Organic Food not better for you

[carepov]

Alright then ....

This is an interesting study, thank you. I am glad that Health Canada and other regulatory bodies are looking into it and will trust their recommendations.

Meanwhile, smoking, drinking, lack of exercise and overall poor eating habits CAUSE (not just "have been linked to") cancer, heart disease, etc... Perhaps we should focus more ressources on real problems and less on pretending that potential problems are real.

[GostHacked]

This is an interesting study, thank you. I am glad that Health Canada and other regulatory bodies are looking into it and will trust their recommendations.

Meanwhile, smoking, drinking, lack of exercise and overall poor eating habits CAUSE (not just "have been linked to") cancer, heart disease, etc... Perhaps we should focus more ressources on real problems and less on pretending that potential problems are real.

Remember, there was a time when doctors recommended one kind of smoke over another. The tobacco industries lobbied to supporess the health effects of smoking, now it's just common sense that smoking, and mainly due to the chemicals used in producing a pack of smokes (read the package and find out for yourself) formaldehyde, arsenic just to name a couple.

[Wild Bill]

Remember, there was a time when doctors recommended one kind of smoke over another. The tobacco industries lobbied to supporess the health effects of smoking, now it's just common sense that smoking, and mainly due to the chemicals used in producing a pack of smokes (read the package and find out for yourself) formaldehyde, arsenic just to name a couple.

Well, nicotine is not corn or wheat. Besides, the anti-smoking movement has never cared about the evil additives in cigarettes such as arsenic.

They are against nicotine in any form, any where. If you grew your own like organic lettuce they still would not want you to smoke it and would deny you the right to do so, often even in your own home.

[GostHacked]

Well, nicotine is not corn or wheat. Besides, the anti-smoking movement has never cared about the evil additives in cigarettes such as arsenic.

Some of the pesticides used on these crops have a form of nicotine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insecticide

Natural insecticides, such as nicotine, pyrethrum and neem extracts are made by plants as defenses against insects. Nicotine-based insecticides are still being widely used in the US and Canada though they are barred in the EU.[3]

So yes it does end up in the corn and wheat.

[carepov]

Some of the pesticides used on these crops have a form of nicotine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insecticide

So yes it does end up in the corn and wheat.

"Currently, nicotine is a permitted pesticide for organic farming because it is derived from a botanical source."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine

[carepov]

Remember, there was a time when doctors recommended one kind of smoke over another. The tobacco industries lobbied to supporess the health effects of smoking, now it's just common sense that smoking, and mainly due to the chemicals used in producing a pack of smokes (read the package and find out for yourself) formaldehyde, arsenic just to name a couple.

Yes indeed, now we know better. Why is it then that the number of deaths caused by smoking is infinitely higher than deaths due to GMOs?

Also, you seem to be ignoring the benefit side to the cost/benefit analysis. I generally support banning pesticides for residential use - there is no real benefit. What about the benefits of GMOs? In some cases: higher yields, less pesticide use, lower production costs, more nutritious, more affordable food... What about pesticide use on apples or other produce? How many children do not eat enough fresh produce because their parents find it too expensive? Yes, let's keep looking at the risks but they must be weighed against the benefits.

By the way, you never answered my earlier question about Golden Rice - do you think research should continue or be stopped?

[GostHacked]

Yes indeed, now we know better. Why is it then that the number of deaths caused by smoking is infinitely higher than deaths due to GMOs?

Also, you seem to be ignoring the benefit side to the cost/benefit analysis. I generally support banning pesticides for residential use - there is no real benefit. What about the benefits of GMOs? In some cases: higher yields, less pesticide use, lower production costs, more nutritious, more affordable food... What about pesticide use on apples or other produce? How many children do not eat enough fresh produce because their parents find it too expensive? Yes, let's keep looking at the risks but they must be weighed against the benefits.

By the way, you never answered my earlier question about Golden Rice - do you think research should continue or be stopped?

I was not aware of what this golden rice was when you posted it, so I really could not say.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/09/11/china-investigates-whether-children-used-in-gmo-golden-rice-trial/

China's health authorities will investigate allegations that genetically modified (GMO) rice was tested on Chinese children as part of a Sino-U.S. research project, state media said on Tuesday.

One Chinese researcher has been suspended by authorities while investigations are carried out.

