GMO's are they safe? There is no way to be sure yet...there are no absolutes in young science...

[Drew Richards]

Let me say up front...

If you really wanted to get your view across, you would not attack and be condescending to posters that do not agree with your opinion on this delicate subject.

You would post your knowledge and let the chips fall where they may...

But that lately never seems to occur with the GMO discussions...they always devolve in to snide aside comments and barely passable personal attacks on people with legitimate fears for or against the entire GM Industry.

SO, before this devolves into a snipe fest let me present my "opinion" on the subject..and then you can post your opinions on my statements.

Fair enough?

1. Monsanto, Dupont and other GM producers will not allow ANY studies of their various designed seeds unless they get company peer review control on publishing and public disclosure rights...meaning if your study finds ANYTHING anomalous they can veto or "AMEND" your publishing rights and issue a gag order on all parties involved. Additionally they have not released or allowed to be released any independent (KEY WORD INDEPENDENT) US long term (over 6 months) studies of the effects of their various products on the environment, plants and animals...with their studies criteria detailed...

Yes yes I have seen your studies links...they are of limited value due to their limited selective listed control groups and sparse non-definitive summations...not to mention there are no Independent duplicate resultant studies...

In truth if we want to read independent studies we have to read European or Far Eastern studies since they ignore GM producer's demands for publishing control...but then all those studies are considered woo by the pro GM crowd.

Which leaves only the GM companies "approved" studies for us to review...

I do not agree with this whether it was for a GM plant or a New Pharmacutical...I want independent review to be able to duplicate results...

This is concerning for various reasons mainly...

A. The unknown potential of a GM product being harmful is actually increased since they will not allow independent public review of the quality and toxicity of the product on other plants, animals, people and the environment...

B. The loss of species biodiversity due to absolute control and ownership of the seed produced from growing their products.

C. The infecting or mutation of non-GM crops from open air natural crossbreeding causing potential litigation and loss of product for others producers from these mega companies... destroying independent farming's ability to grow NON-GM crops...

That being said, I don't think all GMO's are dangerous but there are GMO's that I WILL NEVER AGREE WITH...it doesn't matter if their own scientist claim it is safe...currently there are no long term studies that have been INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED to PROVE it is safe...and to me, it is unnatural to consider eating them...

To be Specific:

Drought resistant Corn, Wheat, Soybeans and Sugar Beets that have had biologically mutated DNA inserted from other SPECIES not of their species or Genus...amphibian DNA.

For those who don't know this is the main product strains that they are shipping to drought stricken countries in Africa and the Middle East...at least until countries started banning them...they are also grown in the US in a limited fashion.

This is the crux of my aversion to GMO Products...cross breeding and hybridization within a species I have no problem with...

Crossbreeding and hybridization within a subspecies and or Genus I have no problem with...

BUT WHEN YOU TAKE DNA from one species and remap it into another...
and then market it for animal and HUMAN consumption...
AGAIN for the REWRITE artists...
ANIMAL and HUMAN CONSUMPTION...

you go against all of the history of natural selection, natural hybridization and natural cross polination... and frankly don't really have a clue the ramifications without very LONG term intensive independent duplicated studies...

You are playing Russian roulette with our lives for profit and I don't like it. Even worse are the pro GMO'ers with little to no knowledge of genetics claiming they know these products are safe because they read a study...

And then these same arm chair warriors attack and denigrate us when we want to know if a crop has been GM with another species via labeling?

At least that is what I demand labeling for...

They can't claim they are doing all this for science, or to educate us "little people".

Any explanation they attempt to give comes off condescending and elitist...it is not for ANYONE to tell us we are dumb for being suspect of a product that we do not believe has been tested enough for us to trust that it is safe...and it is not up to them to tell us what we can and cannot think is a reasonable precaution in food safety...namely if it is CROSS-SPECIES GMO I want to know and listing Country of Origin...

Companies fight against labeling obviously because if we knew we would be less inclined to eat it or feed it to our animals...until WE believed the science!

This again is the view of people that don't give a fuck about our health or welfare vs the profit margin from feeding us their wholly owned and controlled product...

I really can't speak for the motivation of the few posters that keep repeating the same attacks against people that oppose GMO's...

there are many different Opposing GMO groups who have different reasons for opposing GMO's.

My opinion is one grounded in available science...and I do NOT believe the science is in yet on the safety of certain GMO's and their long term affects on the Health, environment and on bio-diversity...

Species Cross Breeding:

In the case of the drought resistant strains they used Amphibian DNA...No fucking way in nature could this have happened...to me that is unnatural and should be suspect...and I want more testing before I eat it...but since there is no labeling there is no way to know if we are being genetically harmed in the short or long term...by these products..now is there..

In respect to HI-Yield Corn and Wheat they have introduced Porcine DNA to stimulate rapid growth and higher yields...(yes it works but again just because it works doesn't make it safe...)one set of seed used European pigs and another from North American pigs.

Yes I know there are potentially many great discoveries and cures from Genetic Modifications Insulin Production for one...but that has...

NOTHING TO DO WITH!!! the wholesale consumption of plants... and animals that eat those plants, who's modifications were used solely for rapid growth and climate resistance...

The Insulin development was for ONE specific use and then the rest of the "product" plant is destroyed...not given to animals or people to consume...now are they...NO they are not...

You notice I have not mentioned the whole argument over Glyphosate or Roundup...

The reason is that that is just a small part of the objections people have...Me personally I think it is a bad ideal to introduce Gn into plants when we already know that Gn is toxic in long term studies...and that it produces super weeds causing the need for MORE herbicides to counter the new super weeds created.

But that is not my main objection...

Mine is introducing cross species plants into our food chain without verifiable, duplicable, long term studies on the effects to the environment, plants, animals and people...

There you go, have at it.

[immoderate]

1. You reflect my feelings very well.

You home in on this intent to "fool mother nature," and this summarizes my thinking as well. If DNA that is adaptive can exist, it will exist. If it doesn't, it may have already failed. It may poison the environment it needs to develop. Such a mutation will die off. If variations are spread by mass production, emergent, unpredictable effects would be, well... unpredictable.

A well constructed rant!

--imm

[Drew Richards]

2. Thanks hope some see it before it gets buried

[jeff47]

18. Evolution is not infinite.

If DNA that is adaptive can exist, it will exist. If it doesn't, it may have already failed.

Evolution is not infinite. Not every possible combination has been tried.

