Sorry, Monsanto: The Science Is on Our Side, Not Yours

[marmar]

Sorry, Monsanto: The Science Is on Our Side, Not Yours

Friday, 27 March 2015 10:41
By Katherine Paul, Organic Consumers Association | Op-Ed


A few weeks ago, I spoke by phone with Cathleen Enright, executive vice president of the Biotech Industry Organization (BIO). (Long story).

During the course of our conversation, when we touched on the subject of the science behind the debate over whether or not GMOs are "safe" (me arguing that there's no scientific consensus) Enright said, "Then you must not believe in climate change, either."

I glossed over that accusation, though it struck me as odd. And random. Until less than a week later, on March 9 (2015), an article appeared in the Guardian under this headline: "The anti-GM lobby appears to be taking a page out of the Climategate playbook."

That's when I realized what I should have known. Enright's comment wasn't random at all. It's just a new twist on an old talking point—from an industry on the verge of crumbling under the weight of an avalanche of new credible, scientific evidence exposing not only the dangers of GMO crops and the toxic chemicals used to grow them, but the extent to which both Monsanto and U.S. government agencies like the EPA, FDA and USDA have covered up those dangers. (Side note: Turns out the authors of the Guardian piece all have ties to, surprise, the biotech industry).

Here are just a few examples of the latest reports, articles and books exposing the dangers of GMOs, Big Ag's toxic chemicals and evidence of a decades-long cover-up to keep consumers in the dark.

New study: World Health Organization declares glyphosate a human carcinogen. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) decision was reported in The Lancet Oncology, on Friday, March 20 (2015). Predictably, Monsanto went on the attack, demanding the study be retracted.

New study: Roundup causes antibiotic resistance in bacteria. In the first study of its kind, a research lead by a team from the University of Canterbury, New Zealand says that commonly used herbicides, including the world's most used herbicide Roundup, can cause bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics. Cause for concern? You bet, when nearly 2 million people die annually from antibiotic-resistant infections.

New article: "GMO Science Deniers: Monsanto and the USDA," points out what we all learned in third-grade science (but what Monsanto and the USDA refuse to acknowledge): That plants evolve to adapt to their environment, with the stronger ones winning out. Hence the fact that over time, Monsanto's Roundup Ready crops have bred a new generation of superweeds. Yet, incredibly, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) bought into Monsanto's anti-science claim that the continuous use of Roundup, over time, would not produce evolving Roundup-resistant weeds. Of course, that's exactly what's happened.

New book: Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public, exposes how the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) disregarded the warnings of its own scientists in order to foster the biotech industry's agenda. According to author Steven Druker, the FDA broke U.S. food safety laws when the agency made a blanket presumption that GE foods qualified to be categorized "Generally Recognized as Safe" (GRAS). And they did it in order to push GMOs into the market with no pre-market safety testing.

......................(more)

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/29899-sorry-monsanto-the-science-is-on-our-side-not-yours

[orpupilofnature57]

1. Now it's just a matter of convincing the people We pay to

facilitate Them .

[sabrina 1]

96. Monsanto pays those same people MORE. We can't compete with the money in politics. Which is why

things are the way they are.

[orpupilofnature57]

125. Checks & Balances police human nature, or Greed .

[evirus]

2. Pesticide and herbicide resistance isn't the only form of GMO

To demonize an entire field because of round up, and the plants engineered to tolerate it, is the reason why antigmo is regarded as being on par with climate change and evolution denial

[Art_from_Ark]

4. That's not the only problem with GMOs

"Rigorous assessment of GMO safety has been hampered by the lack of funding independent of proprietary interests. Research for the public good has been further constrained by property rights issues, and by denial of access to research material for researchers unwilling to sign contractual agreements with the developers, which confer unacceptable control over publication to the proprietary interests.

"The joint statement developed and signed by over 300 independent researchers, and reproduced and published below, does not assert that GMOs are unsafe or safe. Rather, the statement concludes that the scarcity and contradictory nature of the scientific evidence published to date prevents conclusive claims of safety, or of lack of safety, of GMOs. Claims of consensus on the safety of GMOs are not supported by an objective analysis of the refereed literature."

http://www.enveurope.com/content/27/1/4

[jeff47]

89. You can't prove a product is safe. You can only prove a product is harmful.

Let's say you run a study with 300 rats. All 300 live happily and show no signs of harm. Is the product safe? You don't know.

You've got evidence that it wasn't harmful, but only to rats. And only those 300 rats. And only in the dose you gave those rats. You can't definitively say that the product is safe. All you know is the product is not extremely lethal. To rats.

We declare something "safe" when we've run a lot of studies like that 300 rat study. It doesn't mean it's actually safe. It means it's not so harmful that we happened to see harm in a study.

As a result, you're never going to satisfy everyone that every GMO is safe. On the other hand, if they were highly toxic, it would be very easy to show that. And so far, no one has.

Also, re-read your first sentence. It's a request for funding. Are they going to get funding if they say "Well, everything looks OK, but we want to quintuple check"?

[Buzz Clik]

115. Lack of research funding is due to funding agencies not finding a good reason to spend their money.

GMOs are not emerging as being dangerous, so, no funding.

It's pretty simple, really.

[Generic Other]

140. Everytime I mention "golden" rice to my mother

I get this look like I had advocated she start eating dead babies. I don't see Asian rice farmers buying that product any time soon. Just a hunch.

[bettyellen]

5. Nonsense round up ready crops are huge in America, and we were lied into accepting them.

It matters.

[Buzz Clik]

116. That's a bullshit comment and nearly irrelevant to the conversation.

Farmers WANTED RoundUp ready soybeans; the glyphosate resistance was not forced on them.

I'm sorry, but you honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

[bettyellen]

134. "We" are consumers, who had no choice but to have them snuck in our foods.

So it it appears you read me wrong

[Buzz Clik]

138. What lies were you told that led you to accept GMOs?

[bettyellen]

147. We consumers had them snuck into all our corn and soy without being told

Why would food processors feel the need not to tell consumers what they are eating? We'd prefer to know. Sneaky shit like that does nothing but foster distrust. Why would they change rules and standards to allow this crap on the market with no outside testing? I miss being able to buy corn with confidence.

[orpupilofnature57]

148. + 1000 !!!

