientifically illiterate consumers... mike_c May 2014 #43
A wonderfully illustrative example of 'post hoc ergo prompter hoc' LanternWaste May 2014 #55
That's what the same companies said about labeling monosodium glutamate, too. MohRokTah May 2014 #57
Oh no! Monsanto might not take over the world. JackRiddler May 2014 #67
this is the liberal version of climate change denial.... mike_c May 2014 #69
No, it's the usual libertarian-corporatist bullshit. JackRiddler May 2014 #73
I completely agree with this post.... mike_c May 2014 #74
Well I'm glad we can agree on the most important point then. JackRiddler May 2014 #75
which is the major reason I do not want to support Monsanto by purchasing GMO foods. bettyellen May 2014 #86
because GMOs are not the problem-- Monsanto's business behavior is the problem... mike_c May 2014 #90
I do not trust such an entity... JackRiddler May 2014 #92
I do not want to by GMOs, and I should not have to justify that decision to you- period. bettyellen May 2014 #93
I agree.... mike_c May 2014 #94
I bet I would not respect half your purchases, LOL. Who cares? People do not always make rational bettyellen May 2014 #95
No, it's mega corporations refusing full disclosure. MohRokTah May 2014 #115
...as is the consumer's right. Chan790 May 2014 #153
I think there is some real scientific information that is putting GMO into question airplaneman May 2014 #12
I'm not sure how I feel about labeling GMO foods. Bonx May 2014 #15
Well, science isn't for you or I to decide. alp227 May 2014 #20
And it shouldn't be for Monsanto to decide either. pnwmom May 2014 #25
Everyone throws around Monsanto's name like Dr Hobbitstein May 2014 #39
Yeah, a worldwide NYSE company with a market cap of $63 billion Art_from_Ark May 2014 #40
It isn't a question of scientists publishing deliberately false studies. It's a question of studies pnwmom May 2014 #78
Nonsense mindem May 2014 #105
Monsanto is NOT smaller than Whole Foods. MohRokTah May 2014 #117
Sorry, smaller would be the wrong word... Dr Hobbitstein May 2014 #164
this simply reinforces my main point.... mike_c May 2014 #47
consensus? wisechoice May 2014 #42
They are not scientific organizations! alp227 May 2014 #45
your colrful post means nothing wisechoice May 2014 #61
Note: "advocacy" alp227 May 2014 #62
not so much.... mike_c May 2014 #49
Your post was alerted on - jury unanimously said LEAVE IT: Skip Intro May 2014 #22
A personal thank you to Skip Intro and the Jurors. airplaneman May 2014 #166
I want all foods properly labeled. Very shifty and dishonest of any Corp. against full disclosure. Sunlei May 2014 #23
Yes, consumers should know they're buying a product that Roundup was used Cha May 2014 #31
I don't have any disagreement with that.... mike_c May 2014 #44
Gotta disagree rpannier May 2014 #14
It's not just in Korea. Independent researchers in the US have also been prevented pnwmom May 2014 #26
This pamphlet from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare Art_from_Ark May 2014 #41
There is a series hole in your logic. The people that want GMO labeling want it so they rhett o rick May 2014 #16
Why don't people want every hybrid technology labeled? Why just GMOs? HuckleB May 2014 #98
That should be a Monsanto commercial... daschess1987 May 2014 #17
where did you hear me say anything at all positive about Monsanto? mike_c May 2014 #52
Really? billhicks76 May 2014 #18
And just because the FDA during the Reagan administration decided that henceforth pnwmom May 2014 #27
yes, as a matter of fact it is.... mike_c May 2014 #46
Thanks for the info billhicks76 May 2014 #96
There is a study that disputes their safety BrotherIvan May 2014 #112
I presume you've read the paper.... mike_c May 2014 #116
That assumes a very healthy patient BrotherIvan May 2014 #118
Wow! Enthusiast May 2014 #34
Other than anecdotal observations, this premise is based on precisely what? LanternWaste May 2014 #53
The reverse is true of products labeled "organic" Nuclear Unicorn May 2014 #70
i remember when GMO was first coming out scientists were genetically modifying rice to contain more dionysus May 2014 #165
, blkmusclmachine May 2014 #9
If they were certain the food was safe, they would have GMO plastered on the labels. MohRokTah May 2014 #10
Because the anti-GMO types have POISONED that word! alp227 May 2014 #21
NO, because the companies producing the shit have NO CONFIDENCE MohRokTah May 2014 #38
"Fear! Fear! Fear!" HuckleB May 2014 #99
We are so powerful!! roody May 2014 #103
If they were certain the food would safe, they would give independent researchers pnwmom May 2014 #29
Thank you, PNWMom. Some things are so clear cut and easy to see... Ecumenist May 2014 #84
You know when I was in the middle east Mbrow May 2014 #19
And, don't forget Mexico is smart enough to kick Cha May 2014 #32
Well... Unknown Beatle May 2014 #24
And let independent researchers use their seeds in research and publish their results freely. pnwmom May 2014 #28
Why label something that is safe? alp227 May 2014 #48
Yes, the burden of proof DOES fall on the food companies. MohRokTah May 2014 #58
The reason the burden of proof doesn't fall on the food companies is because of the Reagan- pnwmom May 2014 #76
Why not force-feed something that is safe? JackRiddler May 2014 #87
What is your economic relationship roody May 2014 #104
Follow the money Dorian Gray May 2014 #36
Does this smell like TPP? pangaia May 2014 #37
I think it could be part of it - TBF May 2014 #64
They should all be wearing suits with a Monsanto coat of arms badge. L0oniX May 2014 #50
Well, I suppose that the food industry is concerned that MineralMan May 2014 #51
That they fight the labeling tells me there's more to it than they are willing to disclose. MohRokTah May 2014 #59
Exactly! BrotherIvan May 2014 #109
Yes, just as they've fought other labeling, such as allergy labeling. pnwmom May 2014 #77
Just take a look at this thread to see why. jeff47 May 2014 #97
+1,000,000 ... 000 HuckleB May 2014 #101
What is your financial relationship roody May 2014 #106
I don't have one. HuckleB May 2014 #107
Why are you so committed to denying roody May 2014 #114
Why are you so committed to labeling something that is meaningless? HuckleB May 2014 #121
Obviously, it means something to many people? roody May 2014 #130
No, the issue is very different from the anti-climate change debate. pnwmom May 2014 #108
Nope, that's not a difference at all. jeff47 May 2014 #122
This researcher of 30 years USED to agree with you. pnwmom May 2014 #134
And there's climate scientists that USED to agree with the consensus. jeff47 May 2014 #138
Did you even bother to read the article? You can read her direct quotes. And if Monsanto pnwmom May 2014 #141
Monsanto is not all GMOs jeff47 May 2014 #144
Monsanto is the biggest and the most powerful, and it's funding the fight pnwmom May 2014 #147
And yet, the fact that your article doesn't work at all jeff47 May 2014 #151
You haven't done anything to prove that PhD scientist is wrong. pnwmom May 2014 #162
Then they should eb PROUD to stick a 24 point font label of GMO on their products. MohRokTah May 2014 #111
Only if you aren't paying attention to this thread. jeff47 May 2014 #123
How is not eating GMO food hurting ANYBODY? MohRokTah May 2014 #124
I already gave that example. jeff47 May 2014 #125
I don't care. It's worth sacrificing the environmental benefits to avoid any potential risks. MohRokTah May 2014 #126
You should probably re-read and re-think that subject line. jeff47 May 2014 #129
Again, laughable bullshit. You need to rethink what you are saying. MohRokTah May 2014 #132
No, what I'm saying is backed up by science. jeff47 May 2014 #135
I DO understand the process for making a GMO. MohRokTah May 2014 #137
If you did understand it jeff47 May 2014 #139
IT's not the DNA itself that I am concerned about. MohRokTah May 2014 #142
So now you're claiming our digestive tract un-hardboils eggs. jeff47 May 2014 #146
Nice way to put words I never said into my mouth MohRokTah May 2014 #150
They have to survive digestion if they're going to do anything in the human. jeff47 May 2014 #154
You really are clueless MohRokTah May 2014 #156
If only you'd bothered with the last 3 words. jeff47 May 2014 #158
The protein is not inserted. The plant itself produces the protein. MohRokTah May 2014 #160
One final point. MohRokTah May 2014 #163
One last point. I am not advocating banning GMO food. MohRokTah May 2014 #127
You are advocating the impossible. jeff47 May 2014 #131
That's the biggest pile of bull I've ever seen posted here. MohRokTah May 2014 #133
No, you really don't know what GMO means. jeff47 May 2014 #136
There are a variety of techniques, but specifics would require a book. As shortened as possible... MohRokTah May 2014 #140
Too bad you left off the important part. jeff47 May 2014 #143
Insertion is the most complex part and that is why I cut it off. MohRokTah May 2014 #145
Nah, it's actually pretty simple to provide a message-board quality jeff47 May 2014 #149
Again, putting words in my mouth that I never said. MohRokTah May 2014 #152
If that were true, everyone would see it. jeff47 May 2014 #155
So people who contract stomach cancer after twenty years of dipping snuff had no effects from their MohRokTah May 2014 #157
Why are you running away? jeff47 May 2014 #159
And now youve built the strawman. MohRokTah May 2014 #161
As others have noted...so much for states' rights.... Swede Atlanta May 2014 #60
I'm not into woo in general - TBF May 2014 #63
Good for you, so glad you told us that. JackRiddler May 2014 #68
Rude replies for wanting labels on food? TBF May 2014 #82
Associating it with "woo" is playing into their hands JackRiddler May 2014 #85
I miss the days when I could come on this TBF May 2014 #88
If you're tired of people putting others in boxes, then why do you do the same pnwmom May 2014 #89
There is no big conspiracy to taint our minds with fluoride... JackRiddler May 2014 #91
Fluoride doesn't cause defects - study HuckleB May 2014 #167
Monsanto has succeeded in its strategy to control all the research pnwmom May 2014 #72
I think you misunderstood my post - TBF May 2014 #81
But why did you use the word woo? n/t pnwmom May 2014 #83
I have a right to know if my food was made by Franciscan monks. mathematic May 2014 #80
+1,000,000 ... 000 HuckleB May 2014 #100
I don't understand your analogy. The producers of non-GMO's are happy to label their products. pnwmom May 2014 #110
That would require me to actually look for Franciscan monk labeled food. mathematic May 2014 #113
I agree. Let the free market decide -- with labeling. pnwmom May 2014 #119
Your anaology is laughable. eom MohRokTah May 2014 #128
Hahahaha. DemocraticWing May 2014 #148
Progressives support GMO labeling. roody May 2014 #102

randys1

(16,286 posts)
54. Wait, be fair, remember republicans hate America, in that context this makes sense
Mon May 12, 2014, 11:15 AM
May 2014

This is a good reminder, if someone like Rand Paul were president, there would be no labeling of anything, at all, period, none, nada.

