Demonstrators rally against Monsanto in global anti-GMO protest

[bush_cheney2004]

Anyway, getting back to the original question, I don't see any reason why people shouldn't know whether their food has been geneticaly modified and therefore in all likelyhood sprayed with herbicides.

OK...that's fine, but do you really believe that such labels can reliably communicate the status of such food for GMOs or many other risks in the production chain ? There are no labels for insect parts, larvae/eggs, fecal matter, rodent hairs, "filth", etc., which I suspect would turn off people a lot more than GMOs. Economically producing food is more important than boutique food labels to satisfy every possible risk.

People who don't wish to purchase such foods can buy alternatives, but they are only fooling themselves and/or trading one risk for another. Friend of mine drank a canned soft drink many years ago and heard something rattling inside the can...turned out it was mouse skeleton...Ooops !

Edited June 3, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[TimG]

Neither does arrogant condescension.

Why don't we put a label 'this food may kill you' on everything that has something that is hypothetically dangerous? Of course, without context, such a label is useless because it is too general. That is why we have numerous government agencies that monitor the food supply and keep stuff which is dangerous out. The idea that a general label like 'this product contains GMOs' or 'this product contains ingredients that were sprayed with pesticide or herbicide' is going to help people make intelligent decisions is nonsense. People who don't trust the government agencies to do their job can buy organic or grow their own food. Edited June 3, 2013 by TimG

[segnosaur]

Hey, how's this for a compromise....

We require food producers to label any products with GMO food, but we get to let them choose the wording of the label. Here's my suggestion: Use the exact phrase "This product contains foods that every reputable major food organization has found to be completely safe. Furthermore, you're far less likely to get food poisoning from this food than eating 'organic' food".

Unlike simply sticking the label "GMO" on it, at least the above label actually tells you valuable information.

I am fine with it if the company stand behind that statement (with no fine prints). I wouldn't write that if I was the company. It brings no benefits since most consumers wouldn't understand it...

But here's the problem... if you simply stuck the label "genetically modified" on the label, most consumers wouldn't understand that either. Sadly, most consumers (and, lets face it, probably most greenpeace and other environmental activists) don't really understand science. That's why i suggested a phrase that is not only accurate, but actually gives real information.

In fact, it's likely the consumers will not understand that sentence and be scared off.

How would people be scared off? Its a label saying:

- Science has established this food is safe to eat (true)

and

- There are problems with other sources of food (specifically organics)

It would be less scary than actually using the term "genetically modified", since there are people that are scientifically illiterate who get freaked out by scare words like that.

The only people that would fear such a label are groups like greenpeace. The reason that they want foods labeled "genetically modified" is because they think it would scare people. ("Ooo... frankenfood!"). An educated consumer is their worst nightmare.

[segnosaur]

Anyway, getting back to the original question, I don't see any reason why people shouldn't know whether their food has been geneticaly modified

Once again... reasons why it is not a good idea to label genetically modified food have been discussed in this thread already. While some may think its just a case of slapping a label on the package, its not as easy as that...

If you're going to label something as 'genetically modified', you have to first set standards. (What level of contamination is allowed? What about GMO foods fed to livestock; do they become 'GMO'?) Then, companies have to set up their production facilities to handle 2 separate foot "streams" (one GMO, one non-GMO). And, since people don't necessarily trust "big business", you need government inspectors to verify that no GMO products have been used (either deliberately or by accident) in non-GMO products.

All of this increases costs, both for the production companies (e.g. replication of infrastructure) and for the government (inspectors to verify the foods are non-GMO.) I believe one of the other posters gave a reference to a 10% increase in food costs if labeling were mandatory.

I would rather not see my food bill increase because other people don't understand science and get freaked out by "frankenfood".

...

and therefore in all likelyhood sprayed with herbicides.

