No more GMO: Monsanto drops bid to approve new crops in Europe

[dipsydoodle]

Source: RT News

The world’s largest seed corporation says it has dropped its bid to get more genetically modified crops onto the European market due to the wide-spread popular opposition. The biotech giant says it will expand its share of the natural seed market instead.

“We will no longer be pursuing approvals for cultivation of new biotech crops in Europe. Instead, we will focus on enabling imports of biotech crops into the EU and the growth of our current business there,” the US-based company said in an email statement.

The pending applications for GM crops – 6 types of corn, a soybean variety and a modified sugar beet – will be withdrawn shortly, the biotech giant stressed.

Currently, only two GM crops are approved in Europe, the MON810 maize and a modified potato created by BASF, a German biotech company. However, much of the allowed genetically modified produce is delivered to Europe as animal feed.

Europe has long expressed its concern over the effects of GM food produce on human health.

Read more: http://rt.com/news/monsanto-europe-gmo-food-309/

[closeupready]

1. Major K&R.

Frankenfoods, yuck!

[99th_Monkey]

2. Dear Monsanto ..

Please proceed back to the Pits of Hell, from whence you came.

[avaistheone1]

3. The best thing the U.S. can do is to dump Monsanto's GMO foods too.

k&r

[sakabatou]

4. +1

[LiberalLovinLug]

7. Fat Chance

Not when Obama appointed a former Monsanto VP as America's food safety czar.
They must have been a big campaign donor.

Two continents going the opposite directions. We are the guinea pigs.

[DFW]

5. It's different in Europe

In the little town where I hang my hat (when I'm ever home, that is), they have a farmer's market in the town square three times a week. Farmers of fruit, veggies, poultry, even a beekeeper and a few bakers come into the town square to sell their wares, and people like to cook thir own food fresh.

It has been done this way in this town for about the last 1000 years or so (ever since that town has been there), and the people there don't see why some corporation from America needs to come in and tell them that they have to do things differently. I don't either.

[tazkcmo]

14. Daily shopping too

Lived in W Germany in 70's in a town of about 300 folks. Food so fresh you heard it squeal, moo or what ever that morning on your way to work or school. Our fridge was smaller than some ovens I've seen. lol

[DFW]

15. Yeah, our fridge is no bigger even today

We have what is called an "Abstellkammer," which is basically a cool room in the deepest part of the house, where things are stored that need to be kept cool, though not necessarily refrigerated or frozen. My wife love American style refrigerator-freezers, but our house is a bit older, and our kitchen just doesn't have the space.

[SoapBox]

6. I just figure that...

the U.S. will now be the usual dumping ground for all things Frankfood and toxic...of course with the full faith and help
of various TeaPukeBaggers and DINO's...and yes, all behind our backs.

A few "political contributions" and America will be dining on shit that will give you a third eye.

[closeupready]

8. Third eyes actually can improve vision. True.

[roseBudd]

19. This describes the hysterics to a T

http://randomrationality.com/2013/07/05/creationism-anti-gmo/

What do the Creationist & Anti-GMO Platform Have in Common?

Creationists and the Anti-GMO crowd (hereafter referred to as anti’s) crowd share a foundational base; one amusing to explore, no less. Creationism, or Intelligent Design (ID) as it is known in some circles where they pretend to themselves it is a scientific theory, has been notorious at setting up evolutionary straw men that they can then easily knock them down to the delight of other believers. (A straw man argument is where you intentionally misrepresent an argument so that you can take down the ‘straw man’ argument without taking on the actual argument to the benefit of your ego and ignorance of your audience.)

In all aspects of the debate on the health, benefits, and detriments of genetically modified food, they’ve exhibit the same tactics, manners, fallacies, and in the process of trying (emphasis on trying) to fortify their position use discredited studies, and almost always refuted or outdated to promulgate their belief that GMOs are bad, bad, and badder than organic produce. They resort to catchy one-liners, misleading metaphors, and outright false perceptions (similar to the crocoduck) to caricature and influence those who come across their opinionations. (It goes without saying that I’m only referring to the fundamentalists of either camp, not the rank-and-file and normal people who are calm and measured in their opposition, although even they have no evidence as such in opposition; another thing they share with believers of ancient Middle Eastern fairy tales.)
In this way, the two camps share common philosophical foundations, which are:
(1) the belief that they know more than the experts
(2) that intuitions trump evidence
(3) that reality should conform to our wishes and desires instead of the other way around.

Both camps are big fans of vivid, negative metaphors and imagery that tickle the humanoid amygdala, thus allowing the biased brain to fill in the blanks — almost always badly. Such examples include references to contamination of organic crops by GM crops, instead of the proper term: cross-pollination. Another is the name-calling of conventional farmers as chemical-farmers, as if natural chemicals are different at the molecular (they are not — anything you can see, touch, feel, and taste is a chemical made up of the same basic building blocks as everything else). Yet another is the calling of sterile seeds ‘terminator seeds,’ while on the other hand condemning and making issues out of contamination (cross-pollination); ignoring the fact that sterile seeds are a perfect way of preventing cross-pollination, yet was so heavily criticized by the anti’s that Monsanto respected the wishes of this vocal minority, who, having won that victory, then had the ammunition, hysteria, and irony to boot, to complain of potential contamination of organic farms by GM farms, which would not have occurred had Monsanto been allowed to develop their sterile seeds. (Then with that victory won, they bought out that old tripe: Monsanto doesn’t allow farmers to re-use their seeds! A practice that preceded Monsanto’s entry into the seed business.) The anti’s, or whichever few orchestrated these campaigns, are either stupid or evil. Either way, a long time ago, this became politics instead of fighting for the environment; it became a worldview predicated not on information or evidence, but defending a viewpoint that long ago ceased to pollinate with reality.

[proverbialwisdom]

28. That's silly.

SOME RECENT COUNTEREXAMPLES:

HORIZONTAL GENE TRANSFER, say what?
Please start reading here: http://gmwatch.org/component/search/?searchword=Horizontal+gene&ordering=newest&searchphrase=all

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/AMA_please_label_gmos/

June 2012

The Indiana State Medical Association and the Illinois State Medical Society have both introduced resolutions to the American Medical Association supporting Federal legislation and/or regulations to require labeling of food with genetically engineered ingredients...

Dear Doctors and Delegates of the American Medical Association,

I am writing to urge the American Medical Association House of Delegates to Adopt Resolution 509-A-11 in lieu of the Council Report on GMO labeling. Medical doctors have a vital role to play in guaranteeing that the rights and health of their patients are taken seriously and by passing a resolution to label GMOs, the AMA would be taking that important step.

A simple label on foods could help doctors keep track of important data related to the rise of food allergies and the novel proteins found in genetically engineered foods. Without labeling, there is no way to track potential adverse consequences of eating genetically engineered food.

Americans have a basic right to know what's in their food and how it's produced. Already nearly 50 countries recognize their citizens' basic right to label genetically engineered foods in order to give them vital information about the food they are eating. While the long-term health effects of consuming genetically engineered food are unknown, there is global agreement that genetically engineered foods are different from traditionally bred crops.

In 2011, the United Nations food safety standards organization adopted guidelines recommending all genetically engineered foods go through a safety assessment prior to approval, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require health studies before the products are approved for human consumption.

In an effort to join growing international consensus regarding the potential for GMOs to introduce increased toxins and allergies in our food supply, I urge the American Medical Association to support GMO labeling to better inform consumers about the food they are buying and feeding their families.

Sincerely,

http://www.willamettelive.com/2012/news/corporate-giant-comes-out-against-gmos/

Corporate Giant Comes Out Against GMOs

Salem Weekly Editors
November 15, 2012

[img][/img]

It has come to our attention that Kaiser Permanente, the largest managed healthcare organization in the United States, has advised its members against GMOs (genetically modified organisms) in food.

In its Northwest Fall 2012 newsletter, Kaiser suggested membership limit exposure to genetically modified organisms.

“GMOs have been added to our food supply since 1994, but most people don’t know it because the United States does not require labeling of GMOs,” according to the newsletter.

Sounding like a radical organic health proponent, the huge corporate Kaiser continued, “Despite what the biotech industry might say, there is little research on the long-term effects of GMOs on human health.”

Independent studies have shown GMOs to cause organ damage in rats and the inability to reproduce. Kaiser gave tips on how its members can avoid GMOs, including buying organic, looking for the “Non-GMO Project Verified” seal and to download the “ShopNoGMO” app.

<>

[img][/img]

http://www.ecorazzi.com/2012/10/09/watch-stars-ask-public-to-vote-yes-gmo-labeling-with-prop-37/

Danny Devito, Dave Mathews, Emily Dechanel, Bill Maher, John Cho, Glenn Howerton, Kaitlin Olson, KaDee Strickland and Kristin Bauer van Straten use some reverse psychology to say that you don’t need to know what goes into your food. So what that China, Japan, Europe and other countries require foods with GMOs to be labeled. In America, we can’t handle that kind of information so best to let the companies worry about our health and for us just to trust them. Sounds like a good health plan, right? Yeah. Not so much.

Links from http://organicconsumers.org/

[proverbialwisdom]

29. That's silly.

Last edited Sun Jul 21, 2013, 10:13 PM - Edit history (2)

SOME HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251241257
1992

https://www.google.com/search?q=a+pusztai&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari
1998

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-09-03/news/0009030374_1_genetically-modified-new-proteins

September 3, 2000

"Genetically Altered Foods: We Are Being Exposed to One of the Largest Uncontrolled Experiments in History"

Martha Herbert
Chicago Tribune

BOSTON - Today the vast majority of foods in supermarkets contain genetically modified substances whose effects on our health are unknown. As a medical doctor, I can assure you that no one in the medical profession would attempt to perform experiments on human subjects without their consent. Such conduct is illegal and unethical. Yet manufacturers of genetically altered foods are exposing us to one of the largest uncontrolled experiments in modern history.

