With 2000+ global studies affirming safety, GM foods among most analyzed subjects in science

“The science just hasn’t been done.”

– Charles Benbrook, organic researcher, Washington State University.

“There is no credible evidence that GMO foods are safe to eat.”

– David Schubert, Salk Institute of Biological Studies

“[The] research [on GMOs] is scant…. Whether they’re killing us slowly— contributing to long-term, chronic maladies—remains anyone’s guess.”

– Tom Philpott, Mother Jones

“Genetically modified (GM) foods should be a concern for those who suffer from food allergies because they are not tested….”

– Organic Consumers Association

A popular weapon used by those critical of agricultural biotechnology is to claim that there has been little to no evaluation of the safety of GM crops and there is no scientific consensus on this issue.

Those claims are simply not true. Every major international science body in the world has reviewed multiple independent studies—in some cases numbering in the hundreds—in coming to the consensus conclusion that GMO crops are as safe or safer than conventional or organic foods, but the magnitude of the research has never been evaluated or documented.

Still the claim that GMOs are ‘understudied’—the meme represented in the quotes highlighted at the beginning of this article—has become a staple of anti-GMO critics, especially activist journalists. In response to what they believed was an information gap, a team of Italian scientists cataloged and analyzed 1783 studies about the safety and environmental impacts of GMO foods—a staggering number.

The researchers couldn’t find a single credible example demonstrating that GM foods pose any harm to humans or animals. “The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops,” the scientists concluded.

The research review, published in Critical Reviews in Biotechnology in September, spanned only the last decade—from 2002 to 2012—which represents only about a third of the lifetime of GM technology.

“Our goal was to create a single document where interested people of all levels of expertise can get an overview on what has been done by scientists regarding GE crop safety,” lead researcher Alessandro Nicolia, applied biologist at the University of Perugia, told Real Clear Science. “We tried to give a balanced view informing about what has been debated, the conclusions reached so far, and emerging issues.”

The conclusions are also striking because European governments, Italy in particular, have not been as embracing of genetically modified crops as has North and South America, although the consensus of European scientists has been generally positive.

The Italian review not only compiled independent research on GMOs over the last ten years but also summarizes findings in the different categories of GM research: general literature, environmental impact, safety of consumption and traceability.

The “general literature” category of studies largely reveals the differences between the U.S., EU and other countries when it comes to regulating GM crops. Due to lack of uniform regulatory practices and the rise of non-scientific rhetoric, Nicolia and his colleagues report, concern about GMOs has been greatly exaggerated.

Environmental impact studies are predominant in the body of GM research, making up 68 percent of the 1,783 studies. These studies investigated environmental impact on the crop-level, farm-level and landscape-level. Nicolia and his team found “little to no evidence” that GM crops have a negative environmental impact on their surroundings.

One of the fastest growing areas of research is in gene flow, the potential for genes from GM crops to be found—“contaminate” in the parlance of activists—in non-GM crops in neighboring fields. Nicolia and his colleagues report that this has been observed, and scientists have been studying ways to reduce this risk with different strategies such as isolation distances and post-harvest practices. The review notes that gene flow is not unique to GM technology and is commonly seen in wild plants and non-GM crops. While gene flow could certainly benefit from more research, Nicolia and his colleagues suggest, the public’s aversion to field trials discourages many scientists, especially in the EU.

In the food and feeding category, the team found no evidence that approved GMOs introduce any unique allergens or toxins into the food supply. All GM crops are tested against a database of all known allergens before commercialization and any crop found containing new allergens is not approved or marketed.

The researchers also address the safety of transcribed RNA from transgenic DNA. Are scientists fiddling with the ‘natural order’ of life? In fact, humans consume between 0.1 and 1 gram of DNA per day, from both GM and non-GM ingredients. This DNA is generally degraded by food processing, and any surviving DNA is then subsequently degraded in the digestive system. No evidence was found that DNA absorbed through the GI tract could be integrated into human cells—a popular anti-GMO criticism.

These 1783 studies are expected to be merged into the public database known as GENERA (Genetic Engineering Risk Atlas) being built by Biofortified, an independent non-profit website. Officially launched in 2012, GENERA includes peer-reviewed journal articles from different aspects of GM research, including basic genetics, feeding studies, environmental impact and nutritional impact. GENERA has more than 650 studies listed so far, many of which also show up in the new database. When merged, there should be well over 2,000 GMO related studies, a sizable percentage—as many as 1000—that have been independently executed by independent scientists.

