monsanto (1 Viewer)

[Sarnoff]

Thousands took to streets across the world’s cities on Saturday to protest the use of GMO products, with Giant Monsanto being the main target. Over 50 countries have been taking part in the march for world food day, and across 47 different US states.

http://rt.com/news/monsanto-march-berlin-protest-115/

Have these people decided which couple billion people they want to die in exchange for no more GMOs?

Do some research on Norman Borlaug, my friend.

link?

He's the greatest man that Ever. Lived.

Ever.

He should be a household name, if you need a link you should be ashamed.

 

[Sarnoff]

• "Some credit him with saving more human lives than any other person in history."
  Bruce Alberts, President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.

• "At a time when doom-sayers were hopping around saying everyone was going to starve, Norman was working. He moved to Mexico and lived among the people there until he figured out how to improve the output of the farmers. So that saved a million lives. Then he packed up his family and moved to India, where in spite of a war with Pakistan, he managed to introduce new wheat strains that quadrupled their food output. So that saved another million. You get it? But he wasn't done. He did the same thing with a new rice in China. He's doing the same thing in Africa - as much of Africa as he's allowed to visit. When he won the Nobel Prize in 1970, they said he had saved a billion people. That's BILLION! BUH! That's Carl Sagan BILLION with a "B"! And most of them were a different race from him. Norman is the greatest human being- and you've probably never heard of him."
  Penn Jillette, on the show Penn & Teller: Bull$#it!

• "Though barely known in the country of his birth, elsewhere in the world Norman Borlaug is widely considered to be among the leading Americans of our age ... Norman Borlaug has already saved more lives than any other person who ever lived ... Borlaug is responsible for the fact that throughout the postwar era, except in sub-Saharan Africa, global food production has expanded faster than the human population, averting the mass starvations that were widely predicted -- for example, in the 1967 best seller Famine -- 1975! The form of agriculture that Borlaug preaches may have prevented a billion deaths."
  Gregg Easterbrook in The Atlantic Monthly.

• "Norman Borlaug is the living embodiment of the human quest for a hunger free world. His life is his message."
  Professor M. S. Swaminathan, M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation (India)

• "Borlaug's work saved the Indian sub-continent from mass starvation. In his 90 years on this planet its human population has grown from about one billion to more than six billion. Without the hybrid wheats it was Borlaug's life's mission to develop and promote among the world's poorest farmers, few believe that this population could have been sustained."
  Matthew Parris, The Times (UK)

• "It is very likely that Dr. Borlaug is directly responsible for saving more lives than anyone else in the twentieth century... Dr. Borlaug has never stopped fighting, teaching, inventing, or caring... The world owes Dr. Borlaug endless amounts of gratitude"
  Senator 'Kit' Bond|, Missouri, in a congressional record in honour of Borlaug's 90th birthday.

• "Dr. Norman Borlaug was the father of the Green Revolution that transformed much of the hungry Third World. As U.S. Food for Peace Administrator in the 1960s, I shipped 4 million tons of food aid per year to India; now it can export food. Dr. Borlaug’s scientific leadership not only saved people from starvation, but the high-yield seeds he bred saved millions of square miles of wildlife from being plowed down. He is one of the great men of our age."
  George McGovern, Former US Senator, UN "Ambassador to the Hungry"

• "For fifty-two years, Dr. Norman Borlaug has been helping to provide more food to the most needy areas of the world. But perhaps of greater importance, this distinguished scientist-philosopher has been demonstrating practical ways to give people of the entire world a higher quality of life ... The passion that drives Dr. Borlaug's life is an inspiration for all of us to follow. Since 1986, we've worked together through Global 2000 of The Carter Center and the Sasakawa Africa Association to help small-scale farmers to improve agricultural productivity and crop quality, sometimes two or even threefold. It has been an honor to collaborate with Dr. Borlaug. He is a true humanitarian and a dear friend."
  Jimmy Carter, 39th president of the United States and 2002 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate

• "It gives me great pleasure to add my voice to all those paying tribute to Dr. Norman E. Borlaug on his 90th birthday. As we celebrate Dr. Borlaug's long and remarkable life, we also celebrate the long and productive lives that his achievements have made possible for so many millions of people around the world. And as the United Nations continues its efforts to reach the ambitious but achievable Millennium Development Goal of reducing, by half, by the year 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger, we will continue to be inspired by his enduring devotion to the poor, needy and vulnerable of our world. Dr. Borlaug, for your many contributions to the work of the United Nations, please accept my best wishes on this happy occasion."
  Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations

• "Dr. Norman Borlaug holds the record for longevity as a "persistent pioneer" in the development of a new cooperative approach among the countries of the world in the alleviation of hunger."
  Dr. Edwin J. Wellhausen, First Director General of CIMMYT, Mexico, 1996

• "Dr. Norman Borlaug is the first person in history to save a billion human lives. But he must also get credit for saving the wild creatures and diverse plant species on 12 million square miles of global forest that would long since have been plowed down without the high-yield farming he pioneered. The two accomplishments combined make him dramatically unique. I am proud to work with the Center for Global Food Issues, of which he is Chairman Emeritus."
  Senator Rudy Boschwitz, R-MN, former member of the US Senate Agriculture Committee

• "'The battle to feed all of humanity is over," biologist Paul Ehrlich famously wrote in his 1968 bestseller The Population Bomb ... But Borlaug and his team were already engaged in the kind of crash program that Ehrlich declared wouldn't work. Their dwarf wheat varieties resisted a wide spectrum of plant pests and diseases and produced two to three times more grain than the traditional varieties ... Borlaug, who unfortunately is far less well-known than doomsayer Ehrlich, is responsible for much of the progress humanity has made against hunger."
  Ronald Bailey, Reason Magazine

• "Thanks to the Green Revolution, the real price of food is half or less than it was in 1960 which means those who spend the highest portion of their income on food - the urban and non-farm rural poor -- garner the most benefit from it."
  Thomas R. DeGregori, University of Houston

• "As a result of [borlaug's] work, a billion people now exist who otherwise would have starved to death, died of starvation-related diseases, or never have been born."
  Gregory Pence and Joyce Hsu, Birmingham News

• "Borlaug is one of the great humanitarians of the 20th Century - and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for a lifetime of work feeding a hungry world. The breeds of wheat he developed - with strong disease resistance, high yield potential and the ability to withstand poor growing conditions - led the "Green Revolution" that saved literally hundreds of millions of lives in developing nations that were prone to terrible famines."
  James Glassman, Tech Central Station

• "He is credited with starting the Green Revolution in the mid-1960s and saving millions of lives from starvation. Since 1984, he has been a professor of international agriculture at Texas A&M, where he teaches one semester every year. But he is by no means semi-retired. At 86, he remains as active as ever - carrying his brand of prairie pragmatism to fight hunger around the world and in the classroom. Think big. Fight complacency. That is the essence of his message, whether he's talking to heads of state or college freshmen."
  David Tarrant, Dallas Morning News

• "Scientist. Teacher. Humanitarian. Nobel Laureate. Father of the Green Revolution. Those terms describe Dr. Norman Borlaug, who is distinguished professor of international agriculture at Texas A&M University, but they can't possibly capture the magnitude of his accomplishments."
  Ellen Ritter, Texas A&M University

• "If there's one thread running through Borlaug's life it's doing -- acting with fierce determination. Working on a problem as fundamental as world hunger is a complicated business, and Borlaug is a complicated man, somehow balancing contradictions ... He is the scientist and the dirt farmer; the advocate of common sense and the master of political subtleties; the humanitarian and the pugnacious fighter; the idealist and the consultant to governments of every political ideology. He has been called a peaceful revolutionary, and the tension in that term - between benevolence and aggressiveness - seems particularly apt."
  From the University of Minnesota College of Agriculture, Food and Environmental Science

 

[Sarnoff]

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=488524

One of only five people to be awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the Nobel Peace Prize. Others were Mother Teresa, Elie Weisel, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

[NutterButter]

What does this Borlag guy have to do with Rayder's claim that a couple billion people will die if we stopped use GMOs?