China is already the world's largest grower of GMO cotton and the top importer of GMO soybeans but, while Beijing has already approved home-grown strains of GMO rice, it remains cautious about introducing the technology on a commercial basis amid widespread public concern about food safety.

The Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) investigation came after a report last month by environmental group Greenpeace claimed that a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)-backed study used 24 Chinese children aged between six and eight to test genetically modified "golden rice".

[GostHacked]

http://youtu.be/bLsXgi6p5xE

[GostHacked]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clothianidin

Nicotine in pesticides.

Clothianidin is an insecticide developed by Takeda Chemical Industries and Bayer AG. Similar to thiamethoxam and imidacloprid, it is a neonicotinoid. Neonicotinoids are a class of insecticides that are chemically similar to nicotine, which has been used as a pesticide since the late 1700s. Clothianidin and other neonicotinoids act on the central nervous system of insects as an agonist of acetylcholine, the neurotransmitter that stimulates nAChR, targeting the same receptor site (AChR) and activating post-synaptic acetylcholine receptors but not inhibiting AChE. The advantage of clothianidin and other neonicotinoids over nicotine is that they are less likely to break down in the environment. Clothianidin is an alternative to organophosphate, carbamate, and pyrethroid pesticides. It poses lower risks to mammals, including humans, when compared to organophosphates and carbamates. It has helped prevent insect pests build up resistance to organophosphate and pyrethroid pesticides.

Pharmaceuticals and pesticides make interesting .. hmm bed-fellows.

[Wild Bill]

Some of the pesticides used on these crops have a form of nicotine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insecticide

So yes it does end up in the corn and wheat.

Nicotine is also in tomatoes, BTW.

Here is a link for you:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/20/us-gmcrops-safety-idUSBRE88J0MS20120920

"Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King's College London, noted that Seralini's team had not provided any data on how much the rats were given to eat, or what their growth rates were.

"This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted," he said. "The statistical methods are unconventional ... and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip."

"David Spiegelhalter of the University of Cambridge said the methods, statistics and reporting of results were all below standard. He added that the study's untreated control arm comprised only 10 rats of each sex, most of which also got tumors."

It seems that professional scientists also find a great deal of fault with the study mentioned in your video clip.

[GostHacked]

Nicotine is also in tomatoes, BTW.

Here is a link for you:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/20/us-gmcrops-safety-idUSBRE88J0MS20120920

"Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King's College London, noted that Seralini's team had not provided any data on how much the rats were given to eat, or what their growth rates were.

"This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted," he said. "The statistical methods are unconventional ... and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip."

"David Spiegelhalter of the University of Cambridge said the methods, statistics and reporting of results were all below standard. He added that the study's untreated control arm comprised only 10 rats of each sex, most of which also got tumors."

It seems that professional scientists also find a great deal of fault with the study mentioned in your video clip.

So if I want to quit smoking cigs, and don't care for nicorette, I should eat more tomatoes?

[GostHacked]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vxCpzoEu13w#!

[carepov]

GostHacked,

What are you trying to say with your You Tube and other links?

What is the "problem"? Perhaps you could specify one specific problem (chemical X in product Y causes Z in humans)? And what kind "solutions" should we consider that would not cause other larger problems?

[Wild Bill]

GostHacked,

What are you trying to say with your You Tube and other links?

What is the "problem"? Perhaps you could specify one specific problem (chemical X in product Y causes Z in humans)? And what kind "solutions" should we consider that would not cause other larger problems?

Carepov, like with most of these kinds of issues, the anti-GM folks don't think in terms of specific good and bad factors.

They think in terms of an "overall feeling".

They have a romantic idea of traditional farming, with no knowledge of bugs, worms and blight. The only thing they have ever grown themselves are some bean seeds in a jar full of wet tissue paper.

[Michael Hardner]

Carepov, like with most of these kinds of issues, the anti-GM folks don't think in terms of specific good and bad factors.

They think in terms of an "overall feeling".

Right - kind of like you do when it comes to education.

I thought you were a populist ? There is a lot of popular support to force manufacturers to list ingredients even though there's no evidence that it makes a difference in the quality of food.

And this is what I'm talking about - you think you're a populist but you're not. You use populism as an excuse when it's a right-wing issue, then conveniently drop it when it's a left-wing issue.

