Which of these things is unlike the others?

Creationists. Global Warming Deniers. Flat Earthers. Vaccinactivists. GMOdiants.

That’s right, flat-earthers at least had some modicum of science behind their erroneous belief. The rest of the list? Cavemen. And the top of the list of these hand-wringing, false-alarmists right now are the anti-GMO cultists. These story tellers are trying to whip Colorado voters into a dither at the polls this November and persuade the state to require foods that have genetically modified organism ingredients be labeled as such.

Don’t do it. Proposition 105 is a ruse that only serves to stoke the growing paranoia about science and industry. There is nothing, absolutely nothing in the way of real science that indicates that foods that undergo current genetic modifications do anything different inside your body than non-GMO foods. Nothing. Nada. Not one thing. Every “study” and “report” that these GMOdiants throw out there are either pseudo-science, hogwash, lies or twists of truths that don’t mean what researchers intended.

This is the same crap that keeps people like Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin banging the drum about global climate change being a hoax. Because, for whatever reason, some people have developed a mistrust of science, and they’re going to believe what they want, not what the evidence reveals.

What’s so incredible about the GMOdiants, is that they are often the most critical of those who tune out the science in their faces and tune into a more convenient untruth.

Despite what nutcases like Palin insist, the evidence is irrefutable that human activity, through the combustion of fossil fuels and mass agriculture, has affected planetary climate, and not in a good way. How much, how fast, for how long and in what detailed ways is unclear. The rest is a done deal.

Likewise, fear, ignorance, paranoia and herd mentality are sickening and even killing thousands of children needlessly because so many people bought into the hoax that vaccines were somehow related to autism. It was a lie. The chief fraudster in the issue was outed as a liar. Creationism? Don’t get me started. As you read this, there is a growing community of scientists who are really, really worried about how pseudo-science and the dumbing down of America could lead to the new Dark Ages. Poll after poll make it clear that more Americans, not fewer, don’t understand the scientific method, can’t read scientific papers and don’t want to.

We in the media are partly to blame. Looking for the simple, sexy way to tell Americans that coffee is good, no, bad, no, good, no — well, we’ve oversimplified the country right out of its ability to reason. But there is no evidence that what GMO companies have produced is harmful to people or anything else on Earth, any more than mass farming ended mass starvation and changed the planet more dramatically than anything else humans have ever done. Now, creating strains of plants that are immune to defoliants so farmers can load up their land with weed killers to improve yields and quality? That’s another story, and it’s a different story.

The public needs to weigh in on what is modified and for what reason. But just turning away from one of the most powerful, beneficial and important technologies at the disposal of mankind is as stupid as taking humanity off the grid because electricity can be dangerous and scary.

So if you vote “yes” on Prop 105, you signal to yourselves and the world that GMO technology is inherently dangerous and worthy of pointing that out to consumers. And it is not.

April 15, 2014

More to the point, while GMOdiants were wringing their hands over this while poisoning themselves with fast food, too much salt, processed grains and things that scientists endlessly warn us about but we disregard, the world put this technology to good use, almost everywhere. Good luck finding commercial agricultural products or food in restaurants and grocery stores that isn’t somehow touched by the system of GMO. The way Prop 105 is written will mean that GMO labeling, or lack of labeling, will be as meaningful and important as seeing a “gluten-free” moniker on a bag of fresh apples or “fat free” on a bottle of drinking water.

You don’t have to and shouldn’t believe me about all this. Ask the experts you trust to tell you we’ve changed the planet’s climate, or unraveled the mystery of evolution, or worked hard to ensure people continue vaccinating children because it saves lives. Look to trusted sources like Scientific American and the nation’s top research universities. It isn’t a matter of opinion any more than explaining why ships sail off the horizon. It’s a matter of science.

Reach editor Dave Perry at 303-750-7555 or dperry@aurorasentinel.com

173 replies on “PERRY: Smart Colorado voters, don’t be fooled by GMO dark-ages nonsense”

  1. Dave, as you can guess by my many posts, I’m fairly conservative. I would like to see GMO labeling. What is so wrong with giving people the information they need to make their own choices? If someone does not want to eat GMO food (whether you think their crazy or not), should they not have the information to make that choice?

    1. You have that choice today. You can chose organic or the voluntary labeled GMO free.

      Why do you want to drive more Americans into food need, by raising prices, so you can have a WANT?

      There are several university studies that show that a labeling law will add $400-$500 a year to the average consumer’s grocery bill. And the consumer gets NOTHING for it

      1. Tell the Europeans abut increased food prices. They do not allow GMO’s in the entire European Union and they aren’t fooled by claims of increased cost either. Putting a label on a product is not a big expense when you are a multinational corporation and should not affect real people at all.

        1. And their food prices are much higher than ours. Milk is around the equivalent of $9 a gallon and chicken around $5 a pound.

          They can’t produce enough grain to feed their own livestock without importing tons from the US, Can and South America.

          Did you read my post that is from a FARMER? Do you think farmers can absorb the cost of a $100,000 storage unit without asking more for their crop? The same thing will be needed at the mill and at the storage elevators, and in transporting it. Extra costs at every step of the way.

          Let me ask you, who do think owns most farms? Companies or families?

          3. ^…”2013 produced roughly 23.5 billion bushels of 26 different grains and seeds, including those already in some form of identity preservation protocol, and have storage capacity of 23.6 billion bushels… without the extra infrastructure to segregate “GMO” from “nonGMO”. To segregate, additional infrastructure would be required along the entire food supply chain from farm gate to grain elevator to processor to manufacturer, in order to separate corn, soybeans, and canola.

            A new grain bin cost approximately $2/bushel to buy and install, so a 50,000 bushel bin will cost $100,000. If we currently have sufficient storage for commingled grains and seeds, what will be the astronomical figure to segregate them by trait? That answer is dependent on how we are going to segregate. In order to have true traceability, GMO seeds and grains would have to be segregated by trait, so RoundUp ready traited grains would have to be segregated from Bt traited grains, and the stacked or combined traited grains would have to be segregated from those that are just Bt or just RoundUp Ready, and the combinations of traited grains would have to be segregated by the combination or stack of traits in the seeds too, because otherwise, you don’t have “truth in labeling” to say which GMO is in the product.

            I mean surely, we need to label it by GMO trait right? because otherwise “we don’t know”. This is the premise by which the activists say is the problem right? The uncertainty of GMO? We can’t commingle traited seeds and grains because then we no longer have truetraceability. Absolute and utter segregation by trait or combination thereof is required to meet the demands of what is being called for in the GMO labeling legislation across the U.S.

            True GMO labeling will require vast capitalization of infrastructure to segregate grains and seeds by trait. (Read $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$).”