There would be no roads other than the ones where rich people live and corps have factories (are there any factories left in america?)

Tort reform would exist in such a way that a big corp could poison you, kill you, and you will do nothing about it, or your heirs will do nothing, and NONE of what I am saying is even a SLIGHT exaggeration...


If you sit out either of the next two elections, you no longer have the right to live here.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
79. That's not true
Mon May 12, 2014, 02:09 PM
May 2014

They would still be labeling anyone to the left of Vlad the Impaler as DFHs who need to be punched.





Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
66. Considering how much they claim the commerce clause has been abused
Mon May 12, 2014, 01:29 PM
May 2014

their hypocrisy is breathtaking. I would imagine that so long as product was not crossing state lines the feds have no purview; but even then the GOP should just butt-out and let Vermont be Vermont.

 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
71. YOU ALL OWE ME MONEY FOR THE SUNSHINE!!!
Mon May 12, 2014, 01:43 PM
May 2014

States, schmates. This is about my inalienable property rights! I own the sunshine and you will pay!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024942731

Safe or not, the point of GMO crops is to allow corporations to patent life-forms and then demand rentier tributes from all the farmers in the world in perpetuity. Anyone coming up with this as a business plan is criminally minded, to the bone. If this were about science or helping people, they would create varieties and give them away -- just as Norman Borlaug did to start the "Green Revolution." They wouldn't be asserting intellectual property rights on seeds!

Enthusiast

(50,983 posts)
33. But the Republican notion of freedom is the freedom of corporations to hide food ingredients.
Mon May 12, 2014, 05:37 AM
May 2014

They would also like to do away with country of origin labeling.

They aren't much on consumer issues.

Revanchist

(1,375 posts)
3. The fact the you put progressives in quotes answers your own question.
Sun May 11, 2014, 10:36 PM
May 2014

There are many politicians who will do whatever it takes to get and stay elected, this includes changing parties as the political climate changes, buddying up to various interest groups, and backing whatever legislation generates the most political capital, regardless of the will of their constituents. And you know what? These tactics have been proven to work so these politicians will keep on pulling these stunts until the people decide that they will no longer elect those who pull these stunts.

mike_c

(36,216 posts)
5. normally I'd agree with you, but I disagree on this issue....
Sun May 11, 2014, 10:57 PM
May 2014

In a perfect world, or even just a rational one, you'd be right-- labeling lets people make informed choices about their purchases.

The problem with this particular issue is that many, likely most of the people who want GMO labeling want it so they can make ignorant choices informed by fear and misunderstanding. I see university students in biology every semester who start out vehemently opposed to genetic engineering and GMOs change their tune once they learn what it is, how it's done, its benefits, and what it promises. They learn that their real complaints are not about GMOs, but rather the business practices and bad citizenship of companies like Monsanto and Cargill. This happens when they become knowledgeable about the underlying biology. A significant number of them go on to learn the techniques themselves, inserting genes into bacteria to obtain useful constructs in our molecular biology labs.

Much of the anti-GMO movement is based upon anti-science and scientific illiteracy. It is rife with internet scare mongering, almost always inaccurate or downright wrong. Its adherents dig their heels in and close their minds at the least hint of actual, contradictory information. So labeling GMO products just gives scientifically illiterate consumers another tool for using their ignorance to punish companies trying to produce agricultural goods with the best possible characteristics and to bring quality products to market in good faith. If I had any confidence that people would use GMO labeling information wisely, rather than knee jerk, I'd be all for it.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
6. I don't agree that the paternalistic choice is the correct one.
Sun May 11, 2014, 11:06 PM
May 2014

And I am not comfortable that Monsanto and the other GMO producers have been preventing independent researchers from using their seeds, and/or making them sign confidentiality agreements which prohibit them from publishing results without the approval of the manufacturer.

I won't trust the results of the "scientific research" when the fast majority of studies are industry funded and/or approved. If Monsanto and the other manufacturers want our trust, they should make their seeds available for independent researchers, without any prohibition on publication.

Response to mike_c (Reply #5)

wisechoice

(180 posts)
8. you know what is every one thinking?
Sun May 11, 2014, 11:28 PM
May 2014

Some might oppose monsanto. Besides, nothing is proven yet. It is still a controversial subject even among scientists.
Let me get you a simple truth table

Not safe---------Believe gmo not safe.-----Believe gmo safe.

True------------- Nothing bad.-------------Major disaster. No way to recall crops


False. ---------Nothing major lost.--------Environment issues with chemicals
--------------Which has better yield.----Used with gmo crops
----------------Is not proven.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
11. Companies fighting labeling are proving they have no confidence in their prioduct.
Sun May 11, 2014, 11:57 PM
May 2014

If they truly thought there was no problems with their product and that it;s a wonderful product, you'd see GMO plastered in 24 font lettering on every product that contained GMO organisms.

Cha

(295,944 posts)
30. Exactly.. chickenshits are scared to death people are going to see the GMO
Mon May 12, 2014, 04:09 AM
May 2014

label and know what they're buying. Knowledge is the death knell for them.

I've only shopped in stores that have GMO with a big ol slash through it.

mike_c

(36,216 posts)
43. no, they oppose labeling because they know that scientifically illiterate consumers...
Mon May 12, 2014, 10:42 AM
May 2014

...will misunderstand what those labels mean and use them against them.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
55. A wonderfully illustrative example of 'post hoc ergo prompter hoc'
Mon May 12, 2014, 11:16 AM
May 2014

A wonderfully illustrative example of 'post hoc ergo prompter hoc'

 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
67. Oh no! Monsanto might not take over the world.
Mon May 12, 2014, 01:36 PM
May 2014

These people are patenting life forms and trying to get rentier payments from all farmers in perpetuity. Do you think they're developing GMOs toward any good purpose? Please.

And guess what. A system that makes "scientifically illiterate consumers" buy things they don't want is also known as TYRANNY.

 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
73. No, it's the usual libertarian-corporatist bullshit.
Mon May 12, 2014, 01:44 PM
May 2014

Safe or not, the point of GMO crops is to allow corporations to patent life-forms and then demand rentier tributes from all the farmers in the world in perpetuity. Anyone coming up with this as a business plan is criminally minded, to the bone. If this were about science or helping people, they would create varieties and give them away -- just as Norman Borlaug did to start the "Green Revolution." They wouldn't be asserting intellectual property rights on seeds to the Nth generation and hitting farmers with legal actions!

mike_c

(36,216 posts)
74. I completely agree with this post....
Mon May 12, 2014, 01:46 PM
May 2014

I mentioned up thread that I DO have economic objections to the business models of corporations like Monsanto as well as concerns about fostering Bt resistance, and you've just hit the former squarely on the head.

 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
75. Well I'm glad we can agree on the most important point then.
Mon May 12, 2014, 01:49 PM
May 2014

And fostering Bt resistance is obviously huge.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
86. which is the major reason I do not want to support Monsanto by purchasing GMO foods.
Mon May 12, 2014, 02:34 PM
May 2014

Last edited Mon May 12, 2014, 03:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Why you would fight me voting with my pocket book? Why encourage secrecy here- it is only an advantage for the shitty company.
It increases the chance of them rolling out unsafe products without taking any responsibility.

mike_c

(36,216 posts)
90. because GMOs are not the problem-- Monsanto's business behavior is the problem...
Mon May 12, 2014, 02:48 PM
May 2014

...and banning GMOs because you object to something totally different than genetic engineering makes little sense, except as anti-science fear mongering. Essentially, the liberal equivalent of climate science denial. Go after the real problem, not the internet fear stoked non-problem. Despite their business practices, there is no evidence that Monsanto or anyone else is selling "unsafe" GMO products. We need to address the real problem, not the one generated by internet FUD.

 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
92. I do not trust such an entity...
Mon May 12, 2014, 02:56 PM
May 2014

to be conducting GMO experimentation on the entire population.

Who says safety is any concern to people who would seriously conceive of the terminator gene or try to hit up Indian peasants for cash payment on "patented" organisms? You trust them not to be buying the science off to their favor?

It's no different with the pharmaceuticals, where there are also irrational fears -- and they have labeling requirements!

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
93. I do not want to by GMOs, and I should not have to justify that decision to you- period.
Mon May 12, 2014, 03:25 PM
May 2014

I did not say banned, but am amazed you want these forced on consumers. There is no good reason for it.
If they are so fucking great, let them market them to people- pass along the price savings maybe, tell us about enhanced nutrition or whatever. But sneak them into our mouths? No. I don't give a shit about what anyone else thinks of the studies. It should be my choice, not Monsanto's.

mike_c

(36,216 posts)
94. I agree....
Mon May 12, 2014, 03:33 PM
May 2014

As I said in my first response, my only issue with that is that I hate to see knee-jerk anti-science underpinning the choices people make instead of scientifically literate informed choices. And no, I have no more responsibility to respect fear and ignorance driven decision making with regard to GMOs than I have to respect climate change deniers because the truth offends their "beliefs." In a rational world, people make rational choices when presented with information. Very little of that is going on in the anti-GMO crowd.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
95. I bet I would not respect half your purchases, LOL. Who cares? People do not always make rational
Mon May 12, 2014, 03:51 PM
May 2014

purchases or choices. Not for you to decide for other people, thank you. If there actually are advantages in yields or nutrition , then there should be a price difference that will help these be accepted in the market place. Let the people decide if it's a trade of fthey want to make. I don't want to support farmers who support Monsanto, period. And I should be allowed that choice.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
115. No, it's mega corporations refusing full disclosure.
Mon May 12, 2014, 08:05 PM
May 2014

I had no problems with GMO foods prior to the fight against labeling. Once they went down that road they might as well have announced live on television globally that they are not telling us everything about GMO food.

 

Chan790

(20,176 posts)
153. ...as is the consumer's right.
Tue May 13, 2014, 12:03 AM
May 2014

The customer has a right to choose another product over yours based on any criterion they choose...so if customers choose to not buy GMO products, for any reason whether science-illiterate or not, that's their choice.

It's a valid choice. The fact that consumers will misunderstand what those labels mean and use them against them is not the consumer's problem and doesn't require a legislative solution.

airplaneman

(1,237 posts)
12. I think there is some real scientific information that is putting GMO into question
Mon May 12, 2014, 12:03 AM
May 2014
http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/dangerous-levels-of-roundup-found-in-gmo-foods-across-u-s/

And then there is information about other countries:

http://rt.com/news/brazil-roundup-monsanto-ban-721/

Actually even if you are right I thought freedom was about the ability to make personal choices. If you choose not to eat GMO foods whether or not you are scientifically correct about your assumptions you have a right to do so. To suggest someone else should decide for us and prevent us from even knowing because I guess they are better than us this kind of takes us down the wrong road I think.

