Eliminating GMOs would increase greenhouse gas emissions significantly and increase global warming..

[True Earthling]

according to this Purdue University study...

Study: Eliminating GMOs would take toll on environment, economies

https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2016/Q1/study-eliminating-gmos-would-take-toll-on-environment,-economies.html

"This is not an argument to keep or lose GMOs," Tyner said. "It's just a simple question: What happens if they go away?" The economists gathered data and found that 18 million farmers in 28 countries planted about 181 million hectares of GMO crops in 2014, with about 40 percent of that in the United States. They fed that data into the Purdue­-developed GTAP­BIO model, which has been used to examine economic consequences of changes to agricultural, energy, trade and environmental policies.

Eliminating all GMOs in the United States, the model shows corn yield declines of 11.2 percent on average. Soybeans lose 5.2 percent of their yields and cotton 18.6 percent. To make up for that loss, about 102,000 hectares of U.S. forest and pasture would have to be converted to cropland and 1.1 million hectares globally for the average case.

Greenhouse gas emissions increase significantly because with lower crop yields, more land is needed for agricultural production, and it must be converted from pasture and forest. "In general, the land­use change, the pasture and forest you need to convert to cropland to produce the amount of food that you need is greater than all of the land­use change that we have previously estimated for the U.S. ethanol program," Tyner said.

In other words, the increase in greenhouse gas emissions that would come from banning GMOs in the United States would be greater than the amount needed to create enough land to meet federal mandates of about 15 billion gallons of biofuels. "Some of the same groups that oppose GMOs want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reduce the potential for global warming," Tyner said. "The result we get is that you can't have it both ways. If you want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture, an important tool to do that is with GMO traits."

[HuckleB]

1. Good luck. The true believers will be biting your tail, and hard.

[Dont call me Shirley]

2. So were all those petroleum based chemicals needed for gmos added in to their assessment?

[HuckleB]

3. Yes.

[truedelphi]

28. Your source on that? (I will be waiting.)

Plus remember, the types of invasive hospital procedures that occur when an individual's body can no longer cope with their food being sprayed with RoundUp - those procedures cause harm to the environment. (I include even the gasoline to drive to the various clinics.)

In the three years it took the medical profession to find out that I can not tolerate Gm wheat, i burned through MRI's, cat scans pet scans etc.

All on the advice of doctors. Beliefs on their part went from stomach cancer to intestinal infections to possibly a brain tumor.

And all it was happened to be the fact that the human body is not designed to forever deal with toxins like glyphosate, formaldehyde and the invariable plague of fungal material like vomitoxin and what not. Those fungal diseases prey on wheat and other grain that grow on the RoundUp vitamin and mineral depleted soil.

[HuckleB]

29. Here you go.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/feastandfamine/2013/03/gm-crops-and-carbon-emissions

http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/page/36/-gm-crop-use-continues-to-benefit-the-environment-and-farmers

http://www.europabio.org/can-gm-crops-help-fight-against-climate-change

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

[truedelphi]

59. Oh my sweet sweet Lordie, you just disproved your own point.

In checking out the last link on your citation list, I find it comes directly to us from an industry-owned and also pro biotech website.

Not much indie thinking there, and then to make matters for yr arguments even worse -- the short paragraphs on that site indicate something that we in the anti Gm movement know to be false statements.

Yes the idea that that the Gm stuff requires less tillage is FALSE..

Although we' re told it requires less, but then once it fails to reduce weeds, the farmers have to utilize tillage methods and additional spraying.

Not only that, the fact that superweeds have come about due to the failure of the Gm situation, there have been measures taken within Congress to once again allow for the use of very very toxic pesticides that RoundUp and GM utilization were supposed to even more. (Toxins inside the 2,4,5-T family of neuro toxins.)

Oh and by the way, I was asking a much mroe specific question than the overall view you chose - but thank you for ignoring the specific question, because yr links destroy any semblance of logic to your argument. (Not that big money doesn't lie on your side - and it does indeed LIE!)

[HuckleB]

70. No I didn't. And, no, it doesn't.

That's just bizarre to say about Plos.

Meanwhile, all of your links come from organic marketing outfits. Your hypocrisy is astounding.

[Major Nikon]

148. Oh my sweet sweet Lordie, you just disproved your own point

Although we' re told it requires less, but then once it fails to reduce weeds, the farmers have to utilize tillage methods and additional spraying.

Just like the alternative

Not to mention the obvious problem with your statement is you're told it requires less, because it does require less. No other method works better.

[womanofthehills]

161. HuckleB's corporate links

http://www.economist.com/blogs/feastandfamine/2013/03/gm-crops-and-carbon-emission
-----(who is the author of article - just listed as JB)

http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/page/36/-gm-crop-use-continues-to-benefit-the-environment-and-farmers
-----(says latest industry news on the top of this article)

http://www.europabio.org/can-gm-crops-help-fight-against-climate-change
----(composed of 60 corporate members)


http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629
----(read all the reader comments after this last article)

Not a meta-analysis
Posted by David_Smith on 04 Sep 2015 at 10:11 GMT

1. A meta-analysis is carried out on a number of studies that have the same aim or hypothesis in order to make the data comparison scientifically comparable. This was not one of the requirements to select data from studies for this paper and cannot be considered a meta-analysis in terms of a standardized scientific approach.

2. Inclusion of data for meta-analysis requires that it must fulfil minimum requirements of sample size and that there is no inherent bias in terms of sampling. The authors admit to this flaw in the conclusion: “One limitation is that not all of the original studies included in this meta-analysis reported sample sizes and measures of variance.”. In other words they took data at face value whether it was scientifically relevant or not. They should have excluded such data from the “meta-analysis”. Instead they try to justify the inclusion of unsubstantiated data by stating that “This is not untypical for analyses in the social sciences”. Except this is not a social science study! The authors state in the conclusions that “future impact studies with primary data should follow more standardized reporting procedures” and thus admit to not using a standardized scientific approach.This paper cannot be considered a meta-analysis in terms of a standardized scientific approach.

[HuckleB]

170. Nice try. Some anti-GMO goofball pretends to understand peer-reviewed science.

Why are you not understanding that you haven't got a thing to stand on with your bad propaganda?

[bkkyosemite]

4. Hell that wasn't happening when I was growing up...ate tomato's out of the garden

along with green beans, carrots, radishes....oh..yea...now they call those veggies organic....no global warming then.

[HuckleB]

5. There are no GMO versions of those.

What's your point?

PS: No one called veggies "organic" until some marketers decided to use the term to con people into paying more for food for no good reason. You've been conned.

[bkkyosemite]

8. zuchinni and summer quash...don't care what you think..I want my food labeled.

[HuckleB]

10. You have your food.

You can't justify your posts, however.

[bkkyosemite]

11. Don't have to....Jackson County Oregon. Only County in the United States NO GMO's

to be grown here..Don't have to justify don't have to do anything. You and I disagree that's all.

[HuckleB]

13. You do have to justify the county's unethical, anti-science stance.

Can you do it, with a consensus of science?

[bkkyosemite]

22. you like that word "justify". Justify this...I don't agree with you!

[HuckleB]

23. In other words, you have nothing to add to the discussion.

You don't understand the topic. Keep spreading that baseless fear of a technology, and then laughing about. That's a grand endeavor, for you, apparently.

[truedelphi]

60. By the way, if you wanna get his goat,

Go to a few consumer based organizations and find some links. Shove those links back at him.

Teh argument that Gm crops require less tillage was being disproven long ago - at least by 2005 or 2006.

Organic Consumers of America has had many articles on this fact.

The superweeds that RoundUp use has created has forced many farmers to have to actually till their land more often, and since the superweeds are more immune to RoundUp the farmers have to utilize pesticides that are even more toxic!

[HuckleB]

68. So you want your friend to push bad organic lobby propaganda?

And ignore the actual science.

[bkkyosemite]

115. Lots of info they are on my FB..we supported the farmers here in Jackson County OR

and Monsanto did not get their way. No GMO to be planted!

[HuckleB]

117. You don't support farmers at all.

You tell them what they can and can't plant. Your inerhical nonsense hurts everyone and the planet.

[PaulaFarrell]

33. there are gmo tomatoes n/t

[HuckleB]

35. Nope. Not one GMO tomato is on the market.

If you can prove otherwise, go for it.

[PaulaFarrell]

45. ok

http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/fruit_vegetables/15.genetically_modified_tomatoes.html

"The tomato has been a symbol for genetically modified food for many years. In 1994, genetically modified tomatoes hit the market in the US as the first commercially available genetically modified crop. GM tomatoes have since disappeared.

"This transgenic tomato (FlavrSavr) had a "deactivated" gene (Antisense approach). This meant that the tomato plant was no longer able to produce polygalacturonase, an enzyme involved in fruit softening. The premise was that tomatoes could be left to ripen on the vine and still have a long shelf life, thus allowing them to develop their full flavour. Normally, tomatoes are picked well before they are ripe and are then ripened artificially.


Tomatoes were the first genetically modified foods to come on the market. Today, they are no longer cultivated.

These GM tomatoes, however, did not meet their expectations. Although they were approved in the US and several other countries, tomatoes with delayed ripening have disappeared from the market after peaking in 1998. At this point, no genetically modified tomatoes are being grown commercially in North America or in Europe.

Genetically modified tomatoes are not approved in Europe. Applications that were submitted several years ago have since been withdrawn."

whoops, you're right, they were crap and were withdrawn. my bad

[HuckleB]

47. As we all know...

It hasn't been on the market for 20 years.

Nice, predictable, out of context, Google response, that you didn't even read.

[PaulaFarrell]

49. i read it.

don't think you read my response though, well at least not completely

[HuckleB]

54. So you think fantasy is a legit response?

It's not.

[PaulaFarrell]

58. sorry what's the 'fantasy'?

except the fantasy that GMOs are a magic bullet.

[HuckleB]

67. No one said they were.

Pretending they're bad is a fantasy, however.