In less than five years these companies have flooded the marketplace with thousands of untested and unlabeled products containing foreign genetic material. These genetically modified foods pose several very real dangers because they have been engineered to create novel proteins that retard spoilage, produce their own pesticides against insects, or allow plants to tolerate larger and larger doses of weed killers. Despite claims that these food products are based on "sound science," in truth, neither manufacturers nor the government has studied the effects of these genetically altered organisms or their new proteins on people-especially babies, the elderly, and the sick. Can these products be toxic? Can they cause immune system problems? Can they damage an infant's developing nervous system? We need answers to these questions, and until then genetically altered ingredients should be removed from the food we eat.

As a pediatric neurologist, I especially worry about the safety of modified foods when it comes to children. We know that the human immune system, for example, is not fully developed in infants. Consequently, pediatricians have long been concerned about early introduction of new proteins into the immature gut and developing body of small children. Infants with colic are often switched to soy formula. Yet we have no information on how they might be affected by drinking genetically engineered soy, even though this product may be their sole or major source of nutrition for months. Because these foods are unlabeled, most parents feed their babies genetically altered formula whether they want to or not. Even proteins that are normally part of the human diet may, when introduced too early, lead to auto-immune and hypersensitivity or "allergic" reactions later.

Some studies suggest that the epidemic increase in asthma (it has doubled since 1980) may have links to early dietary exposures. The behavior problems of many children with autism and attention disorders get worse when they are exposed to certain foods. Yet as more unlabeled and untested genetically engineered foods enter the market, there is no one monitoring how the millions of people with immune system vulnerability are reacting to them and the novel proteins and fragments of viruses they can contain. In fact, without labeling, there is no possible way to track such health effects. This is not sound science, and it is not sound public health.

<>

More at link.

FILM: The World According to Monsanto
2008

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805

2008

INVESTIGATION

Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear
Monsanto already dominates America’s food chain with its genetically modified seeds. Now it has targeted milk production. Just as frightening as the corporation’s tactics–ruthless legal battles against small farmers–is its decades-long history of toxic contamination.

by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele

[proverbialwisdom]

54. More historical context.

http://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/article/default.asp?ID=2729

Articles in the June 27, 2008 Issue of Crop Biotech Update

NEGROPONTE: REMOVE BARRIERS TO USE OF BIOTECH

Sustainable food security will come from advances in science and technology and the creation of an efficient global market for both agricultural products and food production technologies. “We therefore are strongly encouraging countries to remove barriers for the use of innovative plant and animal production technologies, including biotechnology.” This was stressed by John Negroponte, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, during the 2008 World Food Prize Laureate Announcement.

Negroponte said that “biotechnology tools can help speed the development of crops with higher yields, higher nutritional value, better resistance to pests and diseases, and stronger food system resilience in the face of climate change.”

In related events, former U.S. Senators Robert Dole and George McGovern have been selected to receive the 2008 World Food Prize in October 2008 for their “collaborative leadership that has encouraged a global commitment to school feeding and enhanced school attendance and nutrition for millions of the world’s poorest children, especially girls.”

Details of the news are available at http://www.state.gov/s/d/2008/105902.htm and http://www.worldfoodprize.org/press_room/2008/june/08laureates.htm

[proverbialwisdom]

30. More.

FINALLY, PUBLIC AWARENESS AND UNSTOPPABLE GRASSROOTS PUSHBACK:

http://www.robynobrien.com/speaking.html

“Robyn’s analysis is a startling revelation of the corruption of our food supply and our failure to protect two of our country’s most valuable assets, our children and our environment. Her message of courage, tenacity and hope is a beacon of light in our toxic world." —Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Robyn recently addressed a crowd of 600 at TEDx Austin and received a standing ovation for her presentation, "Patriotism on a Plate" as seen in the VIDEO:

Business Section NYT: 'The Epi-Pen's Maker Invests in Expansion As Allergy Rates in Children Rise'
EXCERPT: A study last year in the journal Pediatrics found that about one in 13 children had a food allergy, and nearly 40 percent of those with allergies had severe reactions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/business/mylan-invests-in-epipen-as-child-allergies-increase.html?pagewanted=all

September 7, 2012
Tiny Lifesaver for a Growing Worry
By KATIE THOMAS

It has become an all-too-familiar story in schools across the country: a child eats a peanut or is stung by a bee and suffers an immediate, life-threatening allergic reaction known as anaphylaxis.

If parents and school authorities know about the allergy and a doctor’s prescription is on file, a nurse can quickly give an injection of epinephrine, saving the child’s life.

But school nurses in many districts face an agonizing choice if a child without a prescription develops a sudden reaction to an undiagnosed allergy. Should they inject epinephrine and risk losing their nursing license for dispensing it without a prescription, or call 911 and pray the paramedics arrive in time?

After a 7-year-old girl died in January in a similar case in Virginia, the state passed a law that allows any child who needs an emergency shot to get one. Beginning this month, every school district in Virginia is required to keep epinephrine injectors on hand for use in an emergency. Illinois, Georgia and Maryland have passed similar laws, and school nurses are pushing for one in Ohio. A lobbying effort backed by Mylan, which markets the most commonly used injector, the EpiPen, made by Pfizer, led to the introduction last year of a federal bill that would encourage states to pass such laws.

Mylan has also lobbied state legislatures around the country directly and is passing out free EpiPens this fall to any qualifying school that wants them.

“When a child is having an anaphylactic reaction, the only thing that can save her life is epinephrine,” said Maria L. Acebal, the chief executive of the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network. “911 doesn’t get there fast enough.”

The efforts are an acknowledgment of the rising rates of food allergies among children and a handful of deaths from allergies across the country. In many schools, children carry their own epinephrine injectors in their backpacks to use themselves, if they’re old enough, or the devices are stored on their behalf in nurses’ offices.

<...>

[font style=color:blue]Although no one knows exactly why, the rate of food allergies among children appears to be on the rise.[/font] One survey found that in 2008, one in 70 children was allergic to peanuts, compared with one in 250 in 1997.

“I don’t think it’s overdiagnosis,” said Dr. Scott H. Sicherer, the author of the report and a researcher at the Jaffe Food Allergy Institute at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Manhattan. “There really seems to be a difference.”

A study last year in the journal Pediatrics found that about one in 13 children had a food allergy, and nearly 40 percent of those with allergies had severe reactions. A recent survey in Massachusetts, where schools are permitted to administer epinephrine to any student, found that one-quarter of students who had to be given the drug for a reaction did not know they had an allergy. But in many schools, employees are not allowed to use epinephrine injectors on children who do not have a prescription.

<...>

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/maine-legislature-easily-passes-gmo-labeling-bill-article-1.1370871

Monsanto argues that no valid, peer-reviewed studies have shown any ill health effects related to consuming genetically engineered foods.

“We oppose current initiatives to mandate labeling of ingredients developed from GM seeds in the absence of any demonstrated risks,” the company says on its website. “Such mandatory labeling could imply that food products containing these ingredients are somehow inferior to their conventional or organic counterparts.”

http://fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2013/mar/12/labeling_of_gmo_baby_food_and_baby_formula/

Labeling of Genetically Engineered Baby Food and Baby Formula
Posted by Dave on March 12, 2013

Hartford CT – The labeling of genetically engineered foods is one step closer to being a reality in Connecticut. Today the Committee on Children voted 11 to 1 in favor of House Bill 6527,“An Act Concerning Genetically Engineered Baby Food”, that would require the labeling of foods fed to infants that contain genetically engineered ingredients.

Amanda Wendt, the social media director of GMO Free CT, the grass roots organization advocating for GMO labeling in CT, stated that: “We are thrilled that HB 6527 bill has passed the committee. We are firm believers in the consumer's right to know and we love that parents are one step closer to having the information they need to feed their babies food or formula without genetically modified ingredients. This gives us great momentum moving into Friday's Public Health Committee hearing.”

Connecticut is the first state to introduce a labeling bill that specifically targets GMOs (genetically modified organisms) in baby food and infant formula.

The bill to label genetically engineered baby food was introduced by Representative Diana Urban, Chair of the Children’s Committee and a Democrat from North Stonington, CT, who has one child of her own. Urban shared that she knew about GMOs from the start and never fed them to her son and that she feels for all the mothers out there who are first learning about GMOs and are now devastated about what they fed their babies. Vice chair of the Children’s Committee, Kim Fawcett, a Democrat from Fairfield stated that “More and more we are coming to realize that GMOs represent a possible human health concern for adults and our children. With the real potential threat to human health, we must make sure to provide basic information to mothers trying to make healthy choices for their families. The work we’re doing here in Connecticut is just part of the voice of a national movement that is demanding more information and transparency about what’s in our food.”

<>

[roseBudd]

34. You demonstrate my point with confirmation bias

The antiGMO hysterics have no credibility when they use Seralini to bolster their claims.

You do not know more than the experts despite your use of The Google.

[proverbialwisdom]

41. Forget Seralini; try 118 articles on glyphosate from 'US National Library of Medicine' publications.

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/monsantos-game-over-extreme-toxicity-roundup-destroys-justification-gm

Extreme Toxicity of Roundup Destroys GM/Non-GM 'Substantial Equivalence' Argument

Posted on: Sunday, June 23rd 2013 at 9:30 am
Written By: Sayer Ji, Founder

There was a time when Monsanto claimed their patented herbicide Roundup was "safer than table salt" and "practically nontoxic," and aggressively marketed this message until 1996, when they were ordered by Dennis C. Vacco, the Attorney General of New York, to pull the ads.{1}

Fast forward 15 years, after millions of farmers around the world bought into the false advertising and who, as a result, are now driving the production and use of several hundred million pounds of the chemical annually, Roundup herbicide is beginning to look eerily like Monsanto's Agent Orange 2.0.