          4. Not only would it cost a phenomenal sum to segregate seeds and grains, but what about the cost of enforcing these mandates? In order to mean anything (which, in the best of cases, GMO labels do not) there has to be a strong enforcement arm making sure food manufacturers are exerting due diligence. Where to the labeling zealots think that money should come from? Do they think USDA inspectors already have too much time on their hands? Do they propose cutting food stamps to pay for it, or what? One could say that the food manufacturers should bear the cost of enforcement, but that sort of defeats the purpose of a mandatory labeling law, doesn’t it? Fox guarding the henhouse and all that? Also, the pro-labeling people, who seem to think that seed companies like Monsanto, which they perceive to be much bigger and more powerful than they actually are, frequently say “they”, as in the seed companies, can afford what they think is the trivial cost of labeling. But that flies in the face of reason because the seed companies just produce the seeds. They don’t grow the food, harvest it, can it, bottle it, put it in a box, or sell it. It’s the food manufacturers, be they small or large, who will be stuck with the costs, plus the farmers who will have to be able to segregate their grain.

          6. 4 people are going to inspect every farm and every food manufacturing plant in the entire state, at least annually? Where did that estimate come from?

          7. You’re exactly right, the four people will be really cheap, but you’re really missing the real expense.

            The cost to me, a farmer, is huge when I harvest and separate at storage. Each farmer will have expense, and there will be cost all the way up the food chain.

            Who will pay my extra expense eventually? You.

            I didn’t even get into the burdensome government regulations that will ensue.

          8. That is interesting. Also interesting is that 16 out of 24 countries we export to require food labeling!

          9. One man’s paranoia is another man’s right to be informed. Just as one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. I was simply commenting on the fact that food prices are not necessarily higher in Europe as the OP originally stated. You need to stop hanging out on the Monsanto site so much.

        2. Restaurant Prices in United States are 29.93% lower than in France. Groceries Prices in United States are 11.41% lower than in France. Local Purchasing Power in United States is 46.17% higher than in France

          3. Want to pay my way? I am not wealthy, I have to watch my food budget, and I make or buy my clothes at the thrift store.

          4. So what you’re saying is that your initial comment on food prices in Europe was based on no actual personal experience

          5. Really. …its true like I said, I just came back from Germany and your wrong again.
            You trouble …..go away.

          7. I have plenty of friends. At least most of them are reasonable folks that chose facts and science over BS and nonsense.

          8. Day you have no friends, and certainly all the science you worship is sponsored by Monsanto paid quasi-investigators.

          9. I have a few I have met on line, so what? I have many more I met in other ways.

            Monsanto is not large enough to pay for all the science you are claiming they ‘buy’. Why are you posting an obvious LIE about them?

            Monsanto is only slightly larger than Whole Foods. They are owned by stockholders so they have to report their expenses to them. There would no money left for stockholders if they ‘bought all the science’.

            What the the studies from the EU? Are you saying they bought them also?

            https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7hhP5QasNtsX1AwV2YzNnlrZTA/edit?pli=1

            I think you are no different than the climate change deniers or the creationists. You will find an excuse to downcheck anything that that doesn’t agree with belief system.

            Stop ignoring the SCIENCE and accept the TRUTH that has FACTS to support it.

          10. Monsanto does not have to buy all the science. Instead, scientists have to ask them for permission to publish independent research on the organisms that they have patents on.

            Do you think Monsanto is letting scientists publish research with findings that gmo’s cause harm? I think not.

          12. Don’t believe everything that Monsanto tells you in a press release. Of course other companies produce GMO’s.

          13. The claim that Monsanto somehow has the ability to stop Science journals from publishing papers that are about studies with findings unfavorable to GMOs is one that I have seen a few times, but somehow, the people making it have never been able to prove it. There is a very old Scientific American article that claimed that researchers could not even get access to GMOs in order to do research, but that whole issue turned out to be a communication snafu that was dealt with a very long time ago. Monsanto is a publicly held company and their press releases are legal documents that could be used by shareholders to sue them if they turned out to be fraudulent. There is no reason to disbelieve what Monsanto says in it’s press releases, however, simply necaube they were written by Monsanto. if you have credible evidence that what they say is false, I’d love to see it. Fair warning, your idea of “credible” and mine may differ.

          15. And Whole Foods was 12.917.0 billion (2013)

            Neither of them are real large companies.

            Do you understand how a company with stockholders works? They have to REPORT their expenses and they have to report things like lobbying costs.

            They are a successful company providing farmers with products they want to buy.

          16. Ha, ha ha. Having worked for one of the biggest publicly traded mining companies in the world, yeah I have pretty good understanding of how publicly traded or as you simplisticly put it ‘companies with stockholders’ work thanks very much!

        3. I’m a farmer who raises 70% non GMO, and I separate my crops after harvest.

          The real expense is the logistics. At the farm, it means harvest is more complicated and expensive, and storage is a large expense. With mandated separating, that expense will be huge.

          In addition, how would we separate? How would the government administrate this?

          You’re exactly right, the label isn’t expensive…….but the logistics from my farm to the grocery shelf will be extremely costly and cumbersome.

          I know this because I do it now for a non-GMO customer who pays a premium for the service.

          I believe the $400-$500 expense is conservative–it assumes that the government regulation and compliance side run smoothly. I’m not sure about that, I see a potential money pit.

      2. Organic does not mean non-GMO. GMO seeds are being grown organically as we debate this inane topic. 3 letters added to a label is minimal in cost. Product packaging changes daily, 3 letters are not going to change a thing. Except a reason to charge more for “organics”

          1. First you cite a blog, then within the blog are references to 2, yes 2 extremely leftist medias. Let me do the math for you, BLOG -1, Mother Jones -1, The Grist -1. Your score -3. I would have believed more in your statement had you cited more reputable sources. Try Google next time. Let me help, type “G-M-O” in the space provided.

          2. A blog from a FARMER, not some urban know it all.

            Are you saying that farmers will not have to segregate their crops? If they do, they will have to build more storage.

            Of course what you REALLY want is to force farmers to stop choosing GMO seeds. Labeling is a back door ban, like Texas and other states are trying to do to abortion. No difference

          3. I think you’ll that a lot of farmers would love not to have to use GMO seeds. check out the Monsanto lawsuits against farmers for ‘using’ their seeds that were blown by wind onto their farms.

          4. What lawsuits? There have NO lawsuits for accidental contamination.

            If you are referring to the case out of Canada, The farmer realized that he had some RR ready soybeans, so he sprayed that area with RR so only those survived, then he harvested them and planted them and did it again.

            When he was seen spraying round up on this ‘conventional’ soybeans, he was caught.

            Please show us a suit for wind blown seeds.

            Farmers CHOOSE GMO seeds for their benefits. In fact a farmer might plant both. If you have a area that is say subject to flooding, you might well plant the cheaper, conventional seeds in that area and use GMO elsewhere.

