GMOs are about COMPANIES engineering crops to tolerate huge doses of the weed killer they sale

[Ichingcarpenter]

How to Cover Up the Pesticide Industry's GMO Scheme and New 2,4 D 'Agent Orange' Crops




Slate's William Saletan Shows How It's Done Son

There's been no shortage of journalists of late flacking for the pesticide and junk food industries regarding genetically engineered foods, aka Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). This coincides with the massive industry PR push behind the Safe and Affordable Food Labeling (SAFE) Act, ie. the Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act, which will stop states from requiring disclosure of GMO foods. Easily fooled and blind to their bias, these journalists focus on irrational or fringe elements in the movement to label GMO foods, celebrate commercially insignificant examples of GMOs, and cover up that over 90% of GMO food acreage is engineered by chemical companies to survive huge doses of weed killer. Rather than sound the alarm that the pesticide industry's new 2,4 D herbicide-tolerant GMO crops were recently greenlighted for planting this spring by industry-friendly regulators, these journalists bury the fact they are destined for our dinner plates this fall.

William Saletan of Slate, prominent spoon-fed banger of drums in support of war in Iraq, recently stepped up to show fellow media lackeys how best to swallow and regurgitate pesticide and junk food talking points on GMOs, and advised Americans they don't need to know what they eat and feed their families. In his article, "Unhealthy Fixation" Saletan states:

"If you're like me, you don't really want to wade into this issue. It's too big, technical, and confusing. But come with me, just this once. I want to take you backstage, behind those blanket assurances about the safety of genetic engineering. I want to take you down into the details of four GMO fights, because that's where you'll find truth. You'll come to the last curtain, the one that hides the reality of the anti-GMO movement. And you'll see what's behind it."...........................................

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bronner/how-to-cover-up-the-pesti_b_7907016.html

[djean111]

1. This -

Easily fooled and blind to their bias, these journalists focus on irrational or fringe elements in the movement to label GMO foods, celebrate commercially insignificant examples of GMOs, and cover up that over 90% of GMO food acreage is engineered by chemical companies to survive huge doses of weed killer. Rather than sound the alarm that the pesticide industry's new 2,4 D herbicide-tolerant GMO crops were recently greenlighted for planting this spring by industry-friendly regulators, these journalists bury the fact they are destined for our dinner plates this fall.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
He then spends 5,000+ words discussing genetically engineered virus-resistant papaya that represents less than 0.001 percent of GMO crop acreage worldwide, and beta-carotene-enriched genetically engineered rice that represents exactly zero percent. Only at the end of the article does Saletan devote any attention to the real concern driving the modern GMO labeling movement: that pesticide companies are engineering major food crops to survive huge volumes of the toxic weed killers they sell. And even then he lays down pesticide industry spin that glyphosate -- the main herbicide GMOs are engineered to tolerate whose use has skyrocketed on food -- is "safer," even though the World Health Organization determined earlier this year that glyphosate is a "probable carcinogen" (which he alludes to only by hyperlink without explicitly stating and interfering with his argument.) Even more egregiously, he fails to state that the pesticide industry's next generation "stacked" herbicide-tolerant GMO crops also tolerate huge amounts of 2,4 D, an older herbicide and known toxic component of Agent Orange, along with glyphosate.

Saletan also blithely asserts that genetically engineered Bt insecticide in GMO corn has led to a reduction of insecticide use, failing to mention that use of systemic neonicotinoid insecticides on GMO corn has skyrocketed from zero to almost 100 percent in the past twelve years -- insecticides which are banned in the EU due to their killing power on bees, pollinators and other non-target wildlife. (See former EPA Senior Scientist Dr. Ray Seidler's "Pesticide Use on Genetically Engineered Crops.&quot
.............
Up until 2011 I myself was a sucker for industry-fed propaganda served up by the likes of Saletan, that GMOs were mostly nutrient-enriched drought-tolerant yield-boosted crops that require less pesticides. But then the government deregulated "Round-Up Ready Alfalfa" and the charade was over: GMOs are about chemical companies engineering crops to tolerate huge doses of the weed killer they sell. Alfalfa isn't even generally sprayed with herbicide in the first place. A huge swath of the American public woke up to the fact that GMOs are really about pesticide companies selling pesticides, and the modern GMO labeling movement was born. Commercially insignificant GMOs like GMO papayas, rice, apples and potatoes are red herring distractions and not the issue. Herbicide-tolerant 2,4 D & glyphosate food crops are what's for dinner and should be Exhibit A when discussing labeling GMOs. And regardless of potential risks, just as consumers have a right to know if orange juice is from concentrate or if vanilla is artificial, they have a right to know if food has been genetically engineered.

I assume the herbicide and pesticide pushers will be here real soon, to jeer.

[GreatGazoo]

8. If Monsanto had it to do over they likely never would have named their GMOs "Roundup Ready"

Hard to lie about the GMO + (more and more) pesticides pairing when it's right there in the name of the product!

Roundup not only improved efficacy and reduced the cost of the weed control effort for farmers, but it also helped kick-start a revolution in the field of genetic modification of crops. Since Roundup attacked all plants, Monsanto introduced Roundup Ready crops such as soybeans and canola in the United States in 1996. These crops were genetically engineered to withstand exposure to Roundup and this ensured that the weeds were killed without any harm to the crops.

http://www.frost.com/prod/servlet/market-insight-print.pag?docid=JEVS-5N2CZG

GMOs were designed to sell pesticides, and they DO....



http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/

[HuckleB]

12. Your claims are ludicrous.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

[Igel]

2. Oh, noes.

I've been using 2,4 D on my yard for years. It's in most of the top selling weed prevention formulations. It's cheap, it's fairly effective, and it's fairly safe if used according to directions.