[scscholar]

180. So you don't think all vegggies contain carbon?

I'm confused.

[HuckleB]

182. Never heard that one before.

[GreatGazoo]

7. Their model does not seem to account for adaptation by weeds

RoundUp Ready weeds reduce yields. Additional passes with sprayers contribute to global warming via diesel production, refining and exhaust.

Looks like they are still struggling to find a benefit in GMOs for the rest of us.

IMHO the best improvements for agriculture in terms of climate change would be mass production of solar powered tractors and more deployment of autonomous robotic weeders. Robotic planting, weeding and harvesting can overcome shortages of labor, reduce the use of pesticides and reduce petroleum inputs in agriculture.

[HuckleB]

9. You know this routine is not true.

Last edited Sat Mar 5, 2016, 01:37 PM - Edit history (1)

You've been shown the reality. So, either you're in denial, or you're not being honest. Which is it?

http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2013/05/superweed/

http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2015/05/what-does-chipotles-switch-to-non-gmo-ingredients-mean-for-pesticide-use/

And why do you want to use more land, when we could use it for things like forests?
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-cost-of-banning-gmos/

[PaulaFarrell]

37. "either you're in denial, or you're not being honest"

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/10/19/herbicide-resistant-super-weeds-increasingly-plaguing-farmers
Herbicide-Resistant 'Super Weeds' Increasingly Plaguing Farmers

http://www.nature.co/news/2010/100513/full/news.2010.242.html
GM crop use makes minor pests major problem
Pesticide use rising as Chinese farmers fight insects thriving on transgenic crop.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19594335
Superweeds pose GM-resistant challenge for farmers
19 September 2012 Last updated at 02:22 BST
US farmers are facing a growing challenge from weeds resistant to chemical sprays, and enduring millions of dollars in losses as a result.

[HuckleB]

39. Yes, bad journalism has propagated this meme.

Clearly, you did not bother to read the links I had posted. Those are links by actual scientists, and they show the reality. "Superweeds" are occurring at a lower rate since GMOs came on the market.

Now, try again.

http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2013/05/superweed/

You want to believe something badly, but your belief is not justified by evidence. So, that's a big problem. For you. And, unfortunately, for others who might think that the propaganda you push is scientifically accurate.

It's time for you to be responsible.

[PaulaFarrell]

44. no your belief is not justified by evidence

but you want to believe it badly. it's big problem. for you. for me not so much.

ps why would i put relaince on a crappy website run by two random guys above, say, the journal Nature?

[HuckleB]

48. Your fantasies only serve to harm the planet.

Please stop.

Also, remember that sock puppets are not allowed at DU.

[PaulaFarrell]

50. what the hell?

who am i supposed to be a sock puppet of? Do tell, it may be my soulmate. btw just because someone doesn't post a lot doesn't mean they are not real.

and of the two f us i can guarantee who cares more about the planet. and who is a shill.

[HuckleB]

55. Ah, thanks for confirming things.

You have nothing to offer to the discussion. Got it.

[PaulaFarrell]

57. no, sweetie pie

you called me a sock puppet - based on nothing. you have not supported anything you've said except for linking to a two-man band website. you are the one with nothing to contribute.

[HuckleB]

69. My suspicion is not unwarranted.

And your response doesn't make my suspicion any less likely.

[jomin41]

155. I think there is some projection by Huckle B going on here

I'd say HuckleB is the sock puppet.

[HuckleB]

186. In other words, evidence means nothing to you.

Of course, if you're going with the anti-GMO fictions, that's not surprising. Of course, one has to wonder where you came from, out of the blue.

PS:

5 Reasons to Avoid GMO Food

http://modernliberals.com/5-reasons-to-avoid-gmo-food/

[truedelphi]

61. Oh for Pete's sake, the data from the US Dept of Agriculture contradicts yr thesis!

https://www.organicconsumers.org/old_articles/ge/ge_herbicides.php

GE Crops Need More, Not Less, Herbicides
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
The GM industry has always claimed that the advantage of herbicide-tolerant
(HT) GM crops is that they lead to reduced herbicide use. This is supposedly because as a GM crop grows, a farmer can spray the company's wide-spectrum herbicide that will kill all weeds but not the GM crop. Farmers can use just one type of herbicide rather than a mixture of herbicides. This would supposedly be better environmentally, and cheaper for the farmer.

But an examination of data from the US Department of Agriculture, shows that GM crops have led to increasing amounts of herbicide use over the years. Although the number of different types of herbicide used on a GM farm has reduced, the overall volume of herbicide has on average increased by 50 million pounds (weight) per year in the US.

A recent report from the Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Center confirms what many critics of GM have been saying for years. Wide-spectrum herbicides (in the US, Monsanto's glyphosate, or "Roundup" is the most
common) lead to "Superweeds". Superweeds can arise through a number of
ways: through selection pressure on weed populations; gene transfer from GM crops to wild relatives; or through "volunteers" of the crop appearing unwanted in following years. These weeds can therefore only be killed through increased dosages or by mixing in stronger herbicides. Thus the long-term effectiveness of herbicide-tolerant crops will always be limited.

[HuckleB]

66. No , it doesn't. And quoting a marketing outfit is not ok.

You are quoting a debunked "study" funded by organic companies. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2012/10/03/when-bad-news-stories-help-bad-science-go-viral/#.Vtt-U6876K0

[Major Nikon]

150. Someone in these threads inevitably quotes OCA, NaturalNews, Mercola, etc.

[Major Nikon]

149. Gotta love OCA. They are a laugh a minute

Homeopathic nuttery:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/news/anti-science-authority-asa-provokes-rebellion-homeopaths

9/11 nuttery:
https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/911-consensus-panel-factual-evidence-contradicts-official-story

Anti-vax nuttery:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/news/breaking-courts-discreetly-confirm-mmr-vaccine-causes-autism

Food irradiation nuttery:
https://www.organicconsumers.org/categories/irradiation

Fluoridation nuttery:
https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/portland-oregon-votes-no-water-fluoridation

[truedelphi]

159. It might shock you to find out that many decent scientists have done work on the issue of the

Huge risks and small benefits related to RoundUp's use, including Warren Porter, PhD, Marc Lappe, and Don Huber.

Monsanto has a very hard time trying to contradict Huber's claims, as he was a company man for them until he retired!

[Major Nikon]

160. Not sure how that makes OCA less of a completely nutbag source

[truedelphi]

168. Because a media pipeline is just that.

A fact that the people here who only post on these topics (I mean, does HuckleB ever post on anything related to campaigns of candidates etc?) fail to realize.

If CNN states the world is round, it is round,even though I don't care for CNN. I quit caring for them when they started in on the Welsstone plane going down due to wether, even though the MN reporter that Wolf Blitzer interrupted had been telling the truth that the weather was not to blame.

Same with any other informational pipeline.

Alex Jones states the truth sometimes. Quite often the various organics associations state the truth.

The people that many of us no longer believe are the Big Industry-controlled scientists.

And Big Industry-controlled media.

[Major Nikon]

169. Sure, everyone who disagrees with nutbags like OCA MUST be part of the conspiracy

Got it.

[HuckleB]

214. Well, the OCA's fans do seem focused on spreading the BS at DU.

Hmmmmmmm.

[pbmus]

30. Very true and thanks for your input

[HuckleB]

34. Prove that it's true with a consensus of science.

Thanks.

[pbmus]

164. Well

"

[HuckleB]

171. Yup. You have nothing but fictions.

So why do you spread them?

[2naSalit]

152. And the decline in polinator populations.....nt

[gyroscope]

12. Another study funded by Monsanto?

How Corporations Like Monsanto Have Hijacked Higher Education

...The report found that nearly one quarter of research funding at land grant universities now comes from corporations, compared to less than 15 percent from the USDA. Although corporate funding of research surpassed USDA funding at these universities in the mid-1990s, the gap is now larger than ever. What's more, a broader look at all corporate agricultural research, $7.4 billion in 2006, dwarfs the mere $5.7 billion in all public funding of agricultural research spent the same year.

Influence does not end with research funding, however. In 2005, nearly one third of agricultural scientists reported consulting for private industry. Corporations endow professorships and donate money to universities in return for having buildings, labs and wings named for them. Purdue University's Department of Nutrition Science blatantly offers corporate affiliates “corporate visibility with students and faculty” and “commitment by faculty and administration to address (corporate) members' needs,” in return for the $6,000 each corporate affiliate pays annually.

http://www.alternet.org/story/155375/how_corporations_like_monsanto_have_hijacked_higher_education

[HuckleB]

26. Reality.

http://thelogicofscience.com/2015/04/18/follow-the-money-the-finances-of-global-warming-vaccines-and-gmos/

[pbmus]

31. Still looking for the Monsanto clause explanation

[HuckleB]

32. So FANTASY is all you have to offer.

How is it that you don't question that reality?

[pbmus]

36. The Monsanto clause is government corruption at the expense

of citizens health ..

http://www.ibtimes.com/monsanto-protection-act-5-terrifying-things-know-about-hr-933-provision-1156079

[HuckleB]

38. Why do you hate farmers?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/mpa.asp

http://debunkingdenialism.com/tag/monsanto-protection-act/

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/the-monsanto-protection-act-and-why-you-were-duped/

[G_j]

14. does that "ecological" assessment include

the effects on components of the environment such as butterflies etc.?

[HuckleB]

15. Why wouldn't it?

[HuckleB]

27. Do you realize that the issue with butterflies is the loss of habitat?

And that eliminating GMOs will create a need for more farm land and less habitat for butterflies?