Indeed, within the scientific community and educated public alike, there is a growing awareness that Roundup herbicide, and its primary ingredient glyphosate, is actually a broad spectrum biocide, in the etymological sense of the word: "bio" (life) and "cide" (kill) – that is, it broadly, without discrimination kills living things, not just plants. Moreover, it does not rapidly biodegrade as widely claimed, and exceedingly small amounts of this chemical – in concentration ranges found in recently sampled rain, air, groundwater, and human urine samples – have DNA-damaging and cancer cell proliferation stimulating effects.

You don't have to look very far to find research documenting its extreme and wide-ranging toxicity. Anyone with a smart phone can now access the accumulating body of experimental and epidemiological research freely available on the National Library of Medicine's citation database MEDLINE, proving that glyphosate-based agrichemicals have been linked to over 40 health conditions, from Parkinson's to Leukemia, and over two dozen modes of toxicity, from causing damage to the DNA to disrupting hormone receptors, from suppressing the immune system to damaging neurons. To view all 26 adverse physiological actions visit our open access, MEDLINE-derived Glyphosate Formulation research page.

<>

In order to drive momentum towards mass awareness of Roundup and Roundup-Ready agriculture toxicity, we are offering a free PDF download of our accumulated research on the topic to be shared far and wide. It is a 100% peer-reviewed and published research document, with hyperlinks back to the original citation location on the National Library of Medicine's MEDLINE.

Please download it here today: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/sites/default/files/free_downloads/gpub_78151_toxic_ingredient_glyphosate_formulations.pdf

{1} [1] The New York Times, Monsanto recruits the horticulturist of the San Diego Zoo to pitch its popular herbicide, May 29, 1997
.

Link from:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27919.cfm

Millions Against Monsanto: On the Road to Victory
By Ronnie Cummins
Organic Consumers Association, July 18, 2013

After enjoying a year of maximum profits, record stock prices, the defeat of a major GMO labeling campaign in California, pro-industry court decisions, and a formidable display of political power in Washington, D.C. – including slipping the controversial Monsanto Protection Act into the Federal Appropriations bill in March - the Biotech Bully from St. Louis now finds itself on the defensive.

<>

As the June 24, 2013 issue of Green Medical News puts it:

“ . . . within the scientific community and educated public alike, there is a growing awareness that Roundup herbicide , and its primary ingredient glyphosate, is actually a broad spectrum biocide , in the etymological sense of the word: "bio" (life) and "cide" (kill) – that is, it broadly, without discrimination kills living things, not just plants. Moreover, it does not rapidly biodegrade as widely claimed, and exceedingly small amounts of this chemical – in concentration ranges found in recently sampled rain, air, groundwater, and human urine samples – have DNA-damaging and cancer cell proliferation stimulating effects.”

On May 25, two million people from 436 cities, in 52 countries, on six continents took to the streets in a global “March Against Monsanto.” From New York to New Delhi, protestors reaffirmed their determination not only to force the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods, as has already been accomplished in the European Union, India and at least 36 other nations, but also to drive all GMOs off the market. That includes GMOs in human food, animal feed, cotton, nutritional supplements, body care products, and GMO cotton and biofuels.

The same week as the global March Against Monsanto, the New York Times reported that U.S. food companies, “large and small” are starting to make arrangements to reformulate the ingredients in their processed foods and reorganize their supply lines so to avoid having to admit that their brand name products contain GMOs. Monsanto and its Junk Food allies recognize that if the Washington State ballot initiative on mandatory GMO labeling passes on November 5, which now appears likely, their ability to keep food consumers in the dark will be over.

<>

[alp227]

9. I hate Monsanto, but where's the evidence that eating GM foods is bad for you?

Additionally:

Attacks on GM food often utilize pseudoscience and straight out lying. The most prevalent claim is that all GMOs are harmful to health and cause a variety of illnesses: cancer,[24] autism,[25] reproductive problems, infant mortality, liver problems and many other things.[26] These claims are totally false and on the same level as vaccine hysteria. The vast majority of supporting "research" comes from a small group of ideologically motivated cranks.

The scientific consensus says that there are no generic health risks common for all GM food. Any possible harm can only come from a specific engineered trait. This view is shared by the World Health Organization,[27] the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the European Food Safety Agency, the International Council for Science,[28] the U.S. National Academies of Science,[29] and almost all national scientific bodies. All GM traits currently on the market have been tested in animals and found safe.

And as biologist PZ Myers explains:

. All of our crops, everyone’s crops, are heavily modified genetically. Wild strawberries are tiny little things. Corn is a hybrid monster shaped by centuries of selection, twisted from a seedy little grass into this weird elaborate conglomeration. Wheat and barley and rye are the product of thousands of years of genetic reshuffling and selection. Walk into the produce section of your grocery store — do you really think all those fruits and vegetables are unshaped by human hands?

This strange unfounded fear of GMOs is unfortunately most strongly expressed in the political left. It’s embarrassing that political progressives are being made to look bad by raging superstition and unscientific claims.

I wonder if this Frankenfood panic is just as non-scientific as creationism or voodoo. But of course...these scientists must be paidshillsforbigagribusiness, right?

[dipsydoodle]

10. At least by making its labelling mandatory

as is the case throughout the EU consumers have choice.

[Purveyor]

51. That is all I'm asking for. Let me make the choice, indeed! eom

[closeupready]

12. I'm sure you can volunteer to guinea pig for human testing

and safety trials, if that's how you feel.

[laundry_queen]

59. Yep.

How about making a law that before you unleash something into the food supply, you have to prove it's not harmful. They should've done that with pesticides and herbicides as well. But when big ag owns your government....It's telling that at all the 1% gatherings they eat organic.

[DeSwiss]

13. There's plenty of evidence.....

... if you know where to look.

And while I like PZ, that's total bullshit he's spewing. There's a complete difference between the modifying and the manipulating of existing genes by man but which were created by Nature. As opposed to the splicing of things into genes that were never intended nor created this way in Nature, and to do so for SOLELY FOR PROFITS. Okay?

That's what GMO's CREATION WAS ALL ABOUT. NOT ABOUT SAVING HUMANITY OR FEEDING THE WORLD BUT MAXIMIZING OUTPUTS BY REDUCING LOSSES AND THEN CASHING IN!!

They made GMO shit this way just so the plants are impervious to POISONS! Which we then consume. Which is exactly what glyphosate is. How can that NOT BE HARMFUL"???

[roseBudd]

17. You mean like the botulism, created by Nature, or how about that natural

malaria. there is no Nature, and nature doesn't give a shit how many starve.

Glyphosate has been around for 30 years. Where are the mass casualties.

I am seriously embarrassed.

http://mylespower.co.uk/2013/07/02/bad-science-in-the-paper-long-term-toxicity-of-a-roundup-herbicide-and-a-roundup-tolerant-gm-maize/

http://mylespower.co.uk/2013/06/29/drinking-roundup-herbicide-makes-men-live-longer/

Seralini isn't just a fraud, he is an abuser of laboratory animals. It is unethical to not euthanize, so you can take inflammatory photos of rats that develop tumors spontaneously

[DeSwiss]

20. It works slowly.

It is still poison.

You eat it.

[roseBudd]

22. Very scientific claims there to back up your beliefs

I am not of the order insectivore. My gut is not alkaline. It IS a matter of dose. Water can be fatal at too high of a dose.

The antiGMO hysterics have nothing but fraudulent science. how are they different from climate change deniers?

Sprague-Dawley rats are the Ajelina Jolie of rat research lines. they develop tumors and don't live to age 2, no matter what they eat.

Bet your sciencey self won't read this paper.

http://www.vib.be/en/news/Documents/20121008_EN_Analyse%20rattenstudie%20S%C3%A9ralini%20et%20al.pdf

[proverbialwisdom]

33. Fraudulent science, how about sick kids? These findings give support to The Precautionary Principle

•Washington Post – Immune Systems Increasingly on the Attack

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

...First, asthma cases shot up, along with hay fever and other common allergic reactions, such as eczema. Then, pediatricians started seeing more children with food allergies. Now, experts are increasingly convinced that a suspected jump in lupus, multiple sclerosis and other afflictions caused by misfiring immune systems is real.



•Los Angeles Times – 4% of Children have Food Allergies

November 17, 2009

...The number of children who have food allergies is not only increasing, it now encompasses 4% of all kids in the United States, according to an analysis of four large, national surveys published Monday in the journal Pediatrics.

The study -- the first to make a broad estimate about the prevalence of food allergies among U.S. children -- supports previous studies suggesting that allergy rates are rising rapidly, for reasons that are unclear.



•Los Angeles Times - Chronic health conditions increasing in children, study finds

February 17, 2010

...More than a quarter of all U.S. children have a chronic health condition, new research suggests, a significant increase from the rate seen in earlier decades and a statistic that looms large for the nation's efforts to subdue rising healthcare costs....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/03/AR2008030303200.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-allergies17-2009nov17,0,7452917.story
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-child-health17-2010feb17,0,456579.story
.

VIDEO: Alex Bogusky interviews Robyn O’Brien, author of The Unhealthy Truth.

O’Brien turns to accredited research conducted in Europe that confirms the toxicity of America’s food supply, and traces the relationship between Big Food and Big Money that has ensured that the United States is one of the only developed countries in the world to allow hidden toxins in our food–toxins that can be blamed for the alarming recent increases in allergies, ADHD, cancer, and asthma among our children.

http://godsofadvertising.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/after-changing-our-business-forever-alex-bogusky-resigns-from-crispin-porter-bogusky/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Bogusky

[roseBudd]

35. Fail. that is not evidence.

More confirmation bias

[proverbialwisdom]

42. "Because while our children may only represent 30% of the population, they are 100% of our future."

