"This technology is being promoted, in the face of concerns by respectable scientists and in the face of data to the contrary, by the very agencies which are supposed to be protecting human health and the environment. The bottom line in my view is that we are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences."

That says it for me.

why aren't manufacturers proud enough to list them?

I'm not taking about Burbank/Mendelssohn sort of plant hybridism, I'm talking about laboratory cross species genetic splicing that could never happen in nature. I chose not to eat it and why is nobody's business.

A lot of their claims regarding these Frankenfoods have been proven wrong, like Monsanto's claim that their creations won't propagate in nature. If they're wrong about the obvious, how will they do with other not so obvious surprises?

At least 5% of human DNA has been spliced in from viruses. That's more than the actual protein coding portion of our genome. And what harm does eating spliced in genes do to you?

And is "Frankenfoods" the most scientific argument you can make?

At least 5% of human DNA has been spliced in from viruses

These are your words

are you able to draw the obvious conclusion from your own words

I bet not

Well-established science, which I simply report.

Try again, and try to be accurate next time.

ha ha

to the issue at hand any time. I won't hold my breath, but neither will I waste my time responding to any more like this.

ha ha

You first.

ha ha

It is about Astroturfing and media manipulation. worth the watch.




http://livingresistance.com/2015/12/24/seasoned-journalist-exposes-how-mainstream-media-brainwashes-the-public/

They will tell us that we wouldn't even want food labels identifying GMO products if we weren't so ignorant, uninformed and anti-science. They will say we're no different than the anti vaccination people. They will passionately defend GMOs with an almost religious zeal.

How is it that these GMO defenders are so passionate? Where does this zeal come from? Some will tell you they just can't stand the idea that pseudo science is so widespread. I call bullshit on that noise. They're employees. They're employees of Monsanto mostly.

I'm 63 years old. Sometime within the past three or four years I have become extremely sensitive to gluten. I mean a more gluten would kill me level of sensitivity. Before this sudden sensitivity I had a life long cast iron stomach kind of resiliency.

The point is, we have no idea how this happened. We do know we are not alone because the grocery stores are full of products labeled Gluten-free.

But what "agent" triggered my health issue? And why are so many people suddenly afflicted with this ailment?

Something is fundamentally wrong. Is it the Glyphosate in Roundup?

One thing that is fundamentally wrong is the strict corporate control of the regulatory process. Even if we knew Glyphosate to be absolutely deadly, removing it from the food chain would be a huge insurmountable task.

GMO's are in pretty much every prepared food that isn't organic. Corn, soy, canola. Sugar beets. So many different issues with each new offering.

The roundup sprayed on crops won't hurt you according to "science":
Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases
http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416

Bt inserted into the gene of the plant is harmless according to "science"
The only published human feeding study revealed what may be the most dangerous problem from GM foods. The gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function. This means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have potentially harmful GM proteins produced continuously inside of us. Put more plainly, eating a corn chip produced from Bt corn might transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories, possibly for the rest of our lives.

When evidence of gene transfer is reported at medical conferences around the US, doctors often respond by citing the huge increase of gastrointestinal problems among their patients over the last decade. GM foods might be colonizing the gut flora of North Americans.
http://www.cornucopia.org/2009/05/genetically-modified-foods-pose-huge-health-risk/

Well, there has to be a scientific explanation for it. This is astounding.

I feel alright some of the time. But I have a number of seemingly unrelated ailments. We now know the critical role the gut plays in our immune system and even the nervous system. People like me with an extreme gluten sensitivity often have wildly fluctuating mental acuity.

on its own, that is, since it apparently doesn't get into them
now, glyphosphate is always used with solvents that get it into cells, and that's toxic as hell

and object to anti-science hysteria. Trying to dismiss all of those people by saying "they're employees" is intellectual laziness, not to mention just plain silly.

AAEM states, “GM foods have not been properly tested” and “pose a serious health risk.” Not a single human clinical trial on GMOs has been published. A 2007 review of published scientific literature on the — potential toxic effects/health risks of GM plants – revealed “that experimental data are very scarce.” The author concludes his review by asking, “Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies?”

Famed Canadian geneticist David Suzuki answers, “The experiments simply haven’t been done and we now have become the guinea pigs.” He adds, “Anyone that says, “Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,” I say is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying.”
http://www.cornucopia.org/2009/05/genetically-modified-foods-pose-huge-health-risk/

These guys are playing with your head if you believe in their "peer reviewed science".

Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/

Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering.

Every peer reviewed study that demolishes your claim is bogus, just 'cause, and every claim made by every whackadoodle GMO conspiracy site is totally valid and believable.

There's no kind way to characterize that kind of thinking.

“GM foods have not been properly tested”?