[jomin41]

157. the issue with butterflies is also GMO's

Toxic pollen from widely planted, genetically modified corn can kill monarch butterflies, Cornell study shows
By
Blaine Friedlander
monarch caterpillars
Kent Loeffler
Monarch caterpillars on a milkweed leaf dusted with pollen

An increasingly popular commercial corn, genetically engineered to produce a bacterial toxin to protect against corn pests, has an unwanted side effect: Its pollen kills monarch butterfly larvae in laboratory tests, according to a report by Cornell University researchers

http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1999/04/toxic-pollen-bt-corn-can-kill-monarch-butterflies

[True Earthling]

166. Not true according to this USDA study...

Does Bt corn present a risk to monarch butterflies?
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/btcorn/index.html#bt1

There is no significant risk to monarch butterflies from environmental exposure to Bt corn, according to research conducted by a group of scientists coordinated by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), U.S. Department of Agriculture. This research was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

That Bt corn might present a risk became a matter of scientific and public concern when a small experiment in 1999 indicated caterpillars suffered when given no choice but to feed on milkweed leaves heavily dusted with Bt corn pollen.

The issue focused on the pollen of Bt corn because it, like any corn pollen, can blow onto milkweed leaves, which are the exclusive diet of monarch caterpillars.

Two major questions needed to be answered to determine whether there was any actual risk to monarch caterpillars from the Bt pollen:

How much Bt corn pollen does it take before there are any toxic effects on caterpillars?

What is the likelihood that caterpillars might be exposed to that much pollen?

The studies in this project showed that monarch caterpillars have to be exposed to pollen levels greater than 1,000 grains/cm2 to show toxic effects.

Caterpillars were found to be present on milkweed during the one to two weeks that pollen is shed by corn, but corn pollen levels on milkweed leaves were found to average only about 170 pollen grains/cm2 in corn fields.

Reports from several field studies show concentrations much lower than that even within the cornfield. In Maryland, the highest level of pollen deposition was inside and at the edge of the corn field, where pollen was found at about 50 grains/cm2. In the Nebraska study, pollen deposition ranged from 6 grains/cm2 at the field edge to less than 1 grain/cm2 beyond 10 meters. Samples collected from fields in Ontario immediately following the period of peak pollen shed showed pollen concentrations averaged 78 grains at the field edge.

But what about the very worst possibility of risk?
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/btcorn/index.html#bt4

One Bt corn variety or event–Bt 176–was found to have some negative effects on monarch caterpillars with pollen concentrations of only 10 grains/cm2. Bt 176 was the earliest developed Bt corn and was quickly supplanted by other types; it has never been planted on more than 2 percent of all the acres planted with corn. It likely will be phased out by 2003.

[womanofthehills]

185. That's an old USDA study

New studies show the opposite.

[HuckleB]

176. A 16-year-old study that has never been replicated.

WOW!

[Mendocino]

16. Eliminating animal based food

would do far more to decrease greenhouse emissions and global warming.

[longship]

40. Good luck with that.

BTW, I am an omnivore. I don't eat as much meat as I used to, mainly because of age. However, human and ancestors have been omnivores for millions of years.

So, as I wrote above, good luck with that.

[Mendocino]

43. Whether or not humans agree with it,

if less animal based food were consumed, the sustainability of the earth would be enhanced.

[longship]

46. I believe you're correct.

But that isn't going to stop people from eating meat. In fact, I think the only solution is to live with things the way it is, or maybe make slow, incremental change.

Also, instead of doing with less, we could be using our smarts to do more with less, become more efficient. That is my position.

[Mendocino]

52. Well then it's matter of time,

humans can slam the brakes and reverse the course we are on, or they can continue on a slow transition or nothing at all. But sooner before later will come crunch time; better a population fed with sustainability rather than one existing for a short time "high on the hog". We will have to change!

[longship]

56. I like the concept to do more using less.

And one never knows, they are working on laboratory grown meat, no animals necessary except for maybe for some starter stem cells, or something like that.

We may yet get to have a burger and fries, no animals harmed.

One question though. What happens to all the domesticated cattle on the planet? There are millions of head and they are not ready to live on their own and haven't been for many centuries. The same thing with any other domesticated animal. They can't survive in the wild very well, if at all.

That could be an important issue. The domesticated cows? We'd likely have to let them go extinct. They aren't very good pets, I wouldn't think.

My best to you.

[nationalize the fed]

62. We already do

We may yet get to have a burger and fries, no animals harmed.

And most of it (except Morningstar Farms) isn't GMO.

laboratory grown meat

Plant protein is better. And it's not "laboratory grown".

No GMO food will ever be allowed in my house. Ever. And I'm doing a pretty good job of telling people who have no idea that their kitchens are filled with this engineered nonsense.

Many people are surprised when they learn that upon eating a US candy bar they are eating GMO's. But more know every day. And they are glad to be informed.



The GMO industry has been good at sneaking this garbage into the food supply- everything with corn syrup, soy or sugar is now GMO but watch what happens in the next few years.

[longship]

64. Veggie meat? Ugh!

And let me give you a hint. All the food you eat is genetically engineered. All of it!

There is no qualitative difference between cross-breeding and deliberately inserting genes in a plant or animal. None whatsoever! Except that the gene insertion has much higher specificity and therefore less likely to cause problems.

And before anybody starts bleating about Frankenfood (screeching about inserting bacterial DNA in food), your food already shares a significant portion of its genes with bacteria. BTW, you too, share a significant portion of your genes with bacteria.

It's called evolution. All life on the planet shares a common origin. All life on Earth
is bacterial! All of it!

The anti-science anti-GMO ideologues need to learn some fucking science.

My best to you.

[StandingInLeftField]

77. You start throwing the F-word around

and you better starting giving some citations.

[longship]

85. The burden of proof is not on me.

I could cite a thousand articles on the safety of genetic modification and how it is no different in kind to what humans have been doing for thousands of years. The entire field of biology supports it.

You are the one making the extraordinary claim against all that science is wrong.

So the burden is on you.

One good study could collapse the entire genetic science infrastructure that states that what humans have been doing for thousands of years is safe.

That's how science works.

[HuckleB]

75. So you think organic marketing will win the day?

Increasing food prices and using more land to grow less food for no good reason?

Yikes.

[Major Nikon]

165. Just because you are obvious to the effects of soy production, doesn't mean no animals are harmed

http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/agriculture/soy/impacts/

[Mendocino]

63. It's not as though

that humans would stop eating livestock overnight, then having to deal with an overabundance of uneaten animals wandering aimlessly around without purpose. Yes there would be a transition, but to keep eating alive them in order to somehow to mitigate their suffering is a diversion. Cattle never being bred and born would suffer no hardship; nor pigs, chickens, turkeys, sheep etc. If we feel the need to keep them from becoming extinct, which is a strange concept for what are nearly completely human engineered species, then we can keep a few examples alive in zoos or reserves, as we seem willing to to do with "wild" animals. Let us then let the remaining natural species occupy the vast areas that we let domestics inhabit. An estimated 70% of all crops grown are fed to livestock, domesticated animals yield some where around 10% average efficiency for pounds fed vs pounds realized. That is 100 pounds of feed equal 10 pounds of animal. Cattle and sheep are the worst, fish and chicken among the best.

[jones8520]

17. Okay

Sounds Good

[951-Riverside]

18. Less humans = Less GMOs

Until we start eliminating the useless consumer class by a billion or two, our globe will continue to heat up.

Humans are a disease and there needs to be a cure ASAP.

[Humanist_Activist]

19. Are you volunteering to be first?

This misanthropic bullshit serves what purpose?

[brett_jv]

20. I'll happily be first to NOT have the little resource-suckers known as 'kids' ...

I'm turning 50 this year, and have proudly and completely voluntarily ... NOT reproduced.

When people talk about population reduction, they're generally not talking about killing off actual living people, but rather ... reducing birth rates.

Or were you NOT aware of that?

[Lancero]

21. He didn't say reduce. He said eliminate.

These two words have entirely different meanings.

[The2ndWheel]

24. Every institution we've built is based on there being more people

Specifically more young people. Just like taking out GMO's changes the equation, so does taking out people.

[HuckleB]

25. So why make the equation worse by eliminating GMOs?

[tritsofme]

42. So what are you waiting for?

Be part of the solution!

[longship]

41. The science is compelling. GMO food is safe.

And remember, genetic modification is not just about fucking Monsanto or Roundup.

Most of the research is done in academic institutions.

[GreatGazoo]

51. It is "safe" if you're RoundUp Ready.

T Bohn et al 2013

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814613019201

[longship]

53. The Roundup argument is a non-starter.

As is any mention of Monsanto.

The amount of genetic modification used for Roundup or owned by Monsanto is trivial.

But that is the only argument that the anti-science anti-GMO ideologues have. So any time somebody wants to show that genetic modification has been demonstrated to be safe by decades of research and use, they hear bleating about Monsanto and Roundup.

That dog doesn't hunt. It has nothing to do with genetic modification other than one single instance of its use, among the multitude of thousands that don't involve Monsanto or Roundup -- all demonstrably safe as shown by science!!

The anti-GMO arguments are all ideological and have nothing to do with the facts.

[Major Nikon]

158. Shit research published by a shitty pay-to-play journal citing other shit research

Cites discredited work by cranks Benbrook and Seralini both of which was funded by the organic industry.

[basselope]

71. That's a nonsensical statement.

You can't make a generic claim about ALL GMO food.

Most is safe... some.. not so much. Some, we don't know yet.. its one of those fun things you get to find out years later.

Just label it, so consumers can make informed choices.

[HuckleB]

72. What would labeling it tell you?

It's a seed development technology.

[basselope]

73. It could allow me to do research prior to buying a product to find out information.

If it is safe, then labeling it is no big deal.

[HuckleB]

74. You can already do that.

Why don't you want all seed development technologies labeled? And what GMOs are not safe?

[basselope]

78. I do want them all labeled.

CDC Triffid originally found safe and then banned.

There have a been a host of them pulled off the market after being on them for sometime.

Most are safe.. some are not.

[HuckleB]

81. Let's see links to you posts advocating for all seed techs to be labeled.

And let's see links to all the GMO seeds that were on the market but were pulled off because they were unsafe.

I'll be waiting.