            Farmers are not hay chewing hicks, most have a college degree in a farming related area.

          5. You obviously did not read the article, nor did you understand the relevance of the links provided on that page.

          6. You’re terrible at skimming articles.

            He cites those articles in the intent that they are for Labelling you turdblossom.

        2. Please cite your references on this false claim. I wonder who pays your salary? I believe what you have just said is so ridiculously wrong and especially misleading.

          1. GMO is the process of splicing the genetic material that is patented by Monsanto. Organic is the process of growing the plant without man made fertilizers and or insecticides. Try again.

          2. WRONG: PLEASE ACTUALLY DO REASEARCH IN THE FUTURE.

            Organic certification is a certification process for producers of organic food and other organic agricultural products. In general, any businessdirectly involved in food production can be certified, including seed suppliers, farmers, food processors, retailers and restaurants.

            Requirements vary from country to country, and generally involve a set of production standards for growing, storage, processing, packaging and shipping that include:

            avoidance of synthetic chemical inputs (e.g. fertilizer, pesticides, antibiotics, food additives), genetically modified organisms, irradiation, and the use of sewage sludge;[1]

            use of farmland that has been free from prohibited chemical inputs for a number of years (often, three or more);

            for livestock, adhering to specific requirements for feed, housing, and breeding;

            keeping detailed written production and sales records (audit trail);

            maintaining strict physical separation of organic products from non-certified products;

            undergoing periodic on-site inspections.

            In some countries, certification is overseen by the government, and commercial use of the term organic is legally restricted. Certified organic producers are also subject to the same agricultural, food safety and other government regulations that apply to non-certified producers.

            Certified organic foods are not necessarily pesticide-free, certain pesticides are allowed.[2]

          3. The didn’t say that they could be organic certified. One can grow an organic crop and not be certified, you can’t ADVERTISE that however.

            Organic is nothing more than a ‘brand name’.

          5. There are over 20 companies (at least) doing GMO’s. Monsanto is hardly the only one. Anything can be organically grown, but that does not mean it meets the standards of being certified. So yes in a sense you are correct. You can use organic farming methods for anything.

          6. @bwm38:disqus You are mistaking the process of cross breeding with that of genetically modifying. A GMO broccoli cannot be certified organic by the USDA. You are wrong.

          11. Finally you got something correct. I never said it could be, I SAID that GMOs can be grown with organic practices. Simple and had trouble understanding that

        4. That’s false. Read the USDA’s definition of Organic, and please deliver us from your Deliverance.
          By definition, organic food cannot be genetically modified.

          1. That is to be CERTIFIED. That is not the same thing.

            Different countries will have different terms for what they allow to be organic.

            Organic is a method of farming/gardening. Organic certified is what the government requires if you want to LABEL it as organic.

            Stop confusing the two.

          2. Of course we are talking about certified organic labels. If a food is genetically engineered, it can’t be labeled organic.

            What kind of organic do you think we’re talking about?

            Get with the program, McFloyd!

          3. Excuse me, are you saying that one can not grow organically unless you sign up for the certified program?

            Can you understand the difference in a farming method–organic and what it takes to be certified?

            If you want to BRAND your product with the organic label, you have to be certified, BUT one does not have to be certified to grow a crop organically.

            The USDA allows things in certified organic that are not allowed in certified organic in parts of Europe.

        5. That is not true on the cost. It is true that a label is cheap, but you don’t realize the real expense.

          I farm 70% non-GMO and separate crops for a non-GMO customer. The additional harvesting logistics and storage expenses are costly, and my non-GMO customer pays a premium.

        1. DDT saved millions of lives and it still is. It is a tool and like any other tool it must be used properly.

        2. The problem with DDT is that was vastly overused – even Rachel Carlson never called for it be banned, just better usage.

        4. MAMPHL, I find it highly ironic that you have a post on your FB page (rightfully) mocking Chemtrailers, but seem to be oblivious to the fact that to those with minimal scientific knowledge about GMOs, you sound just as ridiculous as the Chemtrailers. They are literally equivalent in terms of the evidence available to support their claims and one of the main “reasons” given by both Anti-GMOers and Chemtrailers as to why these “dangers” are being perpetrated always seems to be that either the government or corporations or both are profiting somehow. You don’t see it, do you? Where do you stand on vaccination? Did you think anti-vaxxers are silly? The are no sillier than Anti-GMOers.

          1. Casting Aspersions again? There’s no one “sillier,dangerous
            or deluded” than people who want to reduce the potential for chemical pesticide residue exposure in their
            diet? But you don’t even have to say it rebeccaGMOcheeleeder,we know what
            you’re going to say, there are hundreds
            of peer reviewed studies confirming that GMOs that are grown in multiple
            applications of Enlist DUO (2,4-D and Glyphosate) have absolutely no residue!
            Not to mention they also have more vitamin C than regular corn and soy!

          2. Ah ,Mr .Zohn, I am still waiting patiently over on that other article for you to show me where I have used personal attacks. I’m almost out of popcorn though. Why don’t you switch things up and try using evidence to make your claims? If you are so sure what the counter arguments would be, instead of simply listing them, why don’t you list some credible information debunking them? Hmmmm?

        1. GMO’s are cheaper to raise, and they are better for the environment. I do not spray as much pesticide on GMO crops as I do conventional crops.

  2. Namaste Everyone, I have done the research and my personal opinion is that not only are G.M.O.’S extremely dangerous but development of these products are turning our Food Industry into an monopoly. Pilamaya, Timothy Two Toes Less Right Foot.

    1. REALLY, where did you do your ‘research’? Anti GMO sites?

      Here are the FACTS

      A Decade of EU-funded GMO Research

      https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7hhP5QasNtsX1AwV2YzNnlrZTA/edit?pli=1

      BioFortified’s Independent Studies

      https://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/independent-funding/

      GMOPundits 600 Studies

      https://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/06/150-published-safety-assessments-on-gm.html#!/2007/06/150-published-safety-assessments-on-gm.html

      A Survery of Long Term GM Food Studies

      https://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2012/10/24/a-survey-of-long-term-gm-food-studies/

      Almost 1800 studies

      https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdf

      1. Paid for and lobbied by the very industry who seeks to profit off the billions of gallons of proprietary chemicals and seeds they will sell.

        1. Ia that the only thing you know to post?

          Did you bother to notice that some of the studies were done by the EU ? and others were done by independent researchers?

          Why did you just post misinformation/a lie?

        2. You do realize that if you are anti-GMO you are Pro Chemicals. The conventional crops will use even more Ag Chemicals,,,can you say Organophosphates and Mathalon?