Have a nice day.
-Airplane

Bonx

(2,042 posts)
15. I'm not sure how I feel about labeling GMO foods.
Mon May 12, 2014, 12:28 AM
May 2014

But those sources you linked are terrible and are garbage.

alp227

(31,962 posts)
20. Well, science isn't for you or I to decide.
Mon May 12, 2014, 01:00 AM
May 2014

If you wanna change the scientific consensus about GMO's or whatever, get the necessary education and step into the game instead of playing politics with it.

I used to be a sucker for GMO labelling - even voting for California's ballot initiative for it in 2012 - until I learned I was fooled by the "right to know" marketing line by the Prop 37 campaign. Now, I see GMO labelling in the same light as evolution disclaimers on textbooks. I'm sorry, I may be in the minority here, but I see concern about GMO's in the same light as creationism or global warming denialism or anything peddled by shysters like Alex Jones. I'm sorry.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
25. And it shouldn't be for Monsanto to decide either.
Mon May 12, 2014, 02:31 AM
May 2014

Do you realize that the GMO seed producers such as Monsanto have been free to prevent independent researchers from using their seeds in research? That most of the research out there has been industry funded? And that when the industry funds studies, they can require the researchers to sign confidentiality agreements that bar the publication of results without the seed producer's approval?

How can you talk about a scientific consensus when there's so little independent, non-industry funded and/or approved research out there?

 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
39. Everyone throws around Monsanto's name like
Mon May 12, 2014, 08:18 AM
May 2014

they're the big boogie man... You realize Monsanto is a SMALLER company than Whole Foods?
They have less lobbying power than Whole Foods, and the rest of the "organic" marketplace.

There is PLENTY of research out there, and someone has to fund it. Most scientists wouldn't risk their career and reputations by publishing false studies in peer-reviewed papers.

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
40. Yeah, a worldwide NYSE company with a market cap of $63 billion
Mon May 12, 2014, 08:28 AM
May 2014

is just a pipsqueak compared to mighty Whole Foods

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
78. It isn't a question of scientists publishing deliberately false studies. It's a question of studies
Mon May 12, 2014, 02:07 PM
May 2014

that are being withheld because of confidentiality agreements.

Monsanto is the "boogie man" because they are one of the producers -- Whole Foods is a distributor. As a producer, Monsanto has been legally allowed to withhold its seeds from legitimate, independent, University researchers -- doling them out only to researchers they approve (and often fund). At the same time, they can require their researchers to sign confidentiality agreements barring them from publishing anything without Monsanto approval. So almost all of the published studies, not surprisingly , support Monsanto. What would you expect?

To give you an example that would explain how this could happen without anything nefarious on the part of the scientists: Thalidomide had been "proven safe" with animal studies. But it turned out that the two animal models chosen weren't affected by the medication the same way humans were. If they had chosen to use another animal in their experiments, they would have gotten results that would have shown the disastrous birth defects that could result once the drug was marketed to humans. But they didn't, so the drug got released into the general market in Europe-- with the result that 10,000 babies were born with birth defects or died due to Thalidomide. Here in the US we had many fewer cases because someone in the FDA was requiring further testing. Before that testing could be carried out, the link to Thalidomide was discovered. Imagine if Thalidomide hadn't been labeled as a drug, but was just added to food products. How long would it have taken before the connection was made?

All of this happened because in 1992 the Reagan administration FDA ruled that henceforth any GMO product, no matter what it was, would be automatically deemed safe without need for safety testing by the producer. The burden of proof would be on anyone alleging that a product was unsafe. At the same time, they allowed the producers to control the seeds and publication of results.

A neat trick by the Reagan administration that has now convinced many gullible people that we have mountains of reliable research on GMO foods.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
117. Monsanto is NOT smaller than Whole Foods.
Mon May 12, 2014, 08:09 PM
May 2014

Monsanto closed today with a market cap of $60.79 BILLION.

Whole Foods closed today with a market cap of $14.72 BILLION.

In what fevered imagination do you find a mathematical explanation for claiming 60.79 billion is smaller than 14.72 billion?

And Whole Foods would PREFER no GMO labeling because they make a mint from their Non-GMO labeled foods.

 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
164. Sorry, smaller would be the wrong word...
Tue May 13, 2014, 10:21 AM
May 2014

Less profitable? Slower growth?

Monsanto Net Profits: 11.822bil
Whole Foods Net Profits: 19.757bil

Whole Foods, in addition to being against GMO labeling, is also against doing ANYTHING about global warming...

mike_c

(36,216 posts)
47. this simply reinforces my main point....
Mon May 12, 2014, 10:56 AM
May 2014

The real issue is the business practices of companies like Monsanto, not genetic engineering. The problem is capitalism, not molecular biology.

wisechoice

(180 posts)
42. consensus?
Mon May 12, 2014, 09:44 AM
May 2014

Opponents of genetically modified food, such as the advocacy groups Organic Consumers Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Greenpeace, say risks have not been adequately identified and managed, and they have questioned the objectivity of regulatory authorities. Some groups say there are unanswered questions regarding the potential long-term impact on human health from food derived from GMOs, and propose mandatory labeling[7][8] or a moratorium on such products.[9][10][11] Concerns include contamination of the non-genetically modified food supply,[12] effects of GMOs on the environment and nature,[9][11] the rigor of the regulatory process,[10][13] and consolidation of control of the food supply in companies that make and sell GMOs.[9]

- wiki

Science is still debating.

wisechoice

(180 posts)
61. your colrful post means nothing
Mon May 12, 2014, 12:09 PM
May 2014

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is a nonprofit science advocacy organization based in the United States. The UCS membership includes many private citizens in addition to professional scientists. James J. McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard University and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, currently chairs the UCS Board of Directors.[1]

Again from wiki.

Throw mud and see what sticks?

mike_c

(36,216 posts)
49. not so much....
Mon May 12, 2014, 11:06 AM
May 2014

The anti-GMO movement is a social movement, not a scientific one by any stretch of the imagination. Scientists are social too, and sometimes speak as citizens rather than as scientists-- and sometimes they conflate those perspectives despite that being a bad idea and a terrible way to do science. As is pointed out elsewhere in this sub thread, the overwhelming majority of scientists accept that currently available GMO crops are safe. I think there are a couple of problems that have not been discussed in this thread, but they don't affect safety, but rather the development of Bt resistance and some economic issues. But again, most of the scientific community-- certainly most of the molecular biology community-- believes current GMOs are safe for human consumption .

In many ways this is the mirror image of the global climate change debate, with liberals taking the anti-science position, complete with an abundance of bogus internet "information" to support their fear based arguments.

Skip Intro

(19,768 posts)
22. Your post was alerted on - jury unanimously said LEAVE IT:
Mon May 12, 2014, 01:07 AM
May 2014

On Sun May 11, 2014, 10:00 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

I think there is some real scientific information that is putting GMO into question
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4941028

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

I may shock you with this, but RT.com is a wannabe Infowars/PrisonPlanet type of site. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Russia_Today#Conspiracy_theories

Also, Guardian Express (GuardianLV.com) publishes junk science: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/06/22/cystic-fibrosis-is-all-your-fault/comment-page-1/

Sorry, neither source has much credibility on science, and they even tread close to violating DU ToS "Democratic Underground is not intended to be a platform for kooks and crackpots peddling paranoid fantasies with little or no basis in fact."

This ain't "real scientific information" - it's conspiracy hogwash.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun May 11, 2014, 10:04 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Your alert is hogwash. If you don't want to encounter differing views, maybe you should sit in front of a mirror and issue opinions to yourself. Most inane alert I think I've seen yet. LEAVE IT. Skip Intro.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There are some awfully busy beavers alerting on every remotely unenthusiastic GMO post as this is my 3rd or 4th GMO jury in the last few days. Hmm.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: what a nasty thing to flag this post!! Why don't you explain to the poster why his links are bogus science? educate them.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

airplaneman

(1,237 posts)
166. A personal thank you to Skip Intro and the Jurors.
Sat May 17, 2014, 01:19 AM
May 2014

I lurk more than I post and it would have depressed me if this was hidden and make me feel I am not welcome or appreciated here. Also please let me respond to the allegations:

"Also, Guardian Express (GuardianLV.com) publishes junk science"

There is a link to the actual scientific paper in Science Direct - Food Chemistry
Volume 153, 15 June 2014, Pages 207–215. Maybe the alerter doesn't like the website but that doesn't make this scientific paper a hoax.

"I may shock you with this, but RT.com is a wannabe Infowars/PrisonPlanet type of site."

And what does this mean. Brazil and France have made headlines everywhere on this subject so again a website the alerter thinks is bogus is being elevated to a claim that the article is bogus.

I think there is some seriously missing critical thinking going on here - or at least an alternative motive.

Thanks for the opportunity to voice my opinion.
-Airplane

Sunlei

(22,651 posts)
23. I want all foods properly labeled. Very shifty and dishonest of any Corp. against full disclosure.
Mon May 12, 2014, 01:18 AM
May 2014


IMO round-up weed killer is dangerous. People should never use it.

All food producers should have to add to all food labels 'round-up used'.

Cha

(295,944 posts)
31. Yes, consumers should know they're buying a product that Roundup was used
Mon May 12, 2014, 04:12 AM
May 2014

in its growing stage, Sunlei.

mike_c

(36,216 posts)
44. I don't have any disagreement with that....
Mon May 12, 2014, 10:46 AM
May 2014

"This product was produced using herbicides like Roundup and might contain residues. Please wash before consuming."

That makes complete sense to me.

rpannier

(24,304 posts)
14. Gotta disagree
Mon May 12, 2014, 12:22 AM
May 2014

Labeling allows people to make an informed choice. They get to decide what they put in their body and the bodies of their families.
Many places already provide this. South Korea will soon and it's one of the most scientifically literate places on the planet and there is opposition to GMOs.
To make the statement that people shouldn't know because they're not bright or are paranoid or whatever other term you wish to denigrate them with speaks poorly for your position (or at least the faith you have in your position being correct on facts).
Your non-labeling approach and some of the producers of GMOs reluctance to allow their seeds to be tested (Yes, they want to deny the Korean Ag Dept the right to test them) gives people the right to be skittish and suspicious of the product and the technology

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
26. It's not just in Korea. Independent researchers in the US have also been prevented
Mon May 12, 2014, 02:34 AM
May 2014

from using the seeds in their research without the approval of the producers. They've also been required to sign confidentiality agreements that bar them from publishing results without the approval of the producer.