[basselope]

83. I already gave it to you.

You don't believe in Climate change either, do you?

[HuckleB]

84. You gave me nothing.

No links at all. And those who deny climate change equate to those who deny the safety of GMOs. So, you might want to ponder reality before you respond by ignoring my questions again. Now, can you answer them, with actual links?

[basselope]

86. See other post for peer reviewed studies.

I gave you the name of specific GMOS PULLED from the market for safety reasons.

Just keep living in denial or go work for the tobacco industry.. I hear they are hiring.

[HuckleB]

88. You posted three cherry picked studies about glyphosate, not GMOs.

And your list of pulled GMOs?

One that was never utilized much.

And you haven't noted that the same thing can happen with any other seed development technologies.

And I see no links to your advocacy for labels on all seed development tech.

Like I said, I'll wait. Google won't save you, btw. You have to learn how science works. You clearly have no idea how science works.

The one study that sort of links to GMOs has been shown to have many problems.

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/gmo-foods-transfer-dna-humans-another-myth/

Meanwhile, there are now thousands of studies on GMOs, showing no problems. Hmmm.

[basselope]

94. They are GMOS

*SIGH*

Don't fall off the end of the earth on your next walk.

[HuckleB]

95. So you can't support your claims. Got it.

You owe us an apology, not an attack.

[basselope]

97. I did support the claims.

Your refusal to understand it is not my problem.

[HuckleB]

98. You supported none of your claims.

Everyone who reads the head can see that. Wake up.

[basselope]

101. Gave you direct information AND links

Your inability to accept facts is NOT my problem.

[HuckleB]

116. No, you didn't.

Why are you denying reality?

[HuckleB]

135. I'm still waiting.

Can you support your claims? If not, why not?

[HuckleB]

137. And still waiting.

[womanofthehills]

163. Give me a break - all your articles are corporate cherry picked

zzz

[HuckleB]

172. Wrong.

The consensus on the safety of GMOs is astounding, across hundreds of studies. The only cherry picking noted is the ludicrous nonsense promoted by the unethical anti-GMO movement. You are no the wrong side of science, ecology, humanity, and history.

[longship]

76. Fine, than you provide a peer reviewed article that falsifies it.

Hopefully one without that fraud Seralini's name on it.

It is not up to me to falsify your claim that genetic modification is bad. This is especially true since humans have been doing it for ten thousand years or more.

If you think it is bad than the burden of proof is on you, not the ten thousand years of successful and apparently healthy genetic modification that gives us all of our food, which seems to be doing us quite well. Thank you.

Instead, the anti-science, anti-GMO ideologues squeek and quack about frankenfoods and cross-species splices when none of the science -- none of it -- supports that bleating.

In other words, they need to put up some evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny.

All they have is bleating.

[HuckleB]

79. You forgot the organic shills Benbrook and Seneff.

Oh, and Taleb. Yeah, the last two don't know the first thing about genetics, biology, or chemistry, but that doesn't stop the propagandists from spreading their silliness.

[basselope]

82. The burden is easily met

By the number of them taken off the market after spending time on them.. .listed several in another post.

However, if you want some studies.

https://www.uclm.es/Actividades/repositorio/pdf/doc_3721_4666.pdf

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0069805

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170

http://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/detection-of-glyphosate-residues-in-animals-and-humans-2161-0525.1000210.pdf


You can find many MANY studies showing problems.

That doesn't mean ALL GMOs are bad, as the definition of GMO is quite loose Brochifolower is a GMO.

But, to make a blanket statement that ALL GMOS ARE SAFE is just untrue and not supported by science.

[longship]

89. Okay. Let's take these one at a time.

Last edited Sat Mar 5, 2016, 10:11 PM - Edit history (1)

The first one is about herbicides, specifically glyphosate, on GM crops, not the genetic modification itself. The cited problem in the study is the herbicide, not the genetic modification. So that claim is busted!

The second one is a total non sequitur. It talks about DNA surviving the digestive system, which has been disputed. It says nothing whatsoever about genetic modification in the abstract. And, at any rate, any food you eat is going to have DNA in it. And like all life on Earth, that DNA is going to have sea cucumber genes, bacterial genes, fish genes, reptilian genes, etc., we are all one tree of life, all inter-related. All life on Earth shares genes with each other, from the smallest bacteria to the largest whale. Genetic modification does not change that fact whether it was done in the Fertile Crescent thousands of years ago, or in a genetics laboratory at some agriculture school in the 21st century.

Third one, yet another glyphosate paper. Another total non-sequitur. Apparently you did not read my previous post that said such arguments are non-starters as only a few cultivars are genetically modified to tolerate Roundup. And here the problem would be the Roundup, not the genetic modification, which has been tested safe.

And of course, the fourth one is glyphosate, too and says nothing about genetic modification. You guys love to ring that glyphosate bell when it says dick all about genetic modification.

Sorry. But you've got nothing. None of your papers address the claim that genetic modification is in any way deleterious to health. And NO! Papers on herbicides do not address your core claim that GM is in any way bad on its own.

And I had to do this on a fucking iPhone!

Regardless, thanks for trying. I hope that I have helped. I apologize but science is more than just making an argument. One has to have evidence that supports ones claim. That is missing in your response.

My regards to you.

[longship]

100. That is a real insulting thing to post.

I will give you a chance to self-delete.

[basselope]

102. Don't fall off the edge.

[longship]

103. OMFG! Really?

I really did waste time responding, didn't I?

Since you obviously have nothing intelligent left to say, I bid you a good night, sir. And I see no need to be a jerk about it.

Adieux!

[basselope]

104. You were given links, decided to play the denial game.

Climate change deniers do it ALL the time.

Here's one more for fun.

http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf

Don't worry, I am sure you will find some way to ignore it as well.

[longship]

108. I did not ignore it, I refuted it. Big difference.

Science is a bitch. One does not get to just make stuff up.

I see you cited an organic site.

Any organic argument is going to be a non-starter with me, too. Because "organic" is a marketing term, not based on any science. Yes, there are so-called practices, which seem good at first blush, but when studied by science offer not much benefit. Organic food is certainly not more healthy. That has been found in multiple studies. The organic pesticides are just as bad, so that's basically a wash. An organic farmer's field may adjoin a commercial farm which means that there may be no clear delineation between their practices (over-spraying, etc.).

If organic has anything going for it, it is that it might have better flavor (a bit subjective, however. How does one test that?) and it might be fresher since it's not coming from Tierra del Fuego.

The problem is, it's grossly expensive. So I buy it only when something looks particularly good. On my low income, that's the best I can do.

I will review the link and get back.

[basselope]

112. Perfect example. "organic" is a non starter.

As you did with the other links... just dismissed out of hand w/o ACTUALLY reviewing... not refuting.

Did you bother to read the abstract?

"A significant number of genetically modified (GM) crops have been approved to enter
human food and animal feed since 1996, including crops containing several GM genes
'stacked' into the one plant. We randomised and fed isowean pigs (N=168) either a mixed
GM soy and GM corn (maize) diet (N=84) or an equivalent non-GM diet (N=84) in a longterm
toxicology study of 22.7 weeks (the normal lifespan of a commercial pig from
weaning to slaughter). Equal numbers of male and female pigs were present in each
group. The GM corn contained double and triple-stacked varieties. Feed intake, weight
gain, mortality and blood biochemistry were measured. Organ weights and pathology
were determined post-mortem. There were no differences between pigs fed the GM and
non-GM diets for feed intake, weight gain, mortality, and routine blood biochemistry
measurements. The GM diet was associated with gastric and uterine differences in pigs.
GM-fed pigs had uteri that were 25% heavier than non-GM fed pigs (p=0.025). GM-fed
pigs had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation with a rate of 32% of GM-fed pigs
compared to 12% of non-GM-fed pigs (p=0.004). The severe stomach inflammation was
worse in GM-fed males compared to non-GM fed males by a factor of 4.0 (p=0.041), and
GM-fed females compared to non-GM fed females by a factor of 2.2 (p=0.034)."

It's not about ORGANIC vs NON-ORGANIC. It is ABOUT GM.




http://mbio.asm.org/content/6/2/e00009-15

Sorry, you can't just IGNORE a study b/c the word Glyphosate is used, which is what you did earlier.

The title of this PEER REVIEW STUDY "Sublethal Exposure to Commercial Formulations of the Herbicides Dicamba, 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid, and Glyphosate Cause Changes in Antibiotic Susceptibility in Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium" Notice the use of AND Glyphosate. Not ONLY.

There are dozens of them, that, at a MINIMUM raise questions.

Further, to make a statement that all GMOs are safe is nonsensical since it misinterprets the concept of the words... GMO, Genetically Modified Organism. You can't make a blanket statement about ALL GMOs, since new ones come along each and every day.. some make it to the market, some don't. Some make it onto the market and are then removed.

Saying GMOS are safe is like saying "Chemicals are safe". Some are.. some aren't. Each one needs independent study to determine its safety and not studies funded by the companies profiting from the sale of the GMO.

[longship]

114. My response to your Carman study has been posted here.

It took me a while to get through it and find the peer review. See my response below your post.

[longship]

113. Apparently that paper did not pass peer review.

Here's David Gorski's take on it:

Carman’s study resembles the Seralini study in that it basically looks at a whole lot of outcomes in a fairly arbitrary fashion and cherry picks the inevitable “positive” result. In fact, if you take all the groups together, there actually appears to be a non-statistically significant trend towards less stomach inflammation in the GMO group. Yes, less. As Karl Haro von Mogel put it, the authors appeared to be “trying to shoe-horn individual categories that aren’t binary data into a statistical test designed for binary data is the wrong approach.” Basically, however you look at it, there’s just no “there” there. Analyzed correctly, there is no statistically significant (or, no doubt, biologically significant) difference in stomach inflammation in this study. As for the reported increase in uterus weights, as Professor David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge points out, “There are also 19 other reported statistical tests, which means we would expect one significant association just by chance: and so the apparent difference in uterus weight is likely to be a false positive.”