We share common goals, correct?

http://blogs.prevention.com/inspired-bites/2012/05/22/generation-rx-the-changing-landscape-of-childhood/

Generation Rx: The Changing Landscape of Childhood
May 22, 2012 10:26 am Posted by Robyn O'Brien

Childhood appears to be under siege.

From the escalating rates of childhood cancers, to the increasing diagnoses for conditions like autism and allergies, the landscape of childhood has changed, earning our children the title “Generation Rx”.

And this is changing the face of American families and our economy. We already spend 17 cents of every dollar on health care, managing disease. The pharmaceutical companies can’t keep up with demand, and now there are shortages for drugs used to treat cancers and ADHD.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, cancer is the leading cause of death by disease in children under the age of 15. The journal Pediatrics has reported that 15% of American girls are expected to begin puberty by the age of 7 (with the number closer to 25% for African American girls) and a growing number of American children struggle with obesity. On top of that, the rate for having food allergies is 59% higher for obese children, with the Centers for Disease Control reporting a 265% increase in hospitalizations related to food allergic reactions. And while not all of those hospitalizations are for our children, what is becoming increasingly obvious is that the health of our children is under siege.

But more often than not, the solution is not found in the medicine cabinet, but in the kitchen.

And as scientific evidence continues to mount, courageously presented by doctors like Mark Hyman, MD, in his groundbreaking book, The Blood Sugar Solution, and pediatric specialists like Dr. Joel Fuhrman and Dr. Alan Greene, about the role that diet and nutrition plays in the health of our children, parents are beginning to take notice.

And as we introduce new foods that are nutrient-dense (meaning full of vitamins and minerals) and try to reduce our loved ones’ exposure to the foods that are nutrient-void (packing mostly artificial ingredients that have been synthetically engineered in laboratories), we are realizing that we have the power to affect remarkable change in the health of our children and families, so that together, we can stem this tide of children flowing into pediatric hospitals being built across the country.

Because while our children may only represent 30 percent of the population, they are 100 percent of our future. And if spending on health care and disease management is viewed as a leading economic indicator, we need to stem this tide before it becomes a tsunami, for the sake of our children, our families, our economy and our country.

Definitive evidence? Any impediments? Check it out.

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

DO SEED COMPANIES CONTROL GM CROP RESEARCH?

Scientific American, Editorial, August 2009 edition, published 21 July 2009

"...Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering.

"It is important to understand that it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough," wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University, in a letter to an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops), "but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how 'friendly' or 'hostile' a particular scientist may be toward technology."

Shields is the spokesperson for a group of 24 corn insect scientists that opposes these practices..."

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11573-gm-industrys-strong-arm-tactics-with-researchers-nature-biotechnology

GM industry's strong-arm tactics with researchers - Nature Biotechnology
Monday, 12 October 2009 16:25

http://www.emilywaltz.com/Biotech_crop_research_restrictions_Oct_2009.pdf

Under Wraps
NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY, VOLUME 27, NUMBER 10, October 2009

"The increasingly fractious relationship between public sector researchers and the biotech seed industry has come into the spotlight in recent months. In July, several leading seed companies met with a group of entomologists, who earlier in the year had lodged a public complaint with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over restricted access to materials. In a letter to the EPA, the 26 public sector scientists complained that crop developers are curbing their rights to study commercial biotech crops. "No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions involving these crops ," they wrote.

In turn, the seed companies have expressed surprise at the outcry, claiming the issue is being overblown. And even though the July meeting, organized by the American Seed Trade Association in Alexandria, Virginia, did result in the writing of a set of principles for carrying out this research, the seed companies are under no compunction to follow them. "From the researchers’ perspective, the key for this meeting was opening up communication to discuss the problem," says Ken Ostlie, an entomologist at the University of Minnesota in St. Paul, who signed the complaint. "It will be interesting to see how companies implement the principles they agreed upon."

What is clear is that the seed industry is perceived as highly secretive and reluctant to share its products with scientists. This is fueling the view that companies have something to hide..."

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/12567-scientists-under-attack-film-review

Scientists under attack - Film review
Review by Claire Robinson

Wednesday, 13 October 2010 14:59

FILM: Scientists under attack: Genetic engineering in the magnetic field of money
By Bertram Verhaag

Billed as "a political thriller on GMOs and freedom of speech", this film by the German film-maker Bertram Verhaag tells the stories of two scientists, Dr Arpad Pusztai and Dr Ignacio Chapela, whose research showed negative findings on GM foods and crops. Both suffered the fate of those who challenge the powerful vested interests that dominate agribusiness and scientific research. They were vilified and intimidated, attempts were made to suppress and discredit their research, and their careers were derailed.

Pusztai found that the internal organs of rats fed GM insecticidal potatoes either increased in size or did not develop properly compared with controls. His experiments turned up no less than 36 significant differences between GM-fed and non-GM-fed animals. Pusztai, encouraged by his research institute, gave a 150-second interview on British TV in which he summarised his findings and said it was unfair to use our fellow citizens as guinea pigs for GM foods.

For two days, Pusztai was treated as a hero by his institute. But following a phone call from UK prime minister Tony Blair to the institute's head, Pusztai was fired and gagged under threat of a lawsuit. His research team was disbanded and his data were confiscated. Lies were circulated about his research that he could not counter due to the gagging order, lifted only later when he was due to appear before a Parliamentary Committee. For Pusztai’s co-researchers, the gagging order remains in place for life.

Pusztai's results threatened the GM industry because they showed that it wasn't the insecticide engineered into the potatoes that damaged the rats, but the genetic engineering process itself. So the problem wasn't just with these GM potatoes but potentially with all GM foods on the market. The only solution for the industry and its friends in government was to shoot the messenger.

Traumatic though this was for Pusztai, it wasn't the biggest shock he had to face regarding GM foods. That came when he was asked to review safety submissions from the GM industry for crops we were already eating – and found that they were scientifically flimsy. "That was a turning point in my life," said Pusztai. "I was doing safety studies; they were doing as little as possible [in terms of safety testing] to get their foods on the market as quickly as they could."

<>

See: http://www.mercurymedia.org/programmes/scientists-under-attack/

Awards:

Best of Show: Feature Documentary, Indie Fest USA 2010
Best Feature Documentary, Maverick Movie Awards 2010

Dr Arpad Pusztai : Effects of Feeding GMO Potatoes To Rats (Pt. 1)

Dr Arpad Pusztai: Effects of Feeding GMO Potatoes To Rats (Pt. 2)

[roseBudd]

57. Pusztai? Embarrassing. That the antis have nothing but bad science should tell you something

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3584506/

But you won't read it.

[proverbialwisdom]

60. Pusztai is a heavy-hitter, as described in post #43. No contest.

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lucia_Martinelli/

Lucia Martinelli
PhD, Wageningen Agric. Univ.
Museo delle Scienze, Trento, Italy · Science in Soceity

http://www.cost.eu/about_cost/who/(type)/5/(wid)/26187

Dr Malgorzata Karbarz
University of Rzeszów Faculty of Biotechnology
Werynia 502
36-100 Kolbuszowa
Poland

http://utu.academia.edu/HelenaSiipi

Helena Siipi
University of Turku, Department of Behavioural Sciences and Philosophy, Post-Doc

http://hrcak.srce.hr/cmj?lang=en

Croatian Medical Journal (CMJ) is an international peer reviewed journal open to scientists from all fields of medicine and related research. We welcome all contributions that enhance or illuminate medical sciences. In addition to scientific articles, letters, news and comments of all kinds and forms are welcome if they serve the purpose of transfer of original and valuable information to our readers. CMJ is fully indexed in CC/CM, Index Medicus/MEDLINE, Biosis, Excerpta Medica and ExtraMED.

frequency (annually): 6

Scientific areas: Biomedicine and health;

http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=posjecenost-casopisa

Hrcak
Portal of scientific journals of Croatia

Visits by journals during the period: 01.06.2013. - 30.06.2013.
Croatian Medical Journal: Inclusion Date: 2006-03-31 Full Text Visits: 2269 Total Visits: 3294

[roseBudd]

62. Logical fallacy Argument from Authority

And you just proved that you didn't read what I linked

Your confirmation bias is showing

Bad science invalidates claims. Peer review tells us that Seralini and Pusztai performed shoddy research that does not prove what those who cite this research claim.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3584506/

If you are utterly unwilling to educate yourself, you are no different than a creationist, or a climate change denier.

[proverbialwisdom]

65. ABSOLUTELY FALSE -"Peer review tells us that...Pusztai performed shoddy research."

Vet your sources and seek robust redundancy among those fully vetted sources, or you just might be completely misinformed.

http://www.psrast.org/indmanipsci2.htm

BioMedNet
BOOK REVIEW: http://news.bmn.com/hmsbeagle/109/reviews/review (inactive)

Trust Us, We're Experts
How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your Future
by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber

Reviewed by Sibylle Hechtel PhD
Posted August 31, 2001 · Issue 109

It's not often you read a book that dramatically changes your outlook or opinions. Most books amuse, entertain, or inform. Trust Us, We're Experts shocks. It easily could lead the uninitiated to question their assumptions about "facts" and "truth" in the marketplace.

Authors Rampton and Stauber of the Center for Media and Democracy ( http://www.prwatch.org/cmd ) chronicle the history of public relations...