[99Forever]

20. How about people such as yourself let the rest of us...

... decide who to "demonize," eh friend? How's about we label products containing laboratory modified GMOs as such and let us "decide" for ourselves?

If you want to feed that fucking poison to yourself and your family, go right ahead and chow down. Maybe you can wash it down with nice tall glass of that "harmless" Roundup while you are at it.

[NuclearDem]

28. "Maybe you can wash it down with nice tall glass of that "harmless" Roundup while you are at it."

Here, a free cowshit smoothie. Chug if you truly love organic food.

[99Forever]

29. That's what your shills are selling.

Need I post a link to that asshat lobbyist of yours making the claim and the shucking and jiving when asked to drink your poison?

So, precisely, WTF are YOU laughing at.


For your reading pleasure, smartguy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026414089

[HuckleB]

38. Wake up.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2015/03/27/no-its-not-safe-to-drink-weed-killer-on-camera-but-who-cares/

And then drink a glass of dish soap, while you're at it.

[niyad]

41. while your what is at it? there is a difference between your and you're (you are).

[HuckleB]

42. Yup. There is.

Thanks for acknowledging that the content of the post is just fine.

[niyad]

45. couldn't even get to the content with that glaring error.

[HuckleB]

47. Derp.

And logic fail. The error was at the end of the content.

Any other BS confessions you want to make?

[Buzz Clik]

117. LOL!

[Motown_Johnny]

131. Roundup does not claim to be harmless

Try reading a label sometime

[NuclearDem]

132. And I've never claimed Roundup was harmless.

Which is why I find it hilarious the anti-GMO crowd is insisting GMO supporters drink it to prove we believe in GMOs.

[evirus]

33. There's one problem with labeling...

And that's the utter lack of distinction between one type of GMO, say round up ready kanola oil, and another, say golden rice, again there is a lumping of every sort of GMO into the evil Monsanto umbrella. Show me a label policy that makes a distinction and I'll support it

[HuckleB]

39. And include mutation bred products, too!

[99Forever]

44. Nonsense.

We want them ALL labeled. WE'LL make the choice of whether or not to buy their poisons or not.

Fuck a whole bunch of "distinctions."

[HuckleB]

46. So useful information is not your goal.

Thanks for the confession.

[jeff47]

87. You want to label them all with the same label.

Which means you have no idea if it's "poison". Might as well have the label be "contains DNA".

How 'bout we label all organic crops as "Grown in shit, toxic fungus and bacteria". It's technically accurate - all soil has toxic bacteria and fungi. It's also absolutely meaningless when it comes to safety.

[eridani]

77. Anyone who knows about golden rice knows that the research is being done by a non-profit

--foundation which gives away seeds and encourages seed saving. Also, the gene for beta carotene is already in the plant, usually expressed only in the leaves. Trying to get it to express itself also in the seeds is nowhere near the same as creating a plant specifically to tolerate high levels of poison.

I'll bet the foundation would not object to labeling--they'd probably have a large detailed label that would explain the above.

[Generic Other]

141. They will not sell "yellow" rice to Asians

It's like saying Americans could get used to red milk.

[eridani]

144. Can't find any info about whether is is being widely used or not. A more important concern IMO--

--is that beta carotene cannot be absorbed without adequate fat in the diet, and the poor people who are intended to benefit generally have little fat in their diets.

[Generic Other]

146. Since when do we sell food as if it were a drug anyway?

A food that prevents blindness? Derived from a carrot? Come on. If carrots are that good, why not simply eat them? And if they were such a magic wonder food, they would be prescribed as a medicine. As would golden rice. Problem is that their claims are fantasies.

Aside from that, Asian farmers are partial to their own rice.

[sabrina 1]

99. Just tell us what is a GMO vegetable and what is not. We can do the rest. We are adults and it is

downright ARROGANT and BULLYING to tell GROWN ADULTS that they are to stupid to know what's good for them and that a Corporation will decide for them.

Label the Food like every other developed nation where the people still have some say in what their government does, is doing.

[HuckleB]

100. You can't even give a science-based reason for labeling GMOs.

Nor can you acknowledge that you're not asking for labels for other types of seed development technologies, such as mutagenesis, much less acknowledge the reality that there GMOs vary dramatically, which means that a label would be meaningless. So why is it you REALLY want labels?

Hmm. I'm getting suspicious.

[sabrina 1]

103. You can't explain why the American people should be denied the right that all of Europe's citizens

have so you are attempting to distract from this OUTRAGEOUS FACT, but it isn't working, is it? The calls to end this attempt to deny Americans their rights are growing louder and louder. Countries across the globe are banning GMOs because of SCIENCE NOT paid for by Monsanto or other Corporations with a desperate need to squelch opposition to their products and thus affect the ONLY thing they care about, MONEY!

[HuckleB]

118. Ah, the US should go with every political whim of Europe.

No matter what!

Yeah, that makes no sense at all.

Try again.

Evidence and science matter.

[roody]

128. Yes!!! Then everyone could have health care!

[HuckleB]

135. That would be an improvement, but that's one matter among many.

And some European countries' health insurance isn't all that different from the ACA, unfortunately.

[Scuba]

3. Monsanto's shills will join this thread in 3... 2.... 1....

[Buzz Clik]

10. Cute, Steve. Anyone who disagrees is a "Monsanto shill"? Excuse me, but...

... I have no ties to Monsanto and never will. I do, however, have extreme reactions to bullshit and, most particularly, bullshit science. There is scant real science supporting the anti-Monsanto crowd. Their concerns are based on fear, not science, and will select any random nugget of "science" (or crackpottery) that reinforces their fears.

I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that no separation exists between the extreme left and their despise/abject fear of GMOs and the extreme right and their denial of global climate change. Neither side has any concept of the science. The left embraces fear-based climate change with no understanding whatsoever of the supporting science. They are correct by mere happenstance. They apply the same approach to their fear of GMOs, which makes them look like total idiots.

Fear-based foaming at the mouth in 3... 2... 1...

[mopinko]

23. this^^^

they remind me of the anti-vaxxers. they really do.

[diverdownjt]

30. Hey Buzz..........

Why don't you ask Monsanto for some seed and palnt samples to do your own testing...
Guess what....They won't give them to you so there is no way to do independent research.
Their secretiveness is the main reason I won't by GMO or their pesticide products.