          1. They never seem to get that non GMO will use MORE chemicals and pesticides. “Poll after poll make it clear that more Americans, not fewer, don’t understand the scientific method, can’t read scientific papers and don’t want to.”

          2. I’m against GMO’s and against Monsanto. Lots of chemicals are used in the creation of Monsanto’s products.

          3. Well that is wrong, lots of chemicals are used to grow all crops Organic included. All agriculture requires some inputs or you will have a very poor crop.

          4. If you think that organic crops are treated with more chemicals than non-organic crops then you are smoking some Agent Orange.

          5. Since when was copper sulphate and pyrethrin not chemicals??? Even manure is just a whole bunch of chemicals.

        3. How do you know it was paid for or lobbied by them? If you are going to make false accusation, you should be able to back them up.

    3. Mr. TTTLRF – contrary to popular opinion, research does not mean “re-search” as in, repeatedly put “GMO’s bad” in the google search bar. Or do you mean that you have a laboratory somewhere where you conduct actual experiments? Do you have an publications we can look up? Would they be listed under TimothyTwoToesLessRightFoot in Google Scholar or PubMed?

  3. Sorry Dave – I’ve been told too many times that something is completely safe – only to find out later it isn’t – and yes, you all in the media have made that mistake many times. So how about you let me make this decision for myself. This isn’t climate change it’s in the same category as organic vs. non-organic.

    1. Are all of these expert groups WRONG?

      “Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.” – American Medical Association, 2012

      “No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.” — World Health Organization, 2013

      •”The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.” -American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2012

      The Royal Society of Medicine: ”Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA.” (https://1.usa.gov/12huL7Z)

      The European Commission: ”The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” (https://bit.ly/133BoZW)

      International Seed Federation: ”The development of GM crops has benefited farmers, consumers and the environment… Today, data shows that GM crops and foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts: millions of hectares worldwide have been cultivated with GM crops and billions of people have eaten GM foods without any documented harmful effect on human health or the environment.” (https://bit.ly/138rZLW)

      Consensus document on GMOs Safety (14 Italian scientific societies): ”GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary to authorization, are to be considered, on the basis of current knowledge, safe to use for human and animal consumption.” (https://bit.ly/166WHYZ)

      Society of Toxicology: ”Scientific analysis indicates that the process of GM food production is unlikely to lead to hazards of a different nature than those already familiar to toxicologists. The level of safety of current GM foods to consumers appears to be equivalent to that of traditional foods.” (https://bit.ly/13bOaSt)

      “Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture” – Prepared by the Royal Society of London, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences, and the Third World Academy of Sciences:“Foods can be produced through the use of GM technology that are more nutritious, stable in storage, and in principle health promoting – bringing benefits to consumers in both industrialized and developing nations.” (https://bit.ly/17Cliq5)

      French Academy of Science: ”All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria.” (https://bit.ly/15Hm3wO)

      Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities: ”Food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from the corresponding conventional food. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior with respect to health.” (https://bit.ly/17ClMMF)

      International Council for Science: ”Currently available genetically modified crops – and foods derived from them – have been judged safe to eat, and the methods used to test them have been deemed appropriate.” (https://bit.ly/15Hn487)

      1. Wrong, YES! Paid for and lobbied by the very industry who seeks to profit off the billions of gallons of proprietary chemicals and seeds they will sell.

        2. With sales comparable to Whole Foods, could you elaborate on just where Monsanto gets the money to buy off all these scientific bodies? I think that if you could show how to do that, an honorary MBA is waiting for you at Harvard. Seriously, I would love an answer how a company the size the Monsanto is (in reality) can afford to buy off the world’s scientists and pay it’s shareholders.

      2. Roundup in corn can be dangerous:

        Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic, and Placental Cells

        Nora Benachour and Gilles-Eric Séralini

        Chemical Research in Toxicology

        2009
        22
        (1),
        97-105

        Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling

        Alejandra Paganelli, Victoria Gnazzo, Helena Acosta, Silvia L. López, and Andrés E. Carrasco

        Chemical Research in Toxicology

        2010
        23
        (10),
        1586-1595

        1. Seralini” REALLY? I will have to check on the other one after the weekend is over, since I am going out of town,

        2. More bad science from a BIASED, discredited ‘researcher’.

          First these were in vitro studies. Vinegar or dish soap will kill cells in vitro

          https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fen.m.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FIn_vitro&h=KAQFxRY7w

          Now on the studied themselves

          Agence française de sécurité sanitaire des aliments (AFSSA) {French}

          Conclusions 1 and 4 read:
          “1. The conclusions are solely based upon in vitro tests on non-validated, non-representative cellular models (in particular tumour or transformed cells) that are directly exposed to extremely high concentrations of substances under growing conditions that do not respect normal physiological conditions. […]”
          “4. The authors over-interpret their results in relation to potential consequences on human health, in particular on the basis of an unsubstantiated in vitro-in vivo extrapolation. […] the concentrations used in these tests would imply a huge exposure to glyphosate to obtain such cytotoxic effects on humans.”

          https://gmopundit.blogspot.ca/2014/03/seralinis-latest-will-history-repeat.html

          https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.skeptiforum.org%2Fwiki%2FScientific_Literature_on_GMOs%23Glyphosate_Formulations_Induce_Apoptosis_and_Necrosis_in_Human_Umbilical.2C_Embryonic.2C_and_Placental_Cells_.282009.29&h=tAQFltzSJ

          BTW, I suggest that you spend some time on the skeptiforum wiki. That way you can learn which studies have either failed peer reviewed or that were never peer reviewed.

          That should keep you busy until I am back in town on Mon.

  5. What all of you are missing here is that Dave Perry thinks he knows it all, and he firmly believes he controls this City, and its environment Dave could care less about anybody’s life or what they eat….really, and its environment In which he (thinks) for people and he thinks that it’s OK, or that it is his opinion on the GMO., but he is as narcissistic, as they come it must be toxic! Dave Perry is a spineless sneaky News hacker and a PT evening drunk. Dave Perry and the media do think what is good for us is nothing but a joke. All Dave Perry does is edits trouble or controversy, so we can respond back with anger and he thrives on this.

  6. Ask the experts you trust about GMO’s and you will find the truth, unlike in this article. Pesticide resistance is built right into their genes so that Monsanto can sell more of it. I don’t need that pesticide resistance in my blood, thank you. I also don’t need the neurological and endocrine damage that they bring. Give me nature and real food any day.

    1. You mean like these experts from around the world?

      Why do think that they cause neurological and endocrine damage? What study is that from.