Any anonymous poster on the internet must be a paid schill regardless of their point of view.

they are bad for the planet. Diversity is what is most important, otherwise we as a species are doomed. If half of the corn grown is GMO from one company, and a virus or mold attacks that corn strain then there is a massive corn shortage. It is the same with any food produced.

People will eventually bring up Golden Rice as an argument for GMO's, but if Golden Rice crops fail, you wouldn't have a calamitous rice shortage. You could substitute plain rice with Golden Rice, until a solution was found.

Z

because of limited genetic variation, the potato grown in Ireland had no ability withstand an attack of a blight.

In evolution genetic diversity is often the most valuable commodity.

As the young lady in the film points out, there is no proof that GMO crops produce higher yields anyway.

the prevalence of which cannot be blamed on the use of GMO's.

But that has nothing to do with the claim I was responding to.

Monoculture was a problem before GMO.

will tell you, ignorance about your food supply is true enlightenment, so shut up and eat it.

what have you put in your body that you wouldn't have if you had eaten ordinary rice?

Anti-GMO arguments are dismissed as insubstantial.

who have died as a result of eating "toxic" GMO foods. You claim that "evidence" has been validated many, many times in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Cite them. Show us peer-reviewed evidence that people have died as a direct result of the foods they've eaten having had genes spliced into them.

"Evidence that questions the safety" of GMO foods is not remotely the same as evidence showing that eating GMO foods is more unhealthy or dangerous than eating non-GMO foods.

dying as a demonstrably direct result of actually eating a GMO food? Will they be able to show an autopsy report with the cause of death being "Ate icky genes"? Will they be able to even make an attempt at proposing a credible mechanism for spliced in genes causing death?

makes you stronger

silly

to make it seems like you had an actual argument. I asked for evidence of deaths being caused as a direct result of eating GMO foods. If you have none, just be honest and admit it, and we can move on.

And yes, in some cases, things that don't kill you do make you stronger.

ha ha ha

We modify shit, introduce dangerous chemicals and get governments to make farmers buy our shit. Then when they get sick from our shit they can buy our medicine!

Fucking ingrates.

You should go pro! Impressive. I know of a TV station where such skills are highly prizrd, if you're looking for work or anything.

Julie

They don't convince anyone of anything and they become quite hysterical if you point out holes in their "science". Failing that, their goal is to stop people from discussing these things and that isn't working out too well either. You're right... Fauxsnooze would welcome them with open arms.

Where is the hole in the "science"? Let's discuss.

30 "scalps" for Dow and DuPont, 50 for the nuclear industry, 30 for Monsanto--even 20 for those who dared investigate "woo-woo" ball lightning (it was denied as late as *2009*: these people are downright *Stalinists*)

maybe a decade or two later they admit "oh, that old disease/byproduct/ball lightning was real along: we were just waiting for the evidence to come in; now let's not talk about it any more, the issue's settled"

that's what the little Cosmos II cartoon about Kehoe vs. Patterson got so wrong, because 1. had this been done in 1991 Soter and Tyson would absolutely not have condemned Kehoe in the middle of the Science Wars and 2. what Kehoe did wasn't (just) fudge any numbers or experiments--he used science against itself, saying that he was an empiricist--show him the proof of a connection and causation, not just strong correlations and some old bones from Peru

now a fanboyish attitude to "science" (especially seeing it as a singular thing) might be good for introducing the laity to its existence, but not that good picking out the threads of a controversy--I mean, gigashill Kevin Folta likens himself to Patterson, and he'd make Kehoe taste a little bile (Kehoe never pretended to be a lifesaving lefty)

more dangerously, a pie-eyed view that there's only Good and Bad Science (a split itself created by the Tobacco Institute--Steven Milloy, anyone?) but leaves one incapable of even perceiving when one's being hoodwinked: the AEC pulled this all the time, since they had to fudge nothing when showing that Columbia River radioactive contamination was at acceptable levels once it reached farmland, that second autopsies showed no radiation in the body, and that veterinary reports were unanimous that the sheep's illnesses had nothing to do with being downwind of anything; of course what that meant was that they'd counted acute gamma doses and neglected long-lived alpha- and beta-emitting particles that caused tremendous damage once bioaccumulated, that the first autopsy had detected a lot of short-lived isotopes that were well decayed while the body lay in the morgue, and that any vet who asked questions was quietly let go from the committee or given a snowjob

if I want to eat it. I'm sure that is what really scares the supporters of GMOs.

Last edited Fri Jan 22, 2016, 04:50 PM - Edit history (1)

if I want to eat it! Why don't organic companies label their MBO foods? Mutation Bred Organisms are scary, too!

The labeling people are just corporations working to con you.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/266524-the-gmo-labeling-movement-is-as-organic-as-a-twinkie