[Wild Bill]

Right - kind of like you do when it comes to education.

I thought you were a populist ? There is a lot of popular support to force manufacturers to list ingredients even though there's no evidence that it makes a difference in the quality of food.

And this is what I'm talking about - you think you're a populist but you're not. You use populism as an excuse when it's a right-wing issue, then conveniently drop it when it's a left-wing issue.

Not at all, Michael. I have no problem if a sufficiently large enough portion of the population seeks something like listing food ingredients. I would have no problem if it became a populist issue to make astrology mandatory.

That being said, I would still feel free to to comment on how I found the people driving such things to be absolutely loony!

I believe it is only by allowing people to feel the negative consequences of their actions that they can learn. Reality checks are not just the best teachers but with many people today perhaps the ONLY teaching they will heed!

I believe as a society we have allowed too much elitism into our governance. Worse yet, many elitists in positions of social power have been acting as enablers, cocooning us from the real world.

If people are not allowed to make mistakes and learn from them, you end up with an extremely loopy society that thinks they can have anything they want, simply as an exercise of political power. They start to believe they can have cheap imports and still keep their jobs, and other premises that just don't hold water.

[Michael Hardner]

Not at all, Michael. I have no problem if a sufficiently large enough portion of the population seeks something like listing food ingredients. I would have no problem if it became a populist issue to make astrology mandatory.

Fair enough. What if the so-called anti-GM folks wanted to ban GM foods ?

I believe as a society we have allowed too much elitism into our governance. Worse yet, many elitists in positions of social power have been acting as enablers, cocooning us from the real world.

The term 'elitism' can't be applied in the same way to educators, scientists, politicians, artists. In each of these areas, the people have a voice as they should but the quality of that voice should differ.

We shouldn't elect climate scientists, medical experts and so on. That just doesn't make sense. The public has to defer authority to decide who speaks on those topics but that isn't elitism.

If people are not allowed to make mistakes and learn from them, you end up with an extremely loopy society that thinks they can have anything they want, simply as an exercise of political power.

History is a cycle. The people learn, unlearn, and re-learn things too. History repeats, unravels and sometimes the lesson is too difficult to expect people to grasp.

They start to believe they can have cheap imports and still keep their jobs, and other premises that just don't hold water.

Maybe they have to learn to tax the rich again ?

[Wayward Son]

Some of the pesticides used on these crops have a form of nicotine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insecticide

So yes it does end up in the corn and wheat.

Carepov already pointed out that nicotine is used as an insecticide for organic farming. You didn't seem to respond to it. Organic farming does use pesticides, nicotine being a frequent one, and because they ban synthetics, and their pesticides are not routinely replaced by newer/safer ones, some of the pesticides they use are among the worst ones out there.

[Wayward Son]

Unfortunately they have been proven wrong, because not only is Bt corn producing resistant "superpests", researchers have also found that the Bt-toxin can badly affect human health.

1) You do realize that BT is one of the most common pesticides used by organic farmers.

2) Any pesticide results in pests eventually becoming resistant to the pesticide. This goes for conventional farming as well as organic farming.

3) BT toxin being found in human blood does not mean that BT toxin has been found to affect human health. BT toxin generally works on specific sites. Those sites are found in certain groups of insects - not humans. Along a similar line: only a tiny percentage of viruses can harm humans, even though many of those viruses that can not harm humans are often found in the blood stream of humans, and even though those viruses do harm other species.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Wayward Son

[Wayward Son]

This is a breakdown of the experiment. Looks like Monsanto was involved in the testing.

http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

I don't know if you are aware, but you are referring to two different studies. The study that is referred to in the link above was by the same author - Gilles-Eric Séralini - responsible for the current media blitz, but is an earlier paper. Like every paper by this anti-gmo crusader it has significant flaws in methodology and would only be done by a scientist who is more interested in getting specific results than doing proper science. Because of the obvious design problems and bias it was declared invalid by the European Food Safety Authority.

