Consumers Union, whose magazine Consumer Reports has built a reputation for impartial and reliable reviews of everything from household cleaners to SUVs, has hardened its stand against GMOs, further distancing its views from the mainstream science community.
[Read GLP’s Biotech Gallery Facts report on Consumers Union and Consumer Reports]
In its latest blog post, the consumer organization claims that genetically modified food hasn’t been proved safe, could “introduce toxins or new allergens,” and “might cause damage to the immune system, liver and kidneys.”
Consumer Reports then quotes Robert Gould, pathologist and president of Physicians for Social Responsibility (an advocacy group known for its opposition to nuclear energy and with no expertise in food, agriculture or genetics), who claims that “studies have measured a time frame too short to determine the effects of exposure over a lifetime.”
But wait, there’s more danger! Consumer Reports claims that growing genetically modified food could be bad for the environment, creating “an epidemic of super-weeds,” choking American farms and requiring an ever-escalating need for more herbicides.
In addition to its blog posts, the organization’s increasing stridency shows up in responses to consumers who sent letters or emails requesting the scientific evidence supporting CR’s anti-GMO positions. One frustrated consumer shared his exchange with Consumers Union with the Genetic Literacy Project. When Erasmo Salazar, a food safety specialist for Lloyd’s Register, asked for evidence to back up CR’s safety warnings, he received this response from Consumer Reports Customer Relations Representative Evelyn Lopez–almost a word-for-word parroting of the ‘warning’ posted in a Consumers Report blog posted last fall that ominously warned that GMOs were “lurking” in our food supply:
I have forwarded your inquiries about GMO safety to the appropriate experts in our lab. To help answer your question, I have included an excerpt from one of our articles:
You may be surprised to know that the federal government has not mandated that genetically modified organisms be proved safe before they’re used in your food. But safety assessments are mandatory in other major developed countries, including China, Japan and the countries of the European Union. Some animal studies suggest that GMOs may cause damage to the immune system, liver, and kidneys. ‘There hasn’t been enough research to determine whether GMOs are harmful to people,’ says Michael Hansen, Ph.D., senior scientist at Consumers Union and an authority on genetic engineering. ‘But scientists around the world agree that GMOs have the potential to introduce allergens and create other unintended changes that may affect health.’
The use of genetically modified seeds has steadily growth over the last two decades. That has led to about a 10-fold increase in farmers’ use of glyphosate, a weedkiller better known as Roundup…because the herbicide won’t harm their GMO crops. But that…has created a new problem…a rising number of “superweeds” that have now become immune to glyphosate.
Consumers Union concluded its letter by asking for a donation to support its $27 million investment “into our product testing program.”
Consumers Union has also posted a video on YouTube promoting the discredited research by French Science Gilles-Éric Séralini, who had published a study that purported to show rats who got cancer for consuming GMOs. The study was eviscerated by mainstream scientists, reviewed and rejected by independent food safety authorities around the world, and subsequently retracted–yet it remains one of the talking points for Consumer Reports. French scientist
How much are any of CR’s dire warnings are true? Here’s a scientific review of the organization’s claims:
1. “No evidence of harm isn’t the same as saying they’ve been proved safe.”
No scientist worth his or her lab coat would ever say something’s been proven. Any scientific inquiry carefully examines the evidence at hand, creates a hypothesis against which to test, and concludes with something along the lines of “this is what we know so far.” In the case of GMOs, there have been thousands of reviews and studies on the possible health affects of GMO foods, including this Italian study from 2012 that looked about 1,800 other studies over 10 years. Their conclusion? “(research)…so far, has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops.”
At this point, animal studies on GMOs have reached 25 years, and involve at least 130 research projects involving 500 researchers, without finding a scrap of evidence toward GMO’s harm, said a report from the European Commission, of all places.
Conversely, no known studies that indicated a link between GMOs and harm to health have withstood any scientific scrutiny. From the still-touted studies by Seralini and Judy Carman, which quickly lost credibility due to poor methodologies, to a 2011 study linking RNAi (a short strip of RNA, which can silence and otherwise regulate other genes) to GMO-induced harm, which couldn’t be replicated, no evidence of harm from GMOs has yet to be found.
Ironically, the most common hazard found in foods is pathogenic bacterial contamination, introduced by mishandling of food, said Val Giddings, senior fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a “think tank” in Washington, D.C. that focuses on introducing technology to society.
Giddings also pointed out that FDA regulations do not require that any food is “proven” safe (including organic or conventionally grown food, of course). “They’re applying a standard for crops derived from biotech that they would never apply for other foods,” he said. “Meanwhile, we have done more detailed compositional analysis of biotech foods than any other foods in history,” said Giddings.
2. “The contention that GMOs pose no risks to human health can’t be supported by studies that have measured a time frame that is too short to determine the effects of exposure over a lifetime,” said PSR’s Gould.
This claim appears to have more in common with “moving the goalposts back” than with presenting any scientific evidence. “After hundreds of studies, including multigenerational studies, the proper studies have failed to show any risk,” said retired food chemist Bruce Chassy.
However, in an interview with the Huffington Post, Consumer’s Union Michael Hansen insisted that the Seralini study still had merit, because it continued a Monsanto study for another two years to find those tumors (the actual results, as we know, did not actually show evidence of anything that was significant, except that some rats may have emerged healthier).
Meanwhile, GMOs have been consumed, tested and subjected to regulatory review for about 30 years now, without evidence so far of harm to consumers.
3. Genetic modifications can introduce previously unseen allergens and toxins.
To date, no such hazards have been reported. In addition, the risk of introducing such allergens and toxins is infinitesimally small, said Giddings. Even in conventional food, such allergens exist, but are rare and tested for. “Peanut allergies, for example, can be fatal but they are rare.”
Comparative assessments of biotech, conventionally grown and organic food have had consistent results: biotechs are the safest, followed by conventional food, with organics quite far down the safety list. “Recalls of organic food are common, mostly because of microbial contamination.” When you consider where and how organic food is grown, this is not too surprising. But this fact appears to have escaped Consumer Reports’ extensive product testing, given their recommendations toward organic food.
4. The FDA only does “voluntary” reviews, which means that the US doesn’t require safety testing on GMOs.
“This is truth pulled in a way to convey a lie,” said Giddings, in a GLP article that accuses Hansen and Consumers Union of making false claims. The FDA in fact requires that all foods placed on the market in the United States to be safe. Violators are subject to criminal penalties. The issue being brought up here is the word “voluntary.” The FDA relies on tests from submitters for all foods, not just GMOs; this way, it’s up to the submitter to pay for the proper testing, which the FDA approves or disapproves (or sometimes asks for more information). Even Hansen, in an interview with Nathanael Johnson of Grist, could not identify a GMO submission that was not made with safety data to the FDA. In addition, all agricultural products must pass field testing required by the US Department of Agriculture, and allergen testing required by the US Environmental Protection Agency.
“To believe these claims, means you’re saying the regulatory system is corrupt, and incapable of discerning science,” said Chassy. Meanwhile, studies from the National Science Foundation, Great Britain’s Royal Society, expert panels in every country, from academe, industry, and non-profits, and 88% of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (PEW study released in later January) have reached a consensus that approved foods made from GM crops are as safe or safer than conventional or organic foods.
Consumers Union’s Michael Hansen, however, is one of 93 signatures of a document avowing “no consensus” among scientists and physicians about the safety of genetically modified foods. The document, also signed by Seralini and well-known anti-GMO activist Vandana Shiva, is part of the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), a group with a clear anti-GMO agenda.
5. Invasion of the Superweeds.
Finally, the Consumer Reports post (and letters to consumers) claimed that introducing such genetic modifications as glyphosate resistance is harmful for the environment, creating a generation of weeds that themselves become resistant to glyphosate.
Resistance to pesticide can happen with any weed, and any plant, Chassy points out. That’s one issue that farmers and Consumer Reports could agree upon. But is glyphosate safe? Consumer Reports’ latest post skirts the issue, instead focusing on the increase in glyphosate-resistant weeds.
But according to the USDA, while glyphosate use has risen, the overall use of herbicides and pesticides has declined—the peak use of each was in 1982. And so far, no credible studies have shown toxicity of glyphosate in humans. “Glyphosate is safer than most other herbicides. If a farmer has to use an herbicide (and they’d rather not), they’re better off with glyphosate,” said Chassy. However, anti-GMO activism has helped prevent other resistance varieties of crops to be approved, making things easier for weeds to resist the few existing herbicides that can be used on crops, Chassy noted.