Ummm... not sure how to tell you this, but your food has likely been sprayed with herbicides even if it hasn't been genetically modified. For example, wheat can be sprayed with 2-4D, Dicamba or any one of a half dozen chemicals.

http://cru.cahe.wsu.edu/CEPublications/eb1803/eb1803.html

Even organic crops get treated with herbicides. For example, 10 seconds of googling found an article which talked about treating organic wheat with Meadowform (a plant). Thing is, meadowform contains N-hydroxy-2-(3-methoxy-phenyl)-thioacetamide. (Any idea what that is? I certainly don't. But if you eat "organic" wheat you might be eating some right now.

http://horticulture.oregonstate.edu/node/322

[segnosaur]

Monstanto spends millions a year doing their own favourable research, buying research labs in order to control their findings, paying millions to doctors to come out as experts who support Monsanto, paying millions to squash unfavourable internet links and pushing up favourable pro-monsanto links into the top 10 pages of google. Let's not forget the millions they pay political prostitutes around the world in order to protect them from those pesky 'tree huggers' and 'leftists' and 'liberals' and 'vegetarians' and 'sean penn'.

Ah yes, when all else fails, assume there's some sort of big "conspiracy". Sadly, its a common tactic among those that are either dogmatic or scientifically illiterate.

Do you believe in creationism? Then the entire biological community is somehow an evil cabal because they don't believe in a 6000 year old earth.

Want people vaccinated because studies show vaccination saves lives? Well, you're a victim of "big pharma" and all the drug companies.

Think 9/11 was carried out by a group of middle-eastern hijackers under the direction of bin Laden? Well, you're a sheeple for not believing it was an inside job carried out by the Bilderbergers, or the Hamburgers, or whatever!

Its amazing how someone can complain how controlling Monsanto is, in a thread talking about large protests against Monsanto. Of course, the main problem with your argument is that, despite your claims of Monsanto "buying labs", there is still a substantial amount of work done, through university labs, through other companies, etc., who are completely neutral, or may even be competitors to Monsanto.

I wonder why there are people here who are being their mouth piece for free.

Perhaps some of us actually believe that science is the best way to understand the world around us.

While it may be tempting to "root for the little guy", sometimes the little guy is actually in the wrong. Monsanto is certainly not a perfect company; however, that does not mean that everything it does is wrong; in this case, it seems to have science on its side.

Or maybe some of us actually, you know, like humanity and like the environment, and want to take actions that actually help humanity and the environment.

For example, we look at the number of people who go blind from Vitamin A deficiency (rather than going blind from masturbating, the way god intended) and we think "Hmmm.... that's not good". So, we would prefer people in 3rd world countries to start growing genetically modified Golden Rice (which produces extra vitamin A) rather than go blind. Yeah, I know, living in nice, safe comfortable North America such matters may not seem that important.

Or we look at insects like the European corn Borer, and the pesticides we spray to control them (which in turn also kills beneficial insects like bees) and think "Hmmm... maybe we shouldn't be killing off our bees like that". So, I'd prefer farmers to grow genetically modified Bt corn strains which reduce the amount of insecticides required (a 35% decrease in global pesticide use to control the borer). Oh, and not only that, by producing a higher quality of grain you also reduce the amount of carcinogens (since damage caused by the borer can help molds grow on the corn.) See: http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/use-and-impact-of-bt-maize-46975413

So, maybe you don't care much for saving people's vision, or for saving the bee population, but some of us do. And if the price of speaking out to end these problems is that we have to be on the side of Monsanto, well, that's the price we pay.

[segnosaur]

Well with the recent discovery that GMO wheat was found in the USA meant for exports, Japan and others said the are not importing wheat from the USA.

Now here is the thing to understand. Organic simply does NOT exist in the pure sense these days.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/31/us-wheat-control-idUSBRE94U06H20130531

...investigating the mysterious appearance of experimental, unapproved genetically engineered wheat plants on a farm in Oregon. The wheat was developed years ago by Monsanto Co to tolerate its Roundup herbicide, but the world's largest seed company scrapped the project and ended all field trials in 2004.

Experimental strains that Monsanto discontinued are now showing up. I don't see how people think this stuff can be experimented on in an environment that will ensure cross contamination.