They won't allow independent research at all....soooo FUCK 'EM!!!!!!!

[Buzz Clik]

55. LOL! Think about what you just said:

Why don't you ask Monsanto for some seed and palnt samples to do your own testing...

How about just buy some?

[druidity33]

107. Monsanto will sue you if you try that...

Their PATENTED products are only released for study under contract. If they do not like what your study says they revoke access to materials and terminate the study. Their legal team is highly adept at bankrupting small farmers and deluging governments/universities with lawsuits.

Even if i didn't think GMOs were bad for the environment, i would still avoid Monsanto and Syngenta products solely because their business practices are the epitome of "evil corporation".

[Buzz Clik]

114. Monsanto suing a researchers for unauthorized research: You can prove that, right?

The anti-GMO crowd makes up "facts" all the time. Are you one of them?

[druidity33]

119. you could try here...

http://theethicalskeptic.com/tag/monsanto/

But i went to school in Buffalo and remember friends at the time commenting on how their lab's funding was cut while researching Syngenta seeds. Their access to the tech was revoked and basically their study went nowhere because it didn't say what Syngenta wanted it to. I got the impression that they knew it might happen given where their findings were leading them. It seems pretty well known within the scientific community that Bio-tech companies are heavy handed.

I'll happily amend my statement to say "pressured researchers" instead of sued, if you think that's more accurate?

[Buzz Clik]

120. Your link seems to dispel your claim.

And there is a world of difference between pressure and legal action.

And, the link is talking about the potential dangers of glyphosate, not GMOs.

[druidity33]

127. so glyphosate has nothing to do with GMOs?

To be honest i have absolutely no desire to spend my Sunday hunting links for you. You'll note at the link i supplied that all the studies before approval in 1991 were done by Monsanto. No 3rd parties AT ALL. Why do you think that is? Why do you think Monsanto stopped all internal studies after approval? Forest for the trees man...

[HuckleB]

137. So you can't support your claims.

No one is surprised.

[jeff47]

86. You don't have to buy the seeds from Monsanto.

Buy what a farmer grew from those seeds. Ta-da! No license agreement.

[FLPanhandle]

31. +1

I'm willing to be convinced by the anti-GMO crowd, but have yet to see any scientific evidence for their fears.

If science is "on their side", then you'd think they could produce a few peer reviewed scientific papers from credible journals. Instead, we get the crap posted in the OP.

[diverdownjt]

34. How about the way they operate in foriegn countries....

Their business practice is make it illegal for farmers to use any seed but their own.
By making it the law....they suppress any research into theirs or use other varieties.
Just because you haven't seen "the papers" doesn't mean they aren't out there.
I'll bet you haven't read a scientific paper in your life.

[FLPanhandle]

37. So in other words, you've got no evidence to show.

Typical behavior of anyone with no evidence. Say it's out there (without of course providing a link to a credible example), then follow with a personal insult.

You've proven my point for me.

[Buzz Clik]

56. Predatory business practices are hardly an indication of the things you claim. n/t

[ND-Dem]

52. see post 30

[FLPanhandle]

60. Post 30 is bullshit

A quick search in the scientific paper citation index lists 100's of research papers on GMO from government and universities around the world. So where did all these researchers get their seeds?

A simple bit of common sense thinking is all that's needed to call Post #30 pure bullshit.

[ND-Dem]

63. where *did* they get their seeds, since you have to sign a contract to get proprietary seeds?

Here's what Scientific American says:

Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?

Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must end

Jul 20, 2009 |By The Editors

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/

So apparently, your "common sense" is faulty.





[FLPanhandle]

65. So, you are now claiming a world wide conspiracy...

So now you allege governments and universities around the world are in league with Monsanto?

With each of your posts you are reinforcing the image of anti-GMO'ers being nonsensical and nonscientific. You'd have done your cause better off by not posting. However, please keep it up, it's entertaining to see someone living in fear and lack of logic.

[ND-Dem]

66. The editors of Scientific American. Clearly they know nothing, are conspiracy-mongers, and

& you're the expert.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.

To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.

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. “It is important to understand that it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough,” wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University, in a letter to an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops), “but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how ‘friendly’ or ‘hostile’ a particular scientist may be toward [seed-enhancement] technology.”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/

[FLPanhandle]

68. You are aware that this is from 5 years ago and Monsanto changed their blanket agreement since?

In fact, you can even go online and read the agreement researchers sign.

You are not improving your reputation with every post.

[ND-Dem]

71. so the hell what? cosmetic change only. it's *you* who's not improving your reputation,

not that you ever had one.

notice your story has changed. did you have to consult with the minders first?

[FLPanhandle]

72. How has my story changed?

I've always maintained I'll change my mind on GMO when presented with credible, peer reviewed evidence.

You are going on about conspiracies about why there is no scientific evidence of the danger of GMO's.

We agree on the lack of credible peer reviewed evidence supporting your position. You just claim it's due to a conspiracy. I've from the beginning held the position that there is no evdience, because no one has really found any. I've never changed that position.

[ND-Dem]

105. "68. You are aware that...is from 5 years ago and Monsanto changed their blanket agreement since?"

So it's only in the last 5 years those "hundreds" of studies have been done?

[FLPanhandle]

126. Hundreds of studies have been done and are being done.

Still waiting on credible scientific evidence from you (luckily I'm not holding my breath).

You are a great counterpart to a right wing climate change denier. They, also, don't have any credible science backing their beliefs, and, just like you, have lots of reasons, conspiracies, etc on why "real" scientific evidence isn't published.

You are a hoot.

[Enthusiast]

16. You pretty much nailed it.

[wyldwolf]

26. recurring theme with 'some.' Disagree in a thread and you're a shill and 'swarming.'

[NuclearDem]

6. An exercise in cherry-picking, brought to you by the organic industry's most rabid lobbying group.

[Buzz Clik]

9. +1

[mopinko]

24. ++++++

[wyldwolf]

27. exactly.

[HuckleB]

35. Indeed. It's very sad to see so many at DU conned by such bad propaganda.

[roody]

129. Your GMO funders will console you.

[HuckleB]

136. Speaking of bad propaganda: We get the shill gambit!

[diverdownjt]

40. hey uncleardem.....(deliberate misspell)...