The Consumer Reports article also claims that resistance to glyphosate is making farmers turn to the use of 2,4-D, a herbicide that has been used on residential lawns for decades. In this case (unlike glyphosate), the organization cite studies that link 2,4-D to non-Hodgkins Lymphoma, birth defects and reproductive problems. However, three EPA reviews (in 1998, 1992, and 2004), with no conclusive evidence of health problems so far.
Where is the independence?
Consumer Reports’ stance, responses to consumers and public statements appear strongly at odds with scientific consensus about genetically modified foods. While there may be ethical or ideological issues revolving around genetic modifications, none of these concerns arise from Consumer Reports’ blog posts, letters or testimony. In fact, the organization’s stance has been taken without even explaining why its “experts” think GMOs are harmful. For example, in a recent review of soy milks, Consumer Reports simply lists genetically modified soy as a “con,” with no rationale. Which makes one wonder about Consumer Reports’ request for a donation to support its “plan to invest $27 million in our product testing program” would actual help achieve.
Andrew Porterfield is a writer, editor and communications consultant for academic institutions, companies and non-profits in the life sciences. He is based in Camarillo, California. Follow @AMPorterfield on Twitter.
I used to be a strong supporter of Consumer Reports mag and would read it every month. They’ve sadly degraded, and have turned into anti-science shills.
Any examples besides their take on GMOs?
That’s enough for me, that one issue. That shows their lack of credibility in science-based, evidence-based conclusions. That’s quite enough for me to change my mind about them. Same thing for Chipotle, and for Ben and Jerry’s.
They were founded on a negative false claim. I found early on that most of their ‘evaluations’ of the quality of products ranged from wrong to irrelevant. CR is a case of hucksterism aimed at taking bucks off dummies.
Hahaha. Yeah their report on how hybrid cars AREN’T cost-effective really shows what green activists they are too.
Their review of the Tesla smacks of payola. If you have paid attention, the Tesla if not subsidized would cost $140,000
Antibiotics in farm animals, for one. With only minor alterations, each of the five generalized statements in the story can be applied to CR’s childish parroting of the fear-campaign against this harmless practice.
How did that Alar Apple scare turn out? Any proof of harm yet?
Let’s see, you have The Heartland Insstitute’s take, which is the same as yours: http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2007/03/01/alar-great-apple-scare
It should be noted that the Heartland Institute opposes any notion that man-made climate change is real.
Or you have PBS’s take, which would obviously be more objective than a right-wing think tank’s: http://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/docs/alarscarenegin.html
There’s also this: http://www.soc.iastate.edu/sapp/alar3.pdf which shows that the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) — a group funded by the chemical companies — was behind the “news” that alar was safe, and that the 60 minutes reports were erroneous. But:
“…there was a great deal that the Times didn’t tell its readers
that might have helped them look more closely at the real story of the so-called Alar
scare – and the organization that has worked diligently to keep it alive, the American
Council on Science and Health (ACSH). Approaching the tenth anniversary of the “60
Minutes” broadcast on Feb. 25, 1989, a review of the record shows:
• Prior to 1989, five separate, peer-reviewed studies of Alar and its chemical
breakdown product, UDMH, had found a correlation between exposure to
the chemicals and cancerous tumors in lab animals. In 1984 and again in
1987, the EPA classified Alar as a probable human carcinogen. In 1986,
the American Academy of Pediatrics urged the EPA to ban it. Well before
the 60 Minutes broadcast, public concern had already led six national
grocery chains and nine major food processors to stop accepting apples
treated with Alar. Washington State growers had pledged to voluntarily
stop using it (although tests later revealed that many did not). Maine and
Massachusetts had banned it outright.
• On Feb. 1, 1989, acting EPA Administrator John A. Moore, commenting on
the preliminary results of Uniroyal’s own study of Alar, stated: “There is
an inescapable and direct correlation between exposure to UDMH and the
development of life-threatening tumors in mice.” EPA calculated the
lifetime risk of cancer from Alar consumption at 45 in 1 million – 45 times
the agency’s “negligible” risk level. EPA announced the beginning of a
process that would eventually result in a ban on Alar, but before it could
take effect, Uniroyal pulled it from the market and its registration, or
license for use, soon expired. In 1991 and again in 1992, the EPA
reconfirmed its decision that Alar poses an unacceptable risk as a
probable human carcinogen, although its new estimate of the cancer risk
was about 23 in 1 million – still more than 20 times the acceptable risk
level.
• The National Cancer Institute never issued a report clearing Alar as a
carcinogen, notwithstanding the ACSH claim to the contrary. In fact, in
1992, an internal ACSH memo lamented, “So many professional
organizations, including the National Cancer Institute and American
Cancer Society flatly refused to say that the food supply was safe, that
pesticide residues in food were not a cause of cancer, that Alar did not
pose a risk . . .”1
• In 1993, a report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) validated a
central premise of the NRDC report: that infants and young children, who
consume a lot of apples and apple products, are particularly susceptible to
carcinogens in food. The chair of the NAS study, Dr. Philip Landrigan,
said: “NRDC was absolutely on the right track when they excoriated the
regulatory agencies for having allowed a toxic material to stay on the
market for 25 years.” Subsequent reports by the World Health
Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer and the
National Toxicology Program of the U.S. Public Health Service confirmed
that Alar is carcinogenic.”
There are some who would argue smoking has never shown “proof of harm”. That seems to be the same tactic you’re using.
And this case helps to show why chemical companies (and their shill organizations) will stop at nothing to try to shape public opinion based on lies rather than science.
Thank you for bringing this case up. It needed to be contrasted here.
I don’t have ‘a take’, it just all died out as far as I could tell.
I’m asking a question, do you have a quick answer in your own words instead of a huge cut and paste?
Well I don’t know much about it, which is why I gave you the opinions of people who do.
And you obviously have a “take” when ask “how did that Alar Apple scare tune out?”
It’s adorable how you claim to be objective.
You seem to be taking this personally.
You did volunteer to defend and be the expert on the Consumers Union.
I think the CU is going overboard, stretching the truth and making claims I know to be false and/or overstated.
If you feel the need to examine me and comment on me personally; then yes–you should know up front – – – I’m biased.
I have no clue what you’re trying to say. I don’t think you do either.
If you’re implying I’m biased because I worked there, that would be incorrect. I’m defending them because I know exactly how they operate and they test and examine everything to come to scientifically-based conclusions. That’s exactly how they’ve operated for the past 80 years. If you were to read their articles on “natural” remedies, you’d see they have done nothing but destroy the notion that so-called natural remedies and supplements are useful. Which has helped the pharmaceutical industries immensely. But science is science.
If you want to attack their credibility, go ahead. But I’m still not seeing anything that would indicate they would have an interest in labeling GMOs except, you know, the consumers’ rights aspect of it. The biotech industry, on the other hand, has their hefty profits to worry about, which is the only reason they oppose labeling.
So what tests did they do on GM foods that convinced you they weren’t safe?
Answer.
NONE
CU has done a good job on many things. They almost always use facts and not emotion.
Which makes this position surprising; as they are not only using emotion but they are also hiding facts on the GMO debate. I think they are crossing the honesty line here–because I don’t think they are ignorant enough to really think the 64 countries they used in their cost analysis represent what will happen in our country if we have two different distribution channels where only one exists. If they were honest, they would point that possibility out, but say they don’t think it will happen. (Either scenario is possible 1)Two distribution channels with separation, or 2) a label on everything that says “May contain GMO”)
In addition, if they were honest on this issue, they would rely more on someone who has a clue about agriculture instead of making the claims they made in this video at 2:35. It is patently obvious they are spreading fear, not facts. Again, uncharismatic of the CU.
I stopped buying Consumers Report several years back. I found out they are extremely bias. Or you would say ” far from the truth “
Do you have an example? I can attest they’re not biased in any way, shape or form. That’s why everyone loves them, they don’t take cash from manufacturers.
“I can attest they’re not biased in any way, shape or form.”
Care to explain how it is, exactly, that you can “attest” that?
I worked there for 6 years.
So you admit that you are a Koolaide drinker.
Well…how about their automobile “roll over” claims? Not replicable in real life.
Really, you’ve tested it yourself? How would you know?
Yes, I do, if you can go back that far.
! was a long-time subscriber….maybe ten to fifteen years…..to Consumer Reports and (mostly) followed their advice, even though some things went South fast, like the car reviews.
CU did a test on various (expensive) stomach acid medicines, both prescriptive and OTC. They ignored all the “cheap” solutions, TUMS, Pepto-Bismol, Alka-Seltzer. I wrote and asked why. They responded that ones like Pepto-Bismol used bismuth and all these would be reviewed as a separate article in a future edition. I subscribed for another three years and never saw such a (simple) article. My conclusion? They were not interested in low-cost products or solutions which work.consistently well. I cancelled my subscription.