Additionally, evolutionary pressure is not perfectly effective. Let's say a random mutation appears in apples that makes them sweeter. Will that gene come to dominate the species? Maybe. Maybe not. If the tree dies due to a drought, it will not spread, and it is not the new gene's fault.

Lastly, it can often take multiple steps for evolution to develop a functional thing. Creationists used to use flagella to argue against evolution. The claim was flagella could not have appeared by evolution, since a long, non-mobile structure would make the not-quite-flagella bacteria be out-competed by other bacteria. So the existence of flagella prove intelligent design. This argument fell apart when microbiologists found not-quite flagella. They're sensory organs, allowing the bacteria to detect dangerous chemicals before they wandered into them.

Bringing that back to GMOs, we can do some "intelligent design", and bring about something that would not naturally appear because the individual components are disadvantages.

[immoderate]

59. I understand that not every combination will come to exist.

But I'm suspecting that "weird" combinations will have unintended consequences, and mass production is not a good strategy for introduction.

--imm

[jeff47]

62. And your suspecting comes from assuming (virtually) every combination has been tried

The justification for your suspicion in your post above is that evolution would have tried out virtually every combination, and the fact that these GMOs don't have a particular combination means there may be danger.

Evolution is nowhere near that thorough in trying out combinations.

[immoderate]

65. Not really. I know the possibilities involved. Many orders of magnitude.

But consider that the genes that were spliced already exist. Cuts the numbers by a lot. Why did the gene that controls resistance to dehydration in the lizard not evolve in the grains involved? Could it trigger other processes, or effect the environment in ways that are maladaptive?

Can you really guarantee that all the possibilities have been considered?

--imm

[jeff47]

67. Yes, actually.

First, this is wrong:

But consider that the genes that were spliced already exist.

Nope. We've also made new ones.

Why did the gene that controls resistance to dehydration in the lizard not evolve in the grains involved?

Because it didn't. You are treating evolution as if it's directed. That's wrong. You can not assume there is a reason, since evolution is random.

Could it trigger other processes, or effect the environment in ways that are maladaptive?

If we just put the gene in and then spread the seeds over large swaths of the planet, there could be a danger.

That isn't what happens.

Instead, the new GMO is first grown in a controlled environment to see if the desired effect has been introduced. Additionally, the scientists look for unexpected results. But since they chose what genes to insert, completely unexpected results are extremely rare.

Then additional generations are grown to measure viability and compare it to the previous version of the organism - your evil seed conglomerate wouldn't have much business if they produced products that did not grow as advertised.

Then if successful, it is marketed to farmers.

Can you guarantee that the Large Hadron Collider won't destroy the universe? Sure, the scientists involved in the project claim it's safe, along with virtually every other physicist, but there's other people claiming it will trigger a chain reaction that will destroy all matter in the universe. So clearly we stopped the project before it annihilated everything......or perhaps people make claims on subjects they really don't understand.

[immoderate]

80. The only assumption I made was that genes evolved from a common ancestor.

I assert no "purpose" to evolution. I am saying that things we do can have effects in unforeseen ways. I also have questions about effects and interactions with other species, and through the chain.

For now, I would settle for labeling.

--imm

[jeff47]

81. If that were true, you wouldn't ask the question.

You asked why a lizard gene didn't appear in a plant. That question only makes sense if you think lizards and plants are very closely related, or if you think evolution is directed.

Animals and plants separated from a common ancestor about 2 billion years ago. They are not at all closely related. Other animals that lack that lizard water gene are far more closely related. Because they are also animals, instead of animals and plants.

To go with "common ancestor" shows an utter and complete lack of understanding of evolution and genetics. So I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and thought you were going with a common result thesis.

For now, I would settle for labeling.

And you think plants and animals are close relatives. I think we now have an extremely good understanding of your scientific knowledge.

[immoderate]

83. Common ancestor <> close relatives

You need to set up what I think in order to knock it down?

If going "with 'common ancestor' shows an utter and complete lack of understanding of evolution and genetics," would going against it work better for you? Otherwise, you flatter me.

I don't think you've demonstrated the impossibility of unforeseen results from this system. Labels would facilitate long term studies.

--imm

[jeff47]

86. Wow, your understanding is even more abysmal.

Common ancestor <> close relatives

The probability of a gene appearing in two species due to a common ancestor is directly correlated to how closely related they are.

The lizard genes are in a small number of lizard species. >99% of animals do not have them. Yet you are claiming these genes should have naturally shown up in plants. Meaning you think it's more likely that >99% of all animals and all plants lost the gene, while a few species of lizard retained them.

This is "I've been hitting myself on the head with a hammer" level of stupid. Please stop, and take some time to actually learn the subject instead of mindlessly regurgitating keywords.

[immoderate]

92. I'm wondering why you keep reading the opposite of what I'm saying.

--imm

[Ruby the Liberal]

3. Just label them already.

People can make up their own minds, and I don't mind paying more for true organic/heirloom given my history of cancer and celiac. To each his/her own.

We have a right to know the source though.

[Eko]

4. Here is a pretty good series that addresses quite a few of your points.

?list=PL01_daMimf3Dz9yh5euGK975os4VOzgwh
and here is a pretty good article. http://fafdl.org/blog/2014/08/14/what-the-haters-got-wrong-about-neil-degrasse-tysons-comments-on-gmos/

[Drew Richards]

10. I watched your vid here is what i got...

1. myth gmo not regulated...

A. I never said that or implied such.

2. GMO are tested by the FDA...

A. No they are not he even said so...the FDA has no testing protocol...

Instead the FDA gave the companies guidelines for their testing and criteria of proof of attribute that they must report that they met for the FDA to approve growing the product...

In other words the FDA has surrendered and is letting the fox guard the hen house.,..

Who is to say if tests are falsified? The people doing the tests? Not likely...
but but they do farm some of the testing out to independent labs...

umm who owns those labs?

That was all there was to that video...

Sorry it didn't really address the cross species concerns I have.

reading article now...

Good article you published...it does spell out many of concerns.

Not sure the science is there to back the claim of no problems with cross species that have never occurred in nature yet but good article none the less.

[Eko]

12. Thanks

There is a whole series of those videos, they are pretty good.

[Bjorn Against]

5. You argue your position very well

I am not opposed to all GMOs, but I do think we need to look at them with a critical eye rather than blindly embrace them. There are so many different types of GMOs and most of them may be completely safe but that does not mean they are all safe.