In short, genetically modified foods are among the most extensively studied scientific subjects in history. This year celebrates the 30th anniversary of GM technology, and the paper’s conclusion is unequivocal: there is no credible evidence that GMOs pose any unique threat to the environment or the public’s health. The reason for the public’s distrust of GMOs lies in psychology, politics and false debates.

Resources:

 

683 thoughts on “With 2000+ global studies affirming safety, GM foods among most analyzed subjects in science”

        • I think that Maryjane was being facetious.

          Never mind… I just came across this:
          “I have visiual proof if u would like to see..gmos are poisen”

          She’s just cognitively disabled. It was funny before I realized that she is just retarded.

          • May I ask your age, Kiplin? If you’re an adult and resort to using derogatory terms like “retarded,” how can I take seriously anything you say? What if you had a child with Down’s Syndrome? Autism? And what if you heard someone call your child retarded? Same goes for the 15 people who “liked” his comment.

          • Or what if we had intellectual discourse instead of emotional browbeating? What if we stopped using guilt in a debate and used facts? What if we redefined retarded to mean “Someone that is willfully ignorant” as that’s the context that it’s almost exclusively used for over the last couple of decades? Maybe you are just retarded when it comes to the use of retard these days?

          • It does piss me off when someone automatically goes straight to the “down syndrome” reference of “retard”. In the automotive field, the timing of ignition can be advanced or “retarded” meaning slowed to a less desirable rate. Retard in its context, which has mostly been for the last decade is referenced in this fashion. Being retarded doesn’t necessarily mean mentally handicapped, though by definition of the word alone, doesn’t make it wrong. Most usage these days are in reference to the people in the stupid but not suffering from a mental handicap category.

          • In molecular biology they used to do Retard Assays. Then apparently people got upset by that name. Now they are called Gel Shift Assays.

            Hooray for people breaking language to make it meet their need to be offended.

          • and a double hooray to those who find obscure uses of language to justify their bigotry and cruelty. You really think kids on a playground calling an autistic kid a retard are thinking about freaking molecular biology? Here’s another zinger you can teach your biology enriched kids “your epidermis is showing” its a hoot and it shows they know big words so no one will call them retards. rationalization of a slur in your mind does nothing for the pain it causes others

          • Good for you, HIIOR. I am proud of you. The bullies do have one thing to fear that is legit: the Round Up Ready GMOs present in the food chain that no scientific study has proven not to have caused the 1in 88 ratio of autism of children in the population.

          • No study has proven it does cause it either.

            Then again, I thought you twits (an actual insult, not a technical term that offends you, just so you realize, I am calling you a twit, ok?) were blaming vaccines for autism and I thought it was 1 in 40.

          • I thought that the increase of organic farming and idiots wearing yoga pants correlated to an increase in autism….

            And then I realized that OH, we have just improved our methods of detection, but currently lack good evidence to support what exactly is causing it. There is pretty reliable evidence to suggest that vaccines are not the culprit, and there is currently no strong evidence from good research methods that GMO’s or the chemicals used in GMO’s are causing it either.

          • For christsake 99%^ of it’s use is a SLUR , yes you can find exceptions, and now we all know how smart YOU are, but why would you defend someone who willfully and knowingly is trying to make another feel bad and shame him or her over something they have no control over> Ie your douchebaggery!

          • It’s a derogatory term used by bullies who feel empowered by doing so. The little high they get takes their focus of the fear that fills them.

          • Maybe you need to meet a few of these kids that are being shamed and hurt before you start talking about intellectual discourse. Words meaning change over time, languages evolve, some seemingly faster than those who speak them,. The context f calling someone, a single person, retarded has NOT been someone who is willfully ignorant, it is a SLUR meant to shame and humiliate the mentally handicapped, nearly exclusively. When was the last time you were on a playground, and I don’t mean as a kid being the bully, I mean as a “rational” adult who understands that language gets used the way it develops, you don’t get to just change a word’s meaning because you feel like it, with the stroke of a pen, words meanings change over time in the WAY PEOPLE USE THEM, and the way people, for the most part, use the word retarded is a slur. Deal with it. Hearing people rationalize the willful hurting of other peoples feelings, especially children, who some of whom are even incapable of understanding they are being put down and teased, is just pathetic, Gd forbid you should ever have one of these children come into your life and see the pain that is caused by ignorant people. If you are so intelligent, with such a massive vocabulary I would think perhaps you might be able to come up with a better word for you are attempting to communicate.