      BT is used on organic crops up to the day of harvest and it can be injected in some plants and they will remain organic. Maybe you need some more information

      “Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.” – American Medical Association, 2012

      •”No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.” — World Health Organization, 2013

      “The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.” -American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2012

      The Royal Society of Medicine: ”Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA.” (https://1.usa.gov/12huL7Z)

      The European Commission: ”The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” (https://bit.ly/133BoZW)

      International Seed Federation: ”The development of GM crops has benefited farmers, consumers and the environment… Today, data shows that GM crops and foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts: millions of hectares worldwide have been cultivated with GM crops and billions of people have eaten GM foods without any documented harmful effect on human health or the environment.” (https://bit.ly/138rZLW)

      Consensus document on GMOs Safety (14 Italian scientific societies): ”GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary to authorization, are to be considered, on the basis of current knowledge, safe to use for human and animal consumption.” (https://bit.ly/166WHYZ)

      Society of Toxicology: ”Scientific analysis indicates that the process of GM food production is unlikely to lead to hazards of a different nature than those already familiar to toxicologists. The level of safety of current GM foods to consumers appears to be equivalent to that of traditional foods.” (https://bit.ly/13bOaSt)

      “Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture” – Prepared by the Royal Society of London, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences, and the Third World Academy of Sciences:“Foods can be produced through the use of GM technology that are more nutritious, stable in storage, and in principle health promoting – bringing benefits to consumers in both industrialized and developing nations.” (https://bit.ly/17Cliq5)

      French Academy of Science: ”All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria.” (https://bit.ly/15Hm3wO)

      Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities: ”Food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from the corresponding conventional food. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior with respect to health.” (https://bit.ly/17ClMMF)

      International Council for Science: ”Currently available genetically modified crops – and foods derived from them – have been judged safe to eat, and the methods used to test them have been deemed appropriate.” (https://bit.ly/15Hn487)

      1. Paid for and lobbied by the very industry who seeks to profit off the billions of gallons of proprietary chemicals and seeds they will sell.

        1. Nope they aren’t. Monsanto doesn’t have that much money. They are only slightly larger than Whole Foods.

          Stop drinking the anti GMO Kool Aid and start learning some facts on your own.

          Or would you prefer to be led astray by the bell goats of the anti movement?

    2. Don’t you realize that that pesticide resistance comes from other plants that produce it naturally? It’s not a chemical that is added to the plant.

      1. Renata of course they have no idea what Bt is and how or why it only effects the acidic gut of certain insects. Insects whose damage leads to real health concerns, the mycotoxins.

  7. If GMO’s are safe, that’s all the more reason to be proud of a label on your product that it has GMO’s in it!

    1. If lay persons were not so scientifically illiterate, you might have a point. But they are and Big Organic is fully aware that food fear mongering is very good for their bottom line.

        1. Then you need to support GMO crops and not organic ones.

          Organic farming gave us the Dust Bowl, In the 50s, when there was a major drought, Dallas saw dust storms from the plains. Now, since the introduction of GMOs, even in the long drought, Dallas is not getting dust storms from the plains. In fact the last bad one we had was dust from the Sahara desert.

          1. The Dust Bowl had an element of drought, but nice try in blaming it on organic farming! HA HA!

            Yeah Yeah–global warming is organic farming’s fault! Stupid global warming.

          2. Why do you invent things that I or no one else here said?

            No one blamed organic farming for global climate change.

            BTW, the heavy till farming that both organic farming and the conventional farming of the 30s relied on for weed control, allowed more soil to be exposed to the wind.

            One huge advantage of GMO crops is that it allows for the use of cover crops and no till farming. Both of those protect the soil from both wide and heavy rains.

      2. You think people are scientifically illiterate, and therefore don’t deserve to know what’s in their food. That’s the argument of Monsanto–the worst corporation in America.

        1. Well are YOU? The internet is full of information, both correct and false. If one wants to, they can educate their selves, to a certain degree.

          Of course, that is work and it takes some dedication to find the credible sources. Many folks find it a lot easier to accept the memes they see on Facebook and the You Tubes that friends send them instead (many of those You Tubes are lacking in facts and long on misinformation, lies and hoaxes).

          Take the time to learn. Then you will not need to insult others.

      3. You wanna be ignorant? That’s your problem. How does knowing one more thing about what’s in your food make you LESS illiterate? That’s the argument of a dictator.

        1. And you think insulting others make you sound literate and intelligent?

          It doesn’t, it makes you sound like you are 12 years old, instead.

          1. Good point–Stop supporting the argument that most people are scientifically illiterate. You don’t need to insult the public to make yourself feel better about your own argument.

          2. When folks repeat the nonsense they have read on the internet, without bothering to get the facts, then they made the CHOICE to be ignorant.

            Why should they be allowed to make policy on science?

            That group of folks rejected the train and the auto and radio and TV.

          4. HUH? I was attacked and responding to that is an attack?

            Nope, if folks CHOOSE to be ignorant then they can not attack others because of that choice.

            They should not be the folks making policy on science.

        2. Wait. I have not seen one piece of evidence or even explanation in any of your comments. But Cairenn has actually made and explained some very strong points. But you are calling her ignorant? Methinks you don’t know the meaning of that word.

  8. Genetically Modified crops are unlike anything that occurs in Nature. The seeds are programmed to die after one season. They are not designed to live and reproduce as nature does — and always has. If for any reason farmers were unable to obtain GMO seeds from the corporation, there would be no food. What kind of food security is that? Do we now depend on corporations for life and not Nature?

    If GMOs are so safe, then why is Agent Orange (the infamous deadly chemical 2,4-D used in Vietnam) now the “necessary” pesticide? The very same defoliant that killed so many Vietnam vets and decimated entire regions and populations in Asia is now in GMO foods. Are we asking too much to know?

    If GMOs are so great, then why do big Food companies pay MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars NOT to label them? Why do they think consumers shouldn’t know???

    The fact is, labeling does not drive up food cost — and food companies routinely change food labels. Food labels are always changing. Why does every other ingredient require labeling, yet the most profound experimental foods in human history (GMOs) are somehow exempt from being labeled?

    The fact is GMOs are intrinsically different from all other foods found in nature. They REQUIRE specific synthetic pesticides in order to grow. They are not created the same as traditional hybridization. They require laboratory gene-splicing, combining random DNA from entirely different species (animal with plant or virus with plant) — recombinations which could never happen in Nature.

    To say that there has been no suspected health issues or troubles for farmers (do some research on farmer suicides in India or look at the plethora of diseases from pesticide use alone) — …to be that brazenly in love with GMOs without any thought of prudence or any consideration of the cries from too many farmers and consumers whose stories tell otherwise is sheer recklessness. 20 years of GMOs is NOTHING in the course of time for measuring longterm effects. To think we can mess with the intricate and delicate designs of Mother Nature and not have unpredictable repercussions is the foolishness of immature children.

    Research gmowatch.org for countless world studies.