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
41. This pamphlet from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare
Mon May 12, 2014, 09:00 AM
May 2014

tries to make the case that GMO foods are safe-- but at the same time, it notes that no GMO foods are being commercially grown in Japan.

http://www.mhlw.go.jp/topics/idenshi/dl/h22-00.pdf

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
16. There is a series hole in your logic. The people that want GMO labeling want it so they
Mon May 12, 2014, 12:38 AM
May 2014

can make a choice that they wont have w/o the labeling. Your argument, as I read it, is that those that get the choice will only "make ignorant choices". Therefore, it seems you want to deny the labeling so that people wont make ignorant choices. In other words, ignorance about GMO's in your food is bliss. That's what Monsanto wants us to believe and apparently you agree. I prefer to make my own "ignorant" choices thank you very much.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
98. Why don't people want every hybrid technology labeled? Why just GMOs?
Mon May 12, 2014, 06:41 PM
May 2014

After all GMOs are studied about ten times as much as any other hybrid form.

There are many reasons why this labeling movement is wrongheaded. For starters, the labels don't give any information about the specific plant in question, it tells about the technology only. Then there's the issue of all the fear-mongering despite the science on GMOs safety being as solid as it is, for, say, climate change. Then one has to note the the companies arguing for labeling are all really trying to use the government to market themselves by creating fear about products that actually safe, and sending people to spend more money on the their non-GMO products. It's really all a pretty sick game.


Here's a great piece on the simple logic of the matter:

Why I Think Mandatory Labels for GMO’s is Bad Policy and Why I Think It Might Be Good Strategy and Why I Still Can’t Support It
http://realfoodorg.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/why-i-think-mandatory-labels-for-gmo-is-bad-policy-and-why-i-think-it-might-be-good-strategy-and-why-i-still-cant-support-it/

daschess1987

(192 posts)
17. That should be a Monsanto commercial...
Mon May 12, 2014, 12:39 AM
May 2014

Keeping you ignorant of your choices protects you from your own ignorance. [Wow!]

mike_c

(36,216 posts)
52. where did you hear me say anything at all positive about Monsanto?
Mon May 12, 2014, 11:14 AM
May 2014

An uniformed choice is a waste of time. It leads to things like climate change denial.

 

billhicks76

(5,082 posts)
18. Really?
Mon May 12, 2014, 12:41 AM
May 2014

So genetically modifying a plant to be bug resistant by exponentially increasing a plants natural internal pesticide is safe for human consumption even though you can't wash it off?

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
27. And just because the FDA during the Reagan administration decided that henceforth
Mon May 12, 2014, 02:37 AM
May 2014

all GMO foods would automatically be considered safe UNLESS proven otherwise, we shouldn't worry about any new GMO food that ever gets produced. Each and every one is automatically assumed to be safe unless proven otherwise. And the kicker is: the producer controls the seeds so the producer controls the research. They can and have been requiring researchers to sign confidentiality agreements limiting what they can publish.

mike_c

(36,216 posts)
46. yes, as a matter of fact it is....
Mon May 12, 2014, 10:51 AM
May 2014

It is completely and utterly safe. You can assure yourself of that by doing some research. Start by learning the mode of action of Bt toxin, then check it's toxicity-- or utter lack of it-- in vertebrates and even non-target invertebrates. Learn why it's certified for organic produce. Then you'll know why it is completely safe for human consumption regardless of the mode of expression.

BrotherIvan

(9,126 posts)
112. There is a study that disputes their safety
Mon May 12, 2014, 07:45 PM
May 2014

Linked here

http://www.safelawns.org/blog/2012/02/new-study-genetically-modified-corn-toxic-to-humans/

Insecticidal Bt toxins such as those produced in genetically engineered plants can be detrimental to human cells. This is a result of recent research led by researchers at the University of Caen (France). Their experiments showed that toxins produced in, for example, the genetically engineered maize MON810, can significantly impact the viability of human cells.


I'm sure you will argue that the effects were from high concentrations, but the same could be argued from ingesting this for a lifetime. There have been NO long term studies.

Another finding of the researchers concerns a herbicide formulation sold under the brand name Roundup. Massive amounts of this herbicide are sprayed on genetically engineered soybean crops and its residues can be found in food and feed. According to the new publication, even extremely low dosages of Roundup (glyphosate formulations) can damage human cells. These findings are in accordance with several other investigations highlighting unexpected health risks associated with glyphosate preparations.

We were very much surprised by our findings. Until now, it has been thought almost impossible for Bt proteins to be toxic to human cells. Now further investigations have to be conducted to find out how these toxins impact the cells and if combinatorial effects with other compounds in the food and feed chain have to be taken into account,” says Gilles-Eric Séralini from the University of Caen, who supervised the experiments. “In conclusion, these experiments show that the risks of Bt toxins and of Roundup have been underestimated.”


This appeared in the Journal of Applied Toxicology.

mike_c

(36,216 posts)
116. I presume you've read the paper....
Mon May 12, 2014, 08:08 PM
May 2014

This statement, from the abstract, is especially important: "Here we have tested for the very first time Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac Bt toxins (10?ppb to 100?ppm) on the human embryonic kidney cell line 293...." This is important, of course, because 1) it is not in situ toxicological testing, 2) vertebrate gut cells have no receptors for uptake of Cry1 toxins, making in situ uptake of unmodified Bt extremely unlikely (to my knowledge it has never been recorded in humans, period), 3) vertebrate gut physiology denatures Cry1 toxins, inactivating them before they reach the duodenum, and 4) HEK cells are not necessarily indicative of normal human cell responses (and besides, no one consuming Bt even has HEK cells, not to put too fine a point on it).

At least one of the authors of this paper, Giles Séralini, has been widely discredited for shoddy work on exactly this matter, his papers have been retracted following publication due to criticisms of the methodology, and at least one journal editor has resigned in protest because he didn't want his name associated with any publication that included Séralini's work. Bear in mind, this is the work that you are citing. It has been widely discredited.

Séralini went on to publish one of the most strongly discredited papers in recent memory, leading to the so called Séralini affair-- that was the paper that claimed to show that Roundup ready corn caused massive tumors and early death in rat models. The entire design was a disaster from beginning to end, and Séralini's work inspires little or no confidence these days. It does, however, inspire a great deal of confirmation bias among GMO opponents.

BrotherIvan

(9,126 posts)
118. That assumes a very healthy patient
Mon May 12, 2014, 08:51 PM
May 2014

With uncompromised digestion and no leaky gut problems. But as we have seen, both of these problems have skyrocketed. The rise in celiac might be because of the elevated gluten in crops that gets into the blood stream and the body has an immune response. A disease called Hashimoto's where the body attacks the thyroid is being linked with gluten. That is a wheat protein. What happens when the body has to deal with a bt protein?

What about the immunocompromised who should avoid the extra burden of digesting toxins? What about babies who are fed formula with roundup laced ingredients? What about people with IBS, Crohn's, or low digestive acid? Shouldn't those people know which foods to avoid?

Here is another study with effects on blood and bone marrow.

http://www.gmoevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/JHTD-1-104.pdf

The conclusion of the study is that more study is needed. This idea that all LONG TERM testing has been completed, that all scientists agree GMOs are perfectly safe is just not true. Ever heard of Rumsfeld disease? Scientists agree Nutrasweet is safe because its ingredients are considered safe, and yet some people are reacting badly to it. Rummy & friends shut down testing and so we'll never know. The human body is a complex organism. Medicine is very far away from understanding how the body works and why it reacts differently than computer models or animal testing.

That's all us GMO/science deniers want: independent thorough proof that it's good for people, animals and the environment. Why are they not allowed to test?

And why should we not be concerned about biodiversity? Patented seeds that cannot be replanted? Resistant weeds and insects? Yields far less than promised? Less nutritious foods? Why would we want to support a few mega corporations' profits over the good of the people?

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
53. Other than anecdotal observations, this premise is based on precisely what?
Mon May 12, 2014, 11:15 AM
May 2014

"most of the people who want GMO labeling want it so they can make ignorant choices informed by fear and misunderstanding..."

Other than alleged anecdotal observations, this premise is based on precisely what?

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
70. The reverse is true of products labeled "organic"
Mon May 12, 2014, 01:40 PM
May 2014

People clamor for "organic" but if they knew that still permits the grower to use synthetic pesticides it may not be the marketing ploy it once was. Is it better than the "spray and pray" agriculture we're accustomed to? Yes, but it is still misleading.

dionysus

(26,467 posts)
165. i remember when GMO was first coming out scientists were genetically modifying rice to contain more
Tue May 13, 2014, 11:04 AM
May 2014

nutrients, for use in third world countries where rice was the staple and meat and leafy vegetables were scarce

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
10. If they were certain the food was safe, they would have GMO plastered on the labels.
Sun May 11, 2014, 11:54 PM
May 2014

That they fight labeling says something about their confidence in their products.

alp227

(31,962 posts)
21. Because the anti-GMO types have POISONED that word!
Mon May 12, 2014, 01:01 AM
May 2014

Last edited Mon May 12, 2014, 03:13 AM - Edit history (1)

And "genetically modified" is such a vague, wide-ranging term that corn would have to be labelled GMO.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
38. NO, because the companies producing the shit have NO CONFIDENCE
Mon May 12, 2014, 08:04 AM
May 2014

These huge ass companies have BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to expend on advertising. The ONLY reason to fight the labeling is a LACK OF CONFIDENCE IN THE PRODUCT!

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
29. If they were certain the food would safe, they would give independent researchers
Mon May 12, 2014, 02:42 AM
May 2014

access to their seeds, and they wouldn't put restrictions on publication.

Ecumenist

(6,086 posts)
84. Thank you, PNWMom. Some things are so clear cut and easy to see...
Mon May 12, 2014, 02:25 PM
May 2014

If they are fighting so ferociously to hide the genetic source of their products, they KNOW that it's NOT good for the consumer. I have always said that if the reason they continue to hide the GMO products is because should it turn out to be harmful, teratogenic, poisonous, toxic OR carcinogenic but they can't be sued because we would have no way of proving it. It would be impossible to even formulate any testing because of the lockdown by monsanto preventing any research of their GMO seeds.

It's just ridiculous that we get to know what's in our everyday foodstuffs like Ice cream, sausage, bread, etc but we are NOT allowed to know what the hell we are feeding our families to protect the profit of a fucking corporation and their investors.

Mbrow

(1,090 posts)
19. You know when I was in the middle east
Mon May 12, 2014, 12:44 AM
May 2014

all the corn flake boxes are labeled "non GMO" because they won't have it there. starting to be the same in the EU, guess they know something we don't...

Cha

(295,944 posts)
32. And, don't forget Mexico is smart enough to kick
Mon May 12, 2014, 04:14 AM
May 2014

them out. As is the Big Island of Hawai'i.