Did I mention that we usually have a bumper crop of toads, frogs, and anoles? (The geckos don't usually roam in the yard.)

It was used in Agent Orange. It was not one of the chemicals responsible for the horrible health problems.

If we ignore that small detail, then here's what may provoke serious outrage.

I Agent-Oranged my yard a few days ago. I didn't post signs, and there were small children around. Small children of color, making it even worse. Some ran through the substance as I applied it. One of the main components of Agent Orange was dihydrogen oxide, and the amount of that chemical substance I splashed around with abandon was amazing. You do know that dihydrogen oxide, when improperly used, can cause death from inhalation or, at high levels, is toxic? It's also implicated in greenhouse warming. I can only imagine the irreversible harm I've done to the environment.

When it starts raining here again I'm likely to reapply 2,4 D to my front yard again. Assuming that we survive the Agent-Oranging of the neighborhood, all that dihydrogen oxygen falling from the sky.

Now, the stuff to kill off nutsedge is nasty.

[Ichingcarpenter]

3. And butterflies and bees love you

for your concern


Butterflies and weed killers
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/monarch_butterfly_decline_monsanto_s_roundup_is_killing_milkweed.html


'Unnecessary' weedkillers could undermine efforts to protect bee population
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/631135/unnecessary_weedkillers_could_undermine_efforts_to_protect_bee_population.html

[Dr Hobbitstein]

5. Heheh.

[roody]

14. 'Fairly safe'

Not good enough for my yard.

[HassleCat]

4. Yes, and?

You are correct. The major push with genetic engineering, so far, is to develop food plants that will resist herbicides. This allows farmers to apply herbicides to kill weeds, herbicides that would ordinarily kill the crops themselves. The ag industry doesn't want labeling for a couple reasons. First, they're afraid people will see the GMO label and refuse to buy the product. Second, they can't keep track of where the GMO crops go. They could not, for example, certify that hamburger came from cattle not fed any GMO grains or hay. This provides an opportunity for organic food producers who are willing to track all the food they give to their cattle, goats, etc. Of course, the big guys don't want the small producers cutting into their market, which might happen if the big guys had to label their stuff, "May contain GMO."

[Dr Hobbitstein]

6. Cool story.

Here in the real world, Gmos are used for other things. Like Golden Rice, Arctic Apple, insulin, antibiotics, and even shutting out a papaya blight in Hawaii amongst many other things. GMO=/=Monsanto=/=Pesticides. Continually asserting so in light of much data that proves otherwise is either willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. I guess some people just need a boogeyman to be scared of.

[Deadshot]

7. There are absolutely no citations in that article supporting the author's claims.

It's another senseless and uninformed attack on GMOs.

[HuckleB]

11. It's just a marketing piece for the guy's soap.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dr._Bronner's_Soap

[Deadshot]

13. Yes it is.

[NuclearDem]

9. If GMOs are so scientifically fraudulent and worthless

how does it end up that so many of the articles critical of them are written by producers of organic products?



It's almost like it has something to do with competition or something.

Or: exactly what special insight does the heir to the Dr. Bronner's Magic Soap fortune possess re: the validity of GMOs?

[HuckleB]

10. GMOs are helping people learn how to think critically.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/08/critical_thinking_lessons_for_the_anti_gmo_movement_generalizations_evidence.html

"It’s gut-check time for the anti-GMO movement. In the past couple of years, some of the country’s best science journalists—Amy Harmon, Nathanael Johnson, Keith Kloor, Michael Specter, and others—have shredded many of the movement’s claims and arguments. Three weeks ago Slate poked more holes in the case for banning or labeling genetically engineered food.


some GMO critics, to their credit, seem open to reforming the movement. Gary Hirshberg, the chairman of Just Label It, has been pounded by GMO advocates for unscientific statements. But in his latest essay, Hirshberg shows tentative signs of turning away from allegations that GMOs per se are dangerous. He’s trying to refocus the debate on transparency, herbicidal applications, and long-term monitoring.
Others are clinging to the same old discredited attacks on GMO safety. Chief among them is Claire Robinson, an editor at GMWatch and researcher for Earth Open Source. Two years ago, when Johnson investigated issues on both sides of the GMO debate for a series in Grist, Robinson accused him of parroting industry spin. Now Robinson has written a three-part series leveling a similar charge at Slate. Her arguments fail, but they do so in an instructive way. By exploring these common anti-GMO errors, you can learn a lot about how to think critically, and not just about GMOs. Here are some of the lessons.

No. 1: Don’t rely on authority. Robinson says you shouldn’t settle for vague assurances from scientific organizations. I agree. That’s why I drilled down into four case studies to look at specific evidence. The evidence, not the assurances, is what debunks the arguments against these GMOs. So when Robinson tries to drown out that evidence with her own appeals to authority, citing bogus “science-related organizations” such as the American Academy of Environmental Medicine—a quack group dressed up as an association of scholarly referees—don’t fall for the act.

..."


Unfortunately, Bronner uses GMOs as an unethical tool to market his overpriced products.