Keep in mind that the case of the GMO wheat in Oregon is still under investigation. Its not known where the plants came from. From what I've seen, the possibility of seed/pollen transfer from other farms has been ruled out (the seeds do not travel any significant distance.)

There are many countries that will not import GMO foods. What do they know that we don't?

Just out of curiosity, why exactly are you assuming that those other countries are the ones that "know something we don't"?

No country has a monopoly on stupidity. Britain health care system officially believes that plain water can cure disease. Politicians in many African countries deny that HIV causes Aids. Are they automatically right because they "know something we don't"?

Also, keep in mind that many countries that ban GM foods do so not because their agricultural or scientific agencies have found problems, but because their politicians have done the banning in an attempt to gain favor with their voter base.

[GostHacked]

Keep in mind that the case of the GMO wheat in Oregon is still under investigation. Its not known where the plants came from. From what I've seen, the possibility of seed/pollen transfer from other farms has been ruled out (the seeds do not travel any significant distance.)

The tests that Monsanto did for these wheat strains stopped in2005. These specific strains were experimental and never were pursued, and these are the ones being found in wheat crops. These specific strains never got to the FDA approval stage.

Just out of curiosity, why exactly are you assuming that those other countries are the ones that "know something we don't"?

Let's ask them!

No country has a monopoly on stupidity. Britain health care system officially believes that plain water can cure disease. Politicians in many African countries deny that HIV causes Aids. Are they automatically right because they "know something we don't"?

The ability to give a corporation person status at the same time allowing patenting on a life form is outright stupidity in my books as well.

Also, keep in mind that many countries that ban GM foods do so not because their agricultural or scientific agencies have found problems, but because their politicians have done the banning in an attempt to gain favor with their voter base.

Remember when DDT was thought to be good as well?

[segnosaur]

Keep in mind that the case of the GMO wheat in Oregon is still under investigation. Its not known where the plants came from. From what I've seen, the possibility of seed/pollen transfer from other farms has been ruled out (the seeds do not travel any significant distance.)

The tests that Monsanto did for these wheat strains stopped in2005. These specific strains were experimental and never were pursued, and these are the ones being found in wheat crops. These specific strains never got to the FDA approval stage.

And? So what?

I'm familiar with the case. As I said, nobody knows how the crops got there. The fact that they were never used commercially only ads to the baffling nature of the case.

Just out of curiosity, why exactly are you assuming that those other countries are the ones that "know something we don't"?

Let's ask them!

Hey, you were the one who was pointing to those other countries avoiding GMO food because they have some "inherent wisdom", rather than looking at the more logical explanation... that countries are avoiding GMO food because scientifically illiterate politicians are overruling experts who say GMO food is safe because they want to gain favor with certain voters

The ability to give a corporation person status at the same time allowing patenting on a life form is outright stupidity in my books as well.

An irrelevant comparision.

Even if you think granting personhood to a company is stupid... many countries don't grant that status to corporations, yet still allow GM foods.

Wow, you're really flinging the B.S. around to see what sticks, aren't you.

Remember when DDT was thought to be good as well?

Ah, DDT. Since you want to bring up that rather irrelevant comparison...

DDT started to be used commercially as a pesticide in the mid-1940s.However, experiments as early as 1945 showed that it can have a negative effect on wildlife. (See: http://books.google.ca/books?id=Wf2NqvrhEz4C&pg=PA90#v=onepage&q&f=false). The fact that it continued to be used (and its still approved for some uses today!) was because of a risk-vs-rewards scenario.

So, science showed problems with DDT right from the start.

Compare that with GM foods... at this point there is no credible scientific evidence that it causes harm. None. Notta. Zip. Ziltch. Even though we've been using it for over a decade. Its not a case of "we know it causes harm, but it is necessary" (as it was with DDT.) Its a case of them finding no harm.

Edited June 4, 2013 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

This is different, until GMO's came along hebicides like Roundup could not be used on the crops themselves. Roundup would be used to get rid of weeds before planting, not applied to the crop itself. DDT was used for decades before it's long term effects were realized.