Unknown Beatle

(2,672 posts)
24. Well...
Mon May 12, 2014, 01:57 AM
May 2014
But many in the food industry say the food is safe, the technology boosts food production, and its use is less environmentally harmful than traditional farming methods.


If it's so safe, label it then.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
28. And let independent researchers use their seeds in research and publish their results freely.
Mon May 12, 2014, 02:39 AM
May 2014

Almost all of the research till now has been industry funded and/or industry approved.

alp227

(31,962 posts)
48. Why label something that is safe?
Mon May 12, 2014, 11:00 AM
May 2014

The burden of proof doesn't fall on the food companies. The burden is on the anti GMO types to make an argument for labeling.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
58. Yes, the burden of proof DOES fall on the food companies.
Mon May 12, 2014, 11:32 AM
May 2014

Where is the evidence that there are no harmful long term side effects? Where are the 20 year studies?

And comapnies are already required to label contents, they just do not accurately label when the contents are GMO,

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
76. The reason the burden of proof doesn't fall on the food companies is because of the Reagan-
Mon May 12, 2014, 01:50 PM
May 2014

administration FDA. In 1992, it ruled that henceforth, any GMO food would be considered automatically safe, without the food manufacturer having to prove it was safe with studies. No matter what new GMO food was developed -- no matter what combination of genes was devised -- the burden of proof would be on the party alleging risk.

At the same, the FDA allowed Monsanto and the other producers to control their seed; to prevent independent researchers from conducting safety studies; and/or to force them to sign confidentiality agreements so no results were published that Monsanto didn't approve of. Thus, no independent researcher would ever be able to conduct research that was unfavorable to Monsanto.

These were terrible decisions scientifically speaking and no progressive should support them. I understand why the Reagan administration would go this route however, since it was a boon to the industry.

 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
87. Why not force-feed something that is safe?
Mon May 12, 2014, 02:36 PM
May 2014

People should not get a choice not to eat something that's safe, damn it!

Dorian Gray

(13,469 posts)
36. Follow the money
Mon May 12, 2014, 07:05 AM
May 2014

and lobbyists.

I honestly don't think labeling should be a conservative or liberal thing. I don't understand why all humans wouldn't want to know what they are putting in their mouths.

And while GMO doesn't automatically equal EVIL, I would like to know where my soy/corn/produce is coming from. It makes sense, and I fully support Vermont and all states that might want to make a law requiring proper labeling.

TBF

(31,934 posts)
64. I think it could be part of it -
Mon May 12, 2014, 12:36 PM
May 2014

they are meeting in Kyodo today (I have been writing a little about this in the socialist group: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10244673).

If they are planning on going through with this huge free trade agreement they will want as few limitations as possible.

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
50. They should all be wearing suits with a Monsanto coat of arms badge.
Mon May 12, 2014, 11:11 AM
May 2014


BTW You would not believe how hard it is to post a Monsanto coat of arms badge.

MineralMan

(146,195 posts)
51. Well, I suppose that the food industry is concerned that
Mon May 12, 2014, 11:11 AM
May 2014

GMO labeling would affect sales in a negative way. I'm not so sure it would, really. It might depend on the size of the labeling and where it is placed. Ingredient labeling is already the law for most food products, other than fresh produce and meats. Reading ingredients labeling often reveals that there's a bunch of stuff in the food we eat that we can't even identify or pronounce. Has this led to negative sales pressure? Not really, except for a very small minority that bothers to even read the ingredients lists. And even those buy the stuff a lot of the time anyhow, once they go research what those unpronounceable ingredients actually are.

Personally, I have no problem with labeling GMO ingredients in foods and labeling raw foods as GMO in the cases where they are. It won't affect my purchasing, since I don't believe it has any negative effect on health, any more than traditional genetic manipulation does. It appears, though, that the food industry is worried about acceptance and negative impact. I think they're wrong to worry about it. Most people don't read labeling and don't care, so sales will continue. Those who would read labels and reject foods with GMO ingredients probably are already not buying a lot of foods over the current set of ingredients.

So, I'm fine with GMO labeling requirements. Let's just do that and let the market determine what happens. If people reject products, then the manufacturers will make adjustments in their ingredients. But, will people not buy their corn flakes if the ingredients label says the corn used in them is from genetically modified corn? I doubt it very much. Will they reject the pork, beef, or chicken in the meat shelves if the labels says those animals ate GMO corn, soybeans, and other stuff. Probably not. If they care, they already know that the meat they're buying came from animals fed diets that are unnatural and from animals dosed with antibiotics. Some people care about that, and don't buy such meat, and others don't eat animal products at all. Most people, in fact the vast majority, don't pay much attention to such things and buy food without concern about that sort of thing.

I think the food industry is wrong in their assessment, so GMO labeling really won't make much of a difference. They should just drop the campaign against such labeling. I think they're worried about nothing.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
59. That they fight the labeling tells me there's more to it than they are willing to disclose.
Mon May 12, 2014, 11:37 AM
May 2014

Their public excuses are only what the PR team determined is best for disseminating to the public.

Behind closed doors I suspect there is more to it because they are expending so much money fighting the labeling when less money could be spent increasing the PR effort to make everybody feel comfortable with the idea of GMO.

BrotherIvan

(9,126 posts)
109. Exactly!
Mon May 12, 2014, 07:33 PM
May 2014

If it's so great, why all the secrecy? They could be spending ten times more on the ad campaign, but unfortunately, that horse has already left the stable. The EU is banning it and much of Asia soon will. The fact that there are still a just a few loud holdouts who feel that they are protecting Science! shows how few people actually want to consume the stuff. I assume there's a tobacco memo in someone's file cabinet.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
77. Yes, just as they've fought other labeling, such as allergy labeling.
Mon May 12, 2014, 01:59 PM
May 2014

They fought that for decades till Kennedy pushed it through, and then they still fought the labeling of gluten even though more people have Celiac disease than some of the other allergies accommodated.

I agree with you about labels. I think most people ignore the GMO labels now just as they ignore "guar gum" and other unfamiliar ingredients.

But it makes me wonder what the GMO manufacturers are hiding. During the Reagan administration in 1992, the FDA made a ruling that henceforth all GMO products would be presumed safe -- the burden of proof would be on anyone alleging that a particular GMO was unsafe. At the same time, they allowed GMO and other researchers to control the seed -- so they could withhold it from anyone except those who would sign a contract with them -- and that contract required the "independent" researcher to get Monsanto's approval before publication of any results.

Pretty neat deal Monsanto got from the Reagan administration. If their products ever have a negative effect on the population, how would that ever be determined without unbiased research before release or labeling afterwards?

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
97. Just take a look at this thread to see why.
Mon May 12, 2014, 06:10 PM
May 2014

All the anti-GMO posts claim GMO equals Monsanto and RoundUp. It doesn't.

Genetically modify corn to be more drought-tolerant, and you've got a crop that's much better for the environment. Yet stick a "GMO" label on it, and the people who should most support that crop would fight it tooth and nail.

Anti-GMO is our side's anti-climate change. It's an issue oversimplified down to a single boogeyman so that anti-science can win.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
121. Why are you so committed to labeling something that is meaningless?
Mon May 12, 2014, 09:05 PM
May 2014

Why not focus on labeling that would actually offer information helpful to the consumer?

Something is very odd when it to the anti-GMO movement.

At the end of the day, this a very good explanation of why labeling makes no logical, science-based sense:
http://realfoodorg.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/why-i-think-mandatory-labels-for-gmo-is-bad-policy-and-why-i-think-it-might-be-good-strategy-and-why-i-still-cant-support-it/

roody

(10,849 posts)
130. Obviously, it means something to many people?
Mon May 12, 2014, 10:30 PM
May 2014

You did not answer my question. The movement is not anti-GMO; it is pro-natural foods.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
108. No, the issue is very different from the anti-climate change debate.
Mon May 12, 2014, 07:32 PM
May 2014

Here's why. In 1992 the FDA ruled that henceforth, all GMO products would be presumed safe, without the producers needing to do safety testing. Anyone alleging that a product was unsafe would have to prove that. The burden was placed on the shoulders of anyone who doubted that any GMO product ever developed in the future was safe.

HOWEVER, the FDA has been allowing the manufacturers to control who does the research and what is published -- by requiring anyone who uses their seeds for research to sign contracts giving the producer the right to decide whether the research is published or not.

Nothing comparable like that is happening in the climate-science debate. Knowing that the only GMO studies released are the ones funded and/or approved by the manufacturers makes all the released studies more questionable. What studies haven't been released? We'll never know.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
122. Nope, that's not a difference at all.
Mon May 12, 2014, 10:02 PM
May 2014
In 1992 the FDA ruled that henceforth, all GMO products would be presumed safe, without the producers needing to do safety testing.

Yep. And why that happened is backed by science.

When you eat food, you break its DNA down to its base components. The sequence of the DNA in the food doesn't matter, because you are shredding the DNA before you absorb it.

As a result, it doesn't matter if it's a GMO or not. You're just getting a pile of A, T, C and G.

Now, if they are genetically modifying the plant in order to use a pesticide or herbicide on the field, that pesticide/herbicide could be dangerous and should be tested. But that pesticide isn't the GMO. It's the chemical. And trying to say the GMO needs to be tested is oversimplifying the issue down to a single boogeyman - you're effectively arguing that all GMOs are for herbicides.

Heck, you could spray a 100% natural wheat field with Weed-B-Gone - it doesn't kill grasses. It would also be a bad idea to eat it while it's coated with Weed-B-Gone. Still not a GMO.

Nothing comparable like that is happening in the climate-science debate.

Sure it is. You're basically talking about herbicides. They're talking about Dr. Mann. Both are a very small subset of the overall field.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
134. This researcher of 30 years USED to agree with you.
Mon May 12, 2014, 10:48 PM
May 2014

But recent events have changed her mind. Medical researchers are trying to get RNA to do things agricultural researchers claim is impossible. The worlds of medical research and agricultural research are on a collision course:

http://www.boulderweekly.com/article-12640-muzzled-by-monsanto.html

“At the time I was like, ‘Hell yes it’s safe — how is this gonna be dangerous?’” says Vance. “The corn rootworm will take up these siRNAs, which turn off production of essential proteins in pests. Apparently it works really well. Otherwise you’d have to use pesticides, chemicals that are toxic.”

But her stance on RNAi as a pesticide would change shortly after the conference.


RNAi has applications in both the medical world and in agriculture. But these two worlds are not after the same thing when it comes to RNA. While the medical community is trying to perfect processes that will cause the human body to accept modified RNA strands, agriculture corporations working in the GMO field are busy trying to prove that their RNA strands can’t be assimilated by the human body at all.