 

[grateful zed]

What does this Borlag guy have to do with Rayder's claim that a couple billion people will die if we stopped use GMOs?

from wiki:

he has a theory that gmo is equivalent to selective breeding and its is the only way to produce enough food to feed the expanding human population.

 

[jhib]

One of the big issues I have with Monsanto is with their Roundup Ready seeds. You can buy the seed, grow it and harvest it at a considerable cost, and sell the seeds, but you can't plant those seeds that you have grown. Something just isn't right about that.

I don't have an issue with that aspect of it, I understand why they've positioned their patents that way. Farmers know going in that it's illegal to perpetuate it when they buy it. What really bothers me is the way it infiltrates other farmer's crops (contaminated farm equipment, blowing out during transportation, etc.) and once Monsanto has a positive sample they sue the living hell out of the innocent farmer. I wish instead of Monsanto being able to crush the farmers who were contaminated through no fault of their own that the farmers would be able to sue Monsanto for contamination. With each crop they genetically modify they've created a virus that will eventually (not if, but when) infiltrate every seed strain.

I realize this post is a few months old now, but do people still think they sued innocent farmers?

I thought it was pretty well established at this point that the farmers weren't innocent after all and that Monsanto has never (and says they will never) sue farmers over accidental growth.

 

[Man of Zen]

What does this Borlag guy have to do with Rayder's claim that a couple billion people will die if we stopped use GMOs?

from wiki:

he has a theory that gmo is equivalent to selective breeding and its is the only way to produce enough food to feed the expanding human population.

Borlaug led the corporate West's strongarmed insistence that Mexico and South Asia move to rely on petrochemical monoculture farming, thus drastically lifting the single metric "grain yields," while simultaneously wiping out most other indigenous food sources. The major things this served to accomplish were (1) removing any real threat that India would come to rely on grain imported from Sino-Russia, (2) annihilating over the long run any hope India and Pakistan might have had of warding off the most terrifying malnutrition demographics in the world (they are worse now, by far, than when Borlaug began, and are worse than even Sub-Saharan Africa) and (3) expanded the reach and profitability of major American chemical and industrial farming corporations, such as his employer, DuPont. It is for this last contribution that he was awarded his Nobel Prize, make no mistake about it.

 

[Rayderr]

From an interview with Borlaug before his death.

Q: How is food science improving the production of food?

A: The research projects are continuing, and improvements are being made. Genetically modified organisms are a big step in that direction, but there’s a lot of confusion in that. Some people fear genetic modification, which is not very sound, because we’ve been genetically modifying plants and animals for a long time. Long before we called it science, people were selecting the best breeds.


Q: Has a fear of genetically modified food exacerbated the world food supply problem?

A: I think so. A good example is the Bt gene, which can be incorporated into cotton to reduce the number of applications of insecticides greatly. In corn, that same gene controls certain insects and cuts down the amount of insecticide needed. But people say, ‘OK, if that’s incorporated, it’s not permitting insects to multiply, so it must be deleterious for humans, too.’ But this isn’t necessarily so. A large percentage of U.S. corn has the Bt gene in it to control certain pests, and it’s been so for more than a decade. There’s no good evidence it’s done any harm. This technology has brought major economic and environmental benefits.
But when we ship this type of corn in U.S. AID (Agency for International Development) to help undernourished and hungry people, it gets to be a political football. In Zimbabwe, recently, the president refused to accept this kind of food for his starving people.

 

[jhib]

In Washington state they are trying to pass Initiative I522 to require labeling of GMOs.

Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, and Bayer are pouring in millions to fight it. However, I think it will pass.

omg, what has the world come too.

Its hard to find people against transparency in labeling. I understand why BigAg and chemical companies producing GMOs are against it.

I'm against mandatory labeling for GMO food, since it would spread the misconception that GMO food is less safe/less healthy.

If you want to label your non-GMO food as non-GMO, go for it. But there's no reason to force the labeling of GMO food.

 

[Rayderr]

What does this Borlag guy have to do with Rayder's claim that a couple billion people will die if we stopped use GMOs?

from wiki:

he has a theory that gmo is equivalent to selective breeding and its is the only way to produce enough food to feed the expanding human population.

Borlaug led the corporate West's strongarmed insistence that Mexico and South Asia move to rely on petrochemical monoculture farming, thus drastically lifting the single metric "grain yields," while simultaneously wiping out most other indigenous food sources. The major things this served to accomplish were (1) removing any real threat that India would come to rely on grain imported from Sino-Russia, (2) annihilating over the long run any hope India and Pakistan might have had of warding off the most terrifying malnutrition demographics in the world (they are worse now, by far, than when Borlaug began, and are worse than even Sub-Saharan Africa) and (3) expanded the reach and profitability of major American chemical and industrial farming corporations, such as his employer, DuPont. It is for this last contribution that he was awarded his Nobel Prize, make no mistake about it.

He worked for DuPont from 1942-1944. He left DuPont despite their offer to double his salary to work on the Green Revolution project (before it even got such a name)

 

[grateful zed]

Indian Farmers Committing Suicide as a Result of Monsanto's GM Crops

Monsanto’s GM crops were supposed to feed the world hunger and starvation but instead the diverse sustainable organic agriculture was replaced with globalization, GMO crop failures and its threat to environment and human’s health, monopoly, farmer’s suicide and world wide control of seeds. Every 30 minutes an Indian farmer commits suicide as a result of Monsanto’s GM crops. In the last decade more than 250,000 Indian farmers have killed themselves because of Monsanto’s costly seeds and pesticides. Globalization and monopoly have forced farmers to buy GM seeds and since GM crops have become pests’ resistance, the farmers have no choice but to purchase Monsanto’s pesticide. Sometimes GM crops fail over and over again; GM crops also do not grow back again next year and every year farmers have to buy new seeds.

http://www.seattleorganicrestaurants.com/vegan-whole-foods/indian-farmers-committing-suicide-monsanto-gm-crops/

im not dissing borlag, but monsanto, dupont, dow and apparently bayer, in an attempt to monopolize the worlds food, have done so without any concerns for morality, the planet or human health.

i hope they die a painful death. sorrry.