[jeff47]

6. How many times do you like explaining to people that women should be paid the same as men?

And shooting down every random argument they vomit forth in an attempt to justify their belief?

How many times do you like explaining to people that blacks should be treated the same as whites? And shooting down every random argument they vomit forth in an attempt to justify their belief?

How many times do you like explaining to people that the Earth is 4 billion years old? And shooting down every random argument they vomit forth in an attempt to justify their belief?

How many times do you think biologists like explaining to people that GMOs will not make them grow a third arm, or whatever random argument they vomit forth in an attempt to justify their belief?

Mine is introducing cross species plants into our food chain without verifiable, duplicable, long term studies on the effects to the environment, plants, animals and people...

Step 1: Learn how GMOs are actually made. The most common mechanism is to shoot gold nanoparticles coated with the desired DNA at a petri dish holding the target organism. As in there is absolutely no way for you to "catch" the modification via the same way the organism is modified.

Step 2: Learn how the digestive tract actually works. The modified DNA does not enter your cells. It's been chopped up into useless pieces. The modified proteins also do not enter your bloodstream. They've been chopped up into amino acids.

Step 3: Now that you have the absolute minimum required to understand what's going on, come up with a mechanism by which eating a GMO could cause harm. "We haven't studied it for decades" is not a mechanism. "They might spray the field with a nasty chemical" isn't a mechanism either - the GMO isn't the danger, the chemical is.

Once you've done that, you'll find a lot less "snide aside comments and barely passable personal attacks".

[pnwmom]

34. There isn't universal agreement among reputable scientists on this matter.

You are right that the large majority of scientists take this position. But the research that is out there is limited by the constraints put on it by the GMO producers. The scientists in the minority (including the UCLA cellular biologist quoted below) may turn out to be correct -- at least for some particular GMO products.



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

Across campus, David Williams, a cellular biologist who specializes in vision, has the opposite complaint. “A lot of naive science has been involved in pushing this technology,” he says. “Thirty years ago we didn't know that when you throw any gene into a different genome, the genome reacts to it. But now anyone in this field knows the genome is not a static environment. Inserted genes can be transformed by several different means, and it can happen generations later.” The result, he insists, could very well be potentially toxic plants slipping through testing.

Williams concedes that he is among a tiny minority of biologists raising sharp questions about the safety of GM crops. But he says this is only because the field of plant molecular biology is protecting its interests. Funding, much of it from the companies that sell GM seeds, heavily favors researchers who are exploring ways to further the use of genetic modification in agriculture. He says that biologists who point out health or other risks associated with GM crops—who merely report or defend experimental findings that imply there may be risks—find themselves the focus of vicious attacks on their credibility, which leads scientists who see problems with GM foods to keep quiet.

[jeff47]

57. Mechanism. Your example still needs one.

Your example is someone complaining about funding and seeking more funding with a vague claim about potential danger. But he lacks one key element: A mechanism. Instead, he excuses his lack of mechanism with a claim that danger might only appear generations later.....and still doesn't list a mechanism why it does that but does not show any danger today.

As for this:

He says that biologists who point out health or other risks associated with GM crops—who merely report or defend experimental findings that imply there may be risks—find themselves the focus of vicious attacks on their credibility, which leads scientists who see problems with GM foods to keep quiet.

Someone who proves a mechanism for GMO danger is on a short list for a Nobel prize. They'll be taught in every high school biology class for the rest of time. And they'll have funding for anything they ever want to do.

But they have to have a mechanism first, so that they have something to test.

[pnwmom]

60. Why should the FDA require the mechanism by which a GMO might produce danger?

It doesn't for drugs. Just as a certain drug could have an unknown mechanism of action that relieves symptoms, it could produce side effects by an unknown means. What would be important to the FDA would be the effects – not their means. Logically, the lack of a mechanism doesn't prove there couldn't be adverse effects; there could be a lack of mechanism due to the fact that the science in a particular area isn't developed enough to understand the means -- not that it doesn't exist.

Some of the major drugs that are in use today are approved -- or disapproved -- despite the lack of a mechanism. What they do have is research (or at least experience) showing the risks vs. the benefits. And that is what the FDA has allowed GMO producers to circumvent, since its 1992 Bush/Cheney/Monsanto decree that its default position is that all GMO's are safe.



http://www.cengagesites.com/academic/assets/sites/5407/pdf/drug-admin/section1.pdf

Sometimes the mechanism of action of a drug is unknown, even though the drug has been used for a long time, for example, the role played by phenytoin in decreasing epileptic seizures is not known.

[jeff47]

61. It does to pull a drug.

I can't just demand the FDA pull aspirin because I think it needs more study. I'd have to come up with a new mechanism by which aspirin causes harm. I don't necessarily have to prove it, but I have to show that there's a connection between taking aspirin and a negative outcome.

since its 1992 Bush/Cheney/Monsanto decree that its default position is that all GMO's are safe.

And in the intervening years, no one who wants more study has managed to come up with a mechanism.

Look, you are making a claim like "Corn might kill you". Not GMO corn. Certified organic, zero pesticide/herbicide, heirloom corn grown in as nice a way as you can imagine, being eaten by someone with no allergies or other medical conditions. And when we ask how that corn might be deadly, your answer is "I dunno." That's not going to get corn banned. And it's not gonna get GMOs banned.

GMO food causing harm would radically change our understanding of biology. We're talking Darwin-scale change of everything we know. As a result, "I dunno" isn't going to get the claim taken seriously. Just like Darwin didn't change biology with "I wonder if this might happen". He had to document what he saw, and come up with a mechanism. Then people started taking him seriously, and started testing his hypothesis.

So, get to work on a mechanism so you can change the world......or realize there isn't one.

[pnwmom]

69. I'm not suggesting we pull GMO's. I'm saying they should be labeled.

And that independent researchers should be free to use the seeds in their research without the approval of the manufacturers.

No radical change in our understanding of biology is needed to realize that if proteins from a substance a person is allergic to are introduced into a second substance, then that new GMO could cause an allergic reaction. People should be able to know what ingredients are in their foods, GMO or not.

[jeff47]

70. You're saying we should fear science.

I'm not suggesting we pull GMO's. I'm saying they should be labeled.

And they should be labeled because.......?

Because science is terrifying and will kill us all.

No radical change in our understanding of biology is needed to realize that if proteins from a substance a person is allergic to are introduced into a second substance, then that new GMO could cause an allergic reaction.

Allergens are already labeled.