The bottom line is that there are many, many problems with this study, the totality of which are more than enough to render its results meaningless. There is no dose-dependent mechanism for the effects reported, no rhyme or reason consistent with a mechanism that would explain why GMOs would affect just the stomach (and then only to cause severe inflammation) and uterus size. The study was a fishing expedition and not hypothesis-driven. It’s not surprising that it found something. I’d be shocked if it hadn’t. In the end, this study abused a fairly large number of innocent pigs to produce no useful data. She might try to defend it against criticism, but she basically fails. In particular, one notes that she can’t seem to defend against the charge of a lack of hypothesis and that she didn’t even try to defend the criticism that she didn’t bother to look at stomach histology to verify that there really was inflammation in the gastric mucosa, despite Carman’s touting that the “authors have over 60 years of combined experience and expertise in medicine, animal husbandry, animal nutrition, animal health, veterinary science, biochemistry, toxicology, medical research, histology, risk assessment, epidemiology and statistics.” Sad that they didn’t use all that experience to produce a paper whose results are believable and useful.

Much more at this link: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/judy-carman/

That study has been roundly panned.

As I wrote, science is tough. One does not post papers that go on fishing expeditions. An experiment without a previous hypothesis is useless when one looks at many outcomes and one finds a correlation with a couple of them. In the case of this paper one of the cited outcomes (stomach) was stated opposite to the data results!!! The other cited outcome (uterus) is consistent with statistical variation, in other words, useless, especially since that was not an hypothesis going in.

This paper is being brutally challenged on peer review. It fails.

Thanks for responding politely, this time.

My regards.

[HuckleB]

120. Oh, geez. I didn't notice he's gone with Carman's bad science.

The arrogance with this one is astounding.

[longship]

123. And Gorski panned it!!

Plus, all the other papers he cited said nothing whatever about GM. Just glyphosate, the usual dodge, as if that had anything to do with it.

Opposing genetic modification is like opposing climate change. It is a shell game. Three Card Monty. The Gish gallop.

Well, at least we didn't get Seralini yet again.

[HuckleB]

131. Yup. Yet the poster in question tries to attack reality...

... By comparing pro-science people with climate change deniers and flat earth conspiracy folks. Oddly, the poster in question doesn't realize that he/she is the one who is acting like a climate change denier.

[True Earthling]

162. If there was one credible study that showed GMO's cause health problems

I would be more inclined to support labeling However there are zero studies which show anything harmful from GMOs.

We have been feeding GMO feed to 95% of the U.S. livestock since 1996. There have been zero health issues reported by the livestock industry...that's 9 billion animals per year for 20 years. If it's not harming the animals we eat there's less chance that it's harming us... especially considering the number of animals(180 billion!) that eat GMO compared to us.

Whole protein, RNA and DNA are digested..GMO genes have never been found in animal tissue.

[alarimer]

65. Google "golden rice" if you think GMOs are all terrible

That has the potential to save eyesight and even lives where dietary vitamin A shortages are common.

[longship]

80. Yup! It prevents children from going BLIND!!!

Nice play!

[eridani]

87. Except for the slight problem that potential consumers don't get enough fat in their--

--diets to absorb it, and would have to eat really huge amounts of rice to get the MDR. Twice yearly Vitamin A capsules at a nickle a pot are faster and cheaper.

[truedelphi]

90. You are using too much logic there, Kiddo.

Logic escaped from the thinking of the pro Gm crowd at least ten years ago!

[HuckleB]

91. Ah, so you're signing on to the unethical anti- Golden Rice crusade.

That's quite a confession to make.

[eridani]

92. No, just saying that is isn't going to help as much as cheaper solutions

The reason I have no problem with the research is that it is being carried out by a non-profit organization which will give the seeds away. That can't possibly do any harm.

[HuckleB]

96. And yet here you are spreading anti-GMO propaganda.

You can't have it both ways.

[eridani]

99. I do not want my food saturated with Monsanto pesticides

Nor do I want corporate dictatorship over our food supply.

Given that I use insulin from genetically modified bacteria, I'm hardly against the technology. But do you know what else they do to the bugs besides add the human insulin gene? They slice out a number of genes that are necessary for the synthesis of critical nutrients, so they can't survive outside of a very complex nutrient bath.

IOW, they went to a great deal of trouble to keep them from getting into the general environment. Now why do you suppose they did that?

[HuckleB]

118. Nice ridiculous organic marketing propaganda.

You ignore science, which means you will promote much worse pesticides and mic worse land use. You have been conned. It's time to get pissed at the people who have conned you.

[eridani]

121. So, you are shilling for insulin-producing bacteria in the wild? Why? n/t

[HuckleB]

122. Lol! So you can't justify any of your stances.

Paranoia based on ignorance is still just paranoia.

[eridani]

124. So do inform us why scinetists went through all the trouble of making sure--

--that insulin producing bacteria could not live in the wild. That obviously means that you are against science.

[HuckleB]

127. So you don't know anything about the topic, but...

... You have no problem making wild claims.

Wow.

When you show that you have actually bothered to understand the topic, get back to us.

[eridani]

224. I know enough to know that insulin synthesizing bacteria are also modified so that

--they can't escape into the wild. Please post a URL demonstrating that is is not true. Or if you agree that it's true, please explain why they went through the extra trouble.

[HuckleB]

225. Lol. And now you're off on a tangent.

A classic anti-GMO move.

Btw, when will other breeding types take the extra step you so desire?

And when will you justify your claims?

[eridani]

229. So, why do actual scientists not want insulin synthesizing bacteria in the wild? n/t

[HuckleB]

230. And you're stuck.

It's amazing that you repeatedly show that you're not able to discuss anything with a full bearing on what actually matters. Lame attempts at making "points" out of context help no one. They lead to bad decision making. It's time to join the whole of the world, not just the parts that fit the fantasy you want to believe.

[eridani]

231. Scientists do not want insulin-synthesizing bacteria in the wild. Why? n/t

[longship]

106. I think I've got your problem here.

Vitamin A capsules do not grow in the Asian rice patties, yellow rice does! Problem solved without having to pay some big supplement maker. All they have to do is what they do anyway, eat their rice. They don't have money for the capsules anyway.

Yellow rice is a simple, elegant solution. And it is open source!

And the kids don't go blind anymore!

[eridani]

107. They don't need money. International aid agencies give them away for free

You haven't explained how they can ingest beta carotene without sufficient fat in the diet.

[longship]

109. I am not a dietician, so I don't know the answer.

I did not think that vitamin A was fat soluble. Is it?

[longship]

110. Well, apparently the yellow rice works fine.

Because the kids have apparently stopped going freaking blind, which was the whole point.

[eridani]

111. Documentation?

Wondering how they are thriving on carbs with little fat and protein.

[longship]

125. Gish gallop, my friend. Rice has no carbs or fat.

You are trying to change the subject, which is yellow rice, genetically modified to supply nutrients so children in Asia don't have to go blind.

I think that's a damned good use of a technology.

[HuckleB]

129. Yes, that was one of the funniest anti-GMO posts yet.

"Golden rice is not the perfect food, so let's just stop trying to help people now." Or something like that. Sheesh.

[longship]

133. Science is hard! For some people...

Defending the borders from the herds.

And Steven Novella is a steely-eyed science guy. (Gotta promote SGU here, with homage to Andy Weir.)

[HuckleB]

143. It's much easier to blindly oppose good things.

This poster actually thinks he/she has a criticism that the researchers haven't explored. It's just bizarre.

http://www.goldenrice.org/Content3-Why/why1_vad.php

[eridani]

138. Why eat it if you can't absorb the beta carotene?

You know those little oily capsules people take for vitamins A, E and D? They are taken in oil because they won't be absorbed otherwise.

No one has yet posted an article documenting that eating golden rice has saved anyone from blindness. It's apparently enough that it might. This is science?

Want to help kids right now? Make a donation.
https://www.vitaminangels.org/faqs

[HuckleB]

145. Way to fall for the unethical anti-GMO nonsense.

[eridani]

130. The subject is that you can't absorb fat soluble vitamins without fat.

It doesn't mean jack shit if it is in their carbs but doesn't get into their intestines.

[HuckleB]

132. So you like red herrings.

We already knew that.

Repeating anti-GMO talking points that you don't understand is not going to help anyone. You're just serving the bidding of unethical corporations and acam artists.

[eridani]

139. Repeating idiotic talking points about golden rice isn't helping anyone either

Theoretically it could help, but it has never been demonstrated.

[HuckleB]

140. Lol.

"Talking points."

[eridani]

141. Show me the URL demonstrating that golden rice is effective in real life

In the real world, those of us who take fat-soluble vitamins notice that they come in capsules with oil in them also.

[HuckleB]

142. You really don't get it, do you?

You actually think the researchers haven't thought about this?

You don't know anything about the topic. You have made that very clear.

http://www.goldenrice.org/Content3-Why/why1_vad.php

[eridani]

144. The article talks about potential benefits, not actual ones n/t

[HuckleB]

146. Oh, brother.

You really don't understand how science works. Your VS has been shown to be worthless, over and over again. You are working to keep positive change from happening in the world. That is simply onconscionable.

[eridani]

147. Science is not about making nutritional claims without substantiation.

What's the fucking big deal about feeding some kids in rice-growing regions some golden rice and checking for whether or not going blind is inhibited? Can't you find even one reference demonstrating that someone did that? None of your links show that.

[HuckleB]

153. You seem to think you can just make things up,

And they'll magically be accurate. Nope. The anti-GMO movement works to stop all possible studies, and you pretend otherwise. You haven't read the links given to you, for Pete's sake.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/08/26/golden_rice_attack_in_philippines_anti_gmo_activists_lie_about_protest_and.html

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

[eridani]

167. I asked for a reference empirically demonstrating that golden rice prevents blindness

Where is it?