Problems with DDT were found within a few years of it being available for commercial use. In 1945, tests already showed the death of various bird species in areas that were sprayed.

The fact that it continued to be used was not a case of people being unaware of the danger; they just thought that the risks outweighed the rewards.

Compare that with GMO foods... there have been no credible research done showing any harm.

[Moonbox]

....allowing patenting on a life form is outright stupidity in my books as well.

Can you give us a reasonable explanation as to why this is "outright stupidity" - preferably one that goes beyond vague granola outrage and indignation?

[GostHacked]

Ah, DDT. Since you want to bring up that rather irrelevant comparison...

Simply pointing out that they though it was good at the time, even after testing.

So, science showed problems with DDT right from the start.

But was used anyways. So even when tests show that there were problems, they still went ahead with it while most likely doing a PR campaign saying it is safe to use.

And? So what?

I'm familiar with the case. As I said, nobody knows how the crops got there. The fact that they were never used commercially only ads to the baffling nature of the case.

This is to show that they cannot do controlled experiments and make 100% sure that the strain does leave the test area. It's not baffling in the sense that they are not sure that how these things got there, but it should concern you that this was not an approved GMO and is being found in wheat crops.

Even if you go with the notion that the GMO is safe, this specific strain was experimental and never meant to be farmed. It was never tested and did not get FDA approval. But we are finding it out there. That does not seem to a concern here?

They cannot guarantee that experimental strains will not get into the food chain.

[segnosaur]

Ah, DDT. Since you want to bring up that rather irrelevant comparison...

Simply pointing out that they though it was good at the time, even after testing.

And once again... although it may have been "passed testing", it did not take long for problems to be found and for the government to start issuing restrictions.

I could also point out that back then the government was a lot less stringent regarding biological controls back in the mid 20th century. We now have significantly more regulatory oversight. (Its like a creationist suggesting that evolution isn't true because Issac Newton didn't believe in it, while ignoring the fact that the body of scientific knowledge has greatly expanded since his day.)

GM food has been around a lot longer than DDT was when the EPA started issuing restrictions. So, where's the evidence that GMO food is a problem?

So, science showed problems with DDT right from the start.

But was used anyways.

Yes it was. In fact, its still approved for some uses even today... That's because the alternative (e.g. people dying from Malaria) was considered a more significant problem.

And again, you seem to ignore the fact: problems were found with DDT impacting wildlife within a couple of years. No such problems have been found with GMO foods. Why exactly are you unable to grasp the difference?

So even when tests show that there were problems, they still went ahead with it while most likely doing a PR campaign saying it is safe to use.

Actually, the EPA actually started issuing restrictions on its use.

Oh, and by the way, even if the makers of DDT claimed their stuff was safe, there was actual real science indicating problems with its use... tests from the governments and university labs. There is no such tests showing problems with GMO foods that have passed scrutiny.

Re: farmer finding GMO wheat strains in his field...

I'm familiar with the case. As I said, nobody knows how the crops got there. The fact that they were never used commercially only ads to the baffling nature of the case.

This is to show that they cannot do controlled experiments and make 100% sure that the strain does leave the test area.

...

Even if you go with the notion that the GMO is safe, this specific strain was experimental and never meant to be farmed. It was never tested and did not get FDA approval. But we are finding it out there. That does not seem to a concern here?

Not greatly.

I never claimed that testing procedures and protocols were perfect, only strong enough to handle the vast majority of problems.

Heck, for all we know, this wheat was planted by some environmental activist attempting to discredit monsanto. (Not that its the most likely source of the problem, but I wouldn't put anything past environmental nutcases.)

Edited June 4, 2013 by segnosaur

[Hudson Jones]

Heck, for all we know, this wheat was planted by some environmental activist attempting to discredit monsanto. (Not that its the most likely source of the problem, but I wouldn't put anything past environmental nutcases.)

Listen to you. How pathetic are your comments.