 

[jhib]

Indian Farmers Committing Suicide as a Result of Monsanto's GM Crops

Monsantos GM crops were supposed to feed the world hunger and starvation but instead the diverse sustainable organic agriculture was replaced with globalization, GMO crop failures and its threat to environment and humans health, monopoly, farmers suicide and world wide control of seeds. Every 30 minutes an Indian farmer commits suicide as a result of Monsantos GM crops. In the last decade more than 250,000 Indian farmers have killed themselves because of Monsantos costly seeds and pesticides. Globalization and monopoly have forced farmers to buy GM seeds and since GM crops have become pests resistance, the farmers have no choice but to purchase Monsantos pesticide. Sometimes GM crops fail over and over again; GM crops also do not grow back again next year and every year farmers have to buy new seeds.

http://www.seattleorganicrestaurants.com/vegan-whole-foods/indian-farmers-committing-suicide-monsanto-gm-crops/

im not dissing borlag, but monsanto, dupont, dow and apparently bayer, in an attempt to monopolize the worlds food, have done so without any concerns for morality, the planet or human health.

i hope they die a painful death. sorrry.

The myth of Indias GM genocide: Genetically modified cotton blamed for wave of farmer suicideshttp://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/26/the-myth-of-indias-gm-genocide-genetically-modified-cotton-blamed-for-wave-of-farmer-suicides

 

[phrozen]

One of the big issues I have with Monsanto is with their Roundup Ready seeds. You can buy the seed, grow it and harvest it at a considerable cost, and sell the seeds, but you can't plant those seeds that you have grown. Something just isn't right about that.

I don't have an issue with that aspect of it, I understand why they've positioned their patents that way. Farmers know going in that it's illegal to perpetuate it when they buy it. What really bothers me is the way it infiltrates other farmer's crops (contaminated farm equipment, blowing out during transportation, etc.) and once Monsanto has a positive sample they sue the living hell out of the innocent farmer. I wish instead of Monsanto being able to crush the farmers who were contaminated through no fault of their own that the farmers would be able to sue Monsanto for contamination. With each crop they genetically modify they've created a virus that will eventually (not if, but when) infiltrate every seed strain.

I realize this post is a few months old now, but do people still think they sued innocent farmers?

I thought it was pretty well established at this point that the farmers weren't innocent after all and that Monsanto has never (and says they will never) sue farmers over accidental growth.

watching this documentary now -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omtYlsG1P5U

 

[BigSteelThrill]

:curbstomped: http://youtu.be/Ec1Rvd4lyNw?t=1m47s

 

[jhib]

One of the big issues I have with Monsanto is with their Roundup Ready seeds. You can buy the seed, grow it and harvest it at a considerable cost, and sell the seeds, but you can't plant those seeds that you have grown. Something just isn't right about that.

I don't have an issue with that aspect of it, I understand why they've positioned their patents that way. Farmers know going in that it's illegal to perpetuate it when they buy it. What really bothers me is the way it infiltrates other farmer's crops (contaminated farm equipment, blowing out during transportation, etc.) and once Monsanto has a positive sample they sue the living hell out of the innocent farmer. I wish instead of Monsanto being able to crush the farmers who were contaminated through no fault of their own that the farmers would be able to sue Monsanto for contamination. With each crop they genetically modify they've created a virus that will eventually (not if, but when) infiltrate every seed strain.

I realize this post is a few months old now, but do people still think they sued innocent farmers?

I thought it was pretty well established at this point that the farmers weren't innocent after all and that Monsanto has never (and says they will never) sue farmers over accidental growth.

watching this documentary now -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omtYlsG1P5U

Ok, so I only watched the first 10 minutes so far, but is the whole thing on this Percy Schmeiser guy?

Do you realize what the farmer was sued for? It wasn't for the Monsanto plants that were growing in his field accidentally the one year. It was because he harvested seed from those plants, saved it separately from his other seed, and planted 1000 acres of the Monsanto seed the next year.

Now, you might argue that farmers should be able to do that, but the courts disagreed. This was much closer to a case over something that Statcruncher said he would be ok with than one where he thought Monsanto sued farmers just because of a positive sample.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser

(Edited because I can't type on this stupid phone)

 

[grateful zed]

:curbstomped: http://youtu.be/Ec1Rvd4lyNw?t=1m47s

 

[T Bell]

Every 30 minutes an Indian farmer commits suicide as a result of Monsanto’s GM crops.

Wow, you'd think that guy would just get sick of it and quit it.

 

[NutterButter]

In Washington state they are trying to pass Initiative I522 to require labeling of GMOs.

Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, and Bayer are pouring in millions to fight it. However, I think it will pass.

omg, what has the world come too.

Its hard to find people against transparency in labeling. I understand why BigAg and chemical companies producing GMOs are against it.

I'm against mandatory labeling for GMO food, since it would spread the misconception that GMO food is less safe/less healthy.

If you want to label your non-GMO food as non-GMO, go for it. But there's no reason to force the labeling of GMO food.

That seems reasonable to me. We don't label products as non-organic. What do other GMO labeling folks think?

 

[SoBeDad]

In Washington state they are trying to pass Initiative I522 to require labeling of GMOs.

Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, and Bayer are pouring in millions to fight it. However, I think it will pass.

omg, what has the world come too.

Its hard to find people against transparency in labeling. I understand why BigAg and chemical companies producing GMOs are against it.

I'm against mandatory labeling for GMO food, since it would spread the misconception that GMO food is less safe/less healthy.

If you want to label your non-GMO food as non-GMO, go for it. But there's no reason to force the labeling of GMO food.

That seems reasonable to me. We don't label products as non-organic. What do other GMO labeling folks think?

Other countries with great economies, such as Peru and Brazil, have labeling laws and even some bans on GMO food. Brazil is first or second in GMO soy. I don't there is much danger in consuming GMO food, but many people do.

 

[jhib]

Its hard to find people against transparency in labeling. I understand why BigAg and chemical companies producing GMOs are against it.

I'm against mandatory labeling for GMO food, since it would spread the misconception that GMO food is less safe/less healthy.

If you want to label your non-GMO food as non-GMO, go for it. But there's no reason to force the labeling of GMO food.

That seems reasonable to me. We don't label products as non-organic. What do other GMO labeling folks think?

Other countries with great economies, such as Peru and Brazil, have labeling laws and even some bans on GMO food. Brazil is first or second in GMO soy. I don't there is much danger in consuming GMO food, but many people do.

Many people believe in lots of things that are wrong. Mandatory labeling of GMO would only serve to legitimize and spread those beliefs, which the consensus of scientists disagrees with.

Many anti-GMO activists and even some mainstream commentators claim there is a “debate” over the safety of genetically modified crops and foods. That is not the case. The bans that have been imposed in some countries on GMO crops or foods are political; they were voted in by politicians over the objections of independent international science organizations.

Every major scientific body and regulatory agency in the world has reviewed the research about GMOs and openly declared crop biotechnology and the foods currently available for sale to be safe. GM crops are as safe–and in the case of nutrtionally enhanced varieties, such as Golden Rice, healthier–than conventional and organic crops. The consensus over the health and safety is as strong as the consensus that we are undergoing human induced climate change, vaccines are beneficial and not harmful and evolution is a fact.

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/08/27/glp-infographic-international-science-organizations-on-crop-biotechnology-safety/#.Ul9bfxCneDc

 

[grateful zed]

man is screwing with the fabric of life because he can and is trying to make a penny off of it.

= devils work.