I was particularly appalled at the story of scientist Arpad Pusztai. Pusztai identified troubling results in rats fed genetically modified potatoes. When he announced his findings, his bosses at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, suspended him (he soon retired) and discredited his research. Before reading this account, I had believed the official version: Pusztai did shoddy research. But this book indicates that Pusztai's work was fine - its only fault was that it went against major commercial interests.

<>

The authors recount similar cases in which millions of dollars were paid to PR companies by corporations whose interests ranged from the food and restaurant businesses to the oil and chemical industries. The issues involved industrial diseases and work-related illnesses; safety and risk assessment; and the impact of organochlorines such as DDT, PCBs, and dioxin, chemicals that can disrupt hormone metabolism.

Rampton and Stauber continue with a description of the battle between environmentalists and the biotech food industry. They note that many of the world's largest chemical corporations, such as Monsanto, Novartis, Hoechst, Pharmacia, Dow Chemical, and DuPont, shifted their investments from chemicals to food and pharmaceuticals. The investigative journalists conclude that "government regulators are not presently functioning to safeguard the public's best interest." As an obvious example of abuse, they cite the story of one regulator, a former Monsanto attorney, who helped draft an FDA policy and later left the FDA to return to work for Monsanto.

Trust Us, We're Experts also considers the effect of big money on universities and scientific journals, describing instances in which tobacco companies paid 13 scientists $156,000 to write letters to influential medical journals. Chapter 9 looks at the concept of "junk science," a self-serving term coined by corporate attorneys, lobbyists, PR firms, and industry-funded "think tanks" to discredit scientific and medical studies that might threaten corporate profits.

<>

Before reading this book, I was an enthusiastic supporter of biotechnology and genetically modified (GM) foods. Now I'm not so sure. Last summer, I debated GM foods with a fervent opponent. I argued that they could provide vitamin A in rice for developing nations, and produce bananas that could be used as vaccines for children in the third world. I still find these goals desirable, but I'm now more skeptical. I ascribed distrust of GM foods to ignorance or technophobia. After reading this book, I fear that my enthusiastic support resulted partly from ignorance - not of the science, but of the politics.

This book, which is well researched and includes 33 pages of footnotes and references, is an excellent primer for readers not familiar with the manipulation of public opinion. A major strength is its help in directing readers to relevant information, and instruction on how to investigate problems affecting local communities.

<>

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2007/03/5899/shaping-message-distorting-science

Shaping the Message, Distorting the Science
by Sheldon Rampton — March 27, 2007 - 3:13pm

Mr. Rampton goes to Washington

I've been asked to deliver testimony this Wednesday before the Committee on Science and Technology of the U.S. House of Representatives, which is holding a hearing titled "Shaping the Message, Distorting the Science: Media Strategies to Influence Science Policy."

http://www.prwatch.org/books/experts.html

If you want to know how the world wags, and who's wagging it, here's your answer. Read, get mad, roll up your sleeves, and fight back. Rampton and Stauber have issued a wake-up call we can't ignore."
--Bill Moyers

Trust Us, We're Experts
How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future
by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber

Now In Paperback!
Publisher: Tarcher/Penguin

Bookstore price: $14.95 U.S./$21.99 Canada
ISBN 1-58542-139-1

Ask for it in your local bookstore or order it directly. To order by mail, send $20/book (includes postage & handling) to: CMD, 520 University Avenue, Suite 260, Madison, WI 53703.

We count on the experts. We count on them to tell us who to vote for, what to eat, how to raise our children. We watch them on TV, listen to them on the radio, read their opinions in magazine and newspaper articles and letters to the editor. We trust them to tell us what to think, because there's too much information out there and not enough hours in a day to sort it all out.

We should stop trusting them right this second.

In their new book, Trust Us, We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future, Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber offer a chilling exposé on the manufacturing of "independent experts." Public relations firms and corporations have seized upon a slick new way of getting you to buy what they have to sell: Let you hear it from a neutral "third party," like a professor or a pediatrician or a soccer mom or a watchdog group. The problem is, these third parties are usually anything but neutral. They have been handpicked, cultivated, and meticulously packaged to make you believe what they have to say--preferably in an "objective" format like a news show or a letter to the editor. And in some cases, they have been paid handsomely for their "opinions."

<>

[proverbialwisdom]

43. This, too.

Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine
Dr Stanley WB Ewen FRCPath, Arpad Pusztai PhD
The Lancet - 16 October 1999 ( Vol. 354, Issue 9187, Pages 1353-1354 )
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)05860-7

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/2987-seventh-anniversary-of-gm-safety-scandal

Seventh anniversary of GM safety scandal
Wednesday, 10 August 2005 11:17

Seven years ago today on the 10th August 1998 the GM debate changed forever.

The story began three years earlier. That's when the UK government's Scottish Office commissioned a three-year multi-centre research programme into the safety of GM food under the coordination of Dr Arpad Pusztai. At that time there was not a single publication in a peer-reviewed journal on the safety of GM food.

Dr Pusztai, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, was an eminent scientist. He was the world's leading expert on the plant proteins known as lectins. He had published three books and over 270 scientific studies.

He and his team fought off competition from 28 other research organisations from across Europe to be awarded the GBP1.6 million contract by the Scottish Office. The project methodology was also reviewed and passed by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) - the UK government's main funding body for the biological sciences.

<>

Andy Rowell, author of a book that deals extensively with the Royal Society's role in the Pusztai affair, writes, 'the fundamental flaw in the scientific establishment's response is not that they try and damn Pusztai with unpublished data, nor is it that they have overlooked published studies , but that in 1999, everyone agreed that more work was needed. Three years later, that work remains to be undertaken... scientific body, like The Royal Society, that allocates millions in research funds every year, could have funded a repeat of Pusztai's experiments.'

Nobody ever has.

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11801-pusztai-to-receive-stuttgart-peace-prize

Pusztai to receive Stuttgart Peace Prize
Friday, 11 December 2009 10:52

We've just heard that Dr Arpad Pusztai and Dr Susan Bardocz will be presented with this year's Stuttgart Peace Prize. The award is for their tireless advocacy for independent risk research. Both have made an essential contribution to a broader understanding of the dangers of genetic manipulation. The award also honours their courage and scientific integrity as well as their undaunted insistence on the public's right to know.

More details (in German) here: http://www.gentechnikfreies-europa.eu/

[roseBudd]

58. Again Pusztai. Embarrassing

[proverbialwisdom]

75. Replacement link.

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/a-list/2001/msg01338.html

[proverbialwisdom]

49. Ironic you'd mention risk factors. Here's a 2009 Press Release from Breast Cancer Action about rBGH.

http://bcaction.org/2009/09/22/bca-confronts-eli-lilly-demands-they-stop-milking-cancer/

BCA Confronts Eli Lilly, Demands they Stop Milking Cancer

Posted on September 22, 2009 by Caitlin C.
For Immediate Release

CANCER ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION CONFRONTS THE SOURCE OF rBGH, DEMANDS PHARMACEUTICAL GIANT ELI LILLY STOP “MILKING CANCER”

Breast Cancer Action Challenges Pharma Giant’s Marketing of the Artificial Hormone, Asks the Public to Demand Action

San Francisco—Breast Cancer Action (BCA), known as the watchdog of the breast cancer movement, today announced the launch of their “Milking Cancer” campaign challenging the pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly to stop manufacturing rBGH. rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone, also known as rBST) has long been linked to cancer.

Eli Lilly is the sole manufacturer of rBGH which is sold worldwide under the name Posilac. The company also markets drugs to treat breast cancer and a drug to reduce the risk of breast cancer in women at high risk.

“Eli Lilly profits from cancer any way you look at it,” said Barbara Brenner executive director of Breast Cancer Action. “It’s the perfect profit cycle. When Eli Lilly milks cancer, it’s great for the company, but bad for the public’s health.”

The artificial hormone rBGH has been banned in Japan, Australia, Canada and the European Union. Large corporations such as Walmart and Starbucks no longer use milk from rBGH-treated cows in their store-brand products.
“There is strong evidence of a connection between rBGH and cancer, including breast cancer,” according to Dr. Martin Donohoe, Adjunct Associate Professor, School of Community Health, Portland State University. “Many leading dairies and health care facilities have eliminated its use. Why should we take a chance with the public’s health?”

BCA is launching the Milking Cancer campaign –featuring an on-line video and website, (www.milkingcancer.org) – to raise awareness and to encourage concerned consumers to contact Eli Lilly directly and tell them to stop manufacturing rBGH.

This project builds on BCA’s Think Before You Pink®– a campaign raising critical questions about pink ribbon promotions and targeting “pinkwashers”: companies that say they care about breast cancer, but make products that contribute to the incidence of the disease. Bolstered by the many successes of the campaign, including a 2008 effort that persuaded General Mills to discontinue the use of rBGH in pink-lidded Yoplait yogurt, Brenner urges people to believe they can effect change over Eli Lilly as well. “Ordinary people have extraordinary power to change corporate behavior,” said Brenner. “People who care about public health can and will get Eli Lilly to stop milking cancer and end the manufacture of rBGH.”

Breast Cancer Action is a non-profit education and advocacy organization that does not accept funding from pharmaceutical companies or any other organizations that profit from or contribute to the breast cancer epidemic.
Partners in the Milking Cancer Campaign are DES Action, Food and Water Watch, Institute for Responsible Technology, Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition, Our Bodies Ourselves, Physicians for Social Responsibility-Oregon, and the Women’s Community Cancer Project.

http://thinkbeforeyoupink.org/?page_id=6

rBGH & Breast Cancer
The Connection Between rBGH and Breast Cancer

Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH), also known as Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rBST), is injected into cows so they will produce more milk. Research suggests that a number of health concerns, including breast cancer, are associated with the consumption of dairy products from cows treated with rBGH.