For example, some microRNAs interfere with cell division and block cancer. These tumor suppressor RNAs are missing in cancer patients. If they can be replaced — an experimental treatment known as microRNA replacement therapy — then doctors could theoretically stop the proliferation of cancer cells. But in agriculture where RNA is being engineered as a pesticide designed to kill insects that feed on crops — such as Monsanto’s RNA efforts aimed at the Western corn rootworm, the most economically destructive pest in corn production — it is paramount that the RNA in and/or on the corn that is later eaten by humans doesn’t subsequently infiltrate our cells causing who knows what kind of unintended consequences.

In short, the medical world needs the genetically modified RNA to be assimilated by our bodies and the agricultural world needs the opposite to occur.

SNIP

A simple step, in Vance’s opinion, would be to engineer corn plants to only express specific RNA in the roots of the plant where the corn rootworm will feed, avoiding consumption by humans.

“Why do they have to express their RNAi in corn seeds? They don’t have to. They could just put it in the roots – it wouldn’t be hard to do. Why don’t they just fix their freaking plants so they won’t be dangerous to people? Even if there’s some small chance it’s dangerous,” Vance pauses as she has many times during conversations about Monsanto, clearly frustrated.

SNIP

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
138. And there's climate scientists that USED to agree with the consensus.
Mon May 12, 2014, 11:09 PM
May 2014

We should really listen to them, right? Especially when their claims lack details like a mechanism.

And when they say things like this:

In short, the medical world needs the genetically modified RNA to be assimilated by our bodies and the agricultural world needs the opposite to occur.

They are either being misquoted very badly, or they're full of shit. Given our media, most likely it's the former.

You can't catch a plant virus. Why? Because your systems are so radically different that the virus can't manipulate your cells.

Similarly, ingesting these RNAs can't do anything to you. Why? Because your systems are so radically different from the ringworm. These RNAs would be turning off production of a protein you don't have.

But much more importantly, those RNAs can't survive cooking and digestion.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
141. Did you even bother to read the article? You can read her direct quotes. And if Monsanto
Mon May 12, 2014, 11:35 PM
May 2014

is so confident in its position, why is it working so hard to suppress research? Why aren't independent researchers allowed to use seeds without the approval of Monsanto? Why are researchers required to sign confidentiality agreements?

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
144. Monsanto is not all GMOs
Mon May 12, 2014, 11:47 PM
May 2014

But just like climate denial, you're still sticking with all GMOs are Monsanto's.

Did you even bother to read the article?

Did you even bother to read the reply? 'cause I went in to exactly how these RNAs can't get into your system, and even if they were magically teleported in, they couldn't actually do anything.

Heck, I didn't even get to the part where we dismantle the claim that Monsanto could have the RNAs only expressed in the roots....but given that you apparently didn't read much of the reply, I don't see much point.

And if Monsanto is so confident in its position, why is it working so hard to suppress research?

Because they're money-grubbing bastards.

Why aren't independent researchers allowed to use seeds without the approval of Monsanto?

Because they charge a hefty licensing fee.

Why are researchers required to sign confidentiality agreements?

So that they can keep charging a hefty licensing fee.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
147. Monsanto is the biggest and the most powerful, and it's funding the fight
Mon May 12, 2014, 11:55 PM
May 2014

against labeling.

They shouldn't fight labeling.
They shouldn't try to muzzle independent researchers.

And it sets a terrible precedent to allow them to do so.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
151. And yet, the fact that your article doesn't work at all
Tue May 13, 2014, 12:00 AM
May 2014

is suddenly not relevant.

But it is nice and scary FUD!

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
162. You haven't done anything to prove that PhD scientist is wrong.
Tue May 13, 2014, 12:39 AM
May 2014

Monsanto and other producers have brought about the "consensus" by preventing anyone from publishing results without their approval.

I'll trust that independent researcher over the ones who have been bought and paid for by the industry.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
111. Then they should eb PROUD to stick a 24 point font label of GMO on their products.
Mon May 12, 2014, 07:39 PM
May 2014

They aren't, so there's more to it that is not being disclosed.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
123. Only if you aren't paying attention to this thread.
Mon May 12, 2014, 10:06 PM
May 2014

Note all the people who insist all GMOs exist for RoundUp. Just like all the climate deniers insist Dr. Mann proves climate change isn't real.

The fact that our science education is terrible is why these problems exist. Slapping a label on the box doesn't fix our terrible science education.

But it does give people who received that terrible science education a reason to hurt themselves without realizing it. Be it GMOs or climate change.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
124. How is not eating GMO food hurting ANYBODY?
Mon May 12, 2014, 10:09 PM
May 2014

Before the companies fought labeling, I didn't give a shit.

Once they fought it, I have refused to eat ANYTHING GMO. I've almost completely given up any product with corn, soy beans, or canola except some specific products I can only find at Whole Foods labeled GMO Free.

They are obviously hiding something. Otherwise, they would not fight the labeling.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
125. I already gave that example.
Mon May 12, 2014, 10:12 PM
May 2014

We've modified some plants to use far less water. They are GMOs. They also are much better for the environment, because we're not using as much water on the fields. Kinda important in places like California with its frequent droughts.

But take a look at this thread, and note just how many people insist the only reason GMOs exist is for RoundUp.

Once they fought it, I have refused to eat ANYTHING GMO.

They are obviously hiding something.

Just like those climate scientists. They must be hiding something, because so many people rail against them.
 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
126. I don't care. It's worth sacrificing the environmental benefits to avoid any potential risks.
Mon May 12, 2014, 10:14 PM
May 2014

Your analogy to climate scientists is laughable. Climate scientists are not fighting disclosure. Companies that produce food that contains GM Organisms are.

You're comparing apples to basketballs and then call it scuba diving.

Finally, again, the only corn, soy, or canola I consume is specifically labeled non-GMO. Fuck GMO. There are no peer reviewed studies to back up the claim it is safe due to patents and trademarks.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
129. You should probably re-read and re-think that subject line.
Mon May 12, 2014, 10:25 PM
May 2014
Your analogy to climate scientists is laughable. Climate scientists are not fighting disclosure. Companies that produce food that contains GM Organisms are.

One is.

The others don't want a label slapped on their product because of the anti-science people who think that one company is all GMOs. And people like you who follow them.

There are no peer reviewed studies to back up the claim it is safe due to patents and trademarks.

There are also no peer reviewed studies to back up the claim that organic food is safe. So clearly, you don't eat that, right?

Oh wait, that would be a really dumb standard to use.

Your sentence is perfect anti-science. What mechanism could the GMO, and only the GMO, harm you? You don't know, but you're sure it must be dangerous somehow.

There is no mechanism by which a GMO could harm you. That's why they're calling them safe. The organism and its genetic modifications are destroyed by your digestive tract before you absorb the broken-down components.

The GMO could be coated with a chemical that could be dangerous. That is what the anti-GMO crowd is actually attacking - RoundUp and Monsanto. But they're blasting away at the wrong target - they are attacking the GMO instead of the chemical.
 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
132. Again, laughable bullshit. You need to rethink what you are saying.
Mon May 12, 2014, 10:39 PM
May 2014

Genetically modified food inserts genetic code from organisms that would have no way of ever being introduced. This is not selective breeding we are talking about. This is an entirely new organism never before seen with genetic material that would have never evolved through natural or selective breeding processes in the organisms in question.

Then this is claimed to be safe with no testing required.

Making that claim with no testing is extraordinary, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to back them up.

And I will say it up front, "organic" (horrible label) vegetables can KILL YOU if you do not wash and prepare it properly due to the potential organism that could be found in fertilizers.

But you know what, there's no way to wash off that human introduced genetic material and there's never been a long term study on a single genetically modified organism to find out potential long term consequences. You have an unknown risk with no mitigation factor to allow you to consume the food. And MOST of the first world does not consider GMO food safe to eat. GMO food is banned

So what it comes down to is risk mitigation. For organic vegetables, you mitigate the potential risk with proper washing and preparation.

With GMO food, you mitigate the potential risk by refusing to consume it.

And because there is no labeling required, my only choice is to assume products contain GMO food if they contain any of the most common GMOs without a non-GMO label.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
135. No, what I'm saying is backed up by science.
Mon May 12, 2014, 10:56 PM
May 2014
Genetically modified food inserts genetic code from organisms that would have no way of ever being introduced. This is not selective breeding we are talking about. This is an entirely new organism never before seen with genetic material that would have never evolved through natural or selective breeding processes in the organisms in question.

And yet, that doesn't change your digestive tract, or how it operates.

Regardless of whether or not it's a GMO, you utterly annihilate it's DNA before you absorb what's left.

Making that claim with no testing is extraordinary, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to back them up.

Extraordinary is claiming that it can cause harm without any mechanism to cause harm.

And I will say it up front, "organic" (horrible label) vegetables can KILL YOU if you do not wash and prepare it properly due to the potential organism that could be found in fertilizers.

Utterly and completely wrong.

The organic vegetable is not harmful. The other organisms on the outside of the vegetable are.

Again, you are attacking the wrong target.

But you know what, there's no way to wash off that human introduced genetic material and there's never been a long term study on a single genetically modified organism to find out potential long term consequences.

There's never been a long term study on a single non-genetically modified organism to find out potential long term consequences. Yet you eat them.

The double-standard exists because you don't understand the process of making a GMO, you don't understand plant physiology, you don't understand your digestive tract. As a result, the FUD from the anti-GMO crowd resonates. And thus you're incapable of making an informed decision, GMO label or not.
 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
137. I DO understand the process for making a GMO.
Mon May 12, 2014, 11:04 PM
May 2014

That is precisely WHY I do not trust GMO food.

I'll take selective breeding processes over Genetic modification any day of the week.

Yes, you know the desirable effect you're going after from the introduced genetic material.

What you do not know is any other unforeseen effects from the introduced genetic material. Those unforeseen effects could manifest in those who consume the food decades later.

And there have been long term studies on non-genetically modified organisms. We've been consuming them literally for millenia.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
139. If you did understand it
Mon May 12, 2014, 11:16 PM
May 2014

You'd understand that this:

What you do not know is any other unforeseen effects from the introduced genetic material. Those unforeseen effects could manifest in those who consume the food decades later.

is utterly wrong.

Feel free to explain how you can catch a plant virus. That's essentially what you are arguing is possible. That people can catch TMV.

That somehow a radically different creature's DNA can survive cooking, digestion, and then will be absorbed into your cells, then absorbed into your cell's nucleus so that it can be expressed.

Oh, and it can be expressed, but won't show anything for decades.

And this mechanism can only happen with GMOs. It can't happen when eating "natural" plants. That somehow through the eons of eating plants we never absorbed plant DNA, but this time we will.

That we don't need to go through the large efforts to develop GMO, that we can just modify anything on a whim.