Again, for GMOs to be dangerous to eat, we have to be wrong about digestion, cell division, DNA, RNA, protein synthesis and protein destruction. If you want to make that claim, or say that you should have labels just in case that claim is true, you're gonna need a mechanism for causing harm.

ETA: Why's this really a big deal? Not profit for Monsanto or any crap like that. It's a big deal because we can't feed everyone. We are depleting topsoil and water tables many, many times faster than they are being refilled. And climate change is making the problem even worse.

If we do nothing, within the next 100 years large swaths of the planet will be starving. Starving people don't die peacefully. The civil war in Syria? You can forget all the ISIS and political crap. It started because of hunger caused by a drought.

Our choices are either develop GMOs, or kill billions. Doing the latter out of irrational fear is an utterly unacceptable option.

[pnwmom]

71. No, I'm not. The GMO producers are. They're clearly terrified of the results independent

researchers might obtain if they were allowed free rein in their research, and allowed to publish without pre-approval. What do the GMO producers have against independent science? If they're so confident in the safety of their products, they should welcome it.

Some allergens are labeled. But not ones that are the result of introducing DNA protein chains into foods that didn't include them before.

[jeff47]

72. You should probably go look at post 7.

Monsanto can only prevent scientists from buying seeds from Monsanto. Those scientists can go pick seeds from a farmer's field. And Monsanto also can not block publication of any paper that Monsanto did not fund the research of.

Which is why post #7 in this thread is a list that contains 200 independent studies....which you are claiming can not exist.

But "Monsanto blocks research" is a fantastic talking point when you have no mechanism for harm and want people to buy your book or pay your speaking fees. It's a convenient excuse for why you can't prove any harm.

Some allergens are labeled. But not ones that are the result of introducing DNA proteins into foods that didn't include them before.

Nope, you add peanut genes to a cauliflower, and you get to add "peanuts" to the ingredient list.

We can't feed everyone. Irrational fear will kill billions. We should not do that. (There was an ETA to the post above with more detail)

[pnwmom]

74. Just because the funding is independent doesn't mean the research wasn't restricted

by the GMO producer. When the researchers are given seeds, they can be required to sign contracts that require the producer's approval before publication. So if a producer doesn't like the results, they can stop the independent researcher from publishing them.

The farmers have signed contracts with Monsanto which don't allow them or anyone else to use the seeds from the field. There are so many "independent" studies out there because GMO producers provided the seeds to researchers (independent because they weren't paid by Monsanto) -- but under contracts that give the GMO producers the right to approve or withhold approval of publication.

[jeff47]

76. Actually, it does.

Because there isn't another mechanism for them to restrict research. Monsanto's only levers are paying scientists, or preventing scientists from buying seeds. The only seed market they control is their own.

they can be required to sign contracts that require the producer's approval before publication.

Only if they're funding the research, or supplying materials for the research and the scientists agree. Scientists have other sources of funding, and other sources of seeds.

The farmers have signed contracts with Monsanto which don't allow them or anyone else to use the seeds from the field.

Nope.

That was an early attempt Monsanto had to make more money from seeds. It only worked on crops that farmers were re-buying every year anyway like corn. When they attempted to apply that to other crops, farmers refused to buy the seeds. So Monsanto stopped doing that.

Also, Monsanto doesn't produce all GMOs, despite the efforts of anti-GMO people to insist otherwise.

But hey, if irrational fear will only kill a few billion, we should listen to the people with no mechanism, right?

[pnwmom]

77. Scientists can't purchase the seeds except through Monsanto,

Last edited Sun Aug 17, 2014, 07:32 PM - Edit history (1)

which restricts their rights to use them.

Scientists cannot acquire them from farmers -- even today, despite what you claim. The producers claim that their patents give them ownership of all the seeds in subsequent generations -- and the courts have upheld this.

From Monsanto's website:

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx

Why Does Monsanto Sue Farmers Who Save Seeds?

When farmers purchase a patented seed variety, they sign an agreement that they will not save and replant seeds produced from the seed they buy from us. More than 275,000 farmers a year buy seed under these agreements in the United States.

[jeff47]

82. How many times do you want to make the same error?

Scientists can't purchase the seeds except through Monsanto, which restricts their rights to use them.

India and most of Europe made it illegal for Monsanto to do that.

Golly, I wonder where scientists might be able to get seeds without Monsanto's permission......They might even have scientists in Europe and India.

But hey, let's read your own link:

When farmers purchase a patented seed variety, they sign an agreement that they will not save and replant seeds produced from the seed they buy from us

Let's see.....where's the part that says "can not sell food to anyone".......oh wait, not in there.

See, the scientists don't have to buy the corn as a bag of seed packed by Monsanto. The scientists can buy the fucking corn.

Guess what happens when you buy an ear of corn at the market and plant the kernels instead of eating them? Guess who can't stop you from doing that when you don't sign a contract with them?

Again, this angle is a desperate attempt to hide that anti-GMO people have no mechanism by which GMOs could actually cause harm. They're busy hoping you forget that you aren't signing any contracts when you buy food at the grocery store so they can talk about that instead of the utter failure of their experiments.

And again, this irrational fear will kill billions, because in the near future we will not get enough yield per acre to keep everyone alive.

Wanna avoid GMOs because of your irrational fear? Buy something with an "Organic" sticker on it.

[pnwmom]

84. And in Europe they have decided, based on the evidence that you reject, to strictly regulate GMO's.

Only in the US are people still gullible enough to think Monsanto is doing this in an effort to save the world, instead of to pad their own pockets.

No one in the US knows when they're buying a GMO product at the store because they're not labeled. So if there were any ill effects, no one would know what caused them.

In Europe, rather than insisting there is no need for any safety testing of GMO’s because there is “no known mechanism,” they have been busy developing methods for assessing safety of GMO’s. We should be learning from them instead of insisting that no such testing is necessary.

http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf

A number of projects (ENTRANSFOOD, GMO CARE, SAFOTEST, NOFORISK, and GMOBILITY) have focused on the development of safety assessment approaches for GM foods/feed. This is an issue of great scientific interest and also of interest for the general public: to examine whether food/ feed products derived from GMOs pose particular risks for humans, animals and the environment upon long term expo- sure and consumption.