The current study also seems to be full of methodological flaws and should have been dismissed out of hand when Seralini prohibited journalists from seeking outside comment on the study. It appears to me that Seralini knew full well that his study would crumble under even slight critical evaluation, so he released in a way to gain as much exposure as quickly as possible to increase the flow of money into his anti-gmo organization and anti-gmo book sales. I do believe that Seralini does believe that GMOs are harmful, but apparently not enough to do proper studies. I view him no differently than climate change deniers, anti-vaxers and creationists. Along the same lines, those who agree with him don't seem to know or care that his studies are crap, and when his studies are shown to be crap those who agree with him increase their support and come to believe that there is a "big science" conspiracy against their valiant crusader.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Wayward Son

[Wild Bill]

Fair enough. What if the so-called anti-GM folks wanted to ban GM foods ?

Maybe they have to learn to tax the rich again ?

First off, if the majority of the population wanted to ban GM foods I would respect their decision.

However, I would immediately start a kitchen garden of my own in my backyard. Without GM foods we may all be getting a bit hungry in the future. If I wasn't one of the ones who participated in the decision to ban the solution I don't see any reason why I should have to share in the hunger.

As for taxing the rich, the fact that you would interject such a statement in a scientific discussion is telling, Michael.

[GostHacked]

Why would an entity like Monsanto lobby the government of California to kill a bill that would require labeling on all food products if they contain GMO ingredients?

http://rt.com/usa/news/monsanto-gmo-37-california-877/

Activists in California are fighting to pass Proposition 37, a law that would legally require genetically modified foods to be labeled as such. Biotech giant Monsanto doesn’t like that idea, though, and has donated over $4.2 million to oppose it.

If the majority of voters in California can come together to support Proposition 37 on Election Day, companies such as Monsanto will be forced to advertise products created through genetic engineering and modification as being exactly that. And although the initiative is being touted by activists who demand a right to know what is being sold in supermarkets and grocery stores across the state, Monsanto and other GMO corporations are condemning the legislation.

No on 37, a “coalition against the deceptive food labeling scheme, sponsored by farmers and food producers,” has been put together to push back the proposition. According to campaign records publically available on the California State Department’s website, Monsanto has handed over $4,208,000 so far to support the movement aimed against Prop 37.

Dow Agrosciences, a multi-billion-dollar chemical company with strong GMO ties, has also contributed almost $1.2 million; Dupont has offered $1,273,600.

Would any of you be opposed having a label on the product indicating it has GMO ingredients?

If so .. why?

If what Monstano produces is the same as natural products, why is there a need to patent the product?

[Wayward Son]

Would any of you be opposed having a label on the product indicating it has GMO ingredients?

If so .. why?

Whether or not GMOs should be labelled is not a science question, so I really don't care a huge amount one way or the other. Voting populations are free to make decisions that are intelligent or stupid if they wish. The best one can hope for is that they make decisions that are informed....

On a personal level I oppose it for several reasons. Primarily because manditory labelling costs considerably more than voluntary labelling (the latter of which costs almost nothing). Companies are already free to voluntarily label their products as GMO-free. If the population actually cared about whether they were consuming GMOs they have the option to buy products which are labelled GMO-free (or organic products), yet those products do not seem to be taking over. In fact it seems to be the case that with the exception of a small percentage of consumers, no one cares. This may be because they are apathetic. Or it may be because they really don't trust the claims made by those who oppose GMOs and at the same time recognize that GMOs have been with us for a while now without ill effects.

However, a GMO-label law would be a mandatory labelling law, and as such laws require significant costs in regulation and monitoring it would be expensive. It seems that those opposed to GMOs have realized that the only way they can win is to increase the price of their competitors product. While polls have shown that consumers generally support lebelling by a large margin, that support falls dramatically when they are told that there will be a cost involved. People will generally agree that they want information even when they feel it is meaningless. When you add a cost to that information then the value of the information is taken into consideration.

Another reason I oppose it is because it is arbitrary and I don't think laws should be arbitrary. Mandatory labels are supposed to provide material information and warnings about health risks. We don't have labels to indicate which foods have come from seeds that come from a line in which radiation and/or chemicals were used to induce mutations - although that would be a high number of them and these methods of mutagenesis have led to many foods that people love. We don't label foods like banana's indicating to consumers that they are genetic freaks that bare little relationship to what they would have looked at in nature. We don't have a label that lists which fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides were used. Instead we determine what is considered safe, and if the product was made and produced in a manner that fits within those parameters that is good enough.