If Monsanto is so good for 'Merikka, and its free market principles Why does it need all
that help from the congress to protect itself i.e. comments below by DeSwiss......

You better wash those cherries too..........

You go DeSwiss

[NuclearDem]

58. If I was defending Monsanto, that question would be relevant.

[DeSwiss]

7. K&R

[center]







[center]
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Due Process is Kill-List Memo
Censorship is Transparency
Mandatory Voting is Freedom of Choice
Nobel Peace is Endless War[/center]

[KG]

8. epic

[obxhead]

21. This should have its own thread.

[99Forever]

22. Ut oh...

... you must be some sort 'Bama hater! Prolly racist based too!

[Zorra]

54. Can we have a comment on ^this^ post from the eternal defenders of corporate sanctity

and need to keep the ingredients in the food we consume as secret as possible?

[Oilwellian]

97. Oh yeah...tell it

Great OP

[GoneFishin]

11. K & R

[blackspade]

12. I believe this article mischaracterizes the WHO study.

If I remember correctly it said that glyphosate was a 'probable' carcinogen.
That said, GMOS foods are not welcome at my table based on a whole host of factors, the WHO study being one of them.

[Igel]

19. Telephone.

The report was based on a study that had 3 rankings: known to be carcinogenic, probable or possible carcinogen, and shown to not be carcinogenic.

If it's not proven safe, it's possible. "Proven safe" is difficult to attain for a lot of substances.

The public reports truncated "probable or possible" and rendered that into "probable". But while all things probable are possible, not all things possible are probable. The truncation reduced the range of possibilities without adding new knowledge.

This finishes the motivated task: What's probable is now seen as absolute.

If I flip a coin 10 times it's not provable that it will come up heads 10 times. It's possible or probable it will come up tails 10 times.

So it must be probable it will come up tails 10 times.

So that means any time you flip a coin ten times, it will come up tails 10 times.

It's a silly set of linkages that go from something that is butt-obvious to something that is not yet known, all without adding new information or knowledge. It replaces science with pure rhetoric, which is very Humanities.

[blackspade]

50. Not sure what all this has to do with my comment.

[Major Nikon]

61. It wasn't a "new" study

It was entirely based on existing evidence, but that in itself is kinda strange because the overwhelming body of evidence doesn't support their claim. So basically they cherry picked what they liked and completely disregarded everything else.

The IARC is a non-regulatory body, which means their conclusions are non-binding on anything.

Also on their category 2 list is coffee, shift work, and frying with hot oil.

[blackspade]

106. Your point is what?

How is your response relevant to my comment?

[Major Nikon]

108. I'm surprised I actually have to explain it to you

The "factor" you are in part basing your decision on is pretty much garbage. Even if you accept it at face value it only applies to people who apply glyphosate, not people who eat food from fields treated with it. So if you don't want to eat GM for whatever reason, more power to you, but basing that on what the IARC reported is a bit ridiculous. Not that any other reason is that much better.

Just sayin'

[blackspade]

113. That's like your opinion, man

There are many other factors beyond the GM products themselves, which in my personal opinion are not safe.

Examples include:
Mono-cropping;
Water pollution;
Soil depletion;
Water table depletion;
Industrial farm subsidies;
Corporate science and political corruption;
Etc......

Folks that constantly argue about the 'safety' of GM products tend ignore all of the effects of their use. Focusing narrowly on the one aspect is an effort to obfuscate the spectrum of problems that surround the continued inclusion of these products in our food system.

[FarrenH]

149. None of these appear to be effects of GMOs

All are effects of industrial monoculture. A lot of "organic" farming is industrial monoculture. The fact that you cannot make this basic distinction is telling.

[blackspade]

150. Eyeroll....

Then it isn't really organic then is it?
The fact that you cannot make this basic distinction is telling.

[FarrenH]

152. True,

that wasn't very well thought through. Nonetheless, how is demonstrating the negative effects of industrial monoculture an argument against GMOs?

[FarrenH]

13. This article reveals more about the patent illogic and unscientific reasoning of many GMO opponents

than it does about the dishonesty of the people and organizations it is attacking.

(1) Glysophate is not a GMO. It's a synthetic chemical that is used as a herbicide on GMOs and non-GMOs alike.

(2) Roundup is not a GMO. It's a herbicide that is used on GMOs and non-GMOs alike.

(3) The mechanism that causes antibiotic resistance described by the study applies to any and all herbicides that are mildly toxic to bacteria. IOW, it has nothing at all to do with the fact that plants may have been engineered for resistance to a particular herbicide.

(4) The evolution of "superweeds" is a predicted effect of *any* herbicide being overused, regardless of whether that herbicide is one used on GMOs or not. This is basic application of evolutionary theory. Demonstrating this effect for a wildly popular herbicide that is used on GMOs and non-GMOs alike says exactly nothing about GMOs qua GMOs, only about responsible agricultural management. Farmers should vary their herbicide applications to prevent this from happening.

(5) There are, in fact, serious problems with FDA approval processes being corrupted by corporate interests. However, since there is massive scientific consensus outside of the narrow community of researchers involved in those processes, inside and outside of the USA, that existing, widely used GMOs are safe, this doesn't demonstrate anything about the safety of GMOs at all.

In short, this article provides no evidence whatsoever about the lack of safety of existing GMOs.

Sorry, truth-out, you're scientifically illiterate.

[FLPanhandle]

15. Anyone with a basic understanding of science will agree with you.

I have yet to see a peer reviewed scientific paper published by a credible journal that demonstrates that GMO crops are unsafe to eat.

I bet I won't see one posted here either.

[FarrenH]

17. Nonetheless, as a software engineer working on home security systems

with no stake whatsoever in the agricultural industry, it's obvious that I'm just another Monsanto shill. In fact I'm submitting my shilling reimbursement request shortly.

[obxhead]

25. 1 and 2 are the same thing.

Roundup is glyphosate.

I get both sides of the argument when that argument is discussed by intelligent people.

It infuriates though when people hate on roundup, but not glyphosate which is made by nearly every chemical manufacturer today.

Roundup is a trade name, not a chemical.