The Thematic Network ENTRANSFOOD which consisted of different stakeholders across Europe specialized in develop- ment and production of GM crops and derived foods, in risk- assessment, -management, and –communication strategies, and has designed a detailed step-wise procedure for the risk assessment of GM crop derived food and feed. The proposed procedure was an important step forward in risk assessment of the new category of foods, since it added a significant level of detail to the general requirements for the actual safety assessment. The risk assessment approach as developed within ENTRANSFOOD has also been embedded in the risk assessment strategy more recently developed by the European Food Safety Authority, and is in line with international guide- lines developed by the FAO/WHO.

The possible occurrence of unintended alterations in the com- position of GM food crops as result of the genetic modifica- tion, was one of the key issues addressed by ENTRANSFOOD. Detection of unexpected effects in GM food crops relies pri- marily on a targeted approach, i.e. comparative determination in GM and non-GM products of levels of selected macro- and micro-nutrients, anti-nutrients, and known toxins. In order to increase the probability of detecting unintended effects, ‘profiling’- or ‘omics’- techniques have been further developed within the GMOCARE project. These evolving technologies include transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics ena- ble measurement of thousands of metabolic compounds in modified and unmodified plants, which are not defined prior to analysis (non-targeted approach). Research has concen- trated on various transgenic potato lines modified in their starch, amino acid, or glycoalkaloid metabolism, on trans- genic tomato lines with elevated phytosterol or isoprenoid contents, and on various Arabidopsis GM-lines, down-regu- lated in their flavonoid pathway. Application of profiling meth- ods is promising since extensive information is provided on the physiology of GMOs and their non-modified counterparts, but further development and validation is needed, before they can be used in a formalized risk assessment procedure. The classical targeted compositional analysis of GMOs and their conventional non-modified counterparts together with infor- mation from the molecular characterization and analysis of agronomical properties of the GMOs, is a sound and robust way to determine possibly whether due unintended effects may have occurred in GMOs possibly due to the genetic modification.

Toxicological testing of newly expressed proteins and of whole GM foods has been examined in the SAFOTEST project. A combination of in vivo animal models, in vitro toxicological systems, and selected profiling methods was used to charac- terize GM rice strains containing lectins, or Bt protein. Repeated dose studies in rats were performed with diets con- taining the target proteins, or the GM rice spiked or not with purified lectin. The results demonstrated that the specificity and sensitivity of the 90-day rat feeding study to detect spe- cific compound-related effects and unintended secondary effects is fit-for-purpose, which enables the establishment of the safety of the GM food. This approach provides relevant guidance for future approaches to establish the safety for consumers.

An increasing number of novel foods are generally marketed with claims of benefits to the consumers (functional foods), but these claims are generally poorly underpinned. . . .


SNIP

[jeff47]

85. No, they decided based on irrational fear

and the fact that the billions of dead wouldn't be in Western Europe.

Did you notice in the article you quoted that they found zero problems despite all the breathless claims of potential danger? It just talks about all the testing protocol.

[pnwmom]

87. Oh right. Because all those European scientists are suffering from irrational fear.

And US scientists are so much smarter and braver and altruistic.



The Europeans have been developing a protocol for safety testing, not testing each and every GMO. Just because one GMO is safe doesn't mean they all are, any more than the fact that one drug is safe means all drugs are safe.

And this is true even without a mechanism of action, because not having a mechanism of action can simply mean that the science isn't advanced enough to demonstrate one -- not that it's non-existent.

[Eko]

7. Ande here is a site that lists

that provides about 600 studies, 1/3rd that are independent on GMO's by scientists.
http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/

[MrMickeysMom]

9. Oh, I'm sure the OP has read every single one of those citations, Eko

[Drew Richards]

14. no but to be fair im willing to take a look...only thing that bothers me is the whois lookup

for this company shows that it is a registered box at a UPS store with 20 companies sited with same address.

[jeff47]

15. Which is why you read the journal articles instead of trusting the web site. (nt)

[MrMickeysMom]

17. How very subjective to start that way...

Let's hope you can read scientific literature with a degree of objectively.

Have you read epidemiologic studies in countries that have changed their traditional farming of the same crop to that of GMO?

[Cha]

8. We don't think they're "safe" in Hawai'i and are fighting to keep them at bay

and hold them accountable, Drew. Mahalo for your OP~

A Victory in Mexico..

Sweet victory for Mexico beekeepers as Monsanto loses GM permit

A small group of beekeepers in Mexico has inflicted a blow on biotech giant Monsanto, which has halted the company’s ambitions to plant thousands of hectares of soybeans genetically modified to resist the company’s pesticide Roundup.

A district judge in the state of Yucatán last month overturned a permit issued to Monsanto by Mexico’s agriculture ministry, Sagarpa, and environmental protection agency, Semarnat, in June 2012 that allowed commercial planting of Roundup-ready soybeans.

The permit authorised Monsanto to plant its seeds in seven states, over more than 253,000 hectares (625,000 acres), despite protests from thousands of Mayan farmers and beekeepers, Greenpeace, the Mexican National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity, the National Commission of Natural Protected Areas and the National Institute of Ecology.

In withdrawing the permit, the judge was convinced by the scientific evidence presented about the threats posed by GM soy crops to honey production in the Yucatán peninsula, which includes Campeche, Quintana Roo and Yucatán states. Co-existence between honey production and GM soybeans is not possible, the judge ruled.

Mexico is the world’s six biggest producer and third largest exporter of honey. About 25,000 families on the Yucatán peninsula depend on honey production. This tropical region produces about 40% of the country’s honey, almost all of which is exported to the EU. This is not small change: in 2011, the EU imported $54m (£32m) worth of Mexican honey.

More:
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2014/aug/08/sweet-victory-beekeepers-monsanto-gm-soybeans

[Eko]

11. Huh, I would like to see

the scientific evidence used in that trial, tried to find it and couldn't. Contrary to some beliefs, I am not pro or con on GMO's just pro science so if anyone finds the scientific evidence I would like to see it, its my planet also.

[jeff47]

19. There isn't any.

There's people now publishing anti-GMO papers in order to build credibility to publish anti-GMO books. Kinda like Andrew Wakefield and the anti-vax movement. Make some claims in a paper, then make your money on books, speeches and alternatives.

For example, studies like this one, which was cited in this case. (Linking Forbes because they did a generally-accessible take-down. You can find others if you have a stronger background on the subject)

Take some rats that have been bred to develop tumors. Feed them RoundUp for two years. Then point out the rats developed tumors.

Claim it is from GMO food, despite the fact that you fed the rats actual RoundUp, not just RoundUp resistant plants. Also, use a small number of rats so you can't correct for the natural variation in tumor development. Hit one side of the 50-50 coin flip, self-publish your paper, then start the speaking tour while you wrap up the book.

