The Monsanto lies are horrendous.

And what if the farmers want to grow them?

...He said that co-op members planted 178,000 acres of GMO sugar beets last year. The growers’ cost of herbicides has dropped from $66 per acre to $11 per acre since they switched from non-GMO sugar beets in 2008. The cost of hand labor has dropped from $60 an acre to zero, since it is no longer needed.

And, yes, the price of seed has increased, from $44 to $143. But at the same time, yields have also increased.

Overall, the net margin increase has been $122 per acre, said Grant, who farms near Rupert, Idaho.

In total, the switch to GMO sugar beets has meant a $22 million benefit to the cooperative and its members, he said.

A meta-study — which reviewed 147 other studies — found that by growing GMO crops farmers have reduced pesticide use by 37 percent. At the same time, farmers’ profits have increased by 68 percent....

Just kidding!

You didn't support farmers. You took their choices away from them. Lame.

8 Lies About GMOs
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/8-lies-about-gmos/

The argument that genetically expressed insecticides are better than externally applied insecticides deserves consideration, although the total application of the chemicals in question, and what happens to them, how they do or do not break down, is what really matters environmentally. The bee problem for example.

However, the problem is that the bugs and weeds will soon figure out how to deal with any new pesticide/herbicide you can come up with, especially if it is even nominally safe for humans (remember, there is all kinds of stuff that kills us that bugs and weeds ignore) and then you are right back where you started with now empowered bugs and weeds. Consider what has happened in medicine with resistance to antibiotics. The comparison is apt.

From the movie (@10:02), "you know in the UK, there's no GMOs and we've already got 50 herbicide resistant super weeds"

How do you prevent them from taking over, once they develop resistance?

Change farming techniques to address a new problem.

This is not just about nomenclature, though your first response above makes one question that claim, as it is.

That's really not helpful to any of us in the real world.

Hidden "Agent Orange" Chemical They Want to Sneak into Your Food


http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/02/12/dow-agrosciences-developed-new-genetically-modified-crops.aspx

Very expensive customized chemotherapy.

You've gotta go ....

I despise corporate cheerleading too.

"Read more...https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/03/30/care-future-planet-heres-support-gmos/"

Well-known corporate shill "source", run by that slimebag Entine. Part of the corporate propaganda machine, not unlike that supported by the Koch bros, etc.

Better, try:
https://www.independentsciencenews.org/

Oh btw, I am not anti-GMO per se. I am opposed to GMOs in the current corporation-controlled environment. Nationalize Monsanto, Syngenta, and the rest of them. Put them under democratic control and checks. THEN we'll see if GMOs make sense, when stacked against agro-ecological alternatives (which the corporations ignore, because there's no profit in them). If GMOs DO make sense, if they are truly safe and effective, then fine. But there is no way we can know that in the current context. The waters are far too polluted.

It is the opposite of progressive.

Glad to see there's still a few here who actually follow the science instead of graphic memes and psuedo-science when it comes to GMOs.

I'm not in the sciences but my Dad and brother (RIP) were both high school science teachers. And I have a friend who teaches chemistry in college. So I like to keep up.

Contrary to what some think, I'm not a shill for some mega corporation. Just a guy doodling on his laptop while eating an admittedly unhealthy lunch (from salt and fat, not GMOs) 300 miles from home.

Ive always been more of an artsy guy (music, film-making, photography), but I've always had an interest in science... Just not the dedication to go to school for it.

I started in the sciences but ended up in the arts!

She's a regular on Alex Jones' pod cast. That tells you about her level of intellectual honesty.

Sadly, there are people on the left who think she's just peachy.

that try to ram them down our throats.

I'm sure there are assholes out there that like to justify rape of the planet, but I wouldn't expect them posting on a Democratic leaning message board.

I'm sure there are assholes out there that like to justify their neo-luddite views of technological advances, but I wouldn't expect them posting on a Democratic leaning message board.

Donald Trump says "Too much Monsanto in the Corn Creates Issues in the Brain"

It's OK for you to use a "lying GOP joker to make a fallacious claim".