[HuckleB]

173. And you don't understand how science works.

You continually change the goal posts, just because you want to pretend that you have some point. You have no point.

[eridani]

192. Then the scientists who do double blind studies on new drugs are not really scientists?

I'll ask again. Where is a reference demonstrating that golden rice decreases blindness in human populations. You know--have a control group with regular rice and the study group with golden rice. Why do you think this isn't scientific?

Even if it doesn't, given that the work is being done by a non-profit, ongoing research is fine with me. Also given that the beta carotene genes are not foreign--they already exist in the leaves, so getting them to express in the seeds is most likely harmless. But is it beneficial? You are apparently opposed to studies that would test that hypothesis.

[HuckleB]

194. Way to pull out of your past framework, so you can pretend some more.

You really think you can just toss things out there, and they'll all stick. You're just showing that you don't get it. But I do appreciate the confessions.

[eridani]

196. The whole subthread is about requesting info on the benefits of golden rice--

--for human populations. Is it there, or not?

[HuckleB]

197. Your have shown no desire to discuss anything.

You simply ignore all information you don't like. Until you change that behavior, there can be no discussion.

[eridani]

215. I want a link to a stury showing that golden rice prevents blindness in human populations

Why are you so unwilling to provide it?

[HuckleB]

216. And you prove my point again.

You fight against positive human endeavors with every possible piece of nonsense you can utilize. That's ludicrous.

You apparently think things must pop up out of nowhere with all the i's dotted and t's crossed, and therefore you can just attack things with ludicrous silliness. The lack of shame is astounding.

The reality is this: http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/good-as-gold-can-golden-rice-and-other-biofortified-crops-prevent-malnutrition/

You won't care, and I don't care that you don't care.

[eridani]

217. Still no population studies

If 1/3 a cup of golden rice will do the trick, why haven't they studied it in actual human populations? A few experimental subjects if not enough (although necessary to check bioavailabilty first).

[HuckleB]

218. Still no ability to discuss the issue.

You don't want human studies. You support the very group's fighting against human studies.

Cut the crap.

Goodbye. Your ludicrous posts are now putting me to sleep.

[eridani]

220. I absolutely want human studies.

I think that since the beta carotene genes are already in rice leaves, getting them to express in the grain is no big deal. And it's a very far cry from inserting glyphosphate resistant genes into crops.

[HuckleB]

221. No, you don't.

Nice try.

[eridani]

222. So don't believe me. Apparently there is some whacked-out standard of consistency--

--you have which equates research done by a non-profit intending to give away the products of its research with corporate whores like Monsanto.

[HuckleB]

223. Actions matter.

Your posts speak loudly. Very loudly. As do the actions of your anti-GMO heroes.

[HuckleB]

134. But! But! GMO! Scary letters!

[longship]

136. That's why I call it genetic modification.

It confuses them, boggles their mind.

Especially when I explain that humans have been doing it for thousands of years and that every single scrap of food on their table is genetically modified by humans.

They don't get it.

And when they flap their gums about bacterial genes in the Frankenfoods I inform them of how much of their genes are bacterial genes. And oh dear! How much of their body mass is bacteria! Horrors! Talk about Frankensteins!

Ah! It's just nature. All natural.

My regards, friend.

[cheapdate]

105. Fuck Monsanto et al.

The Purdue researchers are literally a few among tens of thousands of agricultural sciences researchers in the US and abroad.

The assumption that an 11% decrease in corn yield has a fixed and direct consequence of converting 11% additional forest land to corn production is obviously artificial.

There are many viable alternatives to extensive, widespread, chemical and fossil-fuel intensive agriculture.

In any event, the overwhelming majority of greenhouse gas emissions are generated by transportation and electrical power generation, not farming.

[HuckleB]

119. The consensus among researchers is clear. GMOs are safe.

The anti-GMO movement is unethical to the core. It's time to fight for science, which can lead to true progressive principles.

[cheapdate]

156. That's just such a pig-headed statement that it really doesn't deserve an answer.

The debate is in some ways a debate over ethics; ethics of land use, agricultural policy, environmental ethics, the introduction of technology, etc., etc., etc.

You don't strike me as someone who has ever really thought deeply or critically about the ethical questions that should be (but too often are not) deliberately and carefully considered before new technologies are introduced that have potentially far-reaching and significant effects on the human world.

You strike me as someone who browses a subject and fixes on hasty and premature conclusions without any genuine reflection or critical thought.

The Union of Concerned Scientists is a nonprofit science advocacy organization based in the United States. They employ professional scientists, ethicists, and specialists of many kinds to work to solve some of our most pressing problems. They use rigorous, independent science to create science-based public policy recommendations to guide policy makers for the public good.

They have closely followed the questions over genetically engineered food crops for many years. In a recent introduction to the question, they wrote the following:

While the risks of genetic engineering are often exaggerated or misrepresented, GE crops do have the potential to cause a variety of health problems and environmental impacts. For instance, they may spread undesirable traits to weeds and non-GE crops, produce new allergens and toxins, or harm animals that consume them.

At least one major environmental impact of genetic engineering has already reached critical proportions: overuse of herbicide-tolerant GE crops has spurred an increase in herbicide use and an epidemic of herbicide-resistant "superweeds," which will lead to even more herbicide use.

How likely are other harmful GE impacts to occur? This is a difficult question to answer. Each crop-gene combination poses its own set of risks. While risk assessments are conducted as part of GE product approval, the data are generally supplied by the company seeking approval, and GE companies use their patent rights to exercise tight control over research on their products.

In short, there is a lot we don't know about the long-term and epidemiological risks of GE—which is no reason for panic, but a good reason for caution, particularly in view of alternatives that are more effective and economical.

What other choices do we have?

All technologies have risks and shortcomings, so critics must always address the question: what are the alternatives?

In the case of GE, there are two main answers: crop breeding, which produces traits through the organism’s reproductive process; and agroecological farm management, which optimizes the performance of the entire system of biophysical components—in contrast to the industrial strategy of optimizing the output of a crop, one system component, by intensive use of purchased inputs.

These approaches are generally far less expensive than GE, and often more effective. The biotechnology industry acknowledges that GE is a complement to breeding, but markets their seed on the strength of its GE traits. The industry has used its formidable marketing and lobbying resources to ensure that its products—and the industrial methods those products are designed to support—continue to dominate both the seed marketplace and the policy conversation, at the expense of ecologically based, diverse farming systems.

We understand the potential benefits of the technology, and support continued advances in molecular biology, the underlying science. But we are critics of the business models and regulatory systems that have characterized early deployment of these technologies. GE has proved valuable in some areas (as in the contained use of engineered bacteria in pharmaceutical development), and some GE applications could turn out to play a useful role in food production.

Thus far, however, GE applications in agriculture have only made the problems of industrial monocropping worse. Rather than supporting a more sustainable agriculture and food system with broad societal benefits, the technology has been employed in ways that reinforce problematic industrial approaches to agriculture. Policy decisions about the use of GE have too often been driven by biotech industry public relations campaigns, rather than by what science tells us about the most cost-effective ways to produce abundant food and preserve the health of our farmland.

These are a few things policy makers should do to best serve the public interest:

1. Expand research funding for public crop breeding programs, so that a broad range of non-GE as well as GE crop varieties will remain available.
2. Expand public research funding and incentives to further develop and adopt agroecologically based farming systems.
3. Take steps—such as changes in patent law—to facilitate independent scientific research on GE risks and benefits.
4. Take a more rigorous, independently verified approach to GE product approvals, so that products do not come to market until their risks and benefits are understood through non-biased review.

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/risks-of-genetic-engineering.html#.Vtxo3n0rI_4

Your bluster doesn't impress me at all. It masks a superficial understanding of science, technology, and ethics.

[HuckleB]

198. Promoting bad propaganda doesn't change reality.

The consensus on GMOs is very sound.

[cheapdate]

200. And dismissing as "bad propaganda", sound, serious, balanced, and well-considered opposing arguments

pretty much reveals the intellectual depth and character of your position.

[HuckleB]

201. There is nothing "sound, serious, or balanced" in your bad propaganda. Here's reality.

The world's serious, sound, and balanced scientific organization all recognize the safety of GMOs.

Now, it is time for you to stop pretending.

---------------------------------------------------------------

American Association for the Advancement of Science: ”The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.” (http://bit.ly/11cR4sB)

American Medical Association: ”There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.” (http://bit.ly/166OUdM)

World Health Organization: ”No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.” (http://bit.ly/18yzzVI)

National Academy of Sciences: ”To date more than 98 million acres of genetically modified crops have been grown worldwide. No evidence of human health problems associated with the ingestion of these crops or resulting food products have been identified.” (http://bit.ly/13Cib0Y)

The Royal Society of Medicine: ”Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA.” (http://1.usa.gov/12huL7Z)

The European Commission: ”The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” (http://bit.ly/133BoZW)

American Council on Science and Health: ”[W]ith the continuing accumulation of evidence of safety and efficiency, and the complete absence of any evidence of harm to the public or the environment, more and more consumers are becoming as comfortable with agricultural biotechnology as they are with medical biotechnology.” (http://bit.ly/12hvoyg)

American Dietetic Association: ”It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that agricultural and food biotechnology techniques can enhance the quality, safety, nutritional value, and variety of food available for human consumption and increase the efficiency of food production, food processing, food distribution, and environmental and waste management.” (http://1.usa.gov/12hvWnE)

American Phytopathological Society: ”The American Phytopathological Society (APS), which represents approximately 5,000 scientists who work with plant pathogens, the diseases they cause, and ways of controlling them, supports biotechnology as a means for improving plant health, food safety, and sustainable growth in plant productivity.” (http://bit.ly/14Ft4RL)

American Society for Cell Biology: ”Far from presenting a threat to the public health, GM crops in many cases improve it. The ASCB vigorously supports research and development in the area of genetically engineered organisms, including the development of genetically modified (GM) crop plants.” (http://bit.ly/163sWdL)