          • re·tard
            verb
            riˈtärd/
            1.
            delay or hold back in terms of progress, development, or accomplishment
            Yeah stupid people can be retarded and they can say retarded things. I believe you have shown the quaint ability to do just that.

          • OHHHH you found a dictionary site on the internet, didn’t tell us which one, but its a good first effort, if a bit retarded! There’s nothing to be smug about hurting children for your own ego stroking, its pathetic, and rationalizing it and not apologizing like a man shows your’re coward as well as a bully. You need to grow up and treat people with respect not slurs, andyou certainly do not deserve the former.Pathetic bully.

          • no children are being hurt here – emotionally or otherwise. in fact doubt many under-18s frequent this website at all. he was calling a commenter ‘retarded’ for something silly they said, and seeing as this is the internet and not elementary school he doesn’t have to mind his language. as close to the line as that might be(and it is pretty damn close, i’m not one to throw around that term lightly), your fucking nagging, judgmental bullshit isn’t doing anything to fix the harm you insist is being caused by the use of the word in this context. you’re just finding excuses to nag some randomer because it makes you feel like you’ve accomplished something or ‘shut down’ someone, when really you’re just moaning at someone who doesn’t give a shit what you have to say – and you have the nerve to call other people ‘pathetic’ and ‘bully’

          • “OHHHH you found a dictionary site on the internet, didn’t tell us which one, but its a good first effort, if a bit retarded! ” – You really shouldn’t refer to Allen as being retarded – apparently some nutjobs on this forum consider it offensive. Also you shouldn’t say “Christsakes” because it is offensive to the religious nutjobs.

          • Retarded means “to hold back”. So on this instance, she used it correctly. Not all children with Down Syndrome are retarded and if you meet an Autistic child that has been “held back”, it’s the people holding them back that are retarded. Autism isn’t a learning disability, it’s a learning difference. Autism isn’t a processing error, it’s a different operating system.

          • “Not all children with Down Syndrome are retarded and if you meet an Autistic child that has been “held back”, it’s the people holding them back that are retarded.”

            Still LOL’ing

          • You are splitting hairs and you know it. I see it every day, every single autistic kid who gets called a retard gets SHAMED because it is a slur. You can give the strict definition of the words all day long but that does NOTHING for the person who has been injured by it. Why not use it for machinery as a verb and stop calling PEOPLE RETARDED how about THAT?

          • Your user name is honesty is its own reward, but I don’t think you get many rewards. Be honest with yourself; you are just a hateful troll who has to try to shame others about their supposed shaming of others and who doesn’t even know what the context of the discussion is.Two points here:
            1. The original use of the word retarded in this thread wasn’t aimed at a kid with autism or Down syndrome, or any kid at all. It was to a grown woman who posted something that was quite stupid and was meant to show the level of stupidity that the comment went to.
            2. The use of the word retard isn’t used to refer to autistic person or a person with Down syndrome in 90% of the cases, as is the case here. I’m around teenagers all the time and every time i hear retard said, it is talking about someone who said something really dumb or did something stupid. It is used the exact same way that people use idiot and stupid, but I don’t hear you protesting those terms.

            Grow up and get a life.