 

[grateful zed]

The citizens of Washington State have voted against a bill that would have required the labeling of genetically altered foods, according to preliminary ballot results.

http://rt.com/usa/washington-no-gmo-labeling-282/

The multinationals invested a total of $22 million in convincing the state’s constituents they should vote against the mandatory labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients.

This is not the first time tech giants have rallied against legislation that would have forced them to label their genetically altered produce. In 2012 a similar bill was struck down in California after a $45 million campaign by Monsanto and its cohorts

what are they afraid of? telling people the truth?

a setback, but the fight is just beginning my friends.

 

[Rayderr]

The citizens of Washington State have voted against a bill that would have required the labeling of genetically altered foods, according to preliminary ballot results.

http://rt.com/usa/washington-no-gmo-labeling-282/

The multinationals invested a total of $22 million in convincing the state’s constituents they should vote against the mandatory labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients.

This is not the first time tech giants have rallied against legislation that would have forced them to label their genetically altered produce. In 2012 a similar bill was struck down in California after a $45 million campaign by Monsanto and its cohorts

what are they afraid of? telling people the truth?

a setback, but the fight is just beginning my friends.

Not wanting to give in to mass hysteria started by people who don't understand science and using GMO as a cover to hide their anti-corporatism?

 

[Statcruncher]

The citizens of Washington State have voted against a bill that would have required the labeling of genetically altered foods, according to preliminary ballot results.

http://rt.com/usa/washington-no-gmo-labeling-282/

The multinationals invested a total of $22 million in convincing the state’s constituents they should vote against the mandatory labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients.

This is not the first time tech giants have rallied against legislation that would have forced them to label their genetically altered produce. In 2012 a similar bill was struck down in California after a $45 million campaign by Monsanto and its cohorts

what are they afraid of? telling people the truth?

a setback, but the fight is just beginning my friends.

Not wanting to give in to mass hysteria started by people who don't understand science and using GMO as a cover to hide their anti-corporatism?

Lol, mass hysteria. Label stuff appropriately and let people make decisions. It's ridiculous that scientists can genetically alter an organism and then sell it to people without their knowledge. It's possible that GMO food is and always will be 100% completely safe and is the best thing to ever happen to the planet. It's also possible that some people would prefer to be given the choice to purchase more expensive alternatives and avoid GMO, whether their rationale is unfounded or not. This seems like such a no-brainer I can't believe it's even an issue.

 

[Rayderr]

The citizens of Washington State have voted against a bill that would have required the labeling of genetically altered foods, according to preliminary ballot results.

http://rt.com/usa/washington-no-gmo-labeling-282/

The multinationals invested a total of $22 million in convincing the state’s constituents they should vote against the mandatory labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients.

This is not the first time tech giants have rallied against legislation that would have forced them to label their genetically altered produce. In 2012 a similar bill was struck down in California after a $45 million campaign by Monsanto and its cohorts

what are they afraid of? telling people the truth?

a setback, but the fight is just beginning my friends.

Not wanting to give in to mass hysteria started by people who don't understand science and using GMO as a cover to hide their anti-corporatism?

Lol, mass hysteria. Label stuff appropriately and let people make decisions. It's ridiculous that scientists can genetically alter an organism and then sell it to people without their knowledge. It's possible that GMO food is and always will be 100% completely safe and is the best thing to ever happen to the planet. It's also possible that some people would prefer to be given the choice to purchase more expensive alternatives and avoid GMO, whether their rational is unfounded or not. This seems like such a no-brainer I can't believe it's even an issue.

Why stop there? Let's list every single fertilizer and insecticide that may have been used on them. And since everything get's washed, make sure to include the water quality report for the factory. And complete, detailed medical reports of everyone who has handled the food.

 

[Statcruncher]

The citizens of Washington State have voted against a bill that would have required the labeling of genetically altered foods, according to preliminary ballot results.

http://rt.com/usa/washington-no-gmo-labeling-282/

The multinationals invested a total of $22 million in convincing the state’s constituents they should vote against the mandatory labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients.

This is not the first time tech giants have rallied against legislation that would have forced them to label their genetically altered produce. In 2012 a similar bill was struck down in California after a $45 million campaign by Monsanto and its cohorts

what are they afraid of? telling people the truth?

a setback, but the fight is just beginning my friends.

Not wanting to give in to mass hysteria started by people who don't understand science and using GMO as a cover to hide their anti-corporatism?

Lol, mass hysteria. Label stuff appropriately and let people make decisions. It's ridiculous that scientists can genetically alter an organism and then sell it to people without their knowledge. It's possible that GMO food is and always will be 100% completely safe and is the best thing to ever happen to the planet. It's also possible that some people would prefer to be given the choice to purchase more expensive alternatives and avoid GMO, whether their rational is unfounded or not. This seems like such a no-brainer I can't believe it's even an issue.

Why stop there? Let's list every single fertilizer and insecticide that may have been used on them. And since everything get's washed, make sure to include the water quality report for the factory. And complete, detailed medical reports of everyone who has handled the food.

Little touchy on this one eh?

 

[Rayderr]

The citizens of Washington State have voted against a bill that would have required the labeling of genetically altered foods, according to preliminary ballot results.

http://rt.com/usa/washington-no-gmo-labeling-282/

The multinationals invested a total of $22 million in convincing the state’s constituents they should vote against the mandatory labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients.

This is not the first time tech giants have rallied against legislation that would have forced them to label their genetically altered produce. In 2012 a similar bill was struck down in California after a $45 million campaign by Monsanto and its cohorts

what are they afraid of? telling people the truth?

a setback, but the fight is just beginning my friends.

Not wanting to give in to mass hysteria started by people who don't understand science and using GMO as a cover to hide their anti-corporatism?

Lol, mass hysteria. Label stuff appropriately and let people make decisions. It's ridiculous that scientists can genetically alter an organism and then sell it to people without their knowledge. It's possible that GMO food is and always will be 100% completely safe and is the best thing to ever happen to the planet. It's also possible that some people would prefer to be given the choice to purchase more expensive alternatives and avoid GMO, whether their rational is unfounded or not. This seems like such a no-brainer I can't believe it's even an issue.

Why stop there? Let's list every single fertilizer and insecticide that may have been used on them. And since everything get's washed, make sure to include the water quality report for the factory. And complete, detailed medical reports of everyone who has handled the food.

Little touchy on this one eh?

So, no good answer on why we don't include those things as well?

 

[Chaka]

The citizens of Washington State have voted against a bill that would have required the labeling of genetically altered foods, according to preliminary ballot results.

http://rt.com/usa/washington-no-gmo-labeling-282/

The multinationals invested a total of $22 million in convincing the state’s constituents they should vote against the mandatory labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients.

This is not the first time tech giants have rallied against legislation that would have forced them to label their genetically altered produce. In 2012 a similar bill was struck down in California after a $45 million campaign by Monsanto and its cohorts

what are they afraid of? telling people the truth?

a setback, but the fight is just beginning my friends.

Not wanting to give in to mass hysteria started by people who don't understand science and using GMO as a cover to hide their anti-corporatism?