"But I wouldn't put anything past environmental nutcases"

You sound like a nutcase for suggesting that and being a mouthpiece for Monsanto. The same company that has actually been 'caught' by the United States government for falsifying data:

On two occasions, the United States EPA has caught scientists deliberately falsifying test results at research laboratories hired by Monsanto to study glyphosate.

Link

You realize that Monsanto pays millions for people to be its mouthpiece by spreading happy thoughts about Monsanto and bashing 'environmental nutcases' while you're doing it all for free. So sad.

Edited June 5, 2013 by Hudson Jones

[bush_cheney2004]

...You realize that Monsanto pays millions for people to be its mouthpiece by spreading happy thoughts about Monsanto and bashing 'environmental nutcases' while you're doing it all for free. So sad.

I love Monsanto.....damn weeds....DIE !

[Moonbox]

Hudson Jones, on 05 Jun 2013 - 1:37 PM, said:

You realize that Monsanto pays millions for people to be its mouthpiece by spreading happy thoughts about Monsanto and bashing 'environmental nutcases' while you're doing it all for free. So sad.

You realize that farming/organic lobbyists pay millions for people to be their mouthpieces spreading completely unfounded fears, right?

I love Monsanto.....damn weeds....DIE !

Mmmm! Bigger, tastier and cheaper corn!

Edited June 5, 2013 by Moonbox

[segnosaur]

Heck, for all we know, this wheat was planted by some environmental activist attempting to discredit monsanto. (Not that its the most likely source of the problem, but I wouldn't put anything past environmental nutcases.)

Listen to you. How pathetic are your comments.

"But I wouldn't put anything past environmental nutcases"

You sound like a nutcase for suggesting that...

Really? Lets see....

From: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v389/n6651/full/389534b0.html

Ireland's first genetically modified crop has been sabotaged by a group of environmental activists...

From: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/01/03/mark_lynas_environmentalist_who_opposed_gmos_admits_he_was_wrong.html

If you fear genetically modified food, you may have Mark Lynas to thank. By his own reckoning, British environmentalist helped spur the anti-GMO movement in the mid-‘90s. But Lynas has changed his mind—and he’s not being quiet about it.... "I want to start with some apologies. For the record, here and upfront, I apologise for having spent several years ripping up GM crops.

I could also bring up the arson committed by activists funded by peta, or the actions to prevent logging by implanting metal spikes in trees, which risks the lives of loggers; however, I wanted to stick to just cases where they've acted against GMO research.

So, there's plenty of precedent for environmental activists taking actions that are downright illegal.

(Keep in mind that I didn't say that sabotage by environmental activists was the only possibility, or even the most likely, only that it was a possibility (however slim).

...and being a mouthpiece for Monsanto.

Actually, I'm a mouth piece for science. You know, the thing that you don't seem to have on your side.

Its quite revealing that, when presented with information from reputable sources which challenge or debunk your views, your only alternative is to accuse others of being a shill for "big corporations". Is that really the extent of your abilities to think and reason logically? Do you really think people who actually like to think rationally and don't view everything as a big conspiracy would actually be convinced by your accusations?

The same company that has actually been 'caught' by the United States government for falsifying data

So? I'm not defending them over their actions in falsifying data in those cases.

Organizations make mistakes. They sometimes do things that are illegal. I'm not supporting GMO foods because "big bad monsanto" says they're safe. I'm supporting them because reputable research appearing in peer reviewed journals (you know, with reviewers that are independent of Monsanto) shows that there are no problems.

You realize that Monsanto pays millions for people to be its mouthpiece by spreading happy thoughts about Monsanto

Why is that relevant? Monsanto has science on its side. Whether they spend zero dollars or bajillion, it won't change the fact that reputable science has shown their products to be safe.

[Hudson Jones]

Really? Lets see....

Criminal attacks are not falsifying data and planting seeds.

Vandalism by these groups are different than faking data and research which Monsanto has been caught doing at least 2 times. But of course, you elect to use 'environmentalist' as the ones who would fake data and research, even though Monsanto has been caught doing this. Because it's the environmentalists who are not trustworthy, but Monsanto and their research and paid scientists and paid politicians are all dandy and trustworthy to you.