          • Do you have a child or loved one on the spectrum? Educate yourself, “retarded” has nothing to do with stupid in the English language, unless you are talking about the little box on golf carts that stop them from going too fast – which happen to be retarders and stupid, but I somehow doubt you are, however in your bigoted, tiny mind with blinders on language I guess it does. To 1) Someone’s opinion was that it was quite stupid, has nothing to do with whether it actually was or not, and if they thought it was, why not just use the word stupid? Not insulting enough? Ohhh because you believe they wanted to “show the LEVEL of stupidity” meaning to you retarded is stupider than stupid. Hmmm that argument seems to be pretty… errr … well, stupid. By the way, you ignorant ninny (both real words that actually describe your ridiculous justification for using hate speech) you don’t “grow out” of autism. Just because someone is older, and says something you think is stupid, doesn’t mean they are autistic, just as much as it means that they aren’t. And the reason you don’t see a lot of older people with Downs Syndrome is because they usually die in their twenties. To 2) How you would know this to be actually true is impossible. The words “idiot” and “stupid” have actual definitions and when used in context may not be very nice, but they are not meaningless words designed to hurt others in any context the abuser decides to use them. They are also not interchangeable, they each have a different meaning. Just as “stupid” might be hard, if not impossible to overcome, “ignorant” which is what I believe most of you are who try to justify the use of a word that is only used to demean, hurt and belittle someone, is relatively simple to change. Read a book, talk to the support groups for these people, shit, maybe actually speak to one of them (you don’t have to touch them and it’s not catching anyway), you’d find a very diverse group, some may be smarter than you, some might not, most have trouble in social situations and taking unspoken cues. But every single person I’ve ever met on the spectrum has one thing in common, they are kind hearted, and don’t even understand when they are being insulted, belittled, teased or put down until they are much older and have had a shit ton of behavioural and occupational therapy, because the thought of doing that to another person just to make themselves feel more important, as most of you are using the word, is simply incomprehensible to them. If you’d ever had a job with a big company that included lessons on sexual, discriminatory, racial, homophobic or bigoted harassment, or had a law degree, you would know that harassment is determined by the person being harassed, not the the small minded fuck doing the harassment. The word “retarded” is hate speech, and if you thought about your two idiotic and stupid justifications for using it (see? I not only don’t protest those words being used, I use them too!), for one second, or one year and five months in your case, you would realize that if someone meant stupid or idiotic (two very different meanings – try a dictionary that the rest of us use from time to time instead of the one you made up), they would say stupid or idiotic, not a hate slur that has no meaning in the context it is being used. I’ve been around an autistic kid for 14 years now, and I can assure you that your pulled out of your ass 90/10% of the way the word retarded is used was just that, pulled out of your ass. Grow up? Fuck you. How’s that for growing up? You need a lesson in compassion my friend. I have a word that is a real word, with a real meaning that applies to those of you who can’t put themselves in someone else’s position for a moment: narcissist. The whole world revolves around you, and you can make up, or use any word you want to mean whatever you want it to mean. I’m not trying to shame anyone, I’m attempting to educate someone that a word they are defending does nothing but hurt those deemed somehow less than you, no matter how old or how smart they are. Before you use it at all, or don’t call someone else out for using it, try walking a mile in their shoes. It’s just bullying pure and simple. I don’t need to shame you or anyone else for using it, you should be able to do a fine job all by yourself just by looking in a mirror. There is no place in any meaningful debate for using hate speech to refute something you believe to be stupid, or that the person is stupid for saying it. It only shows your ignorance, lack of compassion and cruelty. I don’t need to grow up or get a life to see when someone is a bully, or uses hate speech to marginalize people they believe are less than they are for whatever reason, it’s so obvious children with no life can easily identify it.

          • Cry about it. The woman is retarded. This is something someone who has a mental defect would say. And mentally defected people are, in fact, retarded.

          • What if a kid with autism is called autistic and that hurts the autistic kid’s feelings because it makes it feel different or dumb or whatever. Should we not use the word autistic? How about if you just teach the kid not to be offended by other people. If someone said you’re gay, are you offended? Or are you proud to fly the rainbow flag and respond with a “hell yes i’m gay and proud of it”. Being offended by what some other person says, only gives power to the other person and not yourself.

          • The word “autistic” has a meaning, and I have been around hundreds of autistic people and never once have heard one call another autistic in a mean or put down way. As far as “gay”, how about the hate speech version, like retarded is to people, not just autistic, anyone with mental disabilities, “faggot”? Would you still hug your rainbow flag and say “Hell yes I’m a faggot and proud of it”? Sure you can choose to not be offended by anything anyone says to you, that’s your choice, you can also choose to be highly offended by it, and in some cases can sue the shit out of who said it to you, and win. You okay with swastikas spray painted on synagogue walls? How about defacing any kind of icons in a church of your belief? You just fine with calling your wife a cunt because if she is fully evolved to your specifications being offended by that would only give power to you? Being offended by a word that is MEANT to offend someone, is not a defect in the person who is offended, it is abusive bullying by a small minded person who can only make themselves feel bigger by making others feel smaller, and is also pathetic.

          • You do know where the term retarded comes from? I am pretty sure he was just stating that she suffers from mental retardation–thus why he said it was funny until he realized she was retarded. Just 10 years ago or so, retarded was the preferred term. Now, since people like you are sooo sensitive, it has changed to developmentally challenged–which some have already begun to use as a pejorative. I am sure it will change again, to satisfy people like you who just think that technical terms need to be changed based on your sensitivity to the issue.