    But even if GMOs were not a problem, we should track them through labeling to observe how they are or are not different — because they ARE indeed different. Or else the big corps would not have profit-making patents on them.

        1. Paragraph 1: GM seeds are not programmed to die. Gina is probably conflating the Terminator technology that was NEVER commercialized and all of GM technology. GM seeds do not die after one season and farmers have access to both GM and Non-GM seed. Commercial farmers don’t typically save seed anyway, that’s an industry unto itself.

          Paragraph 2: 2,4-D is not agent orange. It was a component of agent orange that is an effective defoliant. 2,4,5-T was the problematic component used in agent orange, and not necessarily because it itself was dangerous but because it was shown to have dioxin contaminants.

          Paragraph 3: There is a very vocal minority that dismisses all the scientific data and engages in smear campaigns that lie about GM technology. This post I’m responding to is an example of that. We don’t let uniformed and/or ignorant groups shape our public policy or guide our innovation. The very people who allege to want labels as a “right to know” intentionally distort the issue so that a consumer seeking information is either confused and doesn’t know what source to trust or flat out gets the wrong information.

          Paragraph 4: Labeling would drive up costs. How could it not. In order for the label to be meaningfula and enforcable you would have to establish separate supply lines to ensure no mixing of GM and non-GM products. At every node of the supply line, you’ll need confirmation. You’ll need inspectors and certification.

          Paragraph 5: GMOs are only different in that they have had a genetic trait introduced via technology. It’s still a plant and it grows just like a plant. They do NOT require synthetic pesticides in order to grow. SOME GM plants are resistant to a specific herbicide. SOME GM plants are themselves resistant to certain pests. SOME GM plants are resistant to certain diseases. SOME GM plants are fortified when they produce a nutrient that their conventional counterpart does not.

          Paragraph 6: The GM/ farmer suicide link has been debunked. If anything India is embracing GM cotton. Some Indian farmers face economical hardships and are overwhelmed by bank loans, which leads to suicides. Statistically, suicide amongst farmers is not out of step with suicide in any other area of India’s workforce.

          Paragraph 7: GMOwatch is an activist site. How about you try pub-med.

          If you want to track GM crops, then you should track organic crops. Improper handeling of compost and fertilizers on organic farms have led to product recalls, serious illness, and even death. Ask any German if they want raw bean sprouts on their dish.

          2. Yes it was developed, so what? It was developed because of the fear of pollen drift. As it turns out, there are other ways to control that.

          3. It is patented technology, but I said it wasn’t commercialized. There is a lot of patented stuff that is never commercialized. In response to public demand Monsanto has gone on record not to commercialize the technology. Before you pump your fist and say “not yet anyway!” let me repeat that was in 1999, and they still haven’t moved on it. Patents last only 20 years from the date you file the paperwork. If they were ready for a commercial product in 99 I garuntee you that patent clock was already ticking. There is no approval process to wait for because it isn’t being commercialized. Also there are no mosters in your closet and aluminum foil makes for poor head wear.

          5. There are millions of patents that exist that have not been used. I don’t see what having a patent on something has to do with anything.

          6. And there are patents on things that don’t even work. There is a patent on how to ‘walk through walls’.

          7. Terminator technology was developed and patented by a company that Monsanto eventually bought – before Monsanto bought it. You do realize that when one company buys another, it’s a package deal and they automatically own everything owned by the company they bought, right?

    2. They do not require certain chemicals to grow either. Here is what expert groups around the world say a bout GMOS

      he Royal Society of Medicine: ”Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA.” (https://1.usa.gov/12huL7Z)

      The European Commission: ”The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” (https://bit.ly/133BoZW)

      International Seed Federation: ”The development of GM crops has benefited farmers, consumers and the environment… Today, data shows that GM crops and foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts: millions of hectares worldwide have been cultivated with GM crops and billions of people have eaten GM foods without any documented harmful effect on human health or the environment.” (https://bit.ly/138rZLW)

      Consensus document on GMOs Safety (14 Italian scientific societies): ”GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary to authorization, are to be considered, on the basis of current knowledge, safe to use for human and animal consumption.” (https://bit.ly/166WHYZ)

      Society of Toxicology: ”Scientific analysis indicates that the process of GM food production is unlikely to lead to hazards of a different nature than those already familiar to toxicologists. The level of safety of current GM foods to consumers appears to be equivalent to that of traditional foods.” (https://bit.ly/13bOaSt)

      “Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture” – Prepared by the Royal Society of London, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences, and the Third World Academy of Sciences:“Foods can be produced through the use of GM technology that are more nutritious, stable in storage, and in principle health promoting – bringing benefits to consumers in both industrialized and developing nations.” (https://bit.ly/17Cliq5)

      French Academy of Science: ”All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria.” (https://bit.ly/15Hm3wO)

      Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities: ”Food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from the corresponding conventional food. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior with respect to health.” (https://bit.ly/17ClMMF)

      International Council for Science: ”Currently available genetically modified crops – and foods derived from them – have been judged safe to eat, and the methods used to test them have been deemed appropriate.” (https://bit.ly/15Hn487)

    3. Unlike anything in nature.. except for those pesky banana, red grapefruit, and a few other things that you eat. Those are all recent mutations.
      And that 2,4-d = Agent Orange comment – I have to laugh every time I see that goofy mantra repeated yet again. It just proves how little you actually know about either one.

  9. Maybe foods should be required by law to be labeled with the astrological signs under which each ingredient was harvested or produced, because it would be just as meaningful as labeling whether any ingredient is the result any sort of planned genetic engineering.

    2. I want all organic food labeled “May have been fertilized with feces, exercise extreme caution as E. Coli can be fatal”

    3. Utter rubbish. Apparently you don’t care what goes into your body. Do you deny “organic” means something on a food label? Labeling something as GMO allows those who don’t want to eat untested lab experiments to make an informed decision. The food itself isdifferent – it’s not an imaginary difference as you conjecture. Comparing it to astrology is ridiculous and shameful.

  10. Anti GMO = Anti Science. Plain and simple. And the first world elitist groups like GreenPeace and Friends of the Earth only heap misery to the developing world with their fear mongering.

    1. It’s sad because they are one point in time actually stood for science and helping humanity, but they’ve just become more and more anti-science over the years and gone into pseudoscience territory.

    3. Ignoring what’s in your food=taking it up the a$$. Obese heifers of the bible belt agree–there’s no need to know what’s in your food!

      1. I’m sorry, have some of the comments been omitted? I can’t find where anyone said that ignoring what’s in your food is a good idea.

  11. You use extreme statements a lot to prove your point. IF GMO’s, as you say are ‘not’ dangerous– then why not just point it out to the consumers? Seems odd.