Another problem with your comments is your need to paint a broad stroke like all environmentalists are the same and they all have the same agenda, tactics and approach.

Actually, I'm a mouth piece for science. You know, the thing that you don't seem to have on your side.

Why is that relevant? Monsanto has science on its side. Whether they spend zero dollars or bajillion, it won't change the fact that reputable science has shown their products to be safe.

You are a mouthpiece for Monsanto because you repeat research done by Monsanto and you don't question their findings. Because you rather accuse 'environmentalists' to falsify data even though Monsanto has been caught falsifying data. Even though Monsanto has used their extreme wealth to do things like buy out research centres whose data has created problems for them.

Carry on with your so-called independent and objective way of dealing with this.

Edited June 5, 2013 by Hudson Jones

[GostHacked]

You realize that farming/organic lobbyists pay millions for people to be their mouthpieces spreading completely unfounded fears, right?

Mmmm! Bigger, tastier and cheaper corn!

You sure Monsanto does not engage in the same thing? I mean along with other companies, a total of 47 million was spent to kill the GMO label proposition in California.

Organic farmers don't have the millions to pay lobbyists in order to further their goal. Monsanto does.

[Moonbox]

GostHacked, on 06 Jun 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

You sure Monsanto does not engage in the same thing? I mean along with other companies, a total of 47 million was spent to kill the GMO label proposition in California.

Organic farmers don't have the millions to pay lobbyists in order to further their goal. Monsanto does.

I was facetiously replying to Hudson's claim that Monsanto pays lobbyists. I know they do. People forget, however, that the organic and anti-GMO lobby is also huge. It also has the advantage of being able to play on people's fears (which it does regularly) to organize protests and uncertainty about GMOs without having anything scientific to base it on. Monsanto and similar companies can only defend themselves, and the only way they can do it is by spending money.

[Hudson Jones]

I was facetiously replying to Hudson's claim that Monsanto pays lobbyists. I know they do. People forget, however, that the organic and anti-GMO lobby is also huge. It also has the advantage of being able to play on people's fears (which it does regularly) to organize protests and uncertainty about GMOs without having anything scientific to base it on. Monsanto and similar companies can only defend themselves, and the only way they can do it is by spending money.

How much money has been spent by "Organic lobbyists"? Can you come up with some numbers here?

I think it's okay for people to fear feeding some GM vegetables, which make the stomach of insects explode, to their children. Especially when these GM crops were created by a shady organization such as Monsanto, which uses its wealth to do things like: Pay politicians to support it. Buy-out research labs whose findings question their products. Pay millions to so-called scientists to lobby on its behalf. Not to mention that Monsanto has been caught red-handed, faking data.

Why do you have a problem with being suspicious of a company with their track record?

[segnosaur]

You realize that farming/organic lobbyists pay millions for people to be their mouthpieces spreading completely unfounded fears, right?

You sure Monsanto does not engage in the same thing? I mean along with other companies, a total of 47 million was spent to kill the GMO label proposition in California.

Organic farmers don't have the millions to pay lobbyists in order to further their goal. Monsanto does

Oh, I'm quite sure Monsanto does pay lobbyists. I don't think anyone has ever doubted that.

However, there are a few things you need to keep in mind...

First of all, you seem to be suggesting "organic farmers" are composed of smaller farms... The fact is, organic farming is actually pretty big business, and there are some rather large corporations involved.

Secondly, its not just the organic farmers that are tossing around money.... Take for example Greenpeace, one of the major lobby groups fighting GMO. (Yes, they are fighting more than just GMO, but then Monsanto produces more than just GMO foods.). According to Wikipedia, they have a budget of over $300 million... While its far less than what Monsanto brings in, its certainly not something inconsequential. (And since they don't have to worry about things like actually producing a product, or paying dividends, a lot more of their money can be focused on lobbying.) Furthermore, they supposedly have over 17,000 volunteers and employees; that's almost as many people who are employeed by Monsanto, and as I mentioned before, almost all of those volunteers are available for lobbying, public relations, organizing rallies, etc; with Monsanto, most of the people are probably involved in product creation (research and development, production, etc.) Very few will be "lobbyists".