But if you wanna talk science. Ya got anything to back up your claim that GMOs are raping the planet?

GMOs are in the wild. Thanks, science.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/genetically-modified-crop/

Pollen drifts on the wind; contaminating other crops.

Where's the snappy science comeback now?

And in the article it states:

There has been no evidence to show that the herbicide resistance genes will either increase or decrease fitness to date.

But then again, there are plenty of corporate mouthpieces running around claiming to be science guys saying it's no big deal.

It doesn't ruin who(sic) crops.

Also, feel free to read the USDA's National Organic Program and you will see that there is no such thing as "contamination" of an organic crop by GMOs. Organic standards were written BY the organic industry, FOR the organic industry. And there is no mention whatsoever of any harm occurring in an organic crop or field should happen to come into contact with GMOs, in any way, shape or form.

Why are you justifying the fear mongering marketing campaign of organic companies?

You do realize that organic crops need more land, use pesticides/herbicides, and are no better for anyone, right?

So, what's your point again?

BTW, science is progressive.
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-need-for-improved-food-production/

All crops cross-pollinate. It doesn't "ruin" the crops, oh, unless you have some silly set-in-stone marketing label like "organic." Well, that's your problem, because that label is meaningless outside of conning people out of their money. It's time to realize that the non-GMO marketers have conned you into believing a lot of nonsense.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-need-for-improved-food-production/

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted

http://www.popsci.com/article/science/core-truths-10-common-gmo-claims-debunked

http://debunkingdenialism.com/tag/monsanto-protection-act/

Monsanto doesn't make all GMO crops, as many other companies do, as well. Monsanto also makes non-GMO seeds, including ones used for organic farming.

BTW, you should be thanking me for sharing science-based literature. You're the one promoting ugly corporate marketing nonsense.

You are the one shilling for organic companies that utilize fiction-based fear mongering marketing.

I am merely pointing out the reality of the science.

It's time for you to wake up. You bought into the wrong pseudoscience.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2016/03/the_gmo_labeling_movement_is_about_faith_not_facts.html

http://www.marklynas.org/2013/04/time-to-call-out-the-anti-gmo-conspiracy-theory/

Hmm.

And yet many corporations didn't like the science and evidence on climate change.

Hmm.

And parading your decision to remain ignorant with your "blue links" comments is really a nice confession.

side of the people. The other is just a mechanism to justify the first.

Both may be used by unscrupulous individuals and groups to further their agendas.

Don't worry. I bought into it myself for all too long.

Seriously.

Don't worry! Smoking is just fine! More doctors recommend camels[tm]!

And btw, Toxic Sludge is Good for You!

They didn't run around trying to sue farmers for stealing their GMO genes through pollination. The message they're sending is, "Resistance is useless. You will be assimilated!"

They have *NO* idea what they are talking about.

Links go to Seralini and "Dr" Mercola, as well as Maharishi Yogi "college" faculty Steven Druker and Jeffrey Smith.

Pictures like this:



Are common, even though they have no basis in reality.

"March Against Monsanto" is also against vaccinations, against "chemtrails," (even though they don't exist,) bagels cause lung cancer, and conspiracy theories like "the e-coli outbreak at Chipotle was from (fill in the blank sinister agency.)"

Oh, yeah, that's right. It's a bloody religion/cult. Nothing more, nothing less.

I know you've been conned by bad marketing into fighting against those things.

I hate to say it, but, come on. Seriously?



Please try harder.

Nice try.

Understood.

Exactly like them in that no amount of information will ever get them to change their minds. I've given up trying, because you will not convince them that they are wrong. Not even if you bring up those products like golden rice that will actually save lives because they are engineered to have more beta carotene.

I appreciate the few people here who are trying to talk sense. You are braver than I am. I just hide the threads most of the time because they raise my blood pressure too much.

Don't give up. Showing the evidence matters to some, even if it's not to the anti-GMO faithful who are responding at DU.