It's what we don't know that is the true concern. Those claiming to know for a fact that they are safe or not are liars. Right now America is in the middle of the largest test case on food safety the world has ever known. Instead of asking the question "Is it safe to use?" and making the determination to go forward based upon the results of that question we have adopted a national policy of "Is it unsafe to use?" and essentially crossed our fingers hoping that the answer is "No."

The early returns are not positive when one looks at the overall state of health of our country. It could merely be a product of too much abundance but it could also be a case of the actual contents of what we are eating having a negative impact on our health. It is a difficult issue to unravel but to make the default position "PROVE IT'S UNSAFE!" is a terrible starting point for this type of scientific endeavor.

 

[Rayderr]

The citizens of Washington State have voted against a bill that would have required the labeling of genetically altered foods, according to preliminary ballot results.

http://rt.com/usa/washington-no-gmo-labeling-282/

The multinationals invested a total of $22 million in convincing the state’s constituents they should vote against the mandatory labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients.

This is not the first time tech giants have rallied against legislation that would have forced them to label their genetically altered produce. In 2012 a similar bill was struck down in California after a $45 million campaign by Monsanto and its cohorts

what are they afraid of? telling people the truth?

a setback, but the fight is just beginning my friends.

Not wanting to give in to mass hysteria started by people who don't understand science and using GMO as a cover to hide their anti-corporatism?

It's what we don't know that is the true concern. Those claiming to know for a fact that they are safe or not are liars. Right now America is in the middle of the largest test case on food safety the world has ever known. Instead of asking the question "Is it safe to use?" and making the determination to go forward based upon the results of that question we have adopted a national policy of "Is it unsafe to use?" and essentially crossed our fingers hoping that the answer is "No."

The early returns are not positive when one looks at the overall state of health of our country. It could merely be a product of too much abundance but it could also be a case of the actual contents of what we are eating having a negative impact on our health. It is a difficult issue to unravel but to make the default position "PROVE IT'S UNSAFE!" is a terrible starting point for this type of scientific endeavor.

If only there were gov't organizations, like a Food Administration of sorts that tests these items for safety.

 

[Chaka]

The citizens of Washington State have voted against a bill that would have required the labeling of genetically altered foods, according to preliminary ballot results.

http://rt.com/usa/washington-no-gmo-labeling-282/

The multinationals invested a total of $22 million in convincing the state’s constituents they should vote against the mandatory labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients.

This is not the first time tech giants have rallied against legislation that would have forced them to label their genetically altered produce. In 2012 a similar bill was struck down in California after a $45 million campaign by Monsanto and its cohorts

what are they afraid of? telling people the truth?

a setback, but the fight is just beginning my friends.

Not wanting to give in to mass hysteria started by people who don't understand science and using GMO as a cover to hide their anti-corporatism?

It's what we don't know that is the true concern. Those claiming to know for a fact that they are safe or not are liars. Right now America is in the middle of the largest test case on food safety the world has ever known. Instead of asking the question "Is it safe to use?" and making the determination to go forward based upon the results of that question we have adopted a national policy of "Is it unsafe to use?" and essentially crossed our fingers hoping that the answer is "No."

The early returns are not positive when one looks at the overall state of health of our country. It could merely be a product of too much abundance but it could also be a case of the actual contents of what we are eating having a negative impact on our health. It is a difficult issue to unravel but to make the default position "PROVE IT'S UNSAFE!" is a terrible starting point for this type of scientific endeavor.

If only there were gov't organizations, like a Food Administration of sorts that tests these items for safety.

There is and they're not. Something as complicated as the impact of GMO foods requires long range studies which we simply are not doing. We are living the long range experiment and the early returns are not that good.

I thought you understood science?

 

[The Commish]

If only there were gov't organizations, like a Food Administration of sorts that tests these items for safety.

This is desperately needed but the lobbies pay a pretty penny to the FDA to ignore it. That's how gov't works.

 

[Chaka]

Anyone want to talk about the erosion of topsoil?

 

[jhib]

The citizens of Washington State have voted against a bill that would have required the labeling of genetically altered foods, according to preliminary ballot results.

http://rt.com/usa/washington-no-gmo-labeling-282/

The multinationals invested a total of $22 million in convincing the state’s constituents they should vote against the mandatory labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients.

This is not the first time tech giants have rallied against legislation that would have forced them to label their genetically altered produce. In 2012 a similar bill was struck down in California after a $45 million campaign by Monsanto and its cohorts

what are they afraid of? telling people the truth?

a setback, but the fight is just beginning my friends.

Not wanting to give in to mass hysteria started by people who don't understand science and using GMO as a cover to hide their anti-corporatism?

Lol, mass hysteria. Label stuff appropriately and let people make decisions. It's ridiculous that scientists can genetically alter an organism and then sell it to people without their knowledge. It's possible that GMO food is and always will be 100% completely safe and is the best thing to ever happen to the planet. It's also possible that some people would prefer to be given the choice to purchase more expensive alternatives and avoid GMO, whether their rationale is unfounded or not. This seems like such a no-brainer I can't believe it's even an issue.

I agree with the bolded. Fortunately, companies that want to cater to such people have every right to avoid using GMO ingredients and to label their products as non-GMO. So why is there an issue?

 

[Rayderr]

The citizens of Washington State have voted against a bill that would have required the labeling of genetically altered foods, according to preliminary ballot results.

http://rt.com/usa/washington-no-gmo-labeling-282/

The multinationals invested a total of $22 million in convincing the state’s constituents they should vote against the mandatory labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients.

This is not the first time tech giants have rallied against legislation that would have forced them to label their genetically altered produce. In 2012 a similar bill was struck down in California after a $45 million campaign by Monsanto and its cohorts

what are they afraid of? telling people the truth?

a setback, but the fight is just beginning my friends.

Not wanting to give in to mass hysteria started by people who don't understand science and using GMO as a cover to hide their anti-corporatism?

It's what we don't know that is the true concern. Those claiming to know for a fact that they are safe or not are liars. Right now America is in the middle of the largest test case on food safety the world has ever known. Instead of asking the question "Is it safe to use?" and making the determination to go forward based upon the results of that question we have adopted a national policy of "Is it unsafe to use?" and essentially crossed our fingers hoping that the answer is "No."

The early returns are not positive when one looks at the overall state of health of our country. It could merely be a product of too much abundance but it could also be a case of the actual contents of what we are eating having a negative impact on our health. It is a difficult issue to unravel but to make the default position "PROVE IT'S UNSAFE!" is a terrible starting point for this type of scientific endeavor.

If only there were gov't organizations, like a Food Administration of sorts that tests these items for safety.

There is and they're not. Something as complicated as the impact of GMO foods requires long range studies which we simply are not doing. We are living the long range experiment and the early returns are not that good.

I thought you understood science?

 

[Rayderr]

The citizens of Washington State have voted against a bill that would have required the labeling of genetically altered foods, according to preliminary ballot results.

http://rt.com/usa/washington-no-gmo-labeling-282/

The multinationals invested a total of $22 million in convincing the state’s constituents they should vote against the mandatory labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients.

This is not the first time tech giants have rallied against legislation that would have forced them to label their genetically altered produce. In 2012 a similar bill was struck down in California after a $45 million campaign by Monsanto and its cohorts

what are they afraid of? telling people the truth?

a setback, but the fight is just beginning my friends.