I was subject to frequent attacks of acid reflux and doctors had me on Prilosec, Tagament and one other “prescription” for years and tried to move me to Nexium. I declined. My acid reflux was “cured” by occasional use of Pepto-Bismol….only when I need it. The more expensive “medicines” are not needed by me, and probably not needed by the host of people deceived into daily use of these….for no good reason other than advertising.
Recently, under constant junk mail attacks, I subscribed to ShopSmart. A piece of junk mail has more worth than these advertisements for the most expensive items and useless information. No more CU crap.
“My conclusion? They were not interested in low-cost products or solutions which work.consistently well. I cancelled my subscription.”
LOL! You’ve never read one article if you think that. They have an entire section called Best Buy Drugs.
For any of you just joining us, “Liquid” has admitted to being a Consumer Reports employee. As he is the only one defending CR in this entire thread for their leftist, anti-science stance, you might click on his name and review his fervent attacks on conservatives and extreme positions on GMOs posted on other sites. His intense leftism must have fit in perfectly at Consumer Reports, once a product review magazine and now an increasing source of leftist agitprop.
You’re doing an excellent job of proving my point that ideology trumps science on this site. Please keep typing.
Anyone can click on your name and review you “ideology” postings all over the web. Tell me again about all the hard science backing your anti-GMO stance. And also tell me about vaccinations.
Consumer Reports is the Rolling Stone of product reviews. Originally about music, Rolling Stone is now about far leftist politics. Similarly Consumer Reports.
Consumer Reports took out an advertising promotional campaign for Obamacare before it passed, and has been a stalwart defender of Obamacare and the outrageously flawed rollout of the $2,000,000,000 healthcare.gov website. Notice I say campaign… they did not “review” Obamacare, but spent money to advertise to the public to gin up support to get it passed.
I used to like their little red dot ratings. But there are plenty of other excellent sources for finding reviews of products now. I prefer my product reviews without a side of lies.
I thought “science trumps ideology” on this site? You just gave a 100% ideologically-driven answer.
And only a genius like you would think some random poster represents the site!
Actually, what I provided was a fact. Look it up.
Consumer reports used to test products to determine which ones were best.
Now it has stepped into the role of leftist politics. Witness: anti-GMO. Witness: Promotional selling of Obamacare.
I would not be surprised if they provided an article on different economic models, with capitalism receiving three black dots and the socialist/progressive flavor of the month an overwhelming “CR Best Buy.”
This is really disappointing. I thought they did their evidence-based research and homework. I will never have the confidence in CR that I use to have for them. I did not do extensive research in their legitimacy and practices but I always assumed and was told from reliable people they were mostly objective. They are full of bias and misunderstanding of the life.
There has always been this subjective false cult/ideology for the worship of nature combined with an non-scientific worldview but it has really spread through the MASSES of all political stripes, all classes, philosophies, religious and non-religious types. We all love nature, no shit but when you get an understanding of cosmology and evolutionary science (Bio, Psych, Antrho, Medicine, ect.) you have a real understanding of nature and the complex relationship with all life including humans. Often mother nature does not even know best. It’s a bottom up system.
I stand by the idea that a true understanding of cosmology and evolutionary science; (actual science, not ideas of evolution) all of them, leads to the most accurate description of reality and nature and informs the best policy decisions for humans. I hear so much bs everyday from fellow ignorant liberals and conservatives, non politicos and everybody. I am no master of truth but I will put a wager that I have said I’m wrong more often than all those people and changed my opinion due to evidence so I don’t see how that is arrogant or a know-it-all. Since a child I really just wanted to know how things work and what is true :-) I know I have subconscious biases and a perspective shaped by upbringing but I stand proud not to be part of this insane misguided bio-luddite, anti-gmo (anti-farming :-) spacing out vaccines gut feeling, hate humans, food nazi, medically illiterate, feel good no nothings that slobbers up all the bs BIG Placebo Industry.
Here’s the big lie most people live with in this country and world: even if they don’t believe it, most people walk around and form their views on the false idea that humanity magically sprang on this planet one day a long time ago in it’s current form as now. The body and brain. I don’t mean in a religious way. I think plenty of atheists and smart liberals think this way as well. It may seem like not a big deal but it affects everything and creates a misunderstanding of EVERYTHING THAT MATTERS.
“I stand by the idea that a true understanding of cosmology and evolutionary science; (actual science, not ideas of evolution) all of them, leads to the most accurate description of reality and nature and informs the best policy decisions for humans.”
Does that mean we should allow 12-year-olds to have kids? Cause in the evolutionary sense, most are viable by that age and that would really help our species as a whole. Again, from an evolutionary perspective only. :)
” I know I have subconscious biases and a perspective shaped by upbringing”
Yes, you do. All of us do. Even scientists believe it or not. And when money enters the picture?
So right! Just ask a mother who’s lost a child to disease, or in utero complications, how great “nature” is. And if she’d say, “Oh, no doctors please; the baby should die.”
Non sequitur. She’s talking about the use of the scientific epistemology of objective reality, not emotion-based human survival instincts.
Why was my comment deleted?
“No scientist worth his or her lab coat would ever say something’s been proven.”
Sorry guys, but this is exactly what your Executive Editor does all the time.
All five of the “points” in this article are just nuanced arguments that don’t refute anything.
The fact is, Consumers Union is not a “green” environmentalist group. They’ve been in business since 1936 fighting for consumers through testing products and using sound science to back up their claims. They’ve never lost a lawsuit and they rail against pseudoscience more than any other publication. You cannot find a reputable scientist who would have a bad word to say about them (unless, of course, they didn’t like the fact that CU supported The Health Care law — using science).
This is a hit piece on an iconic institution that’s fought for consumers rights for the past 80 years. This is a shameful post. I was under the impression this site was about genetics but it seems more propaganda than anything else.
Yup, all those good things about CR used to be true. How far we fall when our pedestal crumbles. Consumer Reports deserve this, based on their disingenuous positions. It’s irrelevant what they “used” to be; I respected them too. But no more.
So they’ve been right about everything in the past, have taken a pro consumer stance on everything else BUT GMOs? Why did they all of a sudden change? How does one issue (where you’re in disagreement) change who they are? Think about it.
Why are they ignoring the studies cited in this blog, contradicting their “finding?” How scientific is that–not to represent the opposite viewpoint and try to account for it? I can tell you. It’s NOT scientific. It’s ideological. Period.
The very site you’re commenting on does exactly the same thing.
I think this blog has addressed papers put out by the oposition (e.g. Seralini), no?
Only to discredit them.
So pointing out bad science is “discrediting”?
What alternate universe do you inhabit?
It’s only bad science because you can’t actually think for yourself and you’re believing everything this site tells you. Here’s a recent article to demonstrate why you’re reading propaganda: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/03/06/want-better-sperm-eat-more-pesticides/
Sorry, bud, you don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about.
Pointing out how something like Seralini’s lumpy rat study is bad science has nothing to do with what you linked.
There’s the projection. It didn’t take long to emerge.
The Lib-Leftist fantasy land. Where else?
I see science denialism across the entire political spectrum. But anti-GMO behavior seems to be concentrated on the left.
We’re in full agreement, but, I wasn’t speaking generally – my remark refers specifically to Liquid. That should have been obvious from the context.
While I generally agree its kind of interesting to me that inspite it it being a position generally equated with liberal political leanings, the rhetoric that come out against genetic engineering is actually more traditionalist/conservative in tone rather than being progressive.
What I see when you peel away the “OMG Lumpy Rats” and “Teh Evil Monsanto” anti-GMO arguments is a deep-seeded case of the naturalistic fallacy (along with a lot of alt-med belief). These people are agricultural creationists.
Showing agricultural creationists ag, plant and biotech science doesn’t work for them, because to believe the science would disrupt their belief system. Just like showing the geological record to Christian creationists doesn’t work.
And creationist beliefs I guess would be traditional/conservative in nature. But one thing I see in common with the agricultural creationists and the Christian creationists is a general lack of curiosity about the world. It’s like they are missing the part of the brain that stimulates the desire to learn about how things work.
“And creationist beliefs I guess would be traditional/conservative in nature. But one thing I see in common with the agricultural creationists and the Christian creationists is a general lack of curiosity about the world. It’s like they are missing the part of the brain that stimulates the desire to learn about how things work.”