The use of rBGH stimulates the production of another hormone called insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), a naturally occurring hormone in both cows and humans that regulates cell growth, division, and differentiation. 1 2

Cow’s milk that is treated with rBGH has higher levels of IGF-1. Studies in humans, animals, and cell cultures have indicated that elevated levels of IGF-1 in humans may increase the risk of breast cancer. 3 4 5

In addition to breast cancer, increased IGF-1 levels have been associated with prostate, colon, and other cancers.6 The use of rBGH also increases the need for antibiotics in cows, which can lead to increased antibiotic resistance in humans.7

There is controversy about whether or not the IGF-1 in milk makes its way into the human bloodstream. Some studies have indicated that IGF-1 does survive digestion while others have not. 8 What is clear is that there is sufficient evidence for concern about the human health impacts of using rBGH.

<>

The use of rBGH has been banned entirely in Australia, Canada, Japan, and all 27 countries in the European Union. Although there is not definitive proof that the use of rBGH leads to breast and other cancers, there is enough evidence now to take precautionary steps and to eliminate its use.

FOOTNOTES

1) European Commission. Report on Public Health Aspects of the Use of Bovine Somatotrophin. Food Safety—From the Farm to the Fork. March 15-16, 1999. ↩
2) Prosser C.G., et al. Increased secretion of insulin-like growth factor 1 into milk of cows treated with recombinantly derived bovine growth hormone. Journal of Dairy Research 56 (1) 17-26, 1989. ↩
3) Hankinson S, et al. Circulating concentrations of insulin-like growth factor 1 and risk of breast cancer. Lancet 351:1393-1396, 1998. ↩
4) Macaulay VM. Insulin-like growth factors and cancer. British Journal of Cancer 65:311-320, 1998. ↩
5) Resnicoff M, Baserga R. The insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor protects tumor cells from apoptosis in vivo. Cancer Research 55:2463-69, 1998. ↩
6) Yu, Herbert and Thomas Rohan. Role of the Insulin-Like Growth Factor Family in Cancer Development and Progression. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 92:1472-89, 2000. ↩
7) Kronfield D. Recombinant bovine somatotropin and animal welfare. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 216(11):1719-1720, 2000. ↩
8) Xian C. Degradation of IGF-1 in the adult rat gastrointestinal tract is limited by a specific antiserum or the dietary protein casein. Journal of Endocrinology 146:215-225, 1995. ↩

[roody]

23. I was wondering when the Monsanto

folks would show up.

[roseBudd]

36. I am not a Monsanto folk, I research before I jump on band wagons

Seralini's research was fraudulent. so is Carmen's

I Fucking Love Science and hate BS, whether it is regarding "chemtrails", homeopathy, flouride or false flag operations.

Stupid burns, and Seralini played you al for fools

[proverbialwisdom]

46. Courtesy Michael Hansen, PhD Senior Scientist, Consumer Reports: Monsanto, GM foods & Health Risks.

Last edited Mon Jul 22, 2013, 10:30 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Monsanto

Monsanto, GM foods & Health Risks

Courtesy Michael Hansen, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Consumer Reports:

SUMMARY: Based on the scientific uncertainty surrounding both the molecular characterization of genetically engineered (GE) crops as well as the detection of potential allergenicity, there is more than enough uncertainty to decide to require labeling of foods produced via GE as a risk management measure as a way to identify unintended health effects that may occur post approval. If foods are not labeled as to GE status, it would be very difficult to even identify an unexpected health effect resulting from a GE food.

For more see Reasons for Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods

Original link to document at Consumer Reports missing.
Link to preserved document provided above from http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27026.cfm
RECOMMENDED: http://www.organicconsumers.org/documents/AMA-GE-resolutions-3-19-12.pdf

[roseBudd]

63. And climate change deniers have Roy Spencer also a PHD

Argument from Authority is not evidence

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm

The vast majority of scientists agree that climate change is real, and that humans are the cause

The vast majority of scientists agree that biotech food is safe. Those who don't have been rightly iolloried by their peers for bad research, but you wouldn't know that due to confirmation bias.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and Seralini enaged in animal torture in order to obtain inflammatory photos.

[proverbialwisdom]

64. FALSE - "The vast majority of scientists agree that biotech food is safe. " The field is evolving.

CHECK IT OUT.

http://independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/regulators-discover-a-hidden-viral-gene-in-commercial-gmo-crops/

Regulators Discover a Hidden Viral Gene in Commercial GMO Crops
January 21, 2013
by Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson

How should a regulatory agency announce they have discovered something potentially very important about the safety of products they have been approving for over twenty years?

In the course of analysis to identify potential allergens in GMO crops, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has belatedly discovered that the most common genetic regulatory sequence in commercial GMOs also encodes a significant fragment of a viral gene (Podevin and du Jardin 2012). This finding has serious ramifications for crop biotechnology and its regulation, but possibly even greater ones for consumers and farmers. This is because there are clear indications that this viral gene (called Gene VI) might not be safe for human consumption. It also may disturb the normal functioning of crops, including their natural pest resistance.

What Podevin and du Jardin discovered is that of the 86 different transgenic events (unique insertions of foreign DNA) commercialized to-date in the United States 54 contain portions of Gene VI within them. They include any with a widely used gene regulatory sequence called the CaMV 35S promoter (from the cauliflower mosaic virus; CaMV). Among the affected transgenic events are some of the most widely grown GMOs, including Roundup Ready soybeans (40-3-2) and MON810 maize. They include the controversial NK603 maize recently reported as causing tumors in rats (Seralini et al. 2012).

The researchers themselves concluded that the presence of segments of Gene VI “might result in unintended phenotypic changes”. They reached this conclusion because similar fragments of Gene VI have already been shown to be active on their own (e.g. De Tapia et al. 1993). In other words, the EFSA researchers were unable to rule out a hazard to public health or the environment.

<>

To return to the original choices before EFSA, these were either to recall all CaMV 35S promoter-containing GMOs, or to perform a retrospective risk assessment. This retrospective risk assessment has now been carried out and the data clearly indicate a potential for significant harm. The only course of action consistent with protecting the public and respecting the science is for EFSA, and other jurisdictions, to order a total recall. This recall should also include GMOs containing the FMV promoter and its own overlapping Gene VI.

Footnotes

http://independentsciencenews.org/about-independent-science-news/

About Independent Science News

Why Independent Science News?

A truly public interest perspective on science and the science media is urgently needed. As our society has become more technologically oriented and our effects on the planet more pronounced, science has increasingly become the key battleground determining the social acceptability and official approval of new (and old) products and technologies. On top of that, science is also the battleground of the ideas, such as the true origins of disease, the cause of gender differences, how to feed the world, and the merits of natural foods, that are no less important to future global possibilities.

Because of its role, science is a tempting target of manipulation for commercial entities, governments, and other powerful institutions. Not only does it offer a decisive opportunity to tilt the playing field in their favour, but also scientific decisions are often both complex and hidden from view (even from other scientists). Manipulation can therefore occur entirely unnoticed. Manipulation is further aided by the fact that scientists have constructed for themselves a mythology of impartiality and rigour that deters questioning.

Scientific facts and ideas are not always what they seem, however. From counting the future world population or quantifying the deaths following the Chernobyl nuclear accident to preventing independent research on GMOs to the safety or the effectiveness of just about any product, including pharmaceuticals and basic foodstuffs, powerful interests often succeed in controlling the output of science. When data is manipulated on this scale, then truth, the public, and democracy all suffer. It becomes effectively impossible for a society to function and decide rationally and thoughtfully.

In no field of human endeavour is this more important or more true than food and agriculture.

These examples of science journalists exposing deceit and manipulation are rarities. They are rare because most science reporters, even at Science magazine and the New York Times, see themselves not as journalists but more as explainers of science. They typically lack the independence, the public interest focus, and often the expertise, to contextualise scientific results and penetrate the inner logic of individual motives and institutional agendas that are now necessary to explain much of science.

Therefore, the two aims of Independent Science News are to call attention to these defects and remedy them as far as possible.

Independent Science News is part of the Bioscience Resource Project.

[roseBudd]

67. Climate change deniers do the same thiing. They flock to that

which confirms their bias

[roseBudd]

18. +1000 this is a giant waste of time...

with consequences for people who aren't spoiled pampered people

[proverbialwisdom]

31. The consequences are a failed business model.

See: http://www.gmwatch.org/component/content/article/31-need-gm/12348-introduction

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/4/2/the_monsanto_protection_act_a_debate

TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 2013
The Monsanto Protection Act? A Debate on Controversial New Measure Over Genetically Modified Crops

<>

AMY GOODMAN: —what is the problem here, then, if there has been no change?

WENONAH HAUTER: <>

And I think we have to look at how much money that the biotech industry has spent on lobbying. I mean, over the last 10 years, the biotech industry has spent $272 million on lobbying and campaign contributions. They have a hundred lobby shops in Washington. They’ve hired 13 former members of Congress. They’ve hired 300 former staffers for the White House and for Congress. And Monsanto alone has spent $63 million over the last 12 years on lobbying and campaign contributions. This is about political muscle and forcing their will on the American people. And if we don’t put a stop to it here, we’re going to see many, many more serious violations

.

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/4/2/foodopoly_the_battle_over_the_future

TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 2013
Foodopoly: The Battle Over the Future of Food and Farming in America from Monsanto to Wal-Mart

<>

WENONAH HAUTER: Well, over the past few years, since the—well, it’s the past few decades, since the Reagan administration eviscerated antitrust law. Those are the rules that prevented companies from getting too big, from buying their competitors, from concentrating power in the hands of a just—just a few companies. Since that time, we’ve seen the grocery industry consolidate. We now have four grocery stores that control 50 percent of sales, and in many areas 70 to 90 percent of sales. Wal-Mart is the very largest. One out of three grocery dollars is spent at Wal-Mart. And if you look at the economic impact, the Wal-Mart heirs have as much wealth as the bottom 40 percent of Americans.