Not wanting to give in to mass hysteria started by people who don't understand science and using GMO as a cover to hide their anti-corporatism?

Lol, mass hysteria. Label stuff appropriately and let people make decisions. It's ridiculous that scientists can genetically alter an organism and then sell it to people without their knowledge. It's possible that GMO food is and always will be 100% completely safe and is the best thing to ever happen to the planet. It's also possible that some people would prefer to be given the choice to purchase more expensive alternatives and avoid GMO, whether their rationale is unfounded or not. This seems like such a no-brainer I can't believe it's even an issue.

I agree with the bolded. Fortunately, companies that want to cater to such people have every right to avoid using GMO ingredients and to label their products as non-GMO. So why is there an issue?

Why not just do the inverse like with organic foods? We don't make every single manufacturer of food items list their food as "non-organic." Why can't manufactuers that choose not to use GM food to list themselves as "GM free"?

 

[Chaka]

The citizens of Washington State have voted against a bill that would have required the labeling of genetically altered foods, according to preliminary ballot results.

http://rt.com/usa/washington-no-gmo-labeling-282/

The multinationals invested a total of $22 million in convincing the state’s constituents they should vote against the mandatory labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients.

This is not the first time tech giants have rallied against legislation that would have forced them to label their genetically altered produce. In 2012 a similar bill was struck down in California after a $45 million campaign by Monsanto and its cohorts

what are they afraid of? telling people the truth?

a setback, but the fight is just beginning my friends.

Not wanting to give in to mass hysteria started by people who don't understand science and using GMO as a cover to hide their anti-corporatism?

Lol, mass hysteria. Label stuff appropriately and let people make decisions. It's ridiculous that scientists can genetically alter an organism and then sell it to people without their knowledge. It's possible that GMO food is and always will be 100% completely safe and is the best thing to ever happen to the planet. It's also possible that some people would prefer to be given the choice to purchase more expensive alternatives and avoid GMO, whether their rationale is unfounded or not. This seems like such a no-brainer I can't believe it's even an issue.

I agree with the bolded. Fortunately, companies that want to cater to such people have every right to avoid using GMO ingredients and to label their products as non-GMO. So why is there an issue?

What kind of hysteria is everyone really afraid of if we start labeling food as GMO? What are people gong to do, stop eating? No they'll buy different products (personally I think only a small minority would actually bother with it) but the market for food will not change.

Food costs will rise only to the level that the public has tolerance for, heck it may even make costs for GMO products drop if they start losing significant market share. Win-win.

 

[Chaka]

The citizens of Washington State have voted against a bill that would have required the labeling of genetically altered foods, according to preliminary ballot results.

http://rt.com/usa/washington-no-gmo-labeling-282/

The multinationals invested a total of $22 million in convincing the state’s constituents they should vote against the mandatory labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients.

This is not the first time tech giants have rallied against legislation that would have forced them to label their genetically altered produce. In 2012 a similar bill was struck down in California after a $45 million campaign by Monsanto and its cohorts

what are they afraid of? telling people the truth?

a setback, but the fight is just beginning my friends.

Not wanting to give in to mass hysteria started by people who don't understand science and using GMO as a cover to hide their anti-corporatism?

It's what we don't know that is the true concern. Those claiming to know for a fact that they are safe or not are liars. Right now America is in the middle of the largest test case on food safety the world has ever known. Instead of asking the question "Is it safe to use?" and making the determination to go forward based upon the results of that question we have adopted a national policy of "Is it unsafe to use?" and essentially crossed our fingers hoping that the answer is "No."

The early returns are not positive when one looks at the overall state of health of our country. It could merely be a product of too much abundance but it could also be a case of the actual contents of what we are eating having a negative impact on our health. It is a difficult issue to unravel but to make the default position "PROVE IT'S UNSAFE!" is a terrible starting point for this type of scientific endeavor.

If only there were gov't organizations, like a Food Administration of sorts that tests these items for safety.

There is and they're not. Something as complicated as the impact of GMO foods requires long range studies which we simply are not doing. We are living the long range experiment and the early returns are not that good.

I thought you understood science?

Link to the long range scientific studies and rationale for why we are proceeding from a position of "Is it unsafe?" rather than "Is it safe?"

 

[The Commish]

The citizens of Washington State have voted against a bill that would have required the labeling of genetically altered foods, according to preliminary ballot results.

http://rt.com/usa/washington-no-gmo-labeling-282/

The multinationals invested a total of $22 million in convincing the state’s constituents they should vote against the mandatory labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients.

This is not the first time tech giants have rallied against legislation that would have forced them to label their genetically altered produce. In 2012 a similar bill was struck down in California after a $45 million campaign by Monsanto and its cohorts

what are they afraid of? telling people the truth?

a setback, but the fight is just beginning my friends.

Not wanting to give in to mass hysteria started by people who don't understand science and using GMO as a cover to hide their anti-corporatism?

Lol, mass hysteria. Label stuff appropriately and let people make decisions. It's ridiculous that scientists can genetically alter an organism and then sell it to people without their knowledge. It's possible that GMO food is and always will be 100% completely safe and is the best thing to ever happen to the planet. It's also possible that some people would prefer to be given the choice to purchase more expensive alternatives and avoid GMO, whether their rationale is unfounded or not. This seems like such a no-brainer I can't believe it's even an issue.

I agree with the bolded. Fortunately, companies that want to cater to such people have every right to avoid using GMO ingredients and to label their products as non-GMO. So why is there an issue?

Why not just do the inverse like with organic foods? We don't make every single manufacturer of food items list their food as "non-organic." Why can't manufactuers that choose not to use GM food to list themselves as "GM free"?

Instead of an ingredient list we should have all the things that aren't in the product....makes sense.

 

[Rayderr]

The citizens of Washington State have voted against a bill that would have required the labeling of genetically altered foods, according to preliminary ballot results.

http://rt.com/usa/washington-no-gmo-labeling-282/

The multinationals invested a total of $22 million in convincing the state’s constituents they should vote against the mandatory labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients.

This is not the first time tech giants have rallied against legislation that would have forced them to label their genetically altered produce. In 2012 a similar bill was struck down in California after a $45 million campaign by Monsanto and its cohorts

what are they afraid of? telling people the truth?

a setback, but the fight is just beginning my friends.

Not wanting to give in to mass hysteria started by people who don't understand science and using GMO as a cover to hide their anti-corporatism?

It's what we don't know that is the true concern. Those claiming to know for a fact that they are safe or not are liars. Right now America is in the middle of the largest test case on food safety the world has ever known. Instead of asking the question "Is it safe to use?" and making the determination to go forward based upon the results of that question we have adopted a national policy of "Is it unsafe to use?" and essentially crossed our fingers hoping that the answer is "No."

The early returns are not positive when one looks at the overall state of health of our country. It could merely be a product of too much abundance but it could also be a case of the actual contents of what we are eating having a negative impact on our health. It is a difficult issue to unravel but to make the default position "PROVE IT'S UNSAFE!" is a terrible starting point for this type of scientific endeavor.

If only there were gov't organizations, like a Food Administration of sorts that tests these items for safety.