That’s what motivates me and has since I was very young. I must have been 5 when Jurassic Park came out in movie theaters and like any child I loved dinosaurs and was enthralled by the movie. But rather than it being about ” ohh dinosaurs” the most lasting part of the movie was the little section when they’re on the ride and that animated sequence explaining very generally what DNA was. That fascinated me, I couldn’t really believe such a thing existed. By second grade was making models of DNA for show and tell. The idea that there is a universal genetic language that ties together all living organism is in my mind the greatest revelation into the workings of the biotic universe. I’m going way off topic here, but that curiosity that you mention is the spark of scientific progress. Which I would argue is more generally human progress, but the damned post modernists want to argue against the primacy of science for knowing the universe and the human condition.
What should an article about junk science do other than discredit it, affirm it?
You should really read up on the circumstances around the retraction of the paper itself. There was a lot of political stuff going on at the time with the journal who retracted it, and pressure from industry scientists should never lead to a retracted study that shouldn’t have been retracted in the first place. And “inconclusive” result is not a reason to retract a paper. You of all people should know that.
You can call that conspiracy, but also consider the biotech and chemical industries’ track record on safety and hiding findings of harm. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2984095/
I’m familiar with the paper. It is an extremely poorly done study, which should never have passed peer review in the first place. That people with an anti-GMO position still cite it should be a giant embarrassment. You should not be making excuses for it, you should be encouraging people to not cite it.
“The retraction announcement by the Editor-in-Chief specifically states, “Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology” (FCT 2013). The Editor-in-Chief also was very clear that he “found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data.””
“The nature of science is such that individual studies are rarely, if ever, conclusive. Numerous published studies have later been found to be deeply flawed through further scientific investigation, as may well be the study by Séralini et al. To our knowledge, there is no precedent for “inconclusive data” being a reason for retraction for Elsevier or other publishers, or elsewhere in the scientific literature. To single out this one study for retraction is almost certainly due to the controversy following its publication.”
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1408106/
You’re a smart guy. Don’t be taken in by a chemical industry apologist site like GLP.
“You’re a smart guy. Don’t be taken in by a chemical industry apologist site like GLP.”
Concern Troll alert!
The results are inconclusive because the study was designed so poorly that it provided no evidence for any conclusion, one way or the other.
In what ways am I being taken in by GLP?
They used the same rats and methodologies as the Monsanto trials.
If it was so shoddy, how did it pass peer review, remain in the publication for over a year, and then get retracted after this:
“The journal did not retract the study (editor’s note: later they did). But just a few months later, in early 2013 the FCT editorial board acquired a new “Associate Editor for biotechnology”, Richard E. Goodman. This was a new position, seemingly established especially for Goodman in the wake of the “Séralini affair”.
Richard E. Goodman is professor at the Food Allergy Research and Resource Program, University of Nebraska. But he is also a former Monsanto employee, who worked for the company between 1997 and 2004. While at Monsanto he assessed the allergenicity of the company’s GM crops and published papers on its behalf on allergenicity and safety issues relating to GM food (Goodman and Leach 2004).
Sometimes bad papers make it through peer review. This was one of those times, which is why it was retracted. The journal was getting slammed by the scientific community for letting such shoddy work through, so they hired a new editor who could focus on and knew what they were doing with respect to biotechnology. They hired someone who was in academia, who also had experience in industry. Pretty common situation, are you accusing Goodman of being an industry shill covering up good science to protect Monsanto?
It’s a really, really odd coincidence.
There’s the classic illogical thinking of the Lib-Leftist.
Nope! He means he was duped by CR in the past and woke up!
Also, this pablum does NOT reflect “fighting for consumers.” It’s anti- consumer, and anti-environment.
So you’re saying GMOS and the additional use of herbicides is a good thing?
Depends on the construct. Yes some GMOs are very helpful, and more that are being developed will also be good things. As for herbicide, it depends on the toxicity of the herbicide used and what method of weed management it is displacing.
But that’s not what I asked. Is the use of increasing amounts of herbicides, including Atrazine due to resistance of Roundup, good for the environment and humans as a whole?
If the use of glyphosate on glyphosate resistant plants displaced a more toxic form of herbicide, then I would say that it is a good thing. If crop rotations between crops that use glyphosate and do not use glyphosate slow or stop the development of resistance I would say it is a good thing. If the use of 2,4-D in rotation or combination with glyphosate displaces more toxic means of controlling weeds and slows or stops the development of resistance, I think that is a good thing.
You’re just twisting words. Let me ask another way. Would it be better for human health and the environment to not use herbicides or to use them?
Why are you trying to bend the conversation? The article here is about Consumer Reports and their anti-science GMO stance.
Herbicide-Tolerant GM crops could go away tomorrow and we’d still be using herbicides because they are an environmentally-superior method of weed control.
Hand weeding and hoeing is the most environmentally superior method of weed control. This is how people dealt with weeds before herbicide. We can do more of this if we had young people getting into farming. I don’t see a lot of interest in farming amongst the youth I talk to. I know you are going to say that we could certainly not feed the world with these methods but if we are at a 100: 1 ratio of people to farmers right now, we would likely need to be at a 10 to 1 ratio to pull it off. Sounds like a radical shift but it will likely happen anyways if we don’t wise up fast.
We’ve been through this exact subject before. You are resistant to facts and are a waste of time.
That must be it then
No one wants to work the fields weeding by hand, especially when all they receive is a wage. No one
You’re literally advocating a return to medieval level farming practices. I don’t know how you expect anyone to take you seriously.
I certainly enjoyed being employed full time on an organic farm pulling weeds. In fact it was the most stress free job I have ever had.
Nobody really wants to have to do the difficult work of growing their own food, but if we keep on this course we may very well have to.
I would actually like to see a balance of technology and tradition that uses what is most ecological and discards the rest. For example, the combine harvester saves tonnes of labour that could be used elsewhere. But broad based herbicides and pesticides will be forced to go. This is not a hypothetical situation. Our freshwater and our soil is our most precious resource. We ought to keep that top of mind.
And, you assume everyone is as doofus as you.
I’ve done it both ways, here is my experience.
I think your biggest issue is that you do not comprehend the amount of efficient work being done by machinery and chemicals. (note: every plant is naturally resistant to a herbicide)
I have been part of a crew hand weeding 160 acre fields and I have spent many hours on a cultivator tractor cultivating potatoes mechanically.
Many issues exist with this–Most importantly is that weeding has a narrow window to be done for it to be effective. Wait more than a several days and the weeds are robbing nutrients from the crop.
It would take 100,000+ people to hand-weed the acres I can cover with a 120 ft boomed modern sprayer running 10-16 mph.
You don’t realize they type of input and the waste of resources hand weeding is. It also typically damages crops, and almost always has a lower yield than conventional practices.
The best thing that can ever happen for the environment is to never do these practices again whenever possible.
In addition to being environmentally harmful, your recommendation is the recipe for poverty.
I think 100,000 people may be a stretch unless you’re talking thousands of acres. I can manage an acre on my own maybe 2 or 3, planting, weeding, irrigating, harvesting etc. So 1 person per acre lets say would be 100,000 acres.
I don’t want to live in poverty but I do want a world my grandchildren can inhabit. I don’t see how we can keep on going the way we’re going. It’s just not going to happen.
I can spray between 170 and 200 acres/hour with a modern spray rig.
And yes, we’re talking thousands of acres. I’m going to plant 1,600 acres of corn this year. 1,600 acres of corn translates to 5,300 miles of row that needs to be weeded. And that weeding needs to be done in 1 week, 10 days tops.
In 2014, we grew 13.2 million acres of corn here in Iowa. So where are these people going to come from? Where are they going to sleep? In their cars? Eat? You just have no grasp of reality.
These are good questions. I don’t have all the answers. It is hard to imagine doing things any other way now that we are used to the magic of herbicide and Roundup ready crops. I would say that to answer this question of “how would we do it” one would have to assume that in the future we would have no choice. We would forced to shift our ways of thinking to avoid climate catastrophe and environmental degradation to the point of the world being unfit for humankind. If we had no choice then we would have to find a way. Posing hypothetical questions is a good way to prepare for a future that is uncertain. Somehow we did it in the past. I think the answer is that everyone needs to get involved in agriculture or food production. If there was oversight by the majority of the population (after all everyone has to eat) these problems of labour shortage, soil degradation, food wastage, GMO’s would become personal and would be quickly solved.
the argument of “we did it in the past” doesn’t really hold up. We did a lot of things in the past that no longer make sense. Farming by hand is definately on of those. An efficient use of our resources is a better use of our resources and having so many people focused on a task that could be easily handle by a few is an egregious waste of resources.