And what Wal-Mart has figured out, how they operate, is that they have a logistical system that sucks all of the profit out of the food chain. So, one thing is that they need enormous volume. So, they would much rather deal with a giant meatpacker like Tyson than a lot of smaller family farms or even midsize farms. They have a system where they force their suppliers to use their IT system, to track their own inventory, to use all of the contracting requirements that they put into writing. In fact, there are no contract negotiations with Wal-Mart. And so, even the largest food processors in this country have to do whatever Wal-Mart says.

And we have 20 food-processing companies that do control most of what Americans eat. So, you know, there’s all this rhetoric about competition and that our economic system is built on competition, but what we’ve actually seen, especially since the 1980s, is that all of the rules and regulations are geared at allowing enormous consolidation. And so, for the food industry, beyond Wal-Mart and the grocery retailers, we have the big food-processing companies. So when a consumer goes into the grocery store, they believe that there’s a lot of diversity and choice, but actually we have 20 food-processing companies that own most of the brands in the grocery store. And unfortunately, 14 of these large food processors also own many of the largest organic brands.

So this kind of concentration is making it very difficult for consumers to have real choices about what they eat. And it’s squeezing all of the profit out of actually producing food, even producing corn and soy. A conventional farmer makes about three to five cents off of a giant box of corn flakes, about three—two to three cents on a giant bag of corn chips, and under a penny on the high-fructose corn syrup in a can of soda.

<>

AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you very much for being with us, Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. Her recent book, Foodopoly: The Battle Over the Future of Food and Farming in America. We will link to your new report that’s coming out tomorrow, "Monsanto: A Corporate Profile."

[LanternWaste]

53. I imagine it's easier to trivialize and minimize the person than it is to take valid exception

I imagine it's much easier and rather more convenient to simply trivialize and minimize the individual than it is to take valid exception to simply wanting GMO's labeled as such.

However, as this is no more than a giant waste of time, you certainly appear to be invested in maintaining it as such. Good luck.

[proverbialwisdom]

72. Check it out.

http://gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14991:the-bad-seed-the-health-risks-of-genetically-modified-corn

Thursday, 25 July 2013 22:06

"Elle" magazine should be congratulated for its courage in publishing this remarkable article by Caitlin Shetterly about her successful effort to regain her health by eliminating GM corn from her diet.

We would only add that Shetterly is not alone. We've received a number of accounts from Americans who have recovered (or whose children have recovered) from serious and often life-threatening illness by taking the single step of eliminating GMOs from their diet.

Sometimes they've worked out the cause of their illness by themselves; in other cases they've taken the advice of an insightful doctor or other health professional.

http://www.elle.com/beauty/health-fitness/allergy-to-genetically-modified-corn

Caitlin Shetterly
Elle, 24 Jul 2013

...While I quickly discovered that blaming GMO foods for any kind of health problem is controversial in the medical and biotech worlds, what’s beyond debate is the increase in the incidence of autoimmune disorders such as type 1 diabetes, lupus, and celiac disease, as well as of allergies. As for the latter, the National Health Interview Survey found, for instance, that since 1999, the number of children with food allergies has jumped by 50 percent, and those with skin allergies by 69 percent (and the increase isn’t merely a by-product of fuller reporting by parents, experts say).

Allergenic eosinophilic disorders, however, aren’t counted in that data. They were first identified about 20 years ago, according to a pioneer in the field, Marc Rothenberg, MD, PhD, a professor at University of Cincinnati medical school and director of an affiliated center for eosinophilic disorders. “We’re in the midst of an allergy and autoimmune epidemic,” Rothenberg told me on the phone, “and the environment is the black box.” Mansmann’s GMO theory was “interesting”, he went on, before quickly adding that “no one in conventional medicine will have the data” to prove it.

<>

Link from excellent GMO news aggregating site: http://gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_dategroup

[alp227]

73. "'no one in conventional medicine will have the data' to prove it"??

If there's the proof, it should've shown up in peer reviewed journals by now, unless there's a huge conspiracy by Big Science to hide the wrongdoings of Big Ag.

and since when has Elle magazine been a reliable source for science?

[proverbialwisdom]

74. Oh, it's just a single case history, but wait for the GMO labeling laws to be implemented.

The article is well researched. Surely, you can scan a 3-page article before dismissing it.

[DeSwiss]

11. K&R

[center][/center]

GMO's FROM MONSANTO HAVE NEVER MET MINIMUM SCIENTIFIC TESTING PROTOCOLS AND STANDARDS

"Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMO's, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data."

Other Problems With Monsanto's Conclusions
When testing for drug or pesticide safety, the standard protocol is to use three mammalian species. The subject studies only used rats, yet won GMO approval in more than a dozen nations.

Chronic problems are rarely discovered in 90 days; most often such tests run for up to two years. Tests "lasting longer than three months give more chances to reveal metabolic, nervous, immune, hormonal or cancer diseases," wrote Seralini, et al, in their Doull rebuttal. [See "How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects Can Be Neglected for GMO's, Pesticides or Chemicals." IJBS; 2009; 5(5):438-443.]

Further, Monsanto's analysis compared unrelated feeding groups, muddying the results. The June 2009 rebuttal explains, "In order to isolate the effect of the GM transformation process from other variables, it is only valid to compare the GMO … with its isogenic non-GM equivalent."

The researchers conclude that the raw data from all three GMO studies reveal novel pesticide residues will be present in food and feed and may pose grave health risks to those consuming them.

[roseBudd]

16. This is the left's climate change denial...

Last edited Fri Jul 19, 2013, 08:05 PM - Edit history (1)

The "science" they cherrypick is at best meaningless, at worst, fraudulent.

This is Seralini scientific fraud

http://news.discovery.com/earth/plants/gm-corn-tumor-study-120920.htm

http://www.agbioworld.org/newsletter_wm/index.php?caseid=archive&newsid=2945



Accusations of shill in 3...2... 1...

http://blog.tedx.com/post/54100686327/can-a-gmo-be-natural-jimmy-botella

[crim son]

24. There's no point.

You clearly believe you know better. Me, I'm more than happy to allow you to eat the stuff, but I'd like to have the option not to and believe that, at minimum, food containing that... stuff... must be labeled. Really, is that too much to ask?

[roseBudd]

37. You can shop at Whole Paycheck, no one is preventing you from paying too

much for food because you have naturalistic fetish. Your food snobbery has global consequences. People need access to food they can afford

I don't think the unfounded phobias of spoiled people in first world countries are of the utmost importance. Watch this and tell me why you are more important than the people who will suffer from bad science forming policy, as has already happened in third world countries.

http://blog.tedx.com/post/54100686327/can-a-gmo-be-natural-jimmy-botella

[closeupready]

44. Um, take your Frankenfood shill act

somewhere else, please.

[roody]

45. Whole Paycheck is full of GMOs!

[proverbialwisdom]

47. FYI, claims of altruistic and humanitarian motives are explored in investigative reports here.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/09/14/850321/romney-monsanto/?mobile=nc

Romney And Bain Boosted Agriculture Giant Monsanto In Spite Of Toxic Past
By Aviva Shen on Sep 14, 2012 at 11:37 am

Biotechnology firm Monsanto Company, which currently owns most of the patents for America’s staple crops, is already cozy with American lawmakers. A new Nation report, however, indicates that “a very old friend in a very high place” may usher in the corporation’s most prosperous years yet.

The Nation’s investigative report ( http://www.thenation.com/article/169885/mitt-romney-monsanto-man# ) has uncovered how Mitt Romney personally helped Monsanto shed its string of toxic chemical-related scandals and reinvent itself to dominate American agriculture. Monsanto, an early Bain & Company client, was so impressed with Romney that they started bypassing his superiors to deal with him directly. Romney’s close relationship with then CEO John Hanley prompted his boss to create Bain Capital to keep Romney from leaving and taking their largest consulting client with him.

From 1977 to 1985, Romney helped navigate Monsanto through very rocky waters. The agribusiness was flooded with lawsuits after Congress banned the toxic coolant PCBs, a Monsanto product that has been linked to cancer and neurological disorders. At the same time, Monsanto’s Agent Orange toxin, used to defoliate jungles in the Vietnam War, was linked to the contamination of millions of Vietnamese and American soldiers and had been dubbed “the largest chemical warfare operation” in human history.

Tom Philpott at Mother Jones dug up a 2002 article ( http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/09/romney-monsanto-bain ) describing Monsanto’s attempts to hide its toxic waste disposal even after managers discovered fish “spurting blood and shedding skin” within 10 seconds of the PCB dump:

Monsanto Co. routinely discharged toxic waste into a west Anniston creek and dumped millions of pounds of PCBs into oozing open-pit landfills. And thousands of pages of Monsanto documents—many emblazoned with warnings such as “CONFIDENTIAL: Read and Destroy”—show that for decades, the corporate giant concealed what it did and what it knew.

Faced with costly litigation, Monsanto relied on Romney to create their new public image — one that did not involve poisoning soldiers or dumping chemicals in rivers:

Dr. Earl Beaver, who was Monsanto’s waste director during the Bain period, says that Bain was certainly “aware” of the “PCB and dioxin scandals” because they created “a negative public perception that was costing the company money.” So Bain recommended focusing “on the businesses that didn’t have those perceptions,” Beaver recalls, starting with “life science products that were biologically based,” including genetically engineered crops, as well as Roundup, the hugely profitable weed-killer. “These were the products that Bain gave their go-ahead to,” Beaver contends, noting that Romney was a key player, “reviewing the data collected by other people and developing alternatives,” talking mostly to “the higher muckety-mucks.”