[FarrenH]

79. I know that

and see in hindsight that point (2) was redundant.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

43. Your number 2 seems a bit disingenuous.

(2) Roundup is not a GMO. It's a herbicide that is used on GMOs and non-GMOs alike.

While Round-Up 'may be used' on non-GMO's... it's going to kill them. It's an herbicide that kills plants that haven't been genetically modified to resist ... the ingredients in Round-Up. So sure, you can use it to kill weeds in fields in both GM and non-GM fields, if you don't mind it killing your non-GM crops as well as the weeds. As far as Round-Up is concerned, those crops are every bit as much a 'weed' as the things you didn't plant, unless they have the GM Round-Up resistance.

If you're talking about using it before actually planting a non-GM crop field, that's another thing entirely, and simply speaks to issues of duration of toxicity that aren't Round-Up specific, but apply to any other herbicide. So talking about it in such a fashion is a tactic that you decry yourself in your point 3.

[FarrenH]

81. It's used extensively in urban environments as a weed killer

But perhaps more relevant, it's used on non-GM food crops for desiccation before harvesting, to increase crop yield.

[obxhead]

82. It is all in the application method.

Glyphosate can be used around all kind of turf, ornamental and crop types that are not resistant to it if applied properly.

#2 was redundant, but that is all.

[ND-Dem]

57. ...

1. You mean "Glyphosate" I believe; and no one claimed it is "a GMO".

2. No one claimed round-up = GMO.

3. Monsanto thinks it can avoid that: http://www.cambia.org/daisy/Antibiotic/1153.html

4. If "responsible" ag management is key, why isn't it happening and why are GMOs being touted as a silver bullet?

5. http://www.enveurope.com/content/27/1/4

[FarrenH]

83. .

(1) and (2)

From the linked article

"Here are just a few examples of the latest reports, articles and books exposing the dangers of GMOs, Big Ag's toxic chemicals and evidence of a decades-long cover-up to keep consumers in the dark."

Just pointing at that at no point is this statement substantiated. If you're going to make the claim that you're providing examples of the dangers of GMOs, provide examples of the dangers of GMOs. Only talking about so-called "Big Ag Toxic Chemicals" (I have biologist friends who will tell you horror stories about the less studied, potentially - and in some cases definitely - vastly more dangerous alternatives extensively used in so-called "organic farming&quot and claiming you're describing the documented dangers of GMOs is clearly an attempt to elide distinctions.

(3) Link irrelevant to point. The patent in question is on existing antibiotic resistance that has been transferred from bacteria to modified plants. The danger cited in the OP refers to antibiotic resistance acquired by bacteria due to the use of a range of herbicides that are mildly toxic to bacteria. They're different issues.

(4) Your link represents the views of a minority group, making inaccurate claims about the majority position. There is a strong scientific consensus on the general safety to human health of existing, widely used GM crops. Even worse is the appeal to European governments who have gone directly against the advice of their own scientific advisers in enacting anti-GMO measures, due not to science but popular political pressure. On this point, the actions of, say, the French government are not at all evidence of no consensus. Quite the opposite, they're evidence of popular refusal to listen to scientists and the political effects of unsubstantiated fear-mongering. The EU have conducted several broad-ranging studies of existing GMOs that were not industry-funded efforts and they in fact cement this consensus.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_8915_b_6572130.html

[Dont call me Shirley]

14. GMO ingredients are so intertwined into our food supply, it is difficult to find foods without them.

An all organic diet is too expensive for many consumers. So we just slowly suffer and die from gmo/pesticide induced diseases. These corporations and their deathly products need to be given the corporate death sentence, not consumers.

Thanks for posting, marmar.

[Major Nikon]

64. They've only been out there for 30 years

And not one single death, case of cancer, or any other serious illness can be attributed to their normal use.

Unlike organic foods.

Just sayin'

[DisgustipatedinCA]

70. Walking into this one.

Please do regale me with tales of organic food that kills when it's prepared and eaten in the "normal" way.

[Major Nikon]

74. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Germany_E._coli_O104:H4_outbreak

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_North_American_E._coli_O157:H7_outbreak_in_spinach

[DisgustipatedinCA]

90. E coli is not spinach. thanks

[Major Nikon]

91. Brilliant!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

92. No, not brilliant. But not nearly as stupid as trying to equate e coli to the veg it's growing on.

[Major Nikon]

93. Great news!

Now we don't have to equate GM produce with glyphosate or any other synthetic pesticide or synthetic fertilizer.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

95. And no again.

Here's what we have established: contrary to what you were trying to sell, organic foods do not kill. We've also established that attention to honesty isn't at the top of your list of priorities. We've also learned that this conversation has concluded, and that you're bid to have a good day (strictly pro forma).

[Major Nikon]

98. Organic food doesn't kill, just the e. coli from the shit used to fertilize it kills!

I learn so much on DU.

Cheers!

[Botany]

18. Thanks for reminding me that I have to go and buy some more glyphosate

I buy the 50% pure stuff in 2.5 gallon containers.

[Orrex]

32. It's embarrassing to DU that every report pushing anti-GMO zealotry winds up on the Greatest page

When those reports--like this one--are found to be filled largely with organic bullshit, the overall effect is to make DU's membership look like the same drooling rubes howling about the evils of vaccination.

To any who now predictably materialize to accuse me of being a shill while they're complaining about my name-calling, I say: Have at it. I lack the will and the patience to go through the whole process every time the anti-GMO crowd finds some new piece of anti-Monsanto propaganda to dance and chant around. Enjoy yourselves.

[HuckleB]

36. Meanwhile a thread about regulating dangerous homeopathic products is ignored.

Anti-GMO nonsense equates to climate change denial, creationism, and the rest of the usual anti-science conspiracies. The unscientific world view that is needed to support and anti-GMO stance is beyond the pale.

[diverdownjt]

48. You keep thinking that Huck...

Right up to that tumor removal surgery...........

Ever wonder why cancer has been on the rise for 70 years now...
Perhaps all the pesticides we started using in such bulk since the 40's....

[HuckleB]

51. And the usual anti-GMO BS is offered as a response.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/is-cancer-due-mostly-to-bad-luck/

Correlation is not causation, and ignoring the reality that cancers are more likely the older you get just makes this post all the more ridiculous.