I also believe it to be unrealistic. I have all of the knowledge & experience neccessary to provide most all of my own food. But I have no desire to what so ever. I can provide a better life for my family applying my skills elsewhere and it’s exactly that incentive that will always keep people from focusing on their own food production. The distribution of labor to where it’s valued most will always take precident. If there is ever a situation where that labor is valued more in agriculture than elsewhere, the. The shift will happen. Until then, it’s a pipe dream.
I agree that at this time it is a pipe dream however the possibility of an agricultural based economy replacing an oil based economy is likely, especially when freshwater will become our most valued resource in the future. You see most of the jobs that aren’t in agriculture are based on the trickle down of revenues from oil. When it becomes uneconomically viable to produce oil then the shift will happen.
Possibly, but I suspect not. As fresh water becomes more scarce, efficient use of that resource becomes more important. That’s a direct and powerful incentive to focus agricultural productivity rather than dispersing it.
As for oil, that is just a source of energy. Our reliance on it will continue to lessen as we develop other more sustainable sources.
It takes a lot of oil to produce herbicide.
Oil is not just another source of energy but a very concentrated and easily convertible source. Also most of our chemicals come from petroleum.
Our next best options are wind, solar and hydrogen. Wind and solar are great but do not provide anywhere close to the output of fossil fuels. That leaves hydrogen power but the technology is lagging due to a resistance to shift. Shifting agriculture now will help with the eventual transformation. We don’t have time to put this off.
I agree that oil is the best source RIGHT NOW. But other sources of energy are certainly improving and it’s hard to argue they they won’t be viable in the future… After all, aren’t we talking about the future?
Certainly there are many other uses for oil. But none are nearly as large as the need for energy.
I am not saying these sources of energy won’t be viable. I am saying that they will not provide the amount of energy we are used to using now. For example if you filled your entire roof with solar panels you would still not be able to heat or cool your home with the appliances we use today.
If we haven’t shifted our consumption habits first then we will not make the transition easy. There will be more recessions and quantative easing and austerity measures and all of this stuff we are seeing right now at even greater degrees. We need to remodel all of our industries, especially the most necessary like Agriculture, Textiles, Building materials, Electricity etc.
Energy is the key and food is more than just food, it is energy.
I get what you’re saying but you’re basing everything off of making this shift today. We don’t need to make this shift today. But given continued evolution of alternative energy technology there is no reason to think it won’t be able to meet our need in the future.
Well I certainly hope you’re right. Tesla invented the electric car 100 years ago. The technology was there but we had to go through this whole fossil fuel era to benefit a growing fossil fuel industry. We are 100 years ahead with many technologies that would benefit humanity but unless they are lucrative they don’t move forward. Its the same old adage again and again “he who holds the gold makes the rules”. Maybe one day humans will evolve.
Have faith… Necessity is the mother of invention.
That’s what Lib-Leftists do – move the goal posts when they lose the argument.
I’m not twisting words, I am looking at reality. You are wanting to make this a dichotomy of choosing between using GMOs and pesticides versus a magical world where everything is rainbows and lollypops. The proper comparison is to choose between using GMOs and pesticides versus what was being done before that is being displaced.
I think it would be better for the environment if we stopped agriculture all together. I think it would be better for the environment if we stopped the use of all fossil fuels and all electricity. I don’t advocate for either of those things, though.
You’re taking the perspective that we’re *relatively* better off with an increased use of Roundup. Your baseline argument is that we’ve been doing so many detrimental things to human and environmental health that the use of less toxic chemicals is a benefit. The problem here is that your baseline point that we’ve been overusing them, while I agree with that, is also a way to make bad things (such as increased Roundup use) appear as though it’s a benefit overall. It’s only a benefit because the chemicals and biotech industry havery set a precedent of deception. The only reason we know that DDT is detrimental to human health is because people other than the chemicals industry figured it out after hundreds of industry-led studies showed “no risk” to humans.
These are the same people running biotech and chemicals companies today. They tell us Atrazine is safe as well. We know that’s not the case and it can remain in certain environments for decades and shows up in our tap water.
My point, Jackson, is that there’s plenty of precedent for industry suppression and manipulation of data (think tobacco and oil). Did humans with financial interests who conduct or review research completely change and become completely honest and transparent all of a sudden?
“Your baseline argument is that we’ve been doing so many detrimental things to human and environmental health that the use of less toxic chemicals is a benefit.”
Strawman alert!
“It’s only a benefit because the chemicals and biotech industry havery set a precedent of deception.”
And here comes another variation of the “farmers are stupid” meme!
“The only reason we know that DDT is detrimental to human health is because people other than the chemicals industry figured it out after hundreds of industry-led studies showed “no risk” to humans.”
I don’t think you understand the circumstances that led to the U.S. ban on DDT 40+ years ago.
“These are the same people running biotech and chemicals companies today.”
Huh? Geigy first commercialized DDT in 1940. I seriously doubt anyone from that operation is still alive today.
“My point, Jackson, is that there’s plenty of precedent for industry suppression and manipulation of data (think tobacco and oil).”
Logical fallacy. A & B happened, therefore C is happening.or will happen.
Also, “industry suppression and manipulation of data” can also be applied to the organic food industry.
There is corruption of data in every industry. But we are assuming a measure of honour in these matters, are we not?
Nope! Those of us with a modicum of rational thinking are evaluating the hard evidence.
What is your point?
The point is that we can assume that every industry has some measure of corruption, even the organic industry. That said, when we are talking about GE technology ,and the Federal Oversight organizations that regulate it, we are assuming that they are being honest (honourable). If we don’t make that assumption then everything they say would come into question.
Yes, every organization can be dysfunctional and some are corrupt. And as you point out, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the organic industry or Whole Foods or the natural supplements industry or Greenpeace or any NGO is “cleaner” or more honest than, say, Monsanto. Public companies are under more scrutiny than NGOs, so the corruption is probably lower.
As for your comments about “Federal Oversight” agencies being corrupt, for your conspiratorial view of this issue to be correct these “Federal Oversight” agencies would have to be coordinating their science evaluations with EVERY major government science-based oversight agency of note in the world because every one has reached similar conclusions as to GM food safety as has the US. Sure be interesting to be at those conspiratorial world summits where the Monsanto executive herds the sheep scientists into misrepresenting 2500+ independent studies!!!
Ok so you admit that every organization can be dysfunctional and some are corrupt. So if we assume that some organizations are corrupt would that not mean that some Biotech companies are dysfunctional and some are corrupt? What would it even mean if a Biotech company was dysfunctional? Surely with all of that potential investment capital on the line there would be a chance for misrepresentation of data. Remember I am speaking hypothetically. I do not believe there is a huge conspiracy here, but potential for corruption should be considered anytime we are ingesting a product.
“but potential for corruption should be considered anytime we are ingesting a product.”
…or smoking a product.
Remember what the tobacco companies did to their data?
Yes for sure. Tobacco is a prime example.
I’d offer this analysis as a counter to your argument: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412014002669
Jon, do those 2500 studies you keep talking about all look at safety?
They don’t even bother with scientific investigation of their childish claims. They just appeal on an emotional level to pretentious dupes.
True, I was thinking of political activism masked as science, e.g. Seralini, Seneff, Huber, etc.
Like RR told us – Libs ‘know’ a lot, but, what they ‘know’ just isn’t true.
Kind of. My perspective is that we are better off using roundup as opposed to other, more toxic herbicides. It’s not the increased use of glyphosate part, it’s the the decreased use of the more toxic stuff part.
I am comparing what we would be using if GMOs did not exist, to what we are using with GMOs, and I conclude that we are better off with GMOs. I’m using your terms for the sake of conversation, but I object to the blanket use of GMOs to mean just GMOs that are used in conjunction with certain pesticides. There are other GMOs where the added trait has nothing to do with pesticides.
OK, but independent scientists were saying that smoking tobacco was bad for your health for decades in opposition to tobacco industry studies. Independent scientists are saying that global warming is real and is a problem, in opposition to oil company studies. But independent scientists are in agreement about the general safety of GMOs.
G.R.A.S Generally Recognized As Safe
generally |ˈjenərəlē|adverb1 [ sentence adverb ] in most cases; usually: the term of a lease is generally 99 years.
Generally considered safe is not a comfort for a skeptic like me. I want certainty.
How do you define and measure certainty?
That is a good question. Maybe like 99.99% certain, I don’t know. I just feel that the term General, usually, per se are too open ended. You see these terms a lot in the Biotech literature on safety. They do not instil a sense of certainty.
How much do you know about “G.R.A.S.”?
‘But independent scientists are in agreement about the general safety of GMOs.”