There is and they're not. Something as complicated as the impact of GMO foods requires long range studies which we simply are not doing. We are living the long range experiment and the early returns are not that good.

I thought you understood science?

Link to the long range scientific studies and rationale for why we are proceeding from a position of "Is it unsafe?" rather than "Is it safe?"

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

Let me know when you're done reading it.

 

[Rayderr]

The citizens of Washington State have voted against a bill that would have required the labeling of genetically altered foods, according to preliminary ballot results.

http://rt.com/usa/washington-no-gmo-labeling-282/

The multinationals invested a total of $22 million in convincing the state’s constituents they should vote against the mandatory labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients.

This is not the first time tech giants have rallied against legislation that would have forced them to label their genetically altered produce. In 2012 a similar bill was struck down in California after a $45 million campaign by Monsanto and its cohorts

what are they afraid of? telling people the truth?

a setback, but the fight is just beginning my friends.

Not wanting to give in to mass hysteria started by people who don't understand science and using GMO as a cover to hide their anti-corporatism?

Lol, mass hysteria. Label stuff appropriately and let people make decisions. It's ridiculous that scientists can genetically alter an organism and then sell it to people without their knowledge. It's possible that GMO food is and always will be 100% completely safe and is the best thing to ever happen to the planet. It's also possible that some people would prefer to be given the choice to purchase more expensive alternatives and avoid GMO, whether their rationale is unfounded or not. This seems like such a no-brainer I can't believe it's even an issue.

I agree with the bolded. Fortunately, companies that want to cater to such people have every right to avoid using GMO ingredients and to label their products as non-GMO. So why is there an issue?

Why not just do the inverse like with organic foods? We don't make every single manufacturer of food items list their food as "non-organic." Why can't manufactuers that choose not to use GM food to list themselves as "GM free"?

Instead of an ingredient list we should have all the things that aren't in the product....makes sense.

Yeah, it's not like we ever see stuff advertised as "sugar free" or "hormone free"

 

[Chaka]

The citizens of Washington State have voted against a bill that would have required the labeling of genetically altered foods, according to preliminary ballot results.

http://rt.com/usa/washington-no-gmo-labeling-282/

The multinationals invested a total of $22 million in convincing the state’s constituents they should vote against the mandatory labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients.

This is not the first time tech giants have rallied against legislation that would have forced them to label their genetically altered produce. In 2012 a similar bill was struck down in California after a $45 million campaign by Monsanto and its cohorts

what are they afraid of? telling people the truth?

a setback, but the fight is just beginning my friends.

Not wanting to give in to mass hysteria started by people who don't understand science and using GMO as a cover to hide their anti-corporatism?

It's what we don't know that is the true concern. Those claiming to know for a fact that they are safe or not are liars. Right now America is in the middle of the largest test case on food safety the world has ever known. Instead of asking the question "Is it safe to use?" and making the determination to go forward based upon the results of that question we have adopted a national policy of "Is it unsafe to use?" and essentially crossed our fingers hoping that the answer is "No."

The early returns are not positive when one looks at the overall state of health of our country. It could merely be a product of too much abundance but it could also be a case of the actual contents of what we are eating having a negative impact on our health. It is a difficult issue to unravel but to make the default position "PROVE IT'S UNSAFE!" is a terrible starting point for this type of scientific endeavor.

If only there were gov't organizations, like a Food Administration of sorts that tests these items for safety.

There is and they're not. Something as complicated as the impact of GMO foods requires long range studies which we simply are not doing. We are living the long range experiment and the early returns are not that good.

I thought you understood science?

Link to the long range scientific studies and rationale for why we are proceeding from a position of "Is it unsafe?" rather than "Is it safe?"

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

Let me know when you're done reading it.

I will.

Let me know when you are ready to answer part 2

 

[jhib]

The citizens of Washington State have voted against a bill that would have required the labeling of genetically altered foods, according to preliminary ballot results.

http://rt.com/usa/washington-no-gmo-labeling-282/

The multinationals invested a total of $22 million in convincing the state’s constituents they should vote against the mandatory labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients.

This is not the first time tech giants have rallied against legislation that would have forced them to label their genetically altered produce. In 2012 a similar bill was struck down in California after a $45 million campaign by Monsanto and its cohorts

what are they afraid of? telling people the truth?

a setback, but the fight is just beginning my friends.

Not wanting to give in to mass hysteria started by people who don't understand science and using GMO as a cover to hide their anti-corporatism?

Lol, mass hysteria. Label stuff appropriately and let people make decisions. It's ridiculous that scientists can genetically alter an organism and then sell it to people without their knowledge. It's possible that GMO food is and always will be 100% completely safe and is the best thing to ever happen to the planet. It's also possible that some people would prefer to be given the choice to purchase more expensive alternatives and avoid GMO, whether their rationale is unfounded or not. This seems like such a no-brainer I can't believe it's even an issue.

I agree with the bolded. Fortunately, companies that want to cater to such people have every right to avoid using GMO ingredients and to label their products as non-GMO. So why is there an issue?

Why not just do the inverse like with organic foods? We don't make every single manufacturer of food items list their food as "non-organic." Why can't manufactuers that choose not to use GM food to list themselves as "GM free"?

Just to be clear (because I can see how one might read my last post the wrong way), I agree with you.

 

[Sarnoff]

I'm all for GM foods, have no problem eating them, don't care. But when the labeling bill came up in CA, even I voted that there's nothing wrong with more information on the label.

 

[Rayderr]

I will.

Let me know when you are ready to answer part 2

Scientists generally proceed from the position of "we don't know if it's safe or unsafe."

 

[RCon]

I will.

Let me know when you are ready to answer part 2

Scientists generally proceed from the position of "we don't know if it's safe or unsafe."

To be fair, while (some? most?) scientists might proceed from that position, government often proceeds from an entirely different default position. To wit: government's current position on fracking, which appears to be "default to safe until proven otherwise".

 

[jhib]

With 2000+ global studies confirming safety, GM foods among most analyzed subjects in science

“The science just hasn’t been done.”

- Charles Benbrook, organic researcher, Washington State University.

“There is no credible evidence that GMO foods are safe to eat.”

- David Schubert, Salk Institute of Biological Studies

“[The] research [on GMOs] is scant…. Whether they’re killing us slowly— contributing to long-term, chronic maladies—remains anyone’s guess.”

- Tom Philpott, Mother Jones

“Genetically modified (GM) foods should be a concern for those who suffer from food allergies because they are not tested….”

- Organic Consumers Association

A popular weapon used by those critical of agricultural biotechnology is to claim that there has been little to no evaluation of the safety of GM crops and there is no scientific consensus on this issue.

Those claims are simply not true. Every major international science body in the world has reviewed multiple independent studies—in some cases numbering in the hundreds—in coming to the consensus conclusion that GMO crops are as safe or safer than conventional or organic foods, but the magnitude of the research has never been evaluated or documented.

Still the claim that GMOs are ‘understudied’—the meme represented in the quotes highlighted at the beginning of this article—has become a staple of anti-GMO critics, especially activist journalists. In response to what they believed was an information gap, a team of Italian scientists cataloged and analyzed 1783 studies about the safety and environmental impacts of GMO foods—a staggering number.

The researchers couldn’t find a single credible example demonstrating that GM foods pose any harm to humans or animals. “The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops,” the scientists concluded.