    You said : “if you vote “yes” on Prop 105, you signal to yourselves and the world
    that GMO technology is inherently dangerous and worthy of pointing that out to consumers. And it is not. The public needs to weigh in on what is modified and for what reason. But just turning away from one of the most powerful, beneficial and
    important technologies at the disposal of mankind is as stupid as taking humanity off the grid because electricity can be dangerous and scary. ”

    Powerful? yes. Beneficial? No. And comparison to electricity is weak. We are not silly for actually looking before we leap. This nation has found out the hard way that just listening to corporations and trusting what they say is safe is not always smart. Hence- LEADED gasoline, yes that was real. look up “Dutch Boy lead cartoons for kids”…..and many many more instances in this Orwellian world in which we are told ” oh , it’s SAFE”…. “oh wait, never mind, we were wrong, but we aren’t going to be held to account for it.”

    GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world.

    Whereas sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing
    countries have conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and
    higher, GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. This was
    evident in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ 2009 report Failure to
    Yield―the definitive study to date on GM crops and yield.

    GMOs harm the environment.

    GM crops and their associated herbicides can harm birds, insects,
    amphibians, marine ecosystems, and soil organisms. They reduce
    bio-diversity, pollute water resources, and are unsustainable. For
    example, GM crops are eliminating habitat for monarch butterflies, whose
    populations are down 50% in the US. Roundup herbicide has been shown to
    cause birth defects in amphibians, embryonic deaths and endocrine
    disruptions, and organ damage in animals even at very low doses. GM
    canola has been found growing wild in North Dakota and California,
    threatening to pass on its herbicide tolerant genes on to weeds.

    does this really not matter? Are we so hell bent on OURSELVES that we really don’t care about nature? Come on.

    By avoiding GMOs, you contribute to the coming tipping point of consumer rejection, forcing them out of our food supply.

    Because GMOs give no consumer benefits, if even a small percentage of
    us start rejecting brands that contain them, GM ingredients will become a
    marketing liability. Food companies will kick them out. In Europe, for
    example, the tipping point was achieved in 1999, just after a high
    profile GMO safety scandal hit the papers and alerted citizens to the
    potential dangers. In the US, a consumer rebellion against GM bovine
    growth hormone has also reached a tipping point, kicked the cow drug out
    of dairy products by Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Dannon, Yoplait, and most of America’s dairies.

    The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to achieve a tipping point against GMOs in the US. The number of non-GMO shoppers
    needed is probably just 5% of the population. The key is to educate
    consumers about the documented health dangers and provide a Non-GMO Shopping Guide to make avoiding GMOs much easier.

    You fighting labelling just makes you all look even more fishy, and it’s only a MATTER OF TIME- We are all waking up.

    1. What a Gish Gallop of nonsense and misinformation that is.

      The current GMOs are beneficial to FARMERS. Now that will change when the Arctic Apple comes on the market.

      Do you expect a car maker to tell you that 45% of your car was assembled by robots? Nope, you don’t. Why are you demanding companies to id a PROCESS?

      There are NO health dangers in GMO products. However there are in organic ones.

      I would allow for a label on GMO foods when Organic products are forced to carry a label like this.

      Organic products are grown with the use of Manure (feces). Various pesticides/fungicides are used on them. Please wash/peel all fresh produce thoroughly.
      Bacterial/viral contamination may be present.

      Organic crops are grown with the use of pesticides/fungicides that are often harmful to a wide variety of insects and some are dangerous to humans as well.

      Organic food does not contain more nutrition than conventionally grown crops. It requires the use of less environmentally friendly growing practices.

      Now that is a NEEDED label!

      1. There may never be an end to arguments over whether organic food is more nutritious. But a new study is the most ambitious attempt so far to resolve the issue — and it concludes that organic fruit and vegetables offer a key benefit.

        It’s a scientific reply to an analysis that some researchers at Stanford University published two years ago. That paper, which generated lots of media coverage and much controversy, reviewed more than 200 studies of organic and conventional food, and concluded that organic foods do not really offer any significant nutritional benefit.

        This new analysis, from a group of scientists mostly based in Europe, crunched data from an even bigger pile of studies: 343 of them, carried out over the past several decades. It will be published Monday in the British Journal of Nutrition.

        The new analysis repeats some of the Stanford group’s findings. It finds that organic and conventional vegetables offer similar levels of many nutrients, including minerals, vitamin C and vitamin E. Conventional crops are higher in protein. And there are fewer pesticide residues on organic foods, as you’d expect.

        But the group found a significant difference in the levels of special compounds called antioxidants. “Across the important antioxidant compounds in fruits and vegetables, organic fruits and vegetables deliver between 20 and 40 percent higher antioxidant activity,” saysCharles Benbrook, from Washington State University’s Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources, a co-author of the study.

        These antioxidant compounds, which go by names like flavonoids and carotenoids, are getting a lot of attention lately. Their effects remain somewhat murky, but scientists say they can protect cells from the effects of aging, or from the sort of damage that can lead to cancer.

        Benbrook says this is a big reason why public health experts want us all to eat more fruits and vegetables: They deliver a good dose of antioxidants. And if organic produce provides more of them, he says, “we think that’s a big deal.”

        1. And there are fewer pesticide residues on organic foods, as you’d expect.

          This claim is False, they only tested for synthetic pesticides, they did not include “Organic pesticides” like copper sulphate and Bt.

          “Across the important antioxidant compounds in fruits and vegetables, organic fruits and vegetables deliver between 20 and 40 percent higher antioxidant activity,”

          Why would accelerating cancer growth be a health benefit???

          https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/39022/title/Antioxidants-Speed-Up-Lung-Cancer/

          1. “The antioxidants… dramatically reduced the activity of p53—a guardian protein that prevents cancer by detecting damaged DNA and putting the brakes on cell division.”

            The above claim does not sit well with a 2005 Nature Medicine study that says:

            “Downregulation of p53 results in excessive oxidation of DNA, increased mutation rate and karyotype instability, which are prevented by incubation with the antioxidant N-acetylcysteine (NAC).”

            So the 2005 study says the antioxidant NAC prevents the downregulation of p53, but Ed Yong here claims that it increases the downregulation (or reduces the activity) of p53. I am no expert on p53, so I’ll appreciate a clarification.

            Sabina et al (2005) “The antioxidant function of the p53 tumor suppressor”, Nature Medicine, 11(12):1306-13

            Looks like a he said she said argument, no doubt “paid for” by the industry to blur more lines.

          2. And more study has shown them not to be helpful and at times to be dangerous. Now they are talking about supplements not slightly more in some plants

            Facts not fallacies.

            “Rigorous scientific studies involving more than 100,000 people
            combined have tested whether antioxidant supplements can help prevent chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and
            cataracts. In most instances, antioxidants did not reduce the risks of developing these diseases.