Basically, if you're going with that, you hve to go with this, too.

http://io9.com/on-correlation-causation-and-the-real-cause-of-auti-1494972271

[NuclearDem]

59. You need to specify type of cancer.

Otherwise, you just attributed a rise in lung and skin cancers to herbicide use, when they're actually tied to cigarette smoking and erosion of the ozone layer.

[FarrenH]

130. +1

Who needs specifics when vague hand-waving and correlation of sweeping generalities can be deployed?

Another way many anti-GMO arguments are strikingly similar to anti-vax arguments.

[whatchamacallit]

49. Both camps are wrong about science being "on their side"

Corporate science being the possible exception, science doesn't choose "sides". If science could speak I imagine it would say "Right now, this is what we know about the phenomenon, and this is what we don't... What you do with the information, or lack thereof, is up to you.".

[HuckleB]

53. Basically, that's true.

Still, the science does lead to a consensus over time, and ...

Hostility towards scientific consensus: A red flag identifying a crank or quack
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/hostility-towards-scientific-consensus-a-red-flag-identifying-a-crank-or-quack/

[ND-Dem]

69. In the case of GMO companies, they have veto power over research, thereby insuring there's

only one "side".

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/

[FLPanhandle]

73. So, you concede that there are no published, peer reviewed, scientific anti-GMO studies.

That's a good start.

Now we are just arguing about why there is no scientific evidence for the position held by the anti-GMO crowd.

[ND-Dem]

75. so, more bullshit & smoke from you. no surprise.

[FLPanhandle]

76. LOL. And still no evidence from you. No surprise

Still, thanks for conceding that the OP was wrong and there is no credible peer reviewed scientific evidence for your position.

The anti-GMO crowd is probably not happy you jumped into this thread!

[ND-Dem]

78. Right; except Monsanto has a lock on who can do research & what type of research can be done,

Your little rolly-poly guy is very convincing and scientific.

Science writer Emily Waltz has catalogued other examples of what looks like overreaction to research suggesting problems with genetically engineered crops. Much of the criticism is legitimate (if ferocious) scientific exchange. But some of it is probably orchestrated by industry. There’s evidence that the Bivings Group, a PR firm, spread false information about Chapela using pseudonyms on an Internet forum for scientists. And we know that Syngenta has stooped to ad hominem attacks.

http://grist.org/food/is-extremism-in-defense-of-gm-food-a-vice/

[FLPanhandle]

80. Yes, yes. We've got your point that there is no scientific evidence for the anti-GMO postion

Now you are just making excuses for why the OP is wrong.

[Major Nikon]

84. Nonsense

No study on the toxicity of Roundup or transgenic food requires access to seeds.

[jeff47]

85. Pssst....You don't have to buy the seeds from Monsanto.

Buy the fruit or plant a farmer grew from GMO seeds. Ta-da! No license agreement.

[ND-Dem]

104. To publish the research, you have to get the seed from an approved source and sign an

agreement. And the agreement limits the areas of research.

[FarrenH]

122. Nope

What you're suggesting is not possible to enforce that under European or American law. People who buy the end product don't sign any agreement. The (now historical, since seed companies actually did change it in response to objections) agreement only applied to seed. You can, and could in the past, publish whatever research you wanted on the finished product. So there has never been any restriction on studies of the effects on human health. The out-of-date Sci-Am article cited earlier in the thread only spoke to concerns about research on, for example, environmental impact assessment.

[ND-Dem]

123. ....from the horse's mouth.

We believe that one of the reasons we’ve enjoyed a positive relationship with public sector scientists is because of our blanket agreements with universities.

Years ago, (note: circa 2009) each time a scientist or group of scientists from a university wanted to study Monsanto’s products, both parties would sign a contract specific to that study. The sheer number of such studies for which we provided our seed made that model of contract signing cumbersome for both parties.

The blanket agreement allows university scientists to work with Monsanto’s commercial seed products without contacting the company or signing a separate contract for each study. This blanket agreement – the Academic Research License (ARL) – enables academic researchers to do research with commercialized products with as few constraints as possible. ARLs are in place with all major agriculturally-focused US universities – about 100 in total.


http://monsantoblog.com/2012/09/06/the-myth-about-controlling-research/

[FarrenH]

124. You're misreading the word "product"

which here refers to seed, not the stuff grown from it.

Even in your cite it says "seed products" in the second para

[Major Nikon]

62. Sure, just so long as you ignore all this...

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07388551.2013.823595
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/gmo-labeling-ama-american-medical-association_n_1616716.html
http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-board-directors-legally-mandating-gm-food-labels-could-%E2%80%9Cmislead-and-falsely-alarm
http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf
http://www.genetics.org/content/188/1/11.long
http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/71/1/2.full
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-genetically-modified-food/
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y5160E/y5160e10.htm#P3_1651The
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v31/n9/full/nbt.2700.html
http://www.interacademies.net/File.aspx?id=6749
http://www.isaaa.org/kc/Publications/htm/articles/Position/fas.htm
http://www.siga.unina.it/circolari/Consensus_ITA.pdf
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8180.pdf
http://www.icsu.org/publications/reports-and-reviews/new-genetics-food-and-agriculture-scientific-discoveries-societal-dilemas-2003/

...and dozens more like it.

[hunter]

67. GMO is not one thing, bad or good.

Some of it is beneficial, some of it is not, some of it has both good points and bad points.

I don't think corporate promoted monoculture is a good thing. We've known about the hazards of monoculture since at least the Irish Potato Famine, and much, much longer than that in many indigenous cultures.

We've also learned that genes occasionally jump from one species to another.

GMO's raise complex questions and I dislike these simplistic four-legs-good-two-legs-baaaaad DU debates.

[pnwmom]

88. Best post here today. Thanks! n/t

[FarrenH]

94. I dislike any argument that treats GMOs

Last edited Sat Mar 28, 2015, 08:18 PM - Edit history (3)

as a class of organisms that share some common physical quality that is unique to GMOs, which sadly is about 60% of the anti-GMO positions I'm exposed to. HGT in itself is no more relevant to GMOs than any other organisms, and breathless pronouncements that GMOs *might alter our genes*, as if that extremely tentative suggestion is solely or even peculiarly a risk of GMOs, reflects more of the same old scientific illiteracy.