          • Speech pathologists and others in similar professions use the term “retarded” as it has been used for decades..slow mentally. The children who are “retarded” (I mean challenged), usually don’t realize they have been called retarded, but rather, it is the parents who get offended or hurt. Most kids that are at the low level that you can notice are slower couldn’t care less if they were called retarded. Parents (care takers) are the ones getting offended because they don’t want to be labelled as having a “retarded child”. I am in the education profession and see this all the time, my daughter is a therapist and they DO call the patients retarded. I am sorry if this offends anyone, but get over it, it is what it is!
            Now, weren’t these posts supposed to be about the article above which is about GMO’s, not how the word retarded hurts children?
            Without GMO’s we would not be able to feed the rapidly growing population of the world. I am a farmer also who grows my beef and vegetables organically only because I find it satisfying to use what the earth and nature has provided us, NOT because I am afraid of GMO’s! They have been around for decades.

          • Any therapist who uses the word retarded to describe someone on the spectrum should be fired. The term is NOT used clinically at all whatsoever, at least in any western country. It is absolutely NOT what it is, it is hate speech, and the reason autistic kids don’t react to being called retarded, and are not offended by it is because they lack the understanding to put themselves in others shoes, and could not understand why someone would in a million years purposely use a word to hurt someone else’s feelings just so they can feel better about themselves. That’s also the reason they don’t understand bullying, because they are incapable of it, and if they can’t do it they assume no one else can either. That’s one of the main goals of occupational and cognitive behaviour therapy, to get kids on the spectrum to understand that just because they saw a specific movie or ate a specific food, doesn’t mean everyone they come in contact with did as well. Your daughter should know that, you might want to talk to her about it. You aren’t stupid, just ignorant, which is easy to solve as you must know as an educator. https://youtu.be/T549VoLca_Q

          • I see. Moron actually is an insult.

            You have some issues that obviously need worked out before you can have a conversation with adults.

            Good bye, until you can participate properly.

          • “…so stop using it just like your Grandfather had the wherewithal to stop using moron.” Clearly you don’t understand when someone is using irony either, but it is nice to know you finally found your inner snowflake, even if it only pertains to you and no one else in the world. My “issue” is small minded people who purposely use hate speech to make others feel pain for being “inferior” in some twisted way in your head, just so you can momentarily feel superior to someone, anyone for a fleeting second. If it offends someone, and you know it, why else would you use the term? How about a specific reason? You are such a grown up, and you participate so very properly, let’s all hear your clear concise reasoning for using a word that offends a large portion of the group the person you are saying it to belongs to. Please, I would love to be able to tell all the aut kids on the spectrum I work with on a daily basis the wisdom and thoughtful reasoning behind your bigotry towards them.

          • Who said anything about autism? I am specifically talking about mental retardation.

            Inner snowflake?!? Get of your self-righteous high horse, and stop preaching to me about the definition of a word. I know what it means. If you are offended, sorry, but that is your deal. And stop the appeal to emotion. You work with autism kids, big deal. You don’t know my relationship with disable individuals–but I am closer to an autistic than just work with one. Just so we are clear, I am not competing with you for who has more street cred–I am telling you flat out, you are wrong.

          • I have autism, my deadborn brother had down syndrome. I use the word retard all the time. Don’t be so triggered, snowflake. Anyway why are you calling us autistics retarded? Or people with down syndrome? You’re the ass over here.

          • People who grasp and have an understanding of technology or at least how to be a critical thinker say abrasive and stupid stuff all the time. It doesn’t negate that there position may have more reliable evidence to support it. Furthermore, you shouldn’t trust or take serious anything anecdotal anyway. You should learn how to be a critical thinker without relying on your information to be spoon fed.

          • Every euphemism for people with cognitive deficits eventually ends up being perceived as negative. My grandfather called them morons because that’s what they were called in his day. And he was a philanthropist who donated a fortune to autism research and treatment, whose brother was a commissioner of mental health. ‘Retarded’ when it first started being used, was considered a nicer thing to say than ‘moron’ ‘imbecile’ or ‘idiot’ which were originally clinical terms. https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2015/01/05/retarded-progress/

          • Well, now you can consider yourself informed, here in the 21st century, the word “retarded”, unless you are talking about the speed control box on a golf cart, is no longer a nice thing to say period. It is now, in the time we live in, considered hate speech by most of the people it is used on, so stop using it just like your Grandfather had the wherewithal to stop using moron. Maybe he was on to something, don’t use a word that most of the group you are describing are highly offended by.