<...>

[proverbialwisdom]

48. IAASTD examined global agriculture on scale comparable to Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change

Funny, the report refutes false GMO memes.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMFreeOrganicAgriculture.php

ISIS Report 18/04/08

International panel dispels aggressive corporate propaganda

A fundamental change in farming practice is needed to counteract soaring food prices, hunger, social inequities and environmental disasters. Genetically modified (GM) crops are highly controversial and will not play a substantial role in addressing the challenges of climate change, loss of biodiversity, hunger and poverty. Instead, small-scale farmers and agro-ecological methods are the way forward; with indigenous and local knowledge playing as important a role as formal science. Furthermore, the rush to grow crops for biofuels could exacerbate food shortages and price rises.

These are the conclusions to the most thorough examination of global agriculture, on a scale comparable to the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change. Its final report, The International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), was formally launched at a plenary in Johannesburg, South Africa on 15 April 2008 [1-3] and simultaneously released in London, Washington, Delhi, Paris, Nairobi and a number of other cities around the world.

The IAASTD is a unique collaboration initiated by the World Bank in partnership with a multi-stakeholder group of organisations, including the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environmental Programme, the World Health Organisation and representatives of governments, civil society, private sector and scientific institutions from around the world [2]. The actual report runs to 2 500 pages, and has taken more than 400 scientists 4 years to complete.

In one mighty stroke, it has swept aside years of corporate propaganda that served as a major diversion from urgent task of implementing sustainable food production for the world.

<>

[proverbialwisdom]

32. Check it out.

See: http://www.gmwatch.org/component/search/?searchword=Professor+G.+E.+Sera&ordering=&searchphrase=all

including,

http://gmoseralini.org/category/scientists-support-seralini/

Scientists support Séralini: Introduction

Following the publication of Séralini’s 2012 study on the health effects of GM NK603 maize and Roundup,1 the editor of the journal that published the paper was bombarded with letters from GM proponents demanding that the paper be retracted. But hundreds of scientists have publicly supported the study and researchers.

Letters.

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/52-2013/14569-new-website-answers-seralinis-critics

New website answers Seralini's critics
Monday, 07 January 2013 10:10

http://gmoseralini.org/en/

<>

Séralini's study was the first to examine the effects of eating a commercialized GM maize and its associated pesticide over the long term. It was shouted down by a chorus of critics, who claimed it was flawed. But many of the critics were later exposed as having links with the GM industry or to be involved in GM crop approvals, so were not independent.(2)

FOOTNOTES:
2. Matthews J. Smelling a corporate rat. Spinwatch. 12 Dec 2012. The Guardian's environment correspondent John Vidal called this article "The definitive analysis of the Séralini affair".
Available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/116473155/Smelling-a-corporate-rat

[proverbialwisdom]

50. Al Gore: The challenges raised by human biotechnologies on par with those of global climate change.

Thursday, July 18, 2003 at 4:18 PM

EMAIL

Dear Subscriber,

Did you know that Al Gore’s new best-seller The Future puts the challenges raised by human biotechnologies on par with those of global climate change? While some biotechnologies can truly improve the human condition, the former vice president writes, others call for “great wisdom…in deciding how to proceed.”

That's why the Center for Genetics and Society is working to build a new biopolitics that’s grounded in social justice, human rights, and the common good. We’re one of the few public interest organizations taking these challenging issues head on.
As someone who follows these developments in Biopolitical Views & News, I hope you’ll join our efforts to meet these challenges.

Your generous contribution will help put social justice and the public interest at the center of a new biopolitics.

<>

Please help shape a new biopolitics! Your contribution will work toward reclaiming biotechnology for the common good.

Many thanks,
Marcy Darnovsky
Executive Director

[blackspade]

21. Yea! Now let's do that in the US!

[crim son]

25. Is European science

inferior to American science? Hmmmm.....

[roseBudd]

39. That is not evidence

Logical fallacy

[chillfactor]

52. you really are outnumbered here ....

by people who do actual research rather than post fallacies like you do......

you post no facts.....no research.....you just pout when people with actual FACTS prove you wrong...

[MotherPetrie]

26. K&R

[felix_numinous]

27. Good to see

somebody can stop these people, and exercise their CHOICE not to eat GMO foods.

We have a RIGHT to know what we are eating, and the condescension from representatives/ fans of GMO only serves to alienate the public further.

[roseBudd]

38. It is not condescending to point out bad science.

If you had a point you wouldn't need bad science, which you refuse to read about due to confirmation bias, just like a climate change denier.

http://badskeptic.com/?p=677

[mathematic]

55. Clearly SPAM is not gmo n/t

[proverbialwisdom]

56. Witty. nt

[proverbialwisdom]

61. More.

http://scienceblogs.com/webeasties/2013/06/01/ucs-response-to-my-piece-in-sciam/

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/

[Dagny_K]

66. Europe has its own ag-biotech companies--GMOs are here to stay

I'm always amused and bemused by how fixated folks can be on Monsanto. Europe has several of its own huge ag-biotech companies including Bayer Crop Science and BASF in Germany, Syngenta in Switzerland (#2 in the world), and Groupe Limagrain in France. Here in the US, I figure the guys over at Dow AgroScience and DuPont laugh their asses off at how Monsanto is constantly being harassed while they carry on virtually off the radar.

I'm a former commodities broker specializing in grains. I created the original version of the website GrainAnalyst.com. For the last several years, DuPont seeds have been used by the winners of popular annual crop yield contests. It used to be 100 bushels of corn yield per acre was pretty good. Yield contest winners are reaching 300 bushels per acre.

GMO seeds aren't going anywhere for one reason that few people understand: FARMERS WANT TO BUY GMO SEEDS. If you could make triple the money you used to make, wouldn't you do it? Sure you would. USDA stats report that 97% of US farms are still family and farmer-cooperative owned. Nobody's forcing them to do anything. They want to produce higher yields to make more money so they buy GMO seed to do it.

[roseBudd]

68. GMO is needed to deal with 9 billion future humans & climate change

Spoiled American and Europeans who will not starve as a consequence of Mother Nature doesn't give a shit whether humans have enough food. need to accept that agricultural progress like stem cell research should not be thwarted by emotion.

Something else the antis won't read

The 9 billion-people question

http://www.economist.com/node/18200618

[Dagny_K]

69. GMOs are Here to stay

You are right, roseBudd. People who believe the earth will be able to feed an exploding global population are well-intentioned but sadly mistaken. Much of GMO research is going toward developing seeds that will grow in challenging terrain and climate conditions. There's a lot of research going on in Southeast Asia and Japan where they simply don't have the wealth of arable land that other parts of the world benefit from. Also, one of the first cultural shifts in developing countries is an increased demand for meat which in turn drives a higher demand for livestock feed.

GMOs are the most-widely adopted technology in the history of agriculture, worldwide. When people I know complain about it, I tell them to be grateful they live in the US where they have the world's greatest bounty of food to choose from so buy what they think is best for them. Many parts of the world, people do not and will not ever have that choice.

[roseBudd]

70. GMOs save arable land. GMOs given the opportunity can prevent over fishing,

while making cardiovascular health improvements.

I find the antis to be selfish in their disdain for the problems of people who don't have obesity as their biggest health related issue.

And I Fucking Love Science, whether it is stem cell research, or biotechnology.

I want Omega 3 Soybeans. I want people who get no Vitamin A in their diets to have access to Golden Rice.

Let them eat carrots doesn't cut it. If they had carrots they wouldn't be suffering from Vitamin A deficiency

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/02/genetic-modification-breakthrough-golden-rice

[proverbialwisdom]

71. Financial Times says Europe right to doubt GM crops.

http://gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14987:finanacial-times-says-europe-right-to-doubt-gm-crops

Financial Times says Europe right to doubt GM crops
Wednesday, 24 July 2013 21:44

One of the world's leading business news and information publications says Europe is right to be cautious about GM crops.

NOTE: The Financial Times concludes Europe is right to be cautious over GM crops even though the FT assumes that by doing so Europe may be missing out on short-term yield gains but, in fact, research shows GM farming as practiced in the US is being left behind by the mostly non-GM farming practiced in Europe: http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14929

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/73b3c1dc-f08d-11e2-929c-00144feabdc0.html

Seeds of doubt
Financial Times (editorial), July 21 2013

Europe is right to be cautious over GM crops

Monsanto, the US agricultural group, has abandoned its decade-long bid for permission to grow a range of genetically modified crops on European soil. The move comes shortly after Owen Paterson, the UK environment minister, warned that Europe was missing out on one of the most important agricultural advances since the 18th century. That conclusion is premature.

GM crops are rare in Europe but widely grown elsewhere; modified varieties account for about 90 per cent of all corn, cotton and soybeans planted in the US. Most have been engineered to resist harmful insects and to withstand glyphosate, a type of weedkiller. This enables farmers to achieve high yields without employing costly practices such as frequent ploughing and crop rotation.

However, these may prove to be transient gains. Insects are evolving new ways of overcoming the crops’ artificial defences. As GM crops have become more popular, so has the weedkiller they are designed to tolerate, leading to the emergence of resistant weeds. This has forced some farmers to fall back on old methods they thought they were avoiding when they bought expensive GM seed. Even growers of conventional crops may no longer be able to rely on a chemical that has been in use since the 1970s.

The biotechnology industry is fighting back with more advanced crop strains, some of which can be concurrently treated with multiple weedkillers. That, it is argued, will make natural resistance less likely to emerge. But many experts are sceptical. Monsanto used to argue that its original GM crop was unlikely to encourage weedkiller resistance, until the weeds proved it wrong. Scientists risk getting into an arms race against nature, for which farmers will be forced to pay without receiving any long-term benefit in return.

<>