Essentially, if you actually knew what you talking about, you could provide the specific mechanism by which the harm you claim would act. Not some fuzzy "We just don't know!" bullshit. Specifically, how does the DNA survive cooking, survive digestion, get imported into your cells, then get imported into the nucleus of your cells, and then get expressed.
 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
142. IT's not the DNA itself that I am concerned about.
Mon May 12, 2014, 11:38 PM
May 2014

What concerns me is the potential for unforeseen biosynthesis processes within the plant due to the inserted genetic material.

I could give a shit about actual DNA itself. That is meaningless. But biosynthetic processes can be altered in ways we did not anticipate and the results could be nothing, wondrous, or disastrous.

All it takes is for a plant to produce carcinogenic materials within its cells due to the introduced genetic material and you have health consequences twenty or thirty years down the road from consistent consumption of the GMO over time.

And we may not even know that some new material produced in a modified plant is carcinogenic because it could be something nobody has ever seen before.

Admittedly, the vast majority of altered biosynthetic processes from genetic modification will ahve no effects. It's the minority and the risk associated with that which concerns me.

Of course, we could also see a chemical produced from a new biosynthetic process that ends up curing cancer. So there is also that potential payoff, too.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
146. So now you're claiming our digestive tract un-hardboils eggs.
Mon May 12, 2014, 11:52 PM
May 2014
What concerns me is the potential for unforeseen biosynthesis processes within the plant due to the inserted genetic material.

Tip: Proteins don't survive digestion. They're denatured, and then broken down into amino acids.

All it takes is for a plant to produce carcinogenic materials within its cells due to the introduced genetic material and you have health consequences twenty or thirty years down the road from consistent consumption of the GMO over time.

If such were true, then a "wild" plant would probably have stumbled across doing it - there's no particular reason for natural selection of a plant to select against a protein that causes cancer in humans.

Yet we've managed to find zero situations where eating a plant leads to cancer.

And we may not even know that some new material produced in a modified plant is carcinogenic because it could be something nobody has ever seen before.


Yes, they're throwing random genes in just for shits and giggles. "Who knows what this will do? Let's throw it in there anyway!!"
 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
150. Nice way to put words I never said into my mouth
Tue May 13, 2014, 12:00 AM
May 2014

"Tip: Proteins don't survive digestion. They're denatured, and then broken down into amino acids."

Who said they did survive digestion?

"If such were true, then a "wild" plant would probably have stumbled across doing it - there's no particular reason for natural selection of a plant to select against a protein that causes cancer in humans.

Yet we've managed to find zero situations where eating a plant leads to cancer."

This is false. Eat some nicotiana tabacum for twenty years and get back to me.

"Yes, they're throwing random genes in just for shits and giggles. "Who knows what this will do? Let's throw it in there anyway!!""

Who said they did?

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
154. They have to survive digestion if they're going to do anything in the human.
Tue May 13, 2014, 12:03 AM
May 2014
Who said they did survive digestion?

You did, when you claimed they could cause cancer.

This is false. Eat some nicotiana tabacum for twenty years and get back to me.

Doesn't cause cancer when cooked & eaten.

Who said they did?

You did, when you claimed there would be genes of unknown function inserted - your mechanism requires the scientists to introduce a gene that creates unexpected proteins that cause cancer.
 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
156. You really are clueless
Tue May 13, 2014, 12:07 AM
May 2014

"Doesn't cause cancer when cooked & eaten."

You've never known anybody who dipped snuff and ended up with stomach cancer, have you?

What kinds of illness are caused by oral or smokeless tobacco

Harmful health effects of smokeless tobacco include:

Mouth, tongue, cheek, gum, and throat cancer
Cancer in the esophagus (the swallowing tube that goes from your mouth to your stomach)
Stomach cancer
Pancreatic cancer
Possible increase in risk of heart disease, heart attacks, and stroke
Addiction to nicotine (which can lead to smoking)
Leukoplakia (white sores in the mouth that can become cancer)
Receding gums (gums slowly shrink from around the teeth) and gum disease (gingivitis)
Bone loss around the roots of the teeth
Abrasion (scratching and wearing down) of teeth
Cavities and tooth decay
Tooth loss
Stained and discolored teeth
Bad breath


http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/smokeless-tobacco

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
158. If only you'd bothered with the last 3 words.
Tue May 13, 2014, 12:10 AM
May 2014

They might be relevant.

So how does your accidental protein get inserted into the plant, survive cooking, digestion and then cause cancer?

ETA: How do you guarantee your non-GMO food is not sprayed with a carcinogen?

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
160. The protein is not inserted. The plant itself produces the protein.
Tue May 13, 2014, 12:28 AM
May 2014

Last edited Tue May 13, 2014, 01:32 AM - Edit history (2)

Your desire when modifying the organism is to produce or enhance a desired biosynthesis process.

The problem is the biosystem of the plant is complex and any altered or introduced biosynthesis process will affect other existing biosynthesis processes. To affect or introduce the desired process is to introduce hormonal production to induce the process. Because nearly all biosynthesis processes within the host plant are dependent upon hormonal levels, any introduction of new hormones or increase or decrease in existing hormones will affect more than the targeted biosynthesis process. This effect will be minimal in the vast majority of genetic modification, but all it takes is a single altered biosynthesis process to produce an undesired effect.

A simple example would be ethylene biosynthesis in dioecious plants. If you suppress ethylene production in a female of a species that is dioecious, you will induce male sexual expression because in dioecious plants both ethylene and gibberellins are produced in the male and female plants. Hormonal controllers in males produce higher levels of gibberellins and hormonal controllers in females produce higher levels of ethylene.

This suppression of ehtylene biosynthesis could be accomplished via many techniques and is useful in dioecious plant breeding when female sexual expression and traits are the desired outcome (Kiwi comes to mind for desired fruit production in a selective breeding program).

If you genetically altered a female kiwi plant in such a way as to inhibit ethylene biosynthesis, say you wanted a desired effect but a higher level of negative ionic particles exist in the plasm of the plant just enough to inhibit ethylene biosynthesis, you will never experience female sexual expression but will always produce male sexual expression. You will have effectively altered the sex of the host plant. Depending upon where the gene you introduced exists, you could produce a super male that will only have male sexual expression in any offspring.

That's a simplistic example of how an unforeseen biosynthesis process could have damaging effects, but also one that is more likely than the potential for carcinogenic biosynthesis due to how sexual expression in dioecious plants occurs.

Biosynthesis processes in organisms do not occur in a vacuum.

Edited to add: In my super male example of the dioecious kiwi, 1/2 of all offspring will produce normal male sexual expression and 1/2 of all offspring will produce super male sexual offspring. This super male expression requires the inserted gene to exist on the same chromosome as the gene that controls normal female ethylene biosynthesis. Since any fruit production genetic introduction will most likely also occur on that chormosone, the potential for unforeseen biosynthesis processes is much higher than under any standard genetic modification procedures.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
163. One final point.
Tue May 13, 2014, 12:57 AM
May 2014

I'm not saying that all genetic modification will result in unforeseen effects that have long term health consequences.

I'm not even saying that a significant minority will have long term health consequences.

I'm saying there is a risk for long term health consequences and in the current unregulated environment, that is an unacceptable risk for me personally. Thus my personal choice is to refuse to consume any GMO food until the regulatory environment is such that an outside party is double checking the work of the corporations producing the GMO foods.

All that labeling would accomplish for me is to allow me more choices than Whole Foods non-GMO labeled foods.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
127. One last point. I am not advocating banning GMO food.
Mon May 12, 2014, 10:18 PM
May 2014

I advocate full disclosure and allow the market to make an informed decision.

Since there is not full disclosure I refuse to eat crap made with corn, soy, or canola that is not labeled non-GMO.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
131. You are advocating the impossible.
Mon May 12, 2014, 10:31 PM
May 2014
I advocate full disclosure and allow the market to make an informed decision.

"Informed" is the key word.

"Informed" is also not only about labels. It's also about what the labels mean.

The anti-GMO crowd use a large pile of anti-science to smear the entire concept of GMOs because of their dislike of one kind of GMO from one company. People like you are following them, because all those people must be on to something, right?

Science education in our country is terrible. And has been for a long time. That means the market can't make an informed decision on GMOs or climate change or any other "science-y" issue. "The market" is flooded with woo and anti-science. What sounds good is more important than what's true.

Slapping a label on it just results in decisions based on that flood. Resulting in decisions like yours.
 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
133. That's the biggest pile of bull I've ever seen posted here.
Mon May 12, 2014, 10:44 PM
May 2014

I know what GMO means. I know what it means to genetically modify an organism. I am also aware that GMO foods are assumed safe and no studies on the long term effects of such foods can ever be undertaken due to patents, trademarks, and licensing to perform such as study.

You, on the other hand, advocate keeping the public ignorant to protect them from their ignorance. Never has a more absurd suggestion ever been made.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
136. No, you really don't know what GMO means.
Mon May 12, 2014, 10:59 PM
May 2014
I know what it means to genetically modify an organism.

K, then how do they do it? Specifically.

I am also aware that GMO foods are assumed safe and no studies on the long term effects of such foods can ever be undertaken due to patents, trademarks, and licensing to perform such as study.

Wrong.

As I already told you three times now, one company is blocking such studies.

You, on the other hand, advocate keeping the public ignorant to protect them from their ignorance.

I'm advocating we do a better job teaching science and not giving into FUD because it sounds good.
 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
140. There are a variety of techniques, but specifics would require a book. As shortened as possible...
Mon May 12, 2014, 11:26 PM
May 2014

First the gene desired to be inserted into the organism is chosen.

In plants you'll usually see genetic material chosen for resistance to insects or herbicides, though genetic material for environmental survivability can also be chosen, such as the genetic material in the Cole family being chosen to make tomatoes resistant to frost.

Once the precise gene to be inserted is chosen, enzymes are used to cut the DNA into fragments and a process called gel electrophoresis is used to separate the DNA fragments by length. Some times a PCR process is used to amplify the desired gene segment prior to gel electrophoresis.

You then combine this genetic material with other genetic material to make it work. This usually results in a promoter and a terminator region as well as selective markers in the construct. This is done using recombinant DNA techniques (several potential techniques). The selective markers usually provide antibiotic resistance in the organism it is expressed in and are used later to see what cells in the modified organism contains the new genetic material.

I could go on, but a post on a political forum gets too long too quickly.

And yes, in the majority of cases the resulting organism will never produce any ill effects in those who consume it. There is the potential risk that they could, and the companies developing these organism have no disclosure.

The risk is there and until genetic modification becomes highly regulated, I refuse to trust my health to the multinational corporations developing these organisms while never releasing the data.

Bayer claimed their studies showed no ill effects on honeybees from neonictinoids, We now know this was complete bullshit due to the horridly substandard testing they performed.