The research review, published in Critical Reviews in Biotechnology in September, spanned only the last decade—from 2002 to 2012—which represents only about a third of the lifetime of GM technology.

“Our goal was to create a single document where interested people of all levels of expertise can get an overview on what has been done by scientists regarding GE crop safety,” lead researcher Alessandro Nicolia, applied biologist at the University of Perugia, told Real Clear Science. “We tried to give a balanced view informing about what has been debated, the conclusions reached so far, and emerging issues.”

The conclusions are also striking because European governments, Italy in particular, have not been as embracing of genetically modified crops as has North and South America, although the consensus of European scientists has been generally positive.

The Italian review not only compiled independent research on GMOs over the last ten years but also summarizes findings in the different categories of GM research: general literature, environmental impact, safety of consumption and traceability.

The “general literature” category of studies largely reveals the differences between the US, EU and other countries when it comes to regulating GM crops. Due to lack of uniform regulatory practices and the rise of non-scientific rhetoric, Nicolia and his colleagues report, concern about GMOs has been greatly exaggerated.

Environmental impact studies are predominant in the body of GM research, making up 68% of the 1,783 studies. These studies investigated environmental impact on the crop-level, farm-level and landscape-level. Nicolia and his team found “little to no evidence” that GM crops have a negative environmental impact on their surroundings.

One of the fastest growing areas of research is in gene flow, the potential for genes from GM crops to be found—“contaminate” in the parlance of activists—in non-GM crops in neighboring fields. Nicolia and his colleagues report that this has been observed, and scientists have been studying ways to reduce this risk with different strategies such as isolation distances and post-harvest practices. The review notes that gene flow is not unique to GM technology and is commonly seen in wild plants and non-GM crops. While gene flow could certainly benefit from more research, Nicolia and his colleagues suggest, the public’s aversion to field trials discourages many scientists, especially in the EU.

In the food and feeding category, the team found no evidence that approved GMOs introduce any unique allergens or toxins into the food supply. All GM crops are tested against a database of all known allergens before commercialization and any crop found containing new allergens is not approved or marketed.

The researchers also address the safety of transcribed RNA from transgenic DNA. Are scientists fiddling with the ‘natural order’ of life? In fact, humans consume between 0.1 and 1 gram of DNA per day, from both GM and non-GM ingredients. This DNA is generally degraded by food processing, and any surviving DNA is then subsequently degraded in the digestive system. No evidence was found that DNA absorbed through the GI tract could be integrated into human cells—a popular anti-GMO criticism.

These 1783 studies are expected to be merged into the public database known as GENERA (Genetic Engineering Risk Atlas) being built by Biofortified, an independent non-profit website. Officially launched in 2012, GENERA includes peer-reviewed journal articles from different aspects of GM research, including basic genetics, feeding studies, environmental impact and nutritional impact. GENERA has more than 650 studies listed so far, many of which also show up in the new database. When merged, there should be well over 2000 GMO related studies, a sizable percentage—as many as 1000—that have been independently executed by independent scientists.

In short, genetically modified foods are among the most extensively studied scientific subjects in history. This year celebrates the 30th anniversary of GM technology, and the paper’s conclusion is unequivocal: there is no credible evidence that GMOs pose any unique threat to the environment or the public’s health. The reason for the public’s distrust of GMOs lies in psychology, politics and false debates.

 

[Chaka]

I will.

Let me know when you are ready to answer part 2

Scientists generally proceed from the position of "we don't know if it's safe or unsafe."

A semantic difference in this conversation. It is because of application of the null hypothesis that scientists don't start research projects with human trials, yet that is precisely what is happening with our food system.

 

[Rayderr]

I will.

Let me know when you are ready to answer part 2

Scientists generally proceed from the position of "we don't know if it's safe or unsafe."

A semantic difference in this conversation. It is because of application of the null hypothesis that scientists don't start research projects with human trials, yet that is precisely what is happening with our food system.

The current scientific evidence regarding the absorption, distribution, and metabolism of a genetically modified organism is identical to that of its conventional counterpart (Hollingworth, 2002). When someone ingests a genetically modified food product, it goes through the same process of digestion in the body as would a non-modified food product. Therefore, the absorption, distribution, and metabolism of GMO’s can be described by following the pathway for normal human digestion. During and after ingestion, the food is broken down into polymers as it passes through the mouth, esophagus, and stomach. These larger organic molecules are digested into monomers, which are then transported across the wall of the small intestine into the blood and lymph. This transportation of the organic food molecules is the absorption process. Absorption occurs at a rapid rate because of the extensive surface area that exists within the folds of the small intestine.

In terms of distribution, different areas of the small intestine absorb and therefore distribute the different food monomers. For example, the absorption of carbohydrates and lipids occurs in the duodenum and jejunum, however the water and electrolytes are absorbed primarily in the ileum. Finally, metabolism of the broken-down GMO occurs, but varies from person to person. The body’s metabolic rate is influenced by exercise, body temperature, age, sex, and rate of thyroid secretion. In general, however, individual differences in metabolic rate are mainly due to differences in physical activity (Fox, 1996).

In terms of the absorption, distribution, and metabolism of the specific transgenic material that is not naturally occurring in the plant, it is not a new type of material to our digestive systems. Humans consume approximately 0.1 to 1 gram of DNA in their diet each day, so it is present in very small amounts. Research has shown that dietary DNA has no known toxicity itself. And with transgenic DNA, defense mechanisms have evolved so that the hydrolytic breakdown of DNA during digestion and the silencing of foreign gene expression prevent the incorporation or expression of foreign DNA (Hollingworth, 2002).

 

[Chaka]

And FTR I am not saying that GMO foods are categorically unsafe.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

This is a complicated subject because nearly all farmed foods are genetically modified -- by centuries or millennia of selective breeding, at least, if not by more direct (and more modern) means.

I don't think there's anything wrong with genetic modification in itself. But when foods are abruptly modified (instead of over centuries or millennia) there's a chance that our digestive systems won't be very well adapted to some of the new features. This has possibly happened with semi-dwarf wheat, which may be harder on some people's digestive systems than traditional einkorn wheat.

In any case, I can see both sides of the argument regarding whether genetically modified foods (by some definition or another) should be labeled as such. I think it's appropriate to leave it up to the voters. If enough people want such labeling, make it mandatory. If not, don't. I'm not even sure how I'd vote on that.

What I think is very important, however, is to allow non-GMO foods (by some standardized definition) to label their foods as non-GMO. If all non-GMO foods are labeled as such, the issue of mandatory labeling for GMO foods becomes moot. If it doesn't say non-GMO, that's pretty much the same thing as saying GMO.

I don't recall reading about a movement to ban non-GMO labels, but I wouldn't put it past the Big Food lobbyists from trying. (Monsanto was trying at one point, and may still be trying, to have "rBST-free" labels banned from dairy products under the theory that saying "rBST-free" incorrectly implies that there's something wrong with rBST.) Whether certain labels should be mandatory will often be a difficult issue; but whether any truthful labels should be banned is always an easy issue. They shouldn't be.

So my main concern here is protecting food producers' right to truthfully put "non-GMO" on their labels (with a standardized definition of what qualifies).