And something else to consider... Monsanto earns a lot of money. They probably pay a lot for lobbyists too. Likely even more than groups like greenpeace. However, environmental groups use a lot of volunteers. Just how much would their time be worth if they were earning an actual wage for their efforts?

Here's the problem... science is hard. Many people don't understand the basics. So, when you talk about things like peer reviewed studies, the concept goes right over people's heads. So, its easier for a group like Greenpeace to rally its people to fight the "evil Monsanto" because they can be easily swayed by simple dogma and slogans. Monsanto pays for its public relations... that's because it has the more difficult task. (People are less eager to stand behind "big business".)

I would love for this whole issue to be resolved by science. (It would be a pretty clear victory for GMO foods.) But, until the general population is either 1) Better educated, or 2) willing to realize the limitations of their knowledge and avoid supporting causes they don't know anything about, we're stuck with large scale protests by ill-informed (even if well meaning) dupes, expensive lobbying by big corporations, and politicians trying to cater to both sides.

Edited June 6, 2013 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

Vandalism by these groups are different than faking data and research which Monsanto has been caught doing at least 2 times.

But of course, you elect to use 'environmentalist' as the ones who would fake data and research

Actually, greenpeace (you know, one of the big groups fighting against GMO foods) actually had to apologize to corporations over some of the faulty claims its made in the past. (The claims weren't necessarily about GMO, but it does show that the environmental movement is far from perfect in their presentation of data.) i.e. Greenpeace lied in the past. Now, since (according to you) lying in the past means you can never be trusted about anything in the future, does that mean you no longer trust greenpeace and their anti-GMO stance? Or do you exercise selective forgiveness?

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/06/news/06iht-brent_.html

I also find it very... strange. The environmental lobby engages in activities that are borderline terrorism (e.g. risking the lives of loggers by 'spiking' trees) and downright illegal (destruction of private property), yet you somehow consider it somehow "beneath" them to try to artificially taint genetic research? That is a rather bizarre disconnect you have in your brain there. (Its rather like claiming a serial killer would never stoop as low as to engage in shoplifting.)

Another problem with your comments is your need to paint a broad stroke like all environmentalists are the same and they all have the same agenda, tactics and approach.

I find it extremely hipocritcal that you would complain about me painting all environmentalists "with the same brush", while at the same time taring each and every reputable scientist in the field that happens to thing GMO has value, even if they've never accepted one dime from Monsanto, as somehow shills for the company.

You are a mouthpiece for Monsanto because you repeat research done by Monsanto and you don't question their findings.

First of all, its not a question about whether I've questioned their findings... its what independent experts in the field think of their studies. Enough of those independent experts have verified their results. Its that whole peer review thing I mentioned that you don't seem to understand.

Secondly, its rather unfortunate that you seem to be so fixated on Monsanto, suggesting everything they do is somehow tainted and self serving. Did you ever think that, because Monsanto is the one producing GMO seeds, that they have to be the ones doing much of the research into their safety? Seriously... when GM comes up with a new car, we don't expect ford to do all the testing on it... GM has to do the initial tests for safetly and performance; only then is it necessary for the government to step in and give approval. Same with the creation of GMO foods... Monsanto creates the seeds, they have to verify they're safe. Independent experts then verify their work.

Oh, and by the way, their work has been verified.

For example, from: http://www.medecine.uottawa.ca/bmi/assets/documents/dr_altosaar/dr_altosaar1.pdf (a study where rats were fed GMO rice)....

No adverse effects on animal behaviour or weight gain were observed during the study. Blood samples...all within the normal reference intervals

And you know what? Monsanto had nothing to do with the study. It was funded by the European Union.

Or how about this study done on China (so, can't claim that its U.S. politicians listening to Monsanto)... http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691509001392 (a study examining plants modified with bt resistance)

there is a reasonable certainty of no harm resulting from the inclusion of the Cry1Ab/Ac protein in human food or animal feed.