Then why are we still talking about this?
Because you Lib-Leftists won’t accept reality.
Why would you think that counting weight of herbicides applied would be in any way useful?
Plus, it’s enlighting that typical anti-biotech types like yourself have to resort to insulting behavior.
I don’t see how Liquids comments are insulting. It is a simple yes or no question. If you are choosing to not answer yes then one would assume that the answer would be no. To not answer no would be to contradict yourself.
Glyphosate is now being widely adopted for use as a desiccant. It is even being sprayed on sugar cane just prior to harvest to bring up the sugar content. Its hard to believe that its usage overall is going down.
LOL!
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/geneticliteracyproject/organic_farmer_says_8216no8217_to_conventional_farming_demonization_campaign_launched_by_gary_hirshb/#comment-1900383151
In other words, “I looked like a fool on my first series of posts, so, let’s move the goal post.” The classic Lib-Leftist lame tactic.
There it is folks – reality inversion. More food production = bad. More hungry people = good.
more food production + humans with developmental disorders due to pesticides = bad
It doesn’t matter. Their stance on GM technology is not based in science, it’s based in ideology.
But since you asked, here’s one of a number of CU inaccuracies:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/water-heaters/buying-guide.htm
“General Electric makes gas and electric water heaters.”
Incorrect. Rheem makes GE’s water heaters.
“Kenmore makes gas and electric water heaters.”
Incorrect. Kenmore doesn’t make anything, they are Sears’ house brand. AO Smith makes Kenmore-branded water heaters.
“Whirlpool manufactures and markets gas and electric water heaters.”
Incorrect. AO Smith makes Whirlpool-branded water heaters.
And Consumer reports also managed to completely miss Bradford White? How in the world did they miss them? There are only 3 manufacturers of water heaters, Rheem, AO Smith and Bradford White. This is not rocket surgery, but CU couldn’t get it close to right.
BS! You’re a Lib-Leftist propagandist – and a lame one, at that.
Can you use “lib-Leftist” one more time? You really haven’t used it nearly enough to make your point.
Sure can – I like to be accurate and precise in my application of labels. That unsettles you Lib-Leftists, doesn’t it?
No it just makes your side of the argument look bad. I encourage it. The whole “anti-GMOers are also climate denialists, anti-vaxxers and creationists” is going out the window fast.
Look bad only to you and your loony Lib-Leftist filthy, lying pals.
Howdy, H. Question. Have you read about any sort of unexplained but significant genetic leap between neanderthal and cro magnon man?
Folks come up with every possible scenario. They’re all speculative at this point. There’s little doubt some interbreeding occurred – maybe of an unpleasant kind.
Anyone with a brain knows that this magazine has morphed into more of a tabloid interested in fearmongering rather than actual unbiased evaluations of products. I dont read it anymore because they are pushing their agenda.
If GMOs are safe, why is there such an effort to keep independent researchers from studying them?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/?page=1
Good point, was valid, was corrected in 3 months. That is proper scientific discourse.
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/public-research-agreements.aspx
Care to comment, Jon?
Because lying is NOT proper scientific discourse.
If you think working with independent researchers inside Universities are insidious methods, I am sorry for the type of Universities or researchers you have experience with.
Becoming an affiliate faculty member is common and the entire purpose is to bring into the independent and publicly accountable University setting specialists that typically are not part of the University. If you can back up your scientific or experience credentials to successfully partner with a research project in a University, then that is an ideal way to continue to have independent research properly vetted.
Amazing BS answer. The fact is, if you’re not on Biotech’s payroll OR a University scientist, you’re out of luck. You have to buy elsewhere and it may not be the same seeds.
This needs to be repeated:
“Could you imagine if tobacco research was only done when the tobacco companies had the final say?”
I don’t know where the other comment went about insidious University connections… oh well!
But that is what I was just saying… any qualified person can join a University on a research project… it’s not ‘a University scientist’… that is a false dichotomy you are crafting.
You have to be affiliated with a University. It’s a well-known unethical business practice. Makes the company look better by getting to show an educational institution was involved and they fund the research (among other things wink wink)
It amazes me how often those who have an axe to grind with GE crops and derived food feel a simple accusation of bias wipes out decades of peer reviewed and replicated research.
It amazes me that someone who claims to be pro-science would defend a company’s attempt to shield its patents at the expense of environmental and human safety.
Are you familiar with the phrase, “Put down the shovel”?
Seems like you might not be. Probably time to look that one up, sport.
Study highlights GMO research hurdle
Another point of contention lies in the potential variance in nutritional composition between the GM and non-GM grain fed to the pigs in the study. Because of patent-holder restrictions, the researchers were required to buy each type of feed from retail distributors, as opposed to growing the feed in a controlled environment.
According to the study’s authors, the GM corn and soy used in the study were considered compositionally and substantially equivalent to the non-GM varieties by government agencies. But the lack of a controlled feed-growing environment potentially calls the results into question, according to Kent Bradford, Ph.D., director of the Seed Biotechnology Center at the University of California, Davis.
“These are different products,” Bradford told Food Safety News. “For example, soy beans can have a wide range of phytoestrogens. The amount varies widely by production.”
But the study’s researchers had little choice but to work with retail GM grains due to one nearly insurmountable research hurdle: grower’s contracts.
Anyone who buys GM seeds is required to sign a technology stewardship agreement that says, in part, that they cannot perform research on the seed. Without express permission from the biotech patent-holder, scientists and farmers risk facing lawsuits for conducting any studies.
“Any study you want to do with these engineered crops, you need to get the company’s permission,” Hansen said. “Could you imagine if tobacco research was only done when the tobacco companies had the final say?”
In July 2009, a group of 26 public sector scientists wrote to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to complain about the restrictions imposed on them by the patent holders of GM seeds. In part, they said critical questions regarding GM foods could not be answered without more research freedom, which has still not been established.
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/06/study-says-gmo-feed-may-harm-pigs/#.VQDW-fnF_O5
So do you want the seed tested or the food?
There are no, and never were any, restrictions on studying corn or soybeans grown in a controlled environment by the researchers. That is, animal feeding studies on the end-use product were always permissible.
The restrictions were on testing the seed performance and doing reverse engineering, but concessions have been made on the former.
That was covered if you had read past the first two paragraphs:
“But the lack of a controlled feed-growing environment potentially calls the results into question, according to Kent Bradford, Ph.D., director of the Seed Biotechnology Center at the University of California, Davis.
“These are different products,” Bradford told Food Safety News. “For example, soy beans can have a wide range of phytoestrogens. The amount varies widely by production.”
But the study’s researchers had little choice but to work with retail GM grains due to one nearly insurmountable research hurdle: grower’s contracts.
Start here
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1057.pdf
LOL! There was supposedly some kind of restriction, yet Seralini was able to perform his crappy studies!
Bravo!
I would love someone to show me the study or studies that prove that the roundup ready crops are safe. I’m still on the fence leaning towards anti. Are there any studies on humans that were more than a couple years.
Well the EU did a big study on GMOs, and concluded that GM crops are as safe or safer than conventionally bred crops.
http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf
Are there any studies on humans that were more than a couple years.
We don’t do food or Tox studies on Humans, it is unethical, immoral, and Highly illegal. Humans need a varied diet, you cant just lock them up in a room and feed them nothing but corn for a decade or so. Humans also protest quite vigorously when you try to do an autopsy on them at the end of the study.
Yes, and even if we did it on prisoners (still unethical) it is difficult to find large groups of young, healthy, genetically similar participants. As genetically similar as sprague dawley rats or beagles, that is.
Didn’t those guys in Europe get in big trouble for using a bunch of genetically similar people in a bunch of experiments back in the 30s?
They sure did, and while some of provided useful data, calling it unethical would be an understatement.
So we just release them on humans without knowing their long-term effects? How is that MORE ethical than asking someone to eat one or two gmo meals a day?
How long would be long enough? A year? A decade? A generation? Ten generations?
There is no study that could be done to satisfy these people.
We should treat GMOs like we treat food products created through mutagenesis, or food products that are created through hybridization. There is nothing about inserting a transgene that makes it inherently more dangerous.
Finally! The only answer that means anything. Everything we’ve been eating for the past few centuries is GMO – it just used a less efficient technology to bring it about. This whole controversy is as absurd as religious ‘debates.’
Of course there is: http://consumersunion.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Wide-Crosses.pdf
Mutagensis has been used since the early 20th century. It does not leave radiation on the plant.
That being said, it probably shouldn’t be in use either.
I’m at work and don’t have time to read that whole link. Can you summarize why adding a transgene is inherently more dangerous than mutagenesis?