If you hit the other side of the 50-50 flip, claim it was the RoundUp itself that is causing tumors, self-publish your paper, then start the speaking tour while you wrap up the book.

[Eko]

27. The study in that article

was "RETRACTED: Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize". "The journal Food and Chemical Toxicology retracts the article “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize,” which was published in this journal in November 2012. This retraction comes after a thorough and time-consuming analysis of the published article and the data it reports, along with an investigation into the peer-review behind the article. The Editor in-Chief deferred making any public statements regarding this article until this investigation was complete, and the authors were notified of the findings."

[jeff47]

58. Yes, the author now uses pay-to-publish journals. (nt)

[bahrbearian]

13. We are the lab Rats

[Eko]

16. We have always been the lab rats

when it comes to agriculture for the most part.

[gyroscope]

24. We were lab rats for Monsanto's DDT that's for sure

for decades before it was banned in 1972.

no telling how millions could have developed cancer, disease or other health problems by eating agricultural products exposed to DDT. And back then Monsanto ensured us DDT was perfectly harmless and safe. If you believe that, I have some swampland in Florida I'd like to sell you.

[Eko]

25. Yeah,

you are correct to a certain point, but it was not only monsanto that used it for insect control and monsanto did not create it. They also thought smoking was fine back then. Crazy times, but then does not equal now.

[gyroscope]

26. You know the old saying?

fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
simple and sensible advice we probably ought to heed.

I wouldn't trust any company that produced DDT, further than I could throw them. Just as I don't trust the tobacco companies either, then or now. You'd have to be quite gullible to do so.

[Eko]

28. Well the US govt thought is was safe also.

So maybe we shouldnt drink milk, eat any food approved by the USDA, drive cars, or fly in planes.

[gyroscope]

29. Do you believe everything the govt tells you?

or are you capable of thinking for yourself? and discerning for yourself what is good and bad, right and wrong? did you believe there were WMDs in Iraq too? I wouldn't be surprised. hey the govt said there were WMDs in Iraq so it must be true!

[Eko]

31. I think you fail to see my point.

Most everybody at that time including the US Govt thought DDT's were safe including monsanto. You say fool me one, etc etc,,,,,,. so if monsanto is not to be trusted at all because they were wrong before and the US govt was wrong on the same subject then you cant trust the US govt, like the USDA, so you probably don't want to drink milk. What does WMD's have to do with any of this, no, I was sure there werent any for the record but great ad-hominem attack there gyroscope.

[gyroscope]

33. Actually

none of our food supply is safe as long as it is made with GMO, milk included.
probably safer to eat organic or grow your own food as much as you can, if you can.

doesn't matter what the government says. these days anyone in Congress, any federal agency can be bought. when bribery is now called free speech and corporations are considered people its hard for many to believe most of what the govt says. when much of the FDA is run by former executives from the ag industry its hard to take anything they say seriously.

and govt's can disagree with each other. for example the federal govt claims marijuana has no medical value and should be a felony to make or consume it. but 23 states disagree and have legalized it for medical use. countless studies have proven marijuana does have medical benefits. so why do the feds keep insisting otherwise? politics and money. because govt is run by politics and controlled by big money. not by the facts, not by what is right.

[Eko]

36. So we

shouldnt eat any food then unless it is grown by ourselves, check. Do you see how that sounds? Do you actually think that is possible? C'mon now, you have to have chuckled at least a little bit about that. Do you know that the worst foodborne outbreak in the united states was from an organic grower? 30 people died. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_listeriosis_outbreak I have no problem with organic food, eat it all the time, same as GMO food, but organic food has a record of killing 30 people, havent seen that with GMO's.

[Eko]

37. as a matter of fact

the chicken breasts I cooked tonight were organic and they were pretty darn good.

[gyroscope]

40. Monsanto knew for years DDT was dangerous

from their own internal studies. and yet kept telling the public it was perfectly harmless and safe. and if you still believe GMO is perfectly harmless and safe, that prime Florida swampland I've been telling you about will be ready for you by tomorrow morning.

[Eko]

49. I dont believe any food

is perfectly harmless and safe, I have never said so either.

[gyroscope]

38. You can eat all the GMO you want

it just has to labelled and properly identified. so those of use who don't want to consume it can avoid it. why is Monsanto so opposed to labeling? what do they have to hide? because they want to force everyone to consume their products, without consumers having a choice in the matter? well that's what every monopoly wants. which is why they have to regulated. they can't just go around doing whatever they want.

many millions of Americans do in fact eat organic foods, and try to avoid consuming GMO as much as they can.

[Eko]

39. Because there are a bunch of people out there

who are promoting GMO's as bad when they have not been proven to be so, it's a scare tactic and a lot of people are believing the hype when the evidence from scientists says the dangers are the same as from non GMO food. How can you think they are good when I just showed you the largest foodborne outbreak in the united states came from organic food and 30 people died? Have you heard of 30 people dying from GMO's with over a hundred people getting sick? So why aren't you against organic food?

[gyroscope]

41. What are you talking about?

your link doesn't say anything about the food in question being organic.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_listeriosis_outbreak

[Eko]

43. ok then

http://www.belch.com/blog/2013/09/26/organic-farmers-arrested-for-cantaloupe-listeria-outbreak/

[Eko]

44. and

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/exclusive-biosolids-near-farm-examined-for-listeria-link

[Eko]

45. and

http://www.wired.com/2011/09/canteloupe-outbreak-more/

[gyroscope]

50. Still doesn't say anything

about the canteloupes being organic.

the Wired article says Jensen Farms uses "a phosphorus based non-organic fertilizer approved for use on canteloupes."

uhhh that would be the opposite of organic, kind sir. do you even bother to read what you post?
stop wasting my time with this nonsense.

[Eko]

53. from the wired site

: ““Jensen Farms uses two types of commercial-grade fertilizer: heat-treated or pasteurized organic fertilizer and phosphorus-based non-organic fertilizer.

[Eko]

51. on this site

Jensen Farms uses two types of commercial-grade fertilizer: heat-treated or pasteurized organic fertilizer and phosphorus-based nonorganic fertilizer.

[Eko]

52. Here is the link

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/exclusive-biosolids-near-farm-examined-for-listeria-link

[gyroscope]

46. What the heck is www.belch.com?

pro-GMO propaganda website? sorry not a credible source.


at least they live up to their name, I'll give them that.
they do seem to spew and belch a lot of garbage on that website haha.