Why should I trust any corporation that claims their genetically modified foods showed no ill effects in their studies after that shit?


jeff47

(26,549 posts)
143. Too bad you left off the important part.
Mon May 12, 2014, 11:41 PM
May 2014

Problem is you didn't realize you cut off the important part - Insertion.

Because showing just what it takes to get these genes to be expressed in a plant would demonstrate that there's no way they'd be expressed in a person who ate the plant.

There is the potential risk that they could

If that were true, you'd be able to explain the mechanism. You keep avoiding that.

Why should I trust any corporation that claims their genetically modified foods showed no ill effects in their studies after that shit?

Because the people claiming "it could cause harm!!!!" never have a mechanism. All they have is fear.
 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
145. Insertion is the most complex part and that is why I cut it off.
Mon May 12, 2014, 11:47 PM
May 2014

I could never describe that process in a small space.

My mechanism? Unforeseen biosynthesis processes in the resulting organism. You are altering biosynthesis processes in the host organism an you're pretty good at choosing the desired effects, but you cannot predict precisely all of the potentially altered biosynthesis processes in any given organism. In plants especially, there are far too many producing too many resulting chmeicals within the plant to be capable of predicting every eventuality.

And all it takes is one unforeseen altered biosynthesis process to produce harmful effects after consuming the organism over two or three decades.

Is the risk low? Absolutely. Is it nil? Absolutely not.

Meanwhile, you advocate we simply trust the corporations producing these organisms at their word with no disclosure.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
149. Nah, it's actually pretty simple to provide a message-board quality
Mon May 12, 2014, 11:58 PM
May 2014

description. For example, "they use viruses to inject it into the plant's nucleus". That's wrong, but it's nice and compact. How they really do it can be similarly simplified.

My mechanism? Unforeseen biosynthesis processes in the resulting organism.

So your mechanism utterly incomplete.

You've still got to get your altered protein to survive cooking, digestion, and into the human, and cause harm.

Meanwhile, you advocate we simply trust the corporations producing these organisms at their word with no disclosure.

You simply trust the corporations producing their non-GMO food. How do you know they haven't sprayed it with DDT or other carcinogen?

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
155. If that were true, everyone would see it.
Tue May 13, 2014, 12:06 AM
May 2014

Your replies are still right up there. People can easily see if I was putting words in your mouth.

So how does your altered protein survive cooking, digestion, and get into the human such that it can cause cancer?

(Hint: The "gimme" is cooking - just claim it's in a plant we don't cook like lettuce)

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
159. Why are you running away?
Tue May 13, 2014, 12:15 AM
May 2014

It's really not a difficult question, if your fears are remotely grounded in reality.

Snuff isn't food. And it's laden with all sorts of problematic chemicals. Kinda why people tend to vomit if they ingest it.

You're claiming that a protein:
1) magically appears, because the scientists creating the crop never saw it coming.
2) survives cooking
3) survives digestion
4) causes cancer.

And the risk of that is so significant that every single crop must be tested for decades.

Meanwhile, the risk that the folks in another country who grow your non-GMO food are not lying about what they spray on the crop can be ignored.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
161. And now youve built the strawman.
Tue May 13, 2014, 12:33 AM
May 2014

1) I dipped snuff for more than fifteen years. Fianlly gave it up, but kept smoking. I didn't vomit. I swallowed.

Most snuff dippers are the same.

The rest of your post is so ridiculous as to not deserve any answer as again, you are trying to say I said something I didn't say.

 

Swede Atlanta

(3,596 posts)
60. As others have noted...so much for states' rights....
Mon May 12, 2014, 12:06 PM
May 2014

This is unlikely to go very far. The House will pass it because we know they hate Americans and want them all to die as soon as possible. The current Senate will not even take up the legislation. And even if it were to pass both houses I expect BO would veto.

We know this is far more important than say a jobs bill, infrastructure fixes, immigration reform, saving the environment, extending unemployment benefits, etc.

As a consumer I want to know as much as I can about what I am purchasing. While I am interested in knowing as much as I can about everything I purchase, because what I eat can cause me to become sick or even die it is that much more important.

Why are Republicans against giving people "freedom" to make informed buying decisions? Because Monsanto has them by the nada and the hooters. They will give them money if they stop this. Monsanto is terrified that if consumers become aware they will go organic and stop buying genetically mutilated foods.

TBF

(31,934 posts)
63. I'm not into woo in general -
Mon May 12, 2014, 12:34 PM
May 2014

but I don't have a problem with labeling. I know we have some shills on here who are adamantly opposed but I truly can not see the problem. So it costs the companies a few cents more to give us the ingredients?? From the looks of most CEO salaries these days I think they can take the hit.

 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
68. Good for you, so glad you told us that.
Mon May 12, 2014, 01:38 PM
May 2014

What does this attack label used by bogus "skeptics" on behalf of bogus "science" (long as it serves status quo beliefs) have to do with this thread then?

For example, I'm not into sado-masochism in general, but why would I mention this here?

TBF

(31,934 posts)
88. I miss the days when I could come on this
Mon May 12, 2014, 02:37 PM
May 2014

site and not be crucified for using one word or another.

I don't know who "they" are but I'm pretty pro science. I don't believe there is a big conspiracy out there to taint our food, water, and alter our minds with flouride and the like.

That said, I also don't see a problem with putting labels on items so folks know what is in the items they ingest.


I seem to have this problem with the "for" and "against" Obama people as well. He's an administrator and he's doing fine. I'm not going to join either "camp" - I simply discuss policy. Sometimes I agree with his policy decisions and sometimes I don't.

I am so tired of people needing to put others in boxes in an attempt to discredit them.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
89. If you're tired of people putting others in boxes, then why do you do the same
Mon May 12, 2014, 02:46 PM
May 2014

when you connect GMO show-me-the-unbiased-research-skeptics with woo?

 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
91. There is no big conspiracy to taint our minds with fluoride...
Mon May 12, 2014, 02:51 PM
May 2014

Last edited Mon May 12, 2014, 03:26 PM - Edit history (1)

It's a petty and normal conspiracy of aluminum and fertilizer producers to avoid paying for their own waste disposal. They have contrived to let communities pay them billions of dollars and dump this waste product, fluoride compound, into their own drinking water. Municipalities have been conned into doing so on the ridiculous pretext that it's good for dental health, even though the WHO data for dental health, comparing developed nations that fluoridate to those that don't, looks like this:



In other words, unregulated capitalist enterprise doing what it normally does, without regard for externalities like pollutants dumped in the drinking water.

Some more from old notes of mine:

Controversy about the fluoridation of water are almost exclusive to English-speaking countries: the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada and Australia. That is because these are almost the only countries in the world where municipalities still commonly practice water fluoridation. Every other country has either never adopted fluoridation, or – in the case of regions in Japan and a series of European nations including the two Germanys and the Soviet Union – practiced fluoridation starting in the 1950s and abolished it again starting in the early 1970s through 1990. Today, no more than about 10 percent of the UK population and no more than half of Canadians receive fluoridated tap water, while majorities do in Ireland, Australia and, most significantly, the United States.

The areas that never fluoridated, or fluoridated and then quit, have not experienced a cumulative rise in rates of tooth decay as a result. On the contrary, in recent decades every developed nation has seen a constant and dramatic decline in rates of tooth decay. The above chart shows tooth decay trends for “unfluoridated” and “fluoridated” nations since the 1960s, and is based on the United Nations World Health Organization country index for “DMFT” – a measure of the rate of decayed, missing, or filled teeth among 12 year-olds.

Real-world data are rarely this definitive. The DMFT index has declined in all developed countries. This international trend has been completely unrelated to whether or not a nation fluoridates its water. Despite gathering this data, the World Health Organization curiously still supports water fluoridation, as does the UN’s biggest financial sponsor, the United States government. The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have called water fluoridation one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century. It is true, as fluoridation advocates hold, that the period of fluoridation has coincided with a dramatic decline in tooth decay; but the above evidence serves to falsify the hypothesis that water fluoridation was a major factor in improved dental health.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
167. Fluoride doesn't cause defects - study
Mon May 19, 2014, 05:30 PM
May 2014
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/10059761/Fluoride-doesn-t-cause-defects-study?fb_action_ids=10202061689805936&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=s%3DshowShareBarUI%3Ap%3Dfacebook-like

"Dunedin researchers say a high-quality study has refuted claims fluoride in water can cause mental defects.

The study also backed other research indicating breastfeeding was associated with higher child IQ.

The University of Otago research was based on the Dunedin multidisciplinary study, that followed the health and development of about 1000 people born in Dunedin in 1972 and 1973 until they were aged 38.

Lead author Dr Jonathan Broadbent said the new research focused on subjects' fluoride exposure during the first five years of their lives - the critical period in brain development, after which IQ was known to be relatively stable.

..."

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
72. Monsanto has succeeded in its strategy to control all the research
Mon May 12, 2014, 01:44 PM
May 2014

by controlling the seeds and by requiring researchers to sign confidentiality agreements, so that people like you are convinced that anyone who has concerns about the Monsanto funded and/or approved research is guilty of woo.

TBF

(31,934 posts)
81. I think you misunderstood my post -
Mon May 12, 2014, 02:18 PM
May 2014

I have no problem with the labeling and think it should be done here as it has been in Europe.

mathematic

(1,430 posts)
80. I have a right to know if my food was made by Franciscan monks.
Mon May 12, 2014, 02:14 PM
May 2014

Sure, some products are "voluntarily" labeled that they're made by Franciscan monks but what's wrong with consumer choice?

If non-Franciscan-monks were so confident of the "safety" of their products then they would happily label their products as non-Franciscan-monk made in giant bold red lettering on the front of their products. So much for the free market. I HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
110. I don't understand your analogy. The producers of non-GMO's are happy to label their products.
Mon May 12, 2014, 07:37 PM
May 2014

It is the producers of GMO products that want to ban labeling.

mathematic

(1,430 posts)
113. That would require me to actually look for Franciscan monk labeled food.
Mon May 12, 2014, 07:51 PM
May 2014

Sorry, I'm far too lazy and uncommitted to actually look for the food that the Franciscan monks made and consequently labeled. And like I said, if the non-Franciscan-monks really believe in the health and safety of their "food" then what's the problem with labeling it? It's my right to know. Let's pass government enforced mandatory labeling laws and LET THE FREE MARKET DECIDE if people really want this hazardous non-Franciscan-monk garbage.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
119. I agree. Let the free market decide -- with labeling.
Mon May 12, 2014, 08:55 PM
May 2014

What threw me off was that HuckleB strongly agreed with your post. And he takes the opposite position.

roody

(10,849 posts)
102. Progressives support GMO labeling.
Mon May 12, 2014, 06:51 PM
May 2014

If someone does not want me to know what I am eating, that person is not progressive.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Republicans are working o...