            Concerns have not been raised about the safety of antioxidants in food. However, high-dose supplements of antioxidants may be linked to
            health risks in some cases. Supplementing with high doses of
            beta-carotene may increase the risk of lung cancer in smokers. Supplementing with high doses of vitamin E may increase risks of prostate cancer and one type of stroke.

            https://nccam.nih.gov/health/antioxidants/introduction.htm

        2. As you said the need for antioxidants is murky and the amounts more in organic are very small. Not enough to make a difference .

          Benbrook is as unbiased a source as someone that works for Monsanto would be. He is a well known anti.

    2. On one hand you say we can’t trust scientists, yet it was scientists – not activists – that got the Lead out of paint and gasoline.

  12. The thing is, GMO labeling nonsense would result in both fear mongering and more expensive prices for foods containing them. So, the people who aren’t going to be eating it anyways are trying to make it more expensive for everyone else to do so? Now that sounds like an agenda to me.

    Foods labeled organic and GMO free already exist. Go eat those. If they don’t have such a label, then they have a GM ingredient, period. There, problem solved.

  13. “There is nothing, absolutely nothing in the way of real science that indicates that foods that undergo current genetic modifications do anything different inside your body than non-GMO foods.” True, but this is a straw man. The problems with GMO are primarily around patents, monoculture and pesticide use. Even for things like golden rice (which should be a life-saving miracle for millions) the terms of usage are heinous.

    1. What term of usage from Golden rice is heinous?

      Plant patents have been around since the late 1920s, why are they now a problem?

      Monocropping? Very few farmer monocrop anymore, conventional or farmers using GMO crops, Most use a three crop rotation.

      Pesticide use? It is lower in GMO crops

      Got another myth I can demolish for you?

    2. Monoculture has been around for over 100 years, it has nothing to do with GMO – that is a red herring. In fact it was mono cropping that pretty much destroyed the original banana.
      Pesticide use is LESS with GMO crops, so doing away with them will increase the use of pesticides.
      Plant patents have been around since the 1930’s, but the whole patent thing is another red herring. There are thousands of patented plants, covering almost all known edible and decorative plants. If plants were not allowed to be patented, what would be the incentive for any seed company anywhere to do any research on better breeds?

      1. “Monoculture has been around for over 100 years”

        I think it has been way longer than that. I wonder what they grow in those terraced ancient “rice paddies”?

  14. If there isn’t any evidence to prove that GMOs are harmful to us, then there shouldn’t be anything wrong with labeling it right? We label sugar, cholesterol, and even citric flavor additives, why not when the foods we eat contain GMOs?

    1. Because it is a PROCESS not a different ingredient. Processes are not labeled.

      Take beet sugar, there is NO test that could tell if beet sugar was from GMO sugar beets or conventional sugar beets. We don’t even require the source of sugar, cane or beet to be labeled even though there is a slight difference and cane is preferable for many baking purposes. Oils from GMO crops are no different than oils from conventional crops.

    2. Would you possibly consider reading the thread before asking people to repeat themselves? That question has been answered numerous times above.

  15. I would like Dave Perry to show his research on this issue. Please provide all the studies he read to lead to his conclusion that “There is nothing, absolutely nothing in the way of real science that indicates that foods that undergo current genetic modifications do anything different inside your body than non-GMO foods.” Unfortunately all the tests that are for public knowledge were only three month studies. If he would have dove in further he would have found the study that was conducted by Dr. Seralini. Get your facts straight before giving your opinion. Don’t you want to know whats in your food?

    2. Seralini is an unethical ass who allowed rats that were predisposed to cancer to grow tumors to unusually large sizes before euthanizing them.

      Ultimately his study was retracted and he had to reenter his study into a pay to play journal.

  16. GMO labeling is not a ban on GMOs. It’s just a label. We have the right to know what we are eating. We have the right to know if it’s a GMO.

    1. You have a RIGHT to know the ingredients and the nutrition in your food.

      You do not have a ‘right’ to know if it was harvested under a waxing moon, or if immigrants harvested it, or if was watered by the urine of fairies or the process that was used to grow it.

      There are many comment out there from folks in the organic scam food movement that state that the REAL reason is make farmers stop growing it. It is a back door ban. Sort of like all the hoops that some states make pregnant women to go through to get an abortion.

      Look at how smoking (a nasty habit) has decreased, not by banning it, but by limiting where one can smoke.

      You have the choice today, buy organic or buy non GMO labeled. If you want Kosher or Halal meat you can choose that.

      There is ZERO benefit to any one to label GMO food. WANTS are not needs or benefits.

  17. I would like to point out to anyone reading the comments the differences in the posts from those that support science and GMOs and those that prefer to remain ignorant and that insist that their WANT is more important than millions of Americans affording food.

    One side backs up what they say with links to SCIENCE, the other side prefers insults and nonsense (like inventing a GMO crop that doesn’t even exisit).

    One side talks about research the other side talks about elaborate conspiracies.

    I know which side makes a better impression to me, I think most folks in Colorado will agree with me

  18. I am looking forward to a blight resistant GMO tomato which will borrow that trait from a green pepper. Then I won’t need to put chemicals in my soil, spray my crops 3x a season and still lose 20% of it anyway. Please hurry this to market….Thank you Monsanto!

  19. Dave Perry loves conflict among all of us, that have our own opinion but we can’t do anything but that, he is a sneaky coward and a does not care about anyone but himself and puts news out as a hacker would and reads with enjoyment. He is a vicious editor and should be removed from his position. He makes people angry with his opinionated news and for a long time it’s never been positive or any signs of hid concern he dwells on us bashing each other. And, loves seeing us give strong opinions and argue on comments, that we would not answer to however, he cares less about anything and really a topic on GMO….. really? What doesn’t he really know other then conflict with no sincere reason his editing is as bad, as he is……toxic.

  21. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Hoax. The “warmers” have been caught fabricating data and the whole notion that the “science is settled” isn’t science, it’s religion.

    Even the “global warming” (without the anthropogenic part) is false – the average temperature hasn’t climbed in more than a decade, and historical temperatures were fudged by pro warming scientists by substacting a degree or so from older temperatures because of some contrived “thermometer correction” factor.

  22. Explain how the first cell formed through natural processes. I’ll be waiting for an answer. Also explain why the Church of Evolution denies the fossil record, which doesn’t show a series of gradually changing forms (as Darwin conjectured), but long periods of stasis followed by sudden changes. Then of course there’s the 10-20 million period called the Cambrian Explosion during which most of the vertebrates appeared in the fossil record – that time window is too small for evolution to have been responsible. It’s a mathematical impossibility.

    But carry on Church of Evolution, though Faith. Your religion cannot be denied or falsified by mere evidence.

Comments are closed.