Is it perfect? No. But the major cases of harm have been caused by natural breeding methods. Whether you are referring to organics, conventional or GMO's the product is at least slightly different every year, but only the GMOs will have been tested at all. In the 1970s there was a traditionally bred potato type that was very toxic. They were beautiful potatos, and a lot of them were planted, but the glycoalkaloid levels were too high and it caused severe poisoning (another example for potatoes is a similar incident in Sweden in the 90s or 00s). Celery is another example where traditional breeding methods has led to a product that was toxic. In that case though it was so toxic that people developed rashes just from holding it, but had it been less toxic people would have been eating it. Cases like this from GMOs? Zero.

People have developed a fear of GMOs that I feel comes in large part from believing that pre-GMO farming methods are the "old mcdonald" methods. They were not, and such methods could not come close to feeding the world, nor would they necessarily be any safer for those lucky enough to eat. The thing I find saddest about this whole organic/GMO battle is that we have significant environmental issues that are very real, not imaginary. Why people would want to spend time and resources battling the imaginary dragons they have turned GMOs into is beyond me. How any environmentalist can claim to be fighting for the planet's future while advocating the least efficient method of farming - organics - for the large population that exists on earth is beyond me too. Would you prefer to trade off small concentrations of pesticides on your food that can be washed off for more wild spaces, or do you prefer no pesticides being used, but much more wild spaces turned into farm land? I chose the former.

Pesticides are considered a great evil, but people should understand that plants are packed full of pesticides that they have evolved, and just because these pesticides are natural does not mean that they are not harmful. Many of those natural pesticides were put through the Ames test, and you probably don't want to know what the results were. But in the real world it doesn't matter. It is the dose that makes the poison, and both natural and synthetic pesticides enter the body at extremely low levels (on top of the fact that synthetic pesticides can be developed with the aim of not being mutagenic or acting on humans, whereas the plants/evolution obviously don't care). If we were to adopt a farming method that no longer used pesticides breeders would select the individuals that held up the best to insect onslaught each year and breed them. What that does is selects for the crops that put more of its resources into being the most toxic to insects. I would rather be eating food that is bred to put it's resources into plant growth and nutrition and leaves the insect killing to pesticides that can be applied and washed off. But to each their own.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Wayward Son

[Guest Manny]

Theres a big difference between genetic modification and more conventional methods of hybridization. Genetic modification is an experiment being carried out, brand new and on a large scale. It's reasonable to express concern and to challenge companies like Monsanto to improve their research, to prove the safety of their products.

It's foolish to accept something new produced by government and scientists as safe, just because they say so. Look at history, look at the track record for new and radical drugs that were inadequately tested. There is still controversy about GMO products, even in the scientific community.

Author defends Monsanto GM study as EU orders review

Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen and colleagues said on Wednesday that rats fed on Monsanto's genetically modified corn or exposed to its top-selling weed killer suffered tumors and multiple organ damage and premature death.

"This study has been evaluated by the world's best food toxicology magazine." he told Reuters Television.

"GMOs have been evaluated in a extremely poor and lax way with much less analysis than we have done. It's the world's most detailed and longest study. Therefore, some people are responsible and guilty of authorizing this GMO after only three months," he said.

[Wild Bill]

Theres a big difference between genetic modification and more conventional methods of hybridization. Genetic modification is an experiment being carried out, brand new and on a large scale. It's reasonable to express concern and to challenge companies like Monsanto to improve their research, to prove the safety of their products.

It's foolish to accept something new produced by government and scientists as safe, just because they say so. Look at history, look at the track record for new and radical drugs that were inadequately tested. There is still controversy about GMO products, even in the scientific community.

Author defends Monsanto GM study as EU orders review

Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen and colleagues said on Wednesday that rats fed on Monsanto's genetically modified corn or exposed to its top-selling weed killer suffered tumors and multiple organ damage and premature death.

"This study has been evaluated by the world's best food toxicology magazine." he told Reuters Television.

"GMOs have been evaluated in a extremely poor and lax way with much less analysis than we have done. It's the world's most detailed and longest study. Therefore, some people are responsible and guilty of authorizing this GMO after only three months," he said.

Manny, obviously you came in late and didn't read the previous posts. You have cited a proven quack! He has a history of using very poor science and ignoring proper statistical and scientific methodology in his projects. That's why no one except the anti-GM movement listen to him. He's just a shill for them.