          • Its a joke. You’re not supposed to take it so seriously. Calm down. He obviously didn’t mean to offend anyone.

          • You bully because you’re afraid. Knocking a person to make them feel small gives you a little power rush. Do it 12 times a day and that’s quite a high from an illusion. And then you’re afraid again. There is nothing to be afraid of.

        • What scientific study showes the long-term beneficial or detrimental effects of GMOs on human health and the environment? None. Conventional GMOs have been around for approximately 35 years, which is not anywhere close to being enough time to be at least 90% certain of its long term effects. Where are the long-term studies? They are non existent.

          • 35 years, thousands of studies, and nothing showing them to be harmful. As time goes one we will get thousands of more studies also showing this. What is long term to you?

          • Do you not recognize that this article and most “studies” on GMOs are performed by those with corporate interests? This entire website is a joke.

          • You think the “elite” eat what they’re pushing on the public? ?? Oh hell nooooo…..THEY ARE EATING ORGANIC…WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PPL THAT ARGUE ORGANIC VS. GMO? GEEZ

          • How about nutrition. ..less. How about flavor. ..less. I’m of the age that REMEMBERS “WHAT VEGETABLES USED TO TASTE LIKE “. I want to buy seedlings that are Heritage and not easily found anymore. HOW IN THE HELL DID IT COME TO PATENTING SEEDS? IT’S UNCONSIONABLE!!!!!! And farmers getting sued for not buying seeds from Monsanto or other biotechs companies when they want to plant their own “heritage seeds”….where the FUCK IS THIS COUNTRY GOING! Europe is making a stand against GMO’S but our country is not! WTF IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE? AND EVERY WEB SITE HAS TROLLS TO DISCOURAGE THE PUBLIC SAYING GMO’S “ARE SAFE AND AS NUTRITIOUS AS ORGANIC”? SCIENTISTS SPOUTING IT’S AS GOOD AS ARE “BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY BIG CORP MONSANTO AND OTHER BIO TECH COMPANIES”. They’re also in bed with the EPA AND FDA…Just look at the heads of these large corps when they left and were hired in our government to head them. Sure looks like they’re in bed with each other.

          • Research it urself fool…I’ve eaten both GMO’S and organic and am old enough to remember and still eat organic (where available)…LESS FLAVOR AND NOT AS NUTRITIOUS! DUNCE!

          • Unbelievable. ..guess you eat the “HEAT AND EAT” foods….fast and no muss no fuss…so there you go. You don’t have a clue what “fresh ” is…hahahahaha! So actually you have NO COMPARISON! DUH!

          • I eat fresh veggies and chicken mostly.

            Some organic foods use more pesticides than the non-organic equivalent.

            You really are a rude child.

          • My age shows that I’ve eaten the real flavor of original food, unlike you who’ve gotten used to the foods with no flavor!

          • Calm down. Try decaf.

            You could not tell the difference between one of my heirloom tomatoes grown organically and the same tomato grown with chemical fertilizers.

            You are full of organic manure.

          • Guess you’re TOO YOUNG too taste the difference. ..my point as well as before. Nutritional is less as well as taste!

          • You are too old to taste the difference?

            I would like to read about organic foods tasting better. I would also like to subscribe to your newsletter.

          • Studies are PAID BY BIG CORP to the scientists to put out how safe they are…and you know there are trolls out there and I’m not accusing but boy you really are for the GMO crowd. ..it’s all about the money btw! The elitists DO NOT EAT WHAT THEY PROPOSE TO BE SAFE….DO THEY? NOT! They eat O R G A N I C !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • You really are angry and deluded.

            Do you know what the scientific method is? Do you know what peer reviewed is?

            If a scientist creates a study that is repeatable elsewhere by different people you should not have a problem with it.

            The problem is you are completely deluded and not smart enough to understand the studies you do not think are valid.

            The elitists DO NOT EAT WHAT THEY PROPOSE TO BE SAFE….DO THEY? NOT! They eat O R G A N I C !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            I grow organic vegetables and occasionally eat some organic foods purchased from the store. Does that make me an elitist?

            The poor can not afford organic vegetables. Why do you hate the poor?

            Where can I read about the elitists that promote GMO foods but refuse to eat them?

            You should calm down and seek counseling.

          • No. They don’t. I’m a chemist myself, I work in the food industry. I’ve studied this at length. I eat conventional produce, organic is a sham. Its meaningless.