The fact is, these types of independent studies are going on all the time. But, because plowing through complex scientific papers ain't as easy as slapping a slogan on a sign or chanting "evil Monsanto", they tend not to get as much acknowledgement.

Now, I have few questions for you:

1) What exactly is your scientific background?

What do you have, a Masters in science? PhD? How many journal articles have you read (or written)? How many university-level courses have you taken (in biology or other science fields)?

After all, you seem to be so willing to dismiss the concept of peer review... it would be nice to know whether you are doing so because you have real life experience with it, or whether you are staking a position due to ignorance.

2) What other conspiracy theories do you believe in?

After all, you're quite willing to dismiss a large body of scientific knowledge regarding GMO foods simply because "Monsanto lied/they are evil/have money". Does that attitude carry though to other types of conspiracies?

Do you think 9/11 was an 'inside job' (i.e. government agents planted explosives to destroy the towers)? After all, the government report showed that the collapse of the towers was consistent with the impact of a large jet, yet the government has lied in the past, and they certainly have much more resources at their disposal if they wanted to cover up their involvement.

Do you think that vaccines cause autism and a host of other problems? After all, pretty much the entire scientific community accepts that vaccines are safe and effective. yet at least some research is paid for by the drug companies themselves.

Do you think that the application of fluoride to drinking water is some sort of evil plot? After all, the medical community considers its use beneficial, but again, some claim that its some sort of government conspiracy to control the population.

How do you feel about these and other conspracies? Do you accept the "official" stories, or do you think there is something nefarious going on? And if you decide to dismiss those theories, yet cling to your "Monsanto controls everything" theory, how do you justify that in your mind?

3) What exactly is it about peer review that you don't understand?

I've tried explaining the concept to you in basic terms, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in. Perhaps the failure is on my part in not making things simple enough. If you tell my why you don't understand the concept, I may be able to provide you with proper resources to help you understand.

Edited June 6, 2013 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

(Deleted duplicate)

Edited June 6, 2013 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

How much money has been spent by "Organic lobbyists"? Can you come up with some numbers here?

Why. Can you come up with the amount spent by Monsanto? (preferrably from a reputable source... not some environmentalist web site who provides no mainstream sources.)

I think it's okay for people to fear feeding some GM vegetables, which make the stomach of insects explode, to their children.

Well, apart from the stupid claim of GM vegitables "making insects stomachs explode" (It does destroy the lining, but there is no "explosion" involved) it ignores the fact that humans and insect physiology are quite a bit different... we don't have the same composition to our stomach linings.

Especially when these GM crops were created by a shady organization such as Monsanto, which uses its wealth to do things like: Pay politicians to support it. Buy-out research labs whose findings question their products.

So, where is your proof that they were "buying research labs that question their products"?

You made the claim. Its your job to provide evidence.

Why do you have a problem with being suspicious of a company with their track record?

Here's the thing... nobody here is claiming that Monsanto should be given complete and ultimate trust. Nobody.

What people have said is that the scientific community, which includes many independent researchers is the best judge of the safety of GMO, and they have said there is no evidence of problems.

To assume each and every scientist who has looked at the data is somehow on Monsanto's payroll is to assume a conspiracy of massive proportions, right up there with NASA faking the moon landings and JFK killed by someone on the grassy knoll. Why aren't there at least a few holding up their bag of Monsanto cash saying "Look! they bribed me but I had a change of heart!"

Occam's razor is the concept that (to paraphrase) the simplest solution is usually the correct one. So what is simpler, Monsanto managing to bribe thousands upon thousands of scientists, even ones in other countries, and not one of them ever had a change of heart, or even blew the whistle even before money changed hands, or that yes indeed, evidence suggests that GMO food really is safe to eat.

Edited June 6, 2013 by segnosaur

[margrace]

You know this is a dumb argument. When we finally find out whether the claims are true or not the land may be destroyed and our grandchildren dying of starvation but who cares gotta make money you know. Another facet of Randism

Edited June 6, 2013 by margrace