I grow a lot of my own vegetables in my own garden. Why do people say Big Organic foods are toxic? Are you telling me they don't just grow food like I do in the back yard?

People trigger on buzz words, which is sad.

There is nothing "toxic" about organic produce. The bigger issue is that, at the store, "organic" is just a marketing label. Alas, many organic companies have also chosen to demonize seed development technologies, such as GE, as a way to way to scare people to buy their buy products, which cost more. It's simply an unethical marketing strategy. (Yeah, that's a kind way to put it. Still, you get the point.)

Roulac may very well be an evil capitalist. That doesn't mean that the impact of GMOs on health and the environment should not be subjected to independent study. And labeling.

Pretty sure you have me on ignore. I can imagine why.

--imm

The fact that you bother to respond to clear evidence of anti-progressive actions by a scumbag like Roulac with anything less than condemnation of Roulac, well, it's quite telling.

Science matters, but not to you.

I don't vouch for him. I'm not a capitalist. I also know you have no basis on which to evaluate my level of scientific understanding.

I would like to see results from some long term double blind animal studies. Not livestock that are raised in pens, regularly fed antibiotics from birth, and slaughtered before a tenth of their lifespan. They only need to live long enough to get to market.

I really have been through dozens of the papers cited by those aggregations of documents that purport to represent a consensus of scientists. They are about all sorts of things, but not about safety. I found some that propose safety standards though. One might say, they carry on as if GMOs are safe, but they don't establish that anywhere that I could find. I looked.

But that's not my big objection to (at least this part of) the GMO business. In short, all of the benefits go to Monsanto. Not to the consumer. Not to the farmer. And certainly not to the environment. My approach is as an ecologist. Economists figure differently.

I appreciate not being ignored.

--imm

you hit on many great points. I especially would like to thank you for taking the time to look into the studies and offer your views.

I've been here since 2002, and I only have four people on ignore. That ought to tell you something.

That may also say something.

--imm

WOW! And the fact that, as usual, you fail to respond to actual content, only show me why you were on ignore, and will be again.

Still, thanks for bumping the OP!

And you should answer with something that goes beyond insults.

--imm

--imm

Here are 1783 peer-reviewed scientific studies.

We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop
safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific
consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated
worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research
conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard
directly connected with the use of GM crops.

There is not one that concludes GMOs are safe. It's not a claim a scientist would make.

There are several of these, what I'll call data dumps. Who do you think finances them? I know you have not read these papers. They do not say what you think they say. Thanks for the tip, though.

--imm

Here are the first 5:

You know that Syngenta produces GMOs right?

Now find me one that concludes GMOs are safe. Note that no long term animal studies are included.

--imm

That's why you are free to ignore that study if you want.

I'm not sure what you mean about where the aggregate studies money originates? The funding source is listed for each study. Or are you implying that Monsanto et. al. are paying the Italian Ministry of Agricultural Food and Forestry Resources, the Swiss National Science Foundation and thousands of other scientists and governments to falsify these studies?

Regarding safety, science can certify the existence of harm, but not its absence. For instance,

Roasted coffee is known to contain 826 volatile chemicals; 21 have been tested chronically and 16 are rodent carcinogens; caffeic acid, a nonvolatile rodent carcinogen, is also present. A typical cup of coffee contains at least 10 mg (40 ppm) of rodent carcinogens (mostly caffeic acid, catechol, furfural, hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide). The evidence on coffee and human health has been recently reviewed, and the evidence to date is insufficient to show that coffee is a risk factor for cancer in humans.

Nor are they "scientific." Here are problems with these studies:

• The populations are not equivalent. They are from different eras, and differ in several characteristics, like weight, milk production, breast size in chickens, etc. No controls!
  
• Feed lot animals are slaughtered after living a very short life, not enough to show organic abnormalities.
  
• These animals are raised on a diet of feed lot food and antibiotics. Not appropriate for health studies, I think.
  
• Unhealthy animals are cut out prior to market, not counted. Their diets, lacking forage, are unsustainable for a normal life span.
  
• There is no comprehensive study of pathologies on vital organs. They just have to be healthy enough to slaughter.
  
• It might be significant that A. L. Van Eenennaam worked as a researcher for Monsanto before moving to the U of California, which gets money from Monsanto.

How about this one...

Whether they are significant or not remains to be seen.

And it's not organic safety which is my main concern about GMOs. It's economic, ecologic, and environmental. Bees, butterflies, algal blooms, pesticide proliferation, monoculturalism, lack of biodiversity are also problems.

Enjoy your lunch.

--imm

Lunch was too spicy.

I like spicy.

--imm

Didn't get the replies you liked with the last posting of this poorly written article by a blogger, so you self-deleted and reposted?

It's okay, I won't waste my time responding to you in this one.

And yet to respond without offering any actual content.

And, no, that's why I deleted it and reposted it.

Why are you ok with the stunning unethical behavior of Roulac?

If the chemophobic want to part with more of their money so they can sleep better at night, I have no more problem with that than anyone else who gets suckered out of their money.

And that's not a side effect that is tenable.

The vast majority of the population have no idea what GMO is.

The problem people have with spreading misinformation is the more popular it gets, the more likely it is to be debunked. So the chemophobic have an extreme uphill battle ahead of them and when dipshit quacks like Mercola and Dr. Oz are the best spokesmen they have to offer, it just doesn't look that promising, especially when they have to tell people they have to pay more for the alternatives for zero benefit.

I don't think most anti-GMO, big Organic promoters even realize the negative effects they can and are having on actual people. Hell, I see it in the clinic, where people who cannot afford to shop at Whole Foods, refuse to go to a Kroger store, because they have been conned into fearing the food sold there. It's not pretty. Their kids go hungry, or without shoes, for no good reason.

I just don't put any more emphasis on the anti-GMO hucksters.

If anything, I think the bigger problem lies with the promotion of nutritionally unsound junk that people fill their bodies with. Sugar in various forms and other simple carbohydrates are now extremely cheap while basic fresh produce gets more expensive.

... considering that food on the table for every meal is about as important as it gets for people to have a chance at life, I don't think anyone should give these folks a break.

The percentage of families I see affected by this propaganda is far too astounding, albeit anecdotal.

And note that our fellow DU anti-GMOers are now promoting a very deceitful piece in the NYT, that pretends that science education equals GMO advocacy. Meanwhile, almost none of our fellow DUers are concerned that Roulac, the topic of this OP, lies through his teeth to promote organic products and demonize GMOs.

The hypocrisy is astounding.

But others seem to be genuinely chemophobic.

Some freak out just reading labels and prefer to wallow in irrational fear rather than considering the role dosage plays in toxicity.

It's so bloody easy to spread fear. It's not so easy to spread knowledge and understanding.

We need GMO/GEO foods to be labeled, not ones that contain neither.

You can't refute my arguments, and ignoring them reinforces that.

--imm

And there are only four people I can't see!

I'm sorry you are sad. Not my fault though!

--imm