“As for the scope of genetic material transferred, genetic engineering allows the
movement of genetic material from any organism to any other organism. It also offers
the ability to create genetic material, and expression products of that material, that have
never existed before.
This radically differs from traditional breeding, which merely permits the
movement of genetic material between different varieties within species, between
closely related species, or closely related genera. Even hybridization and wide crosses
cannot move genetic material much beyond these limits. The vast bulk of hybrid crops
consist of the mating of two genetically pure lines (i.e. lines that are homozygous for all
alleles) of the same crop to create a line which is heterozygous. Thus, hybrid corn is
simply the crossing of two pure corn varieties to produce a mixed line. Occasionally,
though, in conventional breeding, plant breeders will cross a wild relative of a crop
(usually a different species within the same genus) in order to transfer particular traits from that wild relative (such as resistance to a given disease) to the crop. However,
hybrids between two species are also known to occur naturally, although such hybrids
are primarily restricted to plants with certain characteristics—such as perennial growth
habit—which most crop plants lack (Ellstrand et al., 1996).”
” The mixing of genes from very different sources is likely to introduce new
elements of unpredictability. Because conventional breeding, including hybridization
and wide crosses, permits the movement of only an extremely tiny fraction of all the
genetic material that is available in nature, and only allows mixing, and recombination,
of genetic material between species that share a recent evolutionary history of
interacting together, one would expect that the products of conventional breeding
would be more stable and predictable. The genome is a complex whole made up in
part of genes and genetic elements that interact in complex regulatory pathways to
create and maintain the organism. Any new genetic material that enters the genome
must fit into this complex regulatory whole or it may end up destabilizing the whole.
Think of the genome as a complex computer program or as an ecological community.
When one introduces a new subprogram within the larger complex computer program,
no computer programmer can reliably predict what will happen. Because of the
complexity of such large programs, a small new subprogram can have unpredictable
effects and may ultimately cause the whole program to crash. With a complex
ecosystem, the introduction of a new species can have a range of effects, from virtually
nothing to a catastrophic effect on the ecosystem; most of these changes cannot be
reliably predicted knowing just the biology of the introduced species. “
It can but it doesn’t have to. I also don’t see why this means it is more dangerous.
Again, it can, but isn’t currently. Our ability to create functional proteins from scratch is far, far inferior to natural variation producing useful proteins for us to move around. Again, it’s not obvious to me why this would be more dangerous. Natural variation arising from everyday mutations produce new expression products never before seen in nature.
Thanks Jackson! By the way I don’t think you belong here, you’re not a propagandist like these people.
Thanks for the subprogram analogy. It helps to visualize the interactions of genes in a way we can all see playing out in our every day interactions.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2014/08/02/isu-researcher-test-genetically-altered-bananas/13502003/
No need to lie if you truly believe in your science.
Read your link. It does nothing to refute HZ’s post.
Why are you still digging?
The citation is not relevant to your argument. Typical Lib attempt to deceive.
I don’t think GMOs are a typical left vs. right tribal identifier. Plenty of conservatives are anti-GMO, and plenty of liberals are pro-GMO.
Any data to back that up? If not, it’s just your pedestrian opinion. My pedestrian opinion is that the anti-GMO crowd is made up largely of those on the political Left and they are anti-GMO for ideological and (or) stupid reasons, not scientific reasons.
Just my personal, anecdotal observations from both the internet and meat space. I think it would be interesting to see poll numbers on the issue, but I haven’t seen a poll with breakdown along political affiliation.
In my sphere of personal affiliations, the vast majority lean liberal, and the vast majority also embrace GMOs.
I didn’t say most Libs are anti-GMO – I said most anti-GMOs are Libs.
Kahan’s research demonstrates that this is not a left-right issue, at least compared to the way human-caused climate change or evolution are.
http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/11/5/we-arent-polarized-on-gm-foods-no-matter-what-the-result-in.html
Those social studies, like all social studies, depend on unsubstantiated assumptions (you may not have picked up on them) and overstated interpretations (you may have missed that, too), and are, therefore, unreliable.
“The citation is not relevant to your argument. Typical Lib attempt to deceive.”
So there are no human studies being done on GMOs? Is that your contention?
A silly inference – I didn’t say anything of the kind nor did I imply it.
I didn’t infer, I plainly asked you if that’s what you meant.
You do realize that farmer, ranchers, orchardists have been genetically modifying their crops for eons, don’t you?
They cross breed the healthiest plants/animals of their or other farmers/ranchers to produce healthier and more productive crops and animals. GMO is just a step in the process as it is done at the cellular level now.
Why it’s not the same thing:
http://consumersunion.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Wide-Crosses.pdf
Nonsense!
You can go ahead and, you know, back that up with something if you’d like.
2 page study here for you showing they are not safe
http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416
Consumer Reports has been co-opted by lefties. Adherence to leftist dogma now overrides concerns for the general welfare and objective truth. Hence their support of Obamacare and the Obamanet and their stand against GMOs.
There is a strain of knee-jerk anti-corporatism among some on the left that accounts for their disdain for GMOs, but in general, I don’t think it’s a typical left vs. right issue. Consumer reports is meant to be a type of corporate watchdog magazine, which would fall left of center anyways.
Just more anti-science progressive jibberish. The progs only support science when it agrees with their agenda. They reject out of hand global warming science that disputes their computer model projections. They advocate for vaccine and fracking boycotts, both of which are not justified by scientific findings, just pure emotion.
They are happy enough to eat our food.
“They reject out of hand global warming science that disputes their computer model projections.”
This is rich. Pro-GMOers are also climate denialists. The hypocrisy here is palpable. The trend of blindly supporting big business over human health? Stands.
All I know is our mass produced food from eggs to beef to milk to grains and veggies doesn’t taste anywhere near as good as they did 50 years ago down on the farm.
Science has gotten to be as good as used car salesmen on selling us things that aren’t exactly shall we say all their cracked up to be. The fairy tale Lucy of evolution fame being one of the most egregious examples. Since science will no longer admit ii when they don’t know something we need more good anti-science clinical skepticism.
It used to be science taught what they knew now they promote what they think might be. Welcome to the neighborhood boys and girls can you say global warming.
Nostalgia ain’t what it used to be!
Or possibly, you just remember things to be better than they actually were? After all, almost everyone does.
Nope! Go to your local farm and get heritage tomatoes, non-pasteurized milk, naturally feed beef, range chicken eggs, preGMO vegetables and you will taste the different. Tomatoes are a great example. Compared to pre-GMO tomatoes (heritage tomatoes) what they call tomatoes today taste like red plasticized cardboard with some red water injected into them.
I know these old fashioned things are hard to find and we probably couldn’t efficiently feed the masses if we still did things the way we used to. It’s just kind of sad basic foods no longer have their wonderful natural flavor.
There is no need for that. There are no GMO tomatoes available on the market and the only gmo vegetable available at all are squash and about 10% of the sweet corn. So virtually all vegetable you encounter are “pre-GMO”.
I have no doubt that your garden tomatoes taste better than supermarket tomatoes. But that’s not an issue with GMOs or “new fangled technology”. That’s because tomatoes in the supermarket are varieties chosen because they yield well, look nice and travel well without bruising. They are not selected for taste. On top of that, they’re nearly always out of season. Comparitvely, garden or locally grown tomato varieties are selected for taste and alomost nothing else.
I have local farms around me in every direction. I have found no taste difference in the meat from my supermarkets vs meat that I get from a local farmer. The price is certainly different, but that’s about it.
The label “heritage” is nothing more than yuppy speak for varieties that you think taste good. Those that people like continue to get planted. But there’s nothing about being “heritage” that makes any variety better than another. In fact, it’s more often the opposite. Seed varieties tend to improve over the years rather than the opposite.
Ironically the Flavor Savr or whatever it was called flopped because it had no flavour and looked sickly on the shelves. I would be surprised if there weren’t scores of fruits and vegetables on the Biotech shelves just waiting for the floodgates to open. The reason I believe Heritage varieties to be better is that the seed is collected and often planted close to where it was harvested. The flavour likely improves as the plants adapt to the local conditions and the root systems get better at drawing nutrients. Of course this is just speculation. I am not a scientist, just a lowly garden aficionado.
I suppose you’re free to believe what you’d like but I flavor is a product of the genetics & the environment. I’m including fertility and growing conditions into the “environment” category. The genetics don’t change as a result of the environment. They may change as people continually select seeds that they prefer. But even that is highly variable as different people taste different things. Heritage varieties really have little consistency because people can call them what ever they want. Even the same gardener selecting seeds from his/her own plants will incur genetic changes from year to year as simple cross pollination will occur.