American Society for Microbiology: ”The ASM is not aware of any acceptable evidence that food produced with biotechnology and subject to FDA oversight constitutes high risk or is unsafe. We are sufficiently convinced to assure the public that plant varieties and products created with biotechnology have the potential of improved nutrition, better taste and longer shelf-life.” (http://bit.ly/13Cl2ak)

American Society of Plant Biologists: ”The risks of unintended consequences of this type of gene transfer are comparable to the random mixing of genes that occurs during classical breeding… The ASPB believes strongly that, with continued responsible regulation and oversight, GE will bring many significant health and environmental benefits to the world and its people.” (http://bit.ly/13bLJiR)

International Seed Federation: ”The development of GM crops has benefited farmers, consumers and the environment… Today, data shows that GM crops and foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts: millions of hectares worldwide have been cultivated with GM crops and billions of people have eaten GM foods without any documented harmful effect on human health or the environment.” (http://bit.ly/138rZLW)

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology: ”Over the last decade, 8.5 million farmers have grown transgenic varieties of crops on more than 1 billion acres of farmland in 17 countries. These crops have been consumed by humans and animals in most countries. Transgenic crops on the market today are as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts, and likely more so given the greater regulatory scrutiny to which they are exposed.” (http://bit.ly/11cTKq9)

Crop Science Society of America: ”The Crop Science Society of America supports education and research in all aspects of crop production, including the judicious application of biotechnology.” (http://bit.ly/138sQMB)

International Society of African Scientists: ”Africa and the Caribbean cannot afford to be left further behind in acquiring the uses and benefits of this new agricultural revolution.” (http://bit.ly/14Fp1oK)

Federation of Animal Science Societies: ”Meat, milk and eggs from livestock and poultry consuming biotech feeds are safe for human consumption.” (http://bit.ly/133F79K)

Society for In Vitro Biology: ”The SIVB supports the current science-based approach for the evaluation and regulation of genetically engineered crops. The SIVB supports the need for easy public access to available information on the safety of genetically modified crop products. In addition, the SIVB feels that foods from genetically modified crops, which are determined to be substantially equivalent to those made from crops, do not require mandatory labeling.” (http://bit.ly/18yFDxo)

Consensus document on GMOs Safety (14 Italian scientific societies): ”GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary to authorization, are to be considered, on the basis of current knowledge, safe to use for human and animal consumption.” (http://bit.ly/166WHYZ)

Society of Toxicology: ”Scientific analysis indicates that the process of GM food production is unlikely to lead to hazards of a different nature than those already familiar to toxicologists. The level of safety of current GM foods to consumers appears to be equivalent to that of traditional foods.” (http://bit.ly/13bOaSt)

“Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture” - Prepared by the Royal Society of London, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences, and the Third World Academy of Sciences:“Foods can be produced through the use of GM technology that are more nutritious, stable in storage, and in principle health promoting – bringing benefits to consumers in both industrialized and developing nations.” (http://bit.ly/17Cliq5)

French Academy of Science: ”All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria.” (http://bit.ly/15Hm3wO)

Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities: ”Food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from the corresponding conventional food. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior with respect to health.” (http://bit.ly/17ClMMF)

International Council for Science: ”Currently available genetically modified crops – and foods derived from them – have been judged safe to eat, and the methods used to test them have been deemed appropriate.” (http://bit.ly/15Hn487)

[HuckleB]

202. More than 270 organizations and scientific institutions support the safety of GM crops

http://www.siquierotransgenicos.cl/2015/06/13/more-than-240-organizations-and-scientific-institutions-support-the-safety-of-gm-crops/

[cheapdate]

203. Pretending as though the question of whether or not the food crops themselves

are directly safe or unsafe for human consumption, comprises the whole, or even the most important, of the various concerns raised over the large-scale deployment of this technology is a major fallacy. Whether it's inadvertent and born of ignorance, or willful and deliberate is impossible to say.

[HuckleB]

204. Oh, goodness. It's the old move-the-goal-posts routine.

You really have all the anti-GMO propaganda down for the parroting, don't you?

Too bad it's really unethical stuff. It's time to challenge your preconceptions. I did it. Why can't you?

BTW, you just had your nonsense shown for what it is, and you can't acknowledge that? That's really sad.

[cheapdate]

205. Bullshit. Obtuse is the only way to describe

your inability or refusal to recognize that the concerns raised over the deployment of genetic engineering technology comprise much more than a question over the safety of human ingestion of GE products.

[cheapdate]

206. Furthermore, obtuse is the only way to describe

your refusal or inability to comprehend the bio-ethical dimensions of the questions over GE.

You've been shown, and subsequently ignored, a sample of the kinds of bio-ethical concerns over the extensive deployment of genetic engineering into the world. I can only conclude that your ignorance is willful and deliberate.

You propose an unexamined and potentially dangerous belief that the deployment of genetic engineering is an approach to the problem of feeding people that entails no trade-offs whatsoever, has no potential risks or down sides, no possible future adverse effects, and furthermore that discussion and consideration of alternative solutions to the expansion of chemically dependent, extensive, monoculture, agriculture is unwarranted and undesirable.

And you have the nerve to call reasonable deliberation "propaganda". Just astonishing.

[HuckleB]

207. Oh, I understand the topic quite well. Calling me "obtuse" doesn't change that.

You seem to think that parroting bad propaganda makes you understand something you do not understand at all. We both know you don't know much about the topic. You have preconceived notions, and you are going to stick with them. Well, great for you. Not so good for the rest of the beings on the planet.

If you're so on top of the topic, head over to Food and Farm Discussion Lab on Facebook, and promote your POV. That would be interesting.

[cheapdate]

208. Really?

I recognize it as a complex and consequential issue that warrants careful consideration of the full range of the costs and benefits over the short and long term. Do you?

[HuckleB]

209. You only recognize it as meaningless talking points.

You clearly don't understand the first thing beyond the stuff you're parroting here. We both know that, so why are you pretending?

[cheapdate]

210. You have yet to give the slightest genuine indication

that you have any deep knowledge of, or have given any serious critical thought to these questions.

My knowledge of these issues is deep and gathered over a long period of sustained interest in matters of engineering ethics, land use, agricultural practices and policy, and the sustainability of human society, to name a few.

It was clear before and it's still so that you're incapable, unwilling, and unworthy of a serious discussion.

[HuckleB]

211. I don't need to repeat myself for you.

Your claims are completely ridiculous. You have shown that you have no idea about anything but offering parroted but meaningless marketing cliches. Hell, your first post is pure ludicrous anti-GMO hyperbole. And you want anyone to take you seriously? I've had plenty of serious discussion over the years on this topic, and those are just for starters. Heck, I used to buy into the anti-GMO propaganda, but I always challenge my preconceptions, and the evidence proved to be overwhelming. It appears that you have been pushing your one-trick pony at DU for a few years. Oh, goodness.

Also, I've told you where you can show yourself just how much you, uh, "know." Apparently, you think you know more than the world's scientists. Well, if you show up, you'll have to prove that. See you there.

BTW, you do understand that ignoring a clear scientific consensus is a sure sign of a crank, right?
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/hostility-towards-scientific-consensus-a-red-flag-identifying-a-crank-or-quack/

And here's another dose of reality for you, just for kicks.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/americans-believe-in-science-just-not-its-findings/384937/

[roody]

126. lol

[HuckleB]

128. Derp.

Last edited Tue Mar 8, 2016, 01:38 PM - Edit history (1)

5 Reasons to Avoid GMO Food

http://modernliberals.com/5-reasons-to-avoid-gmo-food/

[monicaangela]

151. Did these scientist take into effect the harm GMO does?

Harmful Effects of the Agent



Genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) are a broad group of plants, animals, and bacteria that are engineered for a wide variety of applications ranging from agricultural production to scientific research. The types of potential hazards posed by GMO’s vary according to the type of organism being modified and its intended application. Most of the concern surrounding GMO’s relates to their potential for negative effects on the environment and human health. Because GMO’s that could directly effect human health are primarily products that can enter the human food supply, this website focuses on genetically modified food. To date, the only types of products that have been approved for human consumption in the U.S. are genetically modified plants (FDA website).


All genetically modified foods that have been approved are considered by the government to be as safe as their traditional counterparts and are generally unregulated (FDA website). However, there are several types of potential health effects that could result from the insertion of a novel gene into an organism. Health effects of primary concern to safety assessors are production of new allergens, increased toxicity, decreased nutrition, and antibiotic resistance (Bernstein et al., 2003).

http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/gm/harmful.html

[Humanist_Activist]

174. That entire article talks about theoretical risks, not real risks, and doesn't...

demonstrate any present risks or harms associated with current GMOs.

[monicaangela]

175. My question is...What about the manner in which

they modify seeds so that farmers have to buy them from Monsanto every year, which literally will eventually allow Monsanto to control food supply. That for me is harmful for farmers, consumers, and world food security.

[Humanist_Activist]

177. Patents expire, you seem to forget that, in addition, this would be a legal framework issue...

not a food safety issue, so don't conflate the two. Don't claim GMOs are bad by making up health risks that don't exist, talk about the issues surrounding patents being issued in the biotechnology industry.

[monicaangela]

179. Making up health risk that don't exist.

How can you be so sure about that..science hasn't concluded that yet.



Ribonucleic acid (RNA), specifically messenger RNA (mRNA), is used to carry a gene's information to the part of a cell that reads (or translates) the gene sequence to make a protein.

RNAi in GMO Crops

In addition to the use of RNAi in research to assess gene function, and for the development of a new class of drugs, however, another commercial use of RNAi has emerged. In a recent article in Science, Kai Kupferschimdt discusses how RNAi has been engineered into plants to make them resistant to pests and pathogens.