[Eko]

48. yeah, pro GMO

on the front page, Guardians of the Galaxy Music Parody, Obama Disavows Pulling Troops From Iraq, The Liberal Sainthood of Robin Williams, Air Conditioning Was Resisted by Luddites, O’Keefe Crosses the Border Dressed Like Bin Laden,,, all pro GMO stuff.

[Luminous Animal]

68. Not organic. From your link above...

Organic produce begins with a number 9 followed by the 4 digit number that identifies the item. The PLU code on their melon label does not have a leading 9 (or 8 if it was genetically modified) thus, it is conventionally grown.

"Pesticide free" is not the same as organic.

[Eko]

47. And here are some organic mangos that were recalled for the same thing.

http://www.laweekly.com/squidink/2014/05/07/organic-mangoes-recalled-for-listeria

[Peace Patriot]

56. You think that a transglobal corporate monster like Monsanto should be allowed

to do whatever it wants to do, to our food supply, to our personal health and to the environment until there is proof that their products are harmful?

"...there are a bunch of people out there who are promoting GMO's as bad when they have not been proven to be so...."

Boy, is that naive!

We should have the OPPOSITE premise, in government policy and in our personal product choices: That a transglobal corporate monster like Monsanto WILL harm us and the environment without the least hesitation, if there is profit in it, and thus, a) They must be prevented from doing do, and b) THEY must be required to prove that their products are harmless, by subjecting them to truly independent scientific study--WHATEVER THAT REQUIRES, including years and decades of testing--and MUST LABEL everything they sell TRUTHFULLY.

There is NO corporate right to harm our health or the environment. But Monsanto is the avantgarde of fascist billionaires who believe just that: THEIR "right" to do harm until millions die, and even after that. Transglobal corporate monsters like Monsanto are psychopathic. They have no conscience. They have no morals. They have no respect for human life or the life of the planet itself. They feel no restraint whatever from "the cautionary principle." Their ONLY concern is making money and gaining power to make more money. And they pay billions of dollars to advertising firms to fool us all that, whatever they want to sell, is good for us.

This kind of fascist power has resulted in vastly polluted air, water AND food, in very unhealthy homes and workplaces (building on landfills, building with asbestos, drenching homes and yards and farm fields with pesticides, and on and on), in disasters to human health of every kind and in exceedingly disastrous global warming.

You think Monsanto ought to be considered innocent until proven guilty? Ye gods! Please get educated about this! Maybe start with the history of Firestone Rubber and Standard Oil and the destruction of public transportation in Los Angeles, and the pall of heavy, horrible smog that lay over Los Angeles for many decades. NOTHING that such corporations sell--or are cooking up in their labs--should be considered harmless until proven harmful! Nothing! That is the only way to proceed with monstrous, monopolistic, hugely powerful corporations.

[Eko]

54. I will give you this

since they used 2 types of fertilizer, one organic and the other not it is hard to tell which caused the listeria outbreak. Fine, show me where 30 people died where the chances of it being from GMO are half and half.

[Eko]

55. out for the night

have a good one. Will check back tomorrow for the 30 people dead from a 50 percent chance of GMO's. Thanks.

[Zorra]

20. Corporate trolls don't care how valid and logical our arguments are, their

job is simply to tell the lies early and often.

"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success." - Adolph Hitler

[gyroscope]

21. Suing farmers for saving seeds?

to ensure farmers are completely dependent on them and enslaved for life.

Monsanto is certainly the poster child for corporate fascism.
The makers of Agent Orange and DDT is now in control of our food supply.
Gee I feel safer already.

[Eko]

23. If you watch the video I posted

in another thread it will explain the suing for saving seeds. Here is the link http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017209126

[Eko]

22. Who are you claiming

is a corporate troll?

[Zorra]

30. Isn't it obvious? nt

[Eko]

32. Do you often do that?

when someone disagrees with you and presents their case in a nice way, refrains from insulting you, is polite to those that are polite to them and tries to offer a informative argument, do you often call them corporate trolls? I would bet you do as it seems the best argument you have presented so far.

[pnwmom]

35. Thanks for the post, Drew Richards. n/t

[LWolf]

63. Well done, and thanks. nt

[Motown_Johnny]

64. Biology isn't a young science n/t

[Drew Richards]

66. I am not talking about the biological cross breeding through biological invito or standard

Hybridization as i'm sure you were aware. That field of biology is as old as man...

I am specifically talking about the field of Genetics that deals with micro projectile particle bombardment to obtain cross breed replication specifically using partial animal DNA OR RNA chains and incorporating them into plant DNA...

[jeff47]

73. Which relies on all the old stuff to work.

Just because the DNA is injected does not mean DNA transcription is suddenly different. Our "old" understanding still applies. Heck, we used our "old" understanding to develop the new techniques.

Why's this really a big deal? Not profit for Monsanto or any crap like that. It's a big deal because we can't feed everyone. We are depleting topsoil and water tables many, many times faster than they are being refilled. And climate change is making the problem even worse.

If we do nothing, within the next 100 years large swaths of the planet will be starving. Starving people don't die peacefully. The civil war in Syria? You can forget all the ISIS and political crap. It started because of hunger caused by a drought.

Our choices are either develop GMOs, or kill billions. Doing the latter out of irrational fear is an utterly unacceptable option.

[Zorra]

88. ...

But...no. Wouldn't it make more sense to simply stop destroying the planet, and stop depleting all of our resources in service of profit interests? The system is based on exploitation, profit, waste, and death. People who have been displaced and had their homelands and ability to produce food taken from them because of the greed need of our planet killing system won't have food no matter how much is produced...because they don't have any money to pay for it. The system is what is starving, and killing, people and the planet.

UN Global Initiative on Food Loss and Waste Reduction

Key Findings

Roughly one third of the food produced in the world for human consumption every year — approximately 1.3 billion tonnes — gets lost or wasted.

Global quantitative food losses and waste per year are roughly 30% for cereals, 40-50% for root crops, fruits and vegetables, 20% for oil seeds, meat and dairy plus 30% for fish.

Every year, consumers in rich countries waste almost as much food (222 million tonnes) as the entire net food production of sub-Saharan Africa (230 million tonnes).