          • I haven’t replied until now and I still don’t agree with you on safety of GMO foods. The elite buy and eat organic but all the non-elites just want labeling of what they’re eating along with country of origin. The public has the right to know!

          • Are you seriously trying to convince people that you can remember what something tasted like 20 years ago accurately? It’s not possible that you’re maybe just romanticizing the past the way you want to remember it based on your anti-GMO bias? I know which one I think is more likely…

          • I’m serious when I tell you the taste of GMO’S is less flavorful bc I EAT ORGANIC!!!! Going to Europe I had the pleasure of eating non GMO food as well….then I’ve eaten at restaurants that do serve GMO in the U.S. and some GMO foods in stores that aren’t organic bc they’re not available in my area. BIG DIFFERENCE! You must be of the generation that grew up with GMO’S in your diet and couldn’t tell the difference or can’t afford the really good stuff…lol. OR PAID TO TROLL!!!!!!

          • Our testing equipment can’t even test the difference between table salt and road salt. These claims are rhetoric. Observational studies are not factual. Our scientists don’t even have a clue as to how our gut microbiome truly acts. We are an infant in these studies. Your claims are insufficient. I have 2 articles for you to read so you can become informed and served.

            http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002050

            http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/07/briefing/2007-4329b_02_01_fda%20report%20on%20science%20and%20technology.pdf

          • My father died from the unsuspected effects of breathing in asbestos. Asbestos was thoroughly studied and thought to be safe… until it wasn’t. Asbestos can be removed from the environment. Genetic alterations in food cannot. Why could we not wait to verify that there were no adverse effects before turning 98% of our soy production to Roundup ready… and then feeding that soy to infants who were allergic to other formula? What is the rush to market and if the product is so safe why pass a law to shield the GMO seed manufacturers from lawsuits?

            Why can we not wait until we are certain that we are not making a mistake?

          • I’m puzzled by your statement that “Asbestos was thoroughly studied and thought to be safe…”.

            The dangers of asbestos have been known for decades: what specific studies are you referring to? Checking PubMed, there were already plenty of studies documenting the dangers 50 years ago:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=asbestos&cmd=DetailsSearch

            (BTW this research information was too late to prevent my own father’s death from mesothelioma).

            Allergy to plant-based foods (such as soy, wheat, nuts) are common, and in many cases the allergen has been identified. I don’t think that these allergen levels have changed significantly, so I’m not clear why you are connecting GM technology with allergy.

            There are a number of hypotheses for why the overall prevalence of allergic and autoimmune diseases have increased in recent decades, but I haven’t come across a credible connection with recent crop development techniques.

          • You can’t compare the research being done in the 19th and early 20th century to now. There weren’t the protocols and peer review process like there is now. We’ve been studying GMO foods for over 30 years. There’s thousands of studies. Not one has turned up any adverse reaction. How many studies do you want? We *have* studied it at length. There’s nothing more dangerous about GM vs conventional crops.

          • BULL S*IT there are 25 year studies where’;s your ability to do research? They show NO EFFECT at all, so if you want to be strict fine in another 50 years well know for sure, but at the moment the score is: studies that find no health or environmental damage 2,000+ studies finding GMOs dangerous to humans or the environment 0, you got a lot of catching up to do my friend… all the while 250,000 children go blind and another 250,00 children DIE every year because golden rice is being held up in courts by lawyers on purely procedural grounds, not a shred of evidence of any harm to to animals humans or the environment has been introduced, death toll tally GMO’s 0 confirmed deaths anti gmo lawyers and those who aythem like greenpeace over 4 million dead children and counting. (also before you say it, the patent was bought and donated to the world no one will make a penny of of the sale of golden rice, if it were our children they would have been eating it ten years ago, but have a good sleep!)

          • This is what happens when unqualified people like you have internet access.

            Why don’t you tell me what happens to a soybean plant when a Soybean Leaf Beetle bites it? Or an aphid or a Leaf Hopper or a Thrip?

            Go back on your meds and leave the farming to people that know what they’re doing.

  1. By the way, if this toxic food is so wonderful, why would the biotech industry spend endless millions trying to keep it from being put on a label? Your pants are on fire!

    • I like your circular argument. To require labeling, the gov’t must have proof of a compostional/safety difference. If those differences existed, the FDA would require a label. That’s the LAW…and it has nothing to do with your yuck factor!! If this thing in Washington state passes, I would think it would end up in court.