We have relatively large amounts of bacterial and viral DNA in our genes and seemingly deliberate HGT between the mitochondria of animal cells has now been observed for the first time. Along with a lot of other evidence, it's starting to look like HGT is a lot more common in nature that we previously realized.

The idea that modifications to, say, make plants express Bt crystals is somehow introducing a kind of genetic change that wouldn't normally happen through natural evolution is also silly. Nature is chock-a-block full of natural analogs between plants, animals, fungi, archea and bacteria. Cannabis produces stuff we have special receptors for in our brain. Catnip produces a close analog of a pheromone found in Tomcat pee. The list of such analogs is vast. There are even more startling examples of natural "transgenics", like the green sea slug Elysia chlorotica, which appears to have hijacked enough algal DNA to actually photosynthesize, or the common aphid, which produces carotinoids, quite possibly with hijacked plant DNA too.

The whole "conventionally bred crops came about through a slow dance with nature" thing is rubbish too, considering half the world's staples came from South America and were spread to completely alien ecosystems across the globe in the last few hundred years, to be consumed by people who had not co-evolved with them. And in South America we went from wild teosinte, which looks like ordinary grass, to corn in only two or three millenia of selective breeding. And evidence suggests it went through one or two very rapid changes rather than being gradual.

On top of that a huge number of popular so-called "organic" cultivars were achieved through mutation breeding in the 20th century. It's absurd that you can pick up "Ruby Red Grapefruit 100% Organic Marmalade" when the Ruby Red Grapefruit cultivar was the result of bathing plants in massive amounts of mutagen and introducing dozens of poorly understood genetic changes, but people somehow think that's less "unnatural" than more precisely modified organisms. What's even worse, according to some of the life scientists I know, is that organic farmers often use far less regulated and studied combinations of herbicide and pesticide that are potentially far worse for both human health and/or the environment.

But as you say modifying organisms in the way that present tools allow us to does raise some complex issues. For one, the IP issue. I'm firmly in the camp that says life forms shouldn't be patentable. There are biological risks too. An academic friend provided me with some of her research on the use of modified food plants to produce pharmaceuticals. Because the plants in question are fairly promiscuous, this raises the real risk of actual food crops being contaminated and we don't want our food crops suddenly producing powerful drugs that you would normally need a prescription for. Her work was on the clearance between such crops and food crops, showing that the regulated clearance was inadequate to prevent cross-pollination (in New Zealand).

There are various other issues that we do need to consider and address, but in my view all this neo-luddite "OMG GMO" bullshit propagated by people who's level of scientific understanding is such that they conflate "chemical" with "synthetic" serves to cloud the real issues. And in the case of groups like Greenpeace encouraging South East Asian mobs to burn down Golden Rice fields, it can rightly be said to be directly harming the health of millions, who might otherwise benefit from humanitarian efforts to supplement vitamin-A deficiency in regional diets that causes severe conditions in up to 100 million people, like blindness. It's outright dangerous ignorance and stupidity. In fact it's mainly their stunningly ignorant and harmful position on GMOs that has made me go from being a Greenpeace supporter to someone who opposes them and believes my money is best spent elsewhere.

[druidity33]

109. isn't the point of Organic...

to avoid pesticides and herbicides? Are you talking about Bt?

"What's even worse, according to some of the life scientists I know, is that organic farmers often use far less regulated and studied combinations of herbicide and pesticide that are potentially far worse for both human health and/or the environment. "


I submit these "Organic farmers" you're speaking of aren't really Organic. I live in an agricultural area with PRIMARILY small Organic farms. The farmers i know rarely spray anything, and if they do they are foliar feeding with compost tea or spraying a homemade concoction of pepper or nettles or rosemary, etc. for pests.

I agree with some of your other points. What i don't like is people conflating a desire to not consume GMOs with being anti-science.

The Golden Rice debate is emblematic of the difference between my Organic/Permaculture perspective and the corporate NGO perspective. Originally farmers there grew regional, high-nutrient crops (millet, sorghum, etc) in smaller local widely dispersed areas. As the advent of commercial ag took over, they were pushed into monoculture and pesticide use, laden with debt, farmers were subsidized and sold rice (remember Golden Rice was originally intended to have a Terminator gene), ... a crazy cycle that has led to many suicides and the malnourishment of millions.

The hundreds of millions of dollars the Gates foundation spent to develop Golden Rice could have been spent reintroducing traditional crops with balanced nutrients on sustainable farms placed locally for distribution. Look to Kerala (or even Cuba) for some examples. Last i heard we could supply the continent of India with Vit A pills for 30 years for just under $2 million. Remember that old saw "Give a man a fish vs. Teach a man to fish..."?

[FarrenH]

110. ...

Last edited Sun Mar 29, 2015, 10:29 AM - Edit history (9)

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/

"Industrial monoculture" and "organic" are not mutually exclusive categories and a lot of "organic" farming is still industrial monoculture. Even where polyculture is adoped, industrial farming methods are still commonly used.

The demand for so-called organic foods more or less ensures that a lot of food labeled "organic" comes from industrial farming efforts, especially in the USA. And that more or less requires a lot of pesticide and herbicide use for consistent yields.

The United Nations has recently for the first time acknowledged that monoculture is unsustainable and constitutes a risk to the world's long-term food security. A recent report suggests that to ensure long-term sustainability we need to turn to permaculture/agroecology-based farming methods, with smaller farms and more labour-intensive production. And I'm a 100% behind this. A problem in developed countries like the USA is that out of the tens of millions that get a warm fuzzy eating so-called "organic" foods, very few want to move out of the suburbs and cities and make this a reality. They're still trapped in the urban consumer pattern, so industrial farming methods and monoculture dominates.

And even once this is acknowledged, there are other rational connections and distinctions those with the loudest opinions fail to make. If anything, precise genetic engineering of food plants will improve permaculture efforts massively.

(1) Permaculture *doesn't* imply non-engineered plants. Precisely engineered plants can massively advance the cause of small-scale permaculture and even reduce environmental impact

(2) Bad IP regimes can obstruct such efforts (as stated earlier I oppose patenting of life forms) but that is a separate issue from whether GMOs qua GMOs are bad. There is absolutely zero scientific sense behind the latter kind of thinking. We entered the anthropocene several centuries ago. There is nothing distinctively "natural" about any of our food crops today, or most land ecosystems across the planet.