The amount of food lost or wasted every year is equivalent to more than half of the world's annual cereals crop (2.3 billion tonnes in 2009/2010).

http://www.fao.org/save-food/key-findings/en/

U.S. Lets 141 Trillion Calories Of Food Go To Waste Each Year
February 27, 2014 3:02 PM ET

The sheer volume of food wasted in the U.S. each year should cause us some shame, given how many people are hungry both in our own backyard and abroad.

Now the U.S. Department of Agriculture has provided us with a way to understand our flagrant annual waste in terms of calories, too. It's pretty mind-boggling — 141 trillion calories down the drain, so to speak, or 1,249 calories per capita UN Global Initiative on Food Loss and Waste Reduction per day.

And if we could actually reduce this staggering quantity of food waste, the price of food worldwide might go down, according to a report from researchers at USDA's Economic Research Service, Jean Buzby, Hodan Wells and Jeffrey Hyman.

To come up with these estimates of all the food that was harvested but never eaten, the team the latest available data from 2010. This "lost" food encompasses all of the edible food available for consumption — including food that spoils or gets contaminated by mold or pests. It also includes the food that's "wasted" — i.e. food discarded by retailers because it's blemished, and the food left on our plates.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/02/27/283071610/u-s-lets-141-trillion-calories-of-food-go-to-waste-each-year

Wasted: How America Is Losing Up to 40 Percent of Its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill

Getting food from the farm to our fork eats up 10 percent of the total U.S. energy budget, uses 50 percent of U.S.
land, and swallows 80 percent of all freshwater consumed in the United States. Yet, 40 percent of food in the
United States today goes uneaten. This not only means that Americans are throwing out the equivalent of $165
billion each year, but also that the uneaten food ends up rotting in landfills as the single largest component of U.S.
municipal solid waste where it accounts for a large portion of U.S. methane emissions. Reducing food losses by
just 15 percent would be enough food to feed more than 25 million Americans every year at a time when one in
six Americans lack a secure supply of food to their tables. Increasing the efficiency of our food system is a triple-
bottom-line solution that requires collaborative efforts by businesses, governments and consumers. The U.S.
government should conduct a comprehensive study of losses in our food system and set national goals for waste
reduction; businesses should seize opportunities to streamline their own operations, reduce food losses and save
money; and consumers can waste less food by shopping wisely, knowing when food goes bad, buying produce that
is perfectly edible even if it’s less cosmetically attractive, cooking only the amount of food they need, and eating their leftovers.

http://www.nrdc.org/food/files/wasted-food-ip.pdf

All this hysterical

UNLESS WE USE GMOS THE CHILDREN WILL STARVE IN ETHIOPIA! GMO's ARE OUR ONLY HOPE!

argument is a bunch of propaganda put out by corporations who only care about their bottom lines and couldn't care less about starving kids in Outer Mongolia or anywhere else unless they can get a reasonable profit return my keeping them alive.

New thinking needed on food aid for refugees in Africa

JOHANNESBURG, 7 July 2014 (IRIN) - The World Food Programme (WFP) and the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) have launched an urgent appeal to address a funding shortfall that has already resulted in food ration cuts for a third of all African refugees. As of mid-June, nearly 800,000 refugees in 22 African countries have seen their monthly food allocations reduced, most of them by more than half.

WFP is appealing for US$186 million to maintain its food assistance to refugees in Africa through the end of the year, while UNHCR is asking for $39 million to fund nutritional support and food security activities to refugees in the affected countries. A joint report by WFP and UNHCR released last week warns that failure to prevent continued ration cuts will lead to high levels of malnutrition, particularly among children and the most vulnerable.

Worst hit have been refugees in Chad, Central African Republic (CAR) and South Sudan where a total of nearly half a million refugees are experiencing ration cuts of 50 to 60 percent.

The funding shortfall is not the result of shrinking budgets for either WFP or UNHCR, but a substantial increase in the need for food assistance generated by an unprecedented number of refugee emergencies in 2014. “The amount of large-scale, simultaneous emergencies has never been so high to the best of my memory,” said Paul Spiegel, UNHCR’s deputy director of programme support and management, speaking to IRIN from Geneva.

http://www.irinnews.org/report/100314/new-thinking-needed-on-food-aid-for-refugees-in-africa

[jeff47]

89. Basic math. Learn some.

Roughly one third of the food produced in the world for human consumption every year

So....we are rendering about 80% of our food producing areas infertile, and you think fixing a 30% waste factor will make up for that.

[Zorra]

91. How about this ~ stop rendering food producing areas infertile, and improve the waste factor?

*sigh*...capitalists.

Destruction of Brazil's Amazon jumps 28%

BRASILIA, Brazil (AP) — Brazil's government reported Thursday that annual destruction of its Amazon rainforest jumped by 28 percent after four straight years of declines, an increase activists said was linked to recent loosening of the nation's environmental law meant to protect the jungle.

However, the destruction was still the second-lowest amount of jungle destroyed since Brazil began tracking deforestation in 1988.

The increase in deforestation came in the August 2012 through July 2013 period, the time when Brazil annually measures the destruction of the forest by studying satellite images. The country registered its lowest level of Amazon felling the year before.

The Amazon rainforest is considered one of the world's most important natural defenses against global warming because of its capacity to absorb huge amounts of carbon dioxide. About 75 percent of Brazil's emissions come from rainforest clearing, as vegetation burns and felled trees rot.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/11/14/brazil-amazon-destruction/3541703/

Your people are driven by a terrible sense of deficiency. When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is polluted; when to breathe the air is sickening, you will realize, too late, that wealth is not in bank accounts and that you can’t eat money. ~ Alanis Obamsawin

[HuckleB]

90. Nor is genetics.

It's sad to see such fine sounding propaganda get so much sway, with nothing to support it but fear. It's stunning. The GMO episode will be one of the great sociological studies in the future. Fomenting fear is still much too easy.

[Rex]

75. Is nuclear energy safe? It is a somewhat new science. So to speak.

All young science comes with risks. Just look at the atom bomb. We must study new science and it will be used at the same time. Can you name any newish science or technology that is NOT somehow immediately applied to our everyday lives? We use what we create and create what we become.

However I do not have a problem with transparency and scoff at people that pretend it is 'fear science' just to dismiss transparency.

[Drew Richards]

78. I agree completely I just hope we proceed with caution and transparency as you say...

[Rex]

79. Must have both, otherwise we can lose objectivity imo.

Risk is part of life. Yet, we don't need to be test subjects either. I LIKE knowing what is in my food when I buy it. That is not a hard concept to understand.