In much the same way drugs inhibit specific proteins, pesticides also target and block the action of particular proteins. Of course, in the case of pesticides, the idea is to block a protein that is essential for the pest to survive. For example, Ortho's Bug B Gon contains bifenthrin as the active ingredient. This chemical binds to the protein in nerve cells that regulates sodium ions so it blocks the ability of these cells to send nerve impulses, and so, paralyzes bugs. The problem with bifenthrin, and many of similar chemicals in pesticides, however, is that they target most types of bugs, even beneficial ones. Also, at higher levels, they can be toxic to other animals including mammals.
http://biotech.about.com/od/technicaltheory/a/Rna-Interference-rnai-From-Drugs-To-Gmos.htm

I am not a scientist, but even a layman can tell that this can get wildly out of hand and can eventually be linked to harm to humans. Just because science hasn't tried to find a connection, or if they have found a connection and have not disclosed their finding, something they have been known to do in the past while they try to prefect a solution to the problem is IMHO no reason to continue to sell the notion that these GMO's are safe.

[Humanist_Activist]

184. Uhm, the article you linked to is talking about how genetic engineering is helping...

to reduce the risks to human health and environmental damage through the use of RNAi technology.

Not sure what you think will get out of hand.

You seem to want to dismiss an entire process in developing and breeding organisms based on no evidence, but rather unfounded fears.

[HuckleB]

199. It's interesting to see people Google in an attempt to support their preconceived notions...

... and then not even realize that the links they post don't support their preconceived notions.

[HuckleB]

178. That's organic industry propaganda.

All types of seeds are patented, including organic and no-GMO seeds. No farmer has to buy any particular brand every year. Monsanto is nowhere near a monopoly. However, the anti-GMO movement is really good at pretending it is much bigger than it is. There is a serious ethical concern with the constant lies promoted by the anti-GMO crowd.

[monicaangela]

181. Agricultural Giant Battles Small Farmers

They may not be near their goal yet, but believe me they are doing everything they can to get there:

David Runyon and his wife Dawn put a lifetime of work into their 900-acre Indiana farm, and almost lost it all over a seed they say they never planted.

"I don't believe any company has the right to come into someone's home and threaten their livelihood," Dawn said, "to bring them into such physical turmoil as this company did to us."

The Runyons charge bio-tech giant Monsanto sent investigators to their home unannounced, demanded years of farming records, and later threatened to sue them for patent infringement. The Runyons say an anonymous tip led Monsanto to suspect that genetically modified soybeans were growing on their property.

"I wasn't using their products, but yet they were pounding on my door demanding information, demanding records," Dave said. "It was just plain harassment is what they were doing."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/agricultural-giant-battles-small-farmers/

These aren't organic farmers.

There is no way I would advocate for this company, this in itself is enough for me to say absolutely not under these conditions.

[HuckleB]

183. An anecdotal claim by a guy who clearly wants publicity?

That's your evidence of what?

BTW, if you're worried about the few genes changed in GMOs, where we know exactly what genes are being addressed, you should be terrified about all other types of seed development, where multiple genes are changed, and no one knows which ones. Do you not understand this reality?

PS:

5 Reasons to Avoid GMO Food

http://modernliberals.com/5-reasons-to-avoid-gmo-food/

[jmowreader]

189. Ah yes, the "saving seed" argument

Unless you plant nothing but heirloom seed, you can't save it anyway even if your seed producer would let you - and these days, no seed producer allows seed saving. Most of the crops grown in the US are hybrids. If you plant seed saved from a hybrid crop, the plants that grow from it will be nothing like the parent plants.

[monicaangela]

193. This is the traditional way farms and gardens were maintained for the last 12,000 years.

Now today, corporations are, just as they have been doing everything trying to might slight improvements and instead of doing this for humanity, they are doing it for profit.
~~~~~

Legality

While saving seed and even exchanging seed with other farmers for biodiversity purposes has been a traditional practice, these practices have become illegal for the plant varieties that are patented or otherwise owned by some entity (often a corporation). Under Article 28 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS Agreement), "planting, harvesting, saving, re-planting, and exchanging seeds of patented plants, or of plants containing patented cells and genes, constitutes use" and is prohibited by the intellectual property laws of signatory states.

Significantly, farmers in developing countries are particularly affected by prohibitions on seed saving. There are some protections for re-use, called "farmer's privilege", in the 1991 International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV Convention), but seed exchange remains prohibited.

In the United States, the farmer's privilege to save seeds to grow subsequent crops was considered protected by the Plant Variety Protection Act. American farmers, it was thought, could sell seed up to the amount saved for replanting their own acreage.

That view came to an end in the latter part of the 20th century and early part of the 21st century, with changes in technology and law. First, in 1981 Diamond v. Chakrabarty established that companies may obtain patents for life-forms—originally genetically engineered unicellular bacteria. In 2002 J.E.M. Ag Supply v. Pioneer established that valid utility patents could be issued on sexually reproduced plants, such as seed crops (e.g., corn). In 2013 Bowman v. Monsanto Co. established that it was patent infringement for farmers to save crop seeds (soybeans in that case) and grow subsequent crops from them, if the seeds or plants were patented.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_saving

~~~~~
Just as corporations have legally tried to take care of every natural resource they can on this earth, now they are trying to do it with food, a necessity, something human beings cannot live without. The same for water, and soon they will probably even patent the air you breathe and I suppose you will be happy places a coin in a slot so that you can get clean air. Where will this end.

[HuckleB]

195. Reality.

The Need to Save Seeds is a Bad Sign
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/22/1249608/-The-Need-to-Save-Seeds-is-a-Bad-Sign

NO, FARMERS DON’T WANT TO SAVE SEEDS
http://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2016/02/no-farmers-dont-want-save-seeds.html

[HuckleB]

154. The war against genetically modified organisms is full of fearmongering, errors, and fraud. Labeling

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

[killbotfactory]

187. I agree that health concerns are mostly nonsense from a purely GMO standpoint

But all of the pro-GMO articles i've read completely gloss over the potential hazards, or that almost the entire market of GMOs are for raising crops which can be doused with large amounts pesticide and survive. Pretty much all of it. And a large part of that crop just goes to make ethanol. Golden rice, more amazing papayas, and apples that don't brown and/or taste like cotton candy are pretty cool, I agree.

But, altering things at a genetic level is quite powerful technology, and the pro-GMO side is pretty blind to the risks inherent in that power. Nothing i've seen from are regulatory agencies seems to address this, the response is pretty much just "shut the fuck up, luddite. trust us. we're feeding people." If they fuck up and release a seemingly harmless monocropped GMO onto the world, which ends up taking over the way kudzu in the south does, or cane toads in austrailia did, or rats imported by western explorers? The possibility exists with non-GMO plants already, but it could be potentially much more destructive with GMOs.

Or if they breed the plant to create it's own (100% human safe) pesticide, how is that any different than administering antibiotics to a whole heard of cattle willy-nilly? The result in time will be pests who have been bred to be better pests, the same way antibiotic resistance happens. The only answer to this problem that I've seen has been "buy our newer, better GMO seeds".

[HuckleB]

188. You're just repeating anti-GMO propaganda.

You don't realize that glyphosate resistant crops have decreased the use of far more toxic herbicides, decreased the tilling which saves the soil, and decreased oil use because don't have to run their equipment as much.

You don't realize that changing one or two genes that we know about, can predict what they'll do, and can study them specifically makes things far more predictable and safer than other technologies that change multiple unknown genes.

You don't realize how toxic many organic herbicides and pesticides are, nor do you realize that GMOs have decreased pesticide use. And comparing them to antibiotics shows that this is not a topic you understand at all. Heck, if you had bothered to read the link, you would have known better than to post these cliched fallacies.

[killbotfactory]

190. I'm sorry, but why would you make a GMO pesticide resistant

if you were planning on lowering your use of pesticide?

[HuckleB]

191. So you can use less toxic herbicides at more efficient times.

Farmers aren't going to buy seeds that would increase their cost, such as fuel and more herbicide.

[HickFromTheTick]

212. You have piqued my curiosity here......

I am unsure if I am reading and/or understanding the arguments here correctly.
Am I to understand from this that the use of GMO's has resulted in demonstrably less use of glysophates?
Or is it that GMO's have resulted in demonstrably less use of herbicide/insecticide of all types in the industry?
To me, this is a crucial point and I'd appreciate it if someone could clarify.
Thanks.

[HuckleB]

213. From a meta-analysis.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

"On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries."

And here's the thing about glyphosate: It replaced more toxic herbicides.

http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.php/2015/06/02/about-those-more-caustic-herbicides-that-glyphosate-helped-replace-by-credible-hulk/

That's part of the reason why Chipotle's non-GMO stance is actually harmful to the planet.

http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2015/05/what-does-chipotles-switch-to-non-gmo-ingredients-mean-for-pesticide-use/

[HuckleB]

219. With G.M.O. Policies, Europe Turns Against Science

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/opinion/sunday/with-gmo-policies-europe-turns-against-science.html?_r=0

[progressivesonly]

226. Respect

Why don't you respect these people's reason not to accept GMOs? We now live in a time were corporations use public universities as facilities to promote their corporate agenda. Science has now become their religion and they refuse to accept anything that rejects their corporate model. My problem is not if GMOs are safe, but the fact these billion dollar monoliths are patenting the food supply ( I don't care about their excuses of making a profit or recouping their losses) when it should be free for anyone to use without having to seek them out through these biotech companies. To think these companies are being humanitarian is naive. Not to mention that the Amazon is being destroyed to grow these soybeans to feed the world?

P.S. Is that you Jon Entine?

[HuckleB]

228. Why don't I respect baseless fear mongering?

Why don't I respect decisions that mean ongoing use of older, more toxic herbicides, as well as an increase in "superweeds?"

Why don't I respect people who are working to keep helpful products from the people who need them most, just so they can make more money with their fear mongering?

Really? You have to be kidding me. The anti-GMO crowd is hurting people and the planet. This is not hard stuff.

[LostOne4Ever]

227. Not Surprised. nt