It seems like the anti-corporation stance has turned into an anti-science and technology stance. It's hard to get people to see the difference between the product and the companies.

Of course, it's also a matter of convenience. Most insulin uses genetic engineering. Don't see anyone protesting that. And Microsoft has had their share of shitty business practices. How many DUers would be willing to dump Windows for Linux in protest?

Oh well. It's almost bedtime.

Few will even acknowledge that a small company developed the GMO apple, for example, much less acknowledge the reality that the University of Hawaii developed the GMO Papaya to fight against ringspot-virus. And, even more astounding to see is the vehement opposition to Vitamin A enhanced bananas and rice.

why can't they make GMOs that don't need herbicides at all? Why does anything need to be sprayed on the crops?

And the reason pesticides aren't required is because the crops have built in pesticide resistance genes, and it's really not clear what the long term effects of those toxins are, Bt, for instance, for human consumption.

It reduces the need for spraying to control the European corn borer which causes about a billion dollars in damages a year.

Bt is a toxic protein, and there are worries about non-specific effects on good insects such as bees, and insects that develop resistance.

And again, the long-term effects of Bt exposure to people are not clear.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670

Bt microbial products have a long history of safe use (?40 years) with only two reports prior to 1995 of possible adverse human effects, neither of which was due to exposure to Cry proteins (3). In a 1991 study that focused on exposure via inhalation of Bt sprays, results showed immune responses and skin sensitization to Bt in 2 of 123 farm workers (4). In a 2006 article, the Organic Consumers Association linked this observation to possible impacts of Bt in GE foods, warning that “Bt crops threaten public health” (5). But the respiratory sensitization observed in the farm workers does not provide validation that oral exposure to Bt would result in allergic responses.

In recent years a variety of safety studies were conducted specifically on native Bt proteins to show that they do not have characteristics of food allergens or toxins (See 6, 2, and 7 for reviews). In its review of Bt proteins, the EPA stated that, “several types of data are required for Bt plant pesticides to provide a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the aggregate exposure of these proteins.” The data must show that Bt proteins “behave as would be expected of a dietary protein, are not structurally related to any known food allergen or protein toxin, and do not display any oral toxicity when administered at high doses” (6).

...

A positive aspect of safety regarding Bt corn is the lower levels of mycotoxins compared with non-Bt corn. Mycotoxins are toxic and carcinogenic chemicals produced as secondary metabolites of fungal colonization (17) that occur as a result of insects such as the corn earworm carrying the mycotoxincontaining fungi that infest the kernels following wounding. In some cases, the reduction of mycotoxins in Bt corn results in a positive economic impact on U.S. domestic and international markets. More importantly, in less-developed countries certain mycotoxins are significant contaminants of food and their reduction in Bt corn could improve human and animal health.

http://ucbiotech.org/answer.php?question=31

as long as the genes and the proteins they produce that we are introducing are safe for human consumption. I'm not hugely worried about toxic effects at this point, but it's still a possibility, and something we need to be on the lookout for.

I would be more enthusiastic about GMOs if they do in fact decrease the overall use of toxic herbicides and pesticides. I have heard conflicting things about organic vs GMO, and there are claims that organics require more chemicals. This doesn't make sense to me, and seems to fly in the face of the whole idea of organic crops.

There are many actual farmers and ag researchers of all stripes discussing issues there.

There are a lot of strong claims made about the dangers of GMOs here:
http://www.drperlmutter.com/empowering-neurologist-david-perlmutter-md-jeffrey-smith/

Again, get your butt over to Food and Farm Discussion Lab on Facebook.

Don't buy in to scumbags like Jeffrey Smith, Vani Hari, Mercola, and the like.

http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2014/09/1157-jeffery-smith.html

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Smith

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2013/05/14/leaky-brains-and-gmos/#.Vwbe6_krIdU

https://sleuth4health.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/is-jeffrey-smith-blinded-by-his-own-light/

yeah, I posted the same piece over there and got a lot of similar stuff about Smith