As for what’s on the biotech shelves, I’m sure you’re right. I know that a Bt eggplant exists in India. I know that there has been research on citrus fruits that resist a virus that causes fruit never to ripen. But, again… these things are only going to effect those supermarket fruits & veggies. If you’re one who prefers not to eat those, then you need not worry.
Personally, I’d take the GMO sweetcorn any day. A corn farmer near use uses it on some of his sweet corn acres. Fresh out of the field in the summer, there’s simply nothing better. I can’t tell a difference in taste, but the Bt corn never has worm damage at all and I am positive has had much less insecticide sprayed on it.
The reason for that was the starting material wasn’t very good. A plant breeder friend of mine once told me that one gene will NEVER turn a crappy line into a good one.
The tomato qualities you refer to are a result of genetically engineering for those qualities. In part that is also true for meats but in large part the taste of meat is what they eat and the exercise they get. Yes heritage is a yuppie word and many of the veggies and fruit varieties available 50 years ago no longer exist.
No, the qualities I have spoken of are a result of artificial selection, not genetic engineering. Plant breeders select plants with desired traits and breed hybrids in hopes of getting new, desirable traits. But they don’t directly alter or insert the genes in a specific spot and order to get a desired trait. There are no genetically engineered tomatoes on the market at all.
There is no such thing as a preGMO tomato. What matters in flavor has nothing to do with GMs – it’s the soil – especially the manure content. Same with free-range meats – it’s the animals’ diets that make the difference.
Soil does not affect flavor i n any way. If that were the case, hydropnics would not be growing the majority of tomatoes in the US.
I don’t know though. I can really taste some of the solution they use in hydroponics here in the BC greenhouse tomatoes. SOmetimes I cannot even finish a greenhouse tomato or pepper because it has a solvent like aftertaste. I don’t seem to notice with field tomatoes.
You’d probably taste it from non-organic soil grows as well. It’s not the method, it’s the chemicals used. Hydroponics usually relies on chemical fertilizers. But they also have organic nutrients as well that they get from fish emulsions, bat guano, coiloidal humus teas, etc.
Do you have any Aquaponic farms up near you? Amazing concept and 100% organic. Good stuff!
Soil and type of fertilization does influence taste to a degree. Tomatoes are a bad example because relative to the tomatoes of yesteryear today’s genetically engineered tomatoes have no taste so growing them hydroponically doesn’t matter.
I was under the impression that there are no ge tomatoes available on the market, so nobody is growing any ge tomatoes, hydroponically or otherwise.
All the tomatoes you buy today have been genetically engineered either by forced “natural selection” or actual laboratory engineering. Mostly for their thicker skin for better shipping, color, and how they ripen off the vine. The result has been thicker skinned tomatoes with less internal “juice” and of course much less taste.
Sure, if you define “genetically engineered” that broadly. But I think it is mostly used to mean the integration of a designed gene cassette into a genome.
In a small way you are correct, but as we have genetically engineered things and introduce growth hormones etc into food, and limited exercise for animals we have reduced taste in favor of efficiency.
In a small way, YOU are correct. The Hominid is correct in a BIG way.
So, would the world be better if we sacrificed shelf-life and yield considerations for taste and as a result ended up in the food wars predicted by Paul Erlich?
As if those are the only choices.
And the other? Unless it is moderation and then you have no argument here.
Rockchair ran away.
What is your other choice(s). I guess one choice could be there is a plague or natural disaster or wars which kill off half the worlds population.
Rockchair can’t answer your question – he just shot off his mouth without thinking.
I allow time for people to think for themselves and do their own research. If I would have had time to read further down the comments I would have seen that other people have already done that. I apologize for my indiscretion. I was being critical first, but it was not a thoughtless reaction and you were rude to imply such a thing.
Permaculture, urban community gardening, localizing production & distribution, agroecology. I am not a farmer, but I know people who produce delicious food locally at a commercial level. Maybe not to replace large monocrop type business, but certainly to augment food production and compete with large producers. Those are other choices and they are already being implemented.
Actually I think GMOs are absolutely necessary to feed the world population which has doubled in the last century. The sacrifice in taste is small compared to starvation which might have occurred. However if the population doubles again in the next 100 years where are we going to get enough water.
You needn’t worry about any of that – the biological law of competition is inevitable.
From what I have read many of the GE crops in development are toward using less water… But let’s stand true America, let’s buy organic and non GMO with our inflated incomes and watch as the rest of the world starves. SMH
I agree from a socioeconomic point of view GMOs are not only good they make sense. I am just saying generally we lose some quality.
Mass produced? Over 95% of American farms are family owned. 50 years ago our country was more rural, tomatoes were not on grocery store shelves year round, the population movement to cities, the higher incomes, and working moms have demanded convenience and choice. Agriculture answered the demand. I think that science had been woefully quiet on most subjects under attack. They are out of their league against so called consumer advocacy groups which have more marketing expertise. As a consumer with a brain, they don’t “advocate” for me, but they sure get funds from somewhere… Hmmm
Huh? Consumer Reports unbiased?
That is absolutely wrong. I dumped Consumer Reports when they endorsed obamacare. Haven’t looked at one since.
HB
You mean when they endorsed it based on the scientific evidence that the majority of Americans wanted it?
No, I mean when they endorsed it in spite of a majority of the people rejecting it.
HB
When people were actually presented with all the parts of it individually, they supported it tremendously. They are only opposed to it when it is referred to as Obamacare.
Would you buy a car one wheel at a time?
The mistake you may be making, is believing that Conservatives are against Healthcare Reform. obamacare is not reform. It does not address tort reform… costs… efficiency… freedom of choice.
We Conservatives mostly feel it is best to repeal obamacare, and replace it with something that will work much better in the long run. And then implement such a plan in a far superior manner.
HB
You meant to admit it was on NO evidence and most Americans REJECTED it.
Consumer Reports should be renamed Reports for Progressive Consumers.
And you should be renamed moron.
Predictably, you’re a loony warmist as well!
I figured the “pro-science” people here were climate change denialists. Thank you for the confirmation.
So you disagree with the consensus on climate change (established) but you embrace the “consensus” on GMOs (never established). Gotcha!
There it is, folks ^^^^ – the core symptom of Liberal Psychotic Syndrome – reality inversion.
I’m pro-GMO and I support the science behind anthropogenic climate change, as do most of the pro-GMO people I know. I support the scientific consensus on both topics and the stances taken by every major scientific organization in the world on both topics.
I think you’re in the minority here.
And you would be wrong.
You, thinking? That’s a good one!
Brilliant!
You come in here, drop your stink bomb and aren’t even smart enough to look around.
“The Genetic Literacy Project is an independent non-profit
organization funded by grants from non-partisan foundations. We also accept tax-deductible donations from individuals and non-industry organizations.”
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/mission/
If I have to look it up for you, will you promise to retract your derp?
You seem determined to double down on the derp.
These kinds of posts, which are entirely content free and only contain a shill accusation, are great PR for the GMO industry. It makes the anti-GMO position look shallow and paranoid. You must be a shill for Monsanto!!
Yes, glyphosate is non-toxic to humans.
However, 100% glyphosate is not sprayed on our crops–Roundup is. And science has unequivocally shown this to be toxic to human cells, even at trace amounts [1,2].
[1] Richard, Sophie, et al. “Differential effects of glyphosate and
roundup on human placental cells and aromatase.” Environmental health
perspectives (2005): 716-720.
[2] Benachour, Nora, et al. “Time-and
dose-dependent effects of roundup on human embryonic and placental
cells.” Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 53.1
(2007): 126-133.
This XKCD comic is useful for so many things:
http://xkcd.com/1217/
To summarize the comic, studies showing effects on cells are irrelevant to how said substances would affect an actual body. We are not cells on a petri dish.
Along the same lines as the classic “correlation is not causation” argument.
How then do you propose we test the toxicity of Roundup, other than administering it intravenously to humans?
We do feeding trials on the harvested grain.
That shows the effect of what we INGEST, which is not the same as what was sprayed on the crop many months before harvest.
Those feeding trials have shown no health effects.
We have rat and pig models for a reason.
Consumer Reports is overselling the “superweeds” problem at 2:35 in the video.
They claim it is a “New” problem. The resistance problem is certainly not “new,” nor is it unexpected. They obviously don’t understand farming.
I have had resistance (“SuperWeeds”) problems for 30+ years. I have better control on it today than I have ever had, thanks in part to GMO providing me another Mode of Action.
The “Superweeds” issue is an argument for GMO, not against.