As stated in my preceding post, a huge number of popular "organic" cultivars were created through mutation breeding in the early- to mid- 20th century. This involves bathing plants in massive quantities of radiation or mutagenic chemicals to trigger mutation, then just selecting the varieties that arise that have desirable properties. This method introduced countless cultivars with vastly less well-understood and little-studied genetic changes than modern, more precise engineering methods, yet across the globe we see these cultivars sold as "organic" while poorly informed consumers freak out about so-called "GMOs" that are obviously better understood and represent less genetic change.

And appealing to the possibility of non-mutation-bred plants only being grown doesn't strengthen specious claims about "natural" foodstuffs either. We never bothered assessing the ecological impact of all the South American breeds that became staples across the globe when we introduced them to alien ecosystems in the colonial era, or the tolerances of human populations who had not co-evolved with them. Even claiming they're in some sense "natural" and not artificial in their original environments is specious, as examination of the difference between wild teosinte, the plant corn was selectively bred from and corn, will make obvious. Current evidence suggests the genetic changes that brought about these changes were not gradual, but involved one or two significant mutations that were rapidly propagated through artificial selection during the last two millennia:

[druidity33]

111. Many small farmers

opposed the USDA label for precisely these reasons. I wrote to my legislators. In my area of New England, farmers were vehemently against what they considered a watering down of the Tilth standards. The key word in your link is CONVENTIONAL Organic agriculture. Like i said. Small sustainable farms, placed regionally, poly-cultures, balanced nutrients, re-imagining abundant systems, skill-sharing, barter, alternative currencies, local and regional support systems, etc. That's all happening here in New England through much hard work. I'm currently writing up suggestions for the MA state Food Plan. Many people want to include wording that prohibits or limits the farming of GMOs, but i'm not there yet. People have a right to consume them if they want to... just as i have the right to not do so.

Whoah, sorry i just babbled at you...

[FarrenH]

112. I did a massive edit to my post above

that makes explicit my feelings on this

[FarrenH]

133. Something I need to respond to is this

Last edited Sun Mar 29, 2015, 08:41 PM - Edit history (13)

"The Golden Rice debate is emblematic of the difference between my Organic/Permaculture perspective and the corporate NGO perspective. Originally farmers there grew regional, high-nutrient crops (millet, sorghum, etc) in smaller local widely dispersed areas. As the advent of commercial ag took over, they were pushed into monoculture and pesticide use, laden with debt, farmers were subsidized and sold rice (remember Golden Rice was originally intended to have a Terminator gene), ... a crazy cycle that has led to many suicides and the malnourishment of millions."

Even if this is the case its not really an argument against Golden Rice. If you want farmers to return to small-scale, more diverse farming methods, do something about it. Golden Rice does improve diets and health and has more chance of success in the near term. It's a very practical response because engineering more a diverse, sustainable agriculture in the region is not something that can be achieved in the same time-scales as getting supplementing the diets of millions with Golden Rice. Greenpeace isn't encouraging sustainable agriculture, just playing a destructive role in positive, humanitarian efforts. And as I said upthread, permaculture and genetic engineering aren't mutually exclusive, in fact genetic engineering can substantially improve permaculture and reduce negative environmental impact.

I agree, though, that the commercialization of farming under WTO provisions has had a horrible impact on agriculture in many developing countries. In my own country (South Africa) it's caused food prices to skyrocket as farmers who were once subsidized, protected (through guaranteed surplus purchases by the state) and bound by export and price restrictions to ensure food security have been incentivized to switch to export crops for higher profits. Unlike India, we haven't had the problem of smaller farmers falling victim to fickle markets, or the suicide-inducing debt that came with that.

The problem is more political than technological and I don't think the money spent on Golden Rice was poorly spent. But urgent reform of the WTO is required, as is full-throated resistance to TPP.

[FLPanhandle]

121. +1

Great post.

[HuckleB]

101. So your concern about "genes jumping species" is there for any seed development technology.

So I'm not sure why you bring it up.

[Cha]

102. Now the city of San Diego has to sue Monsanto.. for fucking up their Bay with chemicals..

NEVER!

A Fed Judge thwarted the Will of the People on Kaua'i.. I hate the MOFO. I moved to the other side of the Island to get away from their relentless spraying of poisonous roundup on the West side.

Federal Judge: Kauai's GMO Law Is Invalid



HONOLULU (AP) — A Kauai County law requiring companies to disclose their use of pesticides and genetically modified crops is invalid, a federal judge ruled Monday.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Barry Kurren ruled in favor of four seed companies seeking to stop Kauai's new law from going into effect in October.

Syngenta Seeds, DuPont Pioneer, Agrigenetics Inc., doing business as Dow AgroSciences, and BASF Plant Sciences sued for a permanent injunction, arguing the ordinance unfairly targets their industry.

Kurren's ruling agrees that the ordinance is pre-empted by state law. The judge's ruling stops the county from enforcing the ordinance.

"I'm disappointed but that's the judge's option," said Paul Achitoff, an Earthjustice attorney who helped defend the law on behalf of intervening community groups. "I think the consequences for the people of Kauai, in particular, and throughout the state are very unfortunate."

MOre..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/25/kauai-gmo-law-invalid_n_5711387.html


https://www.facebook.com/Save.Hawai.from.Monsanto

From your link.. mahalo marmar

"One final comment on the climate-denier talking point. How ironic that Enright and the biotech industry would pretend to side with the scientists sounding the alarm on global warming—when the largest contributor to global warming is industrial agriculture, with its GMO monoculture crops. Anyone serious about global warming knows that our best hope is to ditch our chemical-intensive, soil-destroying industrial agriculture and replace it with organic, regenerative farming practices that restore the soil's ability to capture carbon."

The gmos are so purposely obtuse

[Generic Other]

139. They are feeding us a poison red herring

And it stinks to high heaven!

[HuckleB]

142. Derp.

[Generic Other]

143. Watch a GMO Advocate Claim a Weed Killer Is Safe to Drink but Then Refuse to Drink It

http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2015/mar/27-3

Why don't you take the taste test?

[NuclearDem]

145. Derp the second.