      • Labeling in the face of thousands of safety studies showing no harm is do something totally unscientific. So to prove they are using good science, you want them to go and partake in bad science?

        • Labels have nothing to do with science. Labels are a consumer choice issue. Just because it is “scientifically acceptable” does not mean everyone wants to buy it, and they have a right to spend their money the way they want.

          • Brett, you are correct. But we already have labels: it’s called “organic”, and anyone who wants to avoid foods from GMO crops can do so. The vast majority of processed foods in the US contain GMOs, so if you do not want GMOs, buy organic or processed foods that have a “non GMO label”. So there really is no “consumer choice” issue of note here any longer. People who make those choices will be doing so for political and ideological and religious reasons though–not because of safety or health or environmental reasons. But hey, it’s a free world. Many people “choose” not to believe in evolution or think that human induced climate change is a myth…again, not science–rather “consumer choice”.

          • There are safety and health reasons to not buy GMO’s–i.e., synthetic plants. A GMO most likely killed dozens of people. (See shento-diowa tryptophan disaster.) The environmental and health effects of Roundup, Roundup weathermax 2; 2,4-D, Dicamba, and glyphosate have not been adequately studied. GMO’s have been stuffed down people’s throats, in service to big money. GMO’s are a dream of people who do not see, credit, or respect such a basic thing as “the harmony of nature.” The reasons to want GMO’s labelled are more important than merely scientific reasons–they are valid human reasons.

          • So don’t buy anything without a label. You do not have the right to compel speech without reasonable cause. Curiosity is not a reasonable cause.

          • Nobody is preventing food corporations from labelling their own products “non-GMO”. The topic here is whether it is a appropriate for the government to force labelling of GMOs when there’s no safety reason for doing so.

    • Gee. They are companies who make money for their stockholders. They are against something that will cost them millions of dollars and probably stigmatize their products with no good science behind it being dangerous. No idea why they would be against it. Seems like losing millions would be something they would want.

    • Jim, all the science leads to the same conclusion. There is no difference. GMOs are safe. In 8000 B.C, humans began choosing and altering plants and livestock. In 4000 B.C Egyptians began making wine and in 2000 B.C. Egyptians and Sumerians were brewing and cheese making.

      • If GMOs are considered the ‘same’ as it’s organic cousin then why was Monsanto able to patent it’s seed?? To get a patent on something it has to be proven as unique or original. The FDA chooses to not label GMOs because they are a ‘substantial equivalent.’
        Isn’t this a conundrum? Are GMOs the same or are they unique and different? Monsanto can’t have it both ways.

        • Celeste, you’re confusing all kinds of things here. Growers and seed companies have been patenting seeds for 80 years; GM seeds are less than 20 years along. We patent innovation. Seeds grown for organic use and conventional use and GM seeds can ALL be patented. The FDA conclusion of substantial equivalence has nothing to do with the patent issue. You are reading too many junk NGO sites. I suggest checking in with the US Department of Agriculture or a serious science organization such as the World Health Organisation, and continue to read the balanced stories on the GLP.

          • Thank you but I am not just reading junk sites, I did not read that on the internet. I know that the FDA conclusion is not because of the patent issue. It is because of passing 3 month tests done by Monsanto themselves saying that GMOs are safe.
            I happen to think my point is valid. if something is a new innovation then it can’t be seen as a ‘substantial equivalent’. The crop is different and this is a clear point to justify in the least labeling.

          • Celeste, Not sure what you are reading but it’s not a legitimate science site. There is no such thing as a 3 month test done by Mosanto to show things are safe or not. Every GMO process takes years of testing and evaluation, 5-17 years in some cases. No approval was based on 3 months of any test. That’s just silly, and any site that posts that is pure junk science. Here is the FDA’s short explanation of the process: http://www.fda.gov/food/foodscienceresearch/biotechnology/ucm346030.htm. The far left environmental magazine Grist has an independent reporter named Nathanael Johnson who has addressed the myths that you are circulating and has a helpful explanation, if you’re open minded enough to read it: http://grist.org/food/the-gm-safety-dance-whats-rule-and-whats-real/ Morever, GMOs are approved in some 30 countries around the world, each of whom has its own unique set of guidelines, and many that required government supported testing. The conclusions are unanimous: GMOS are safe. Sorry to burst your bubble.

          • “the developer identifies the distinguishing attributes of new genetic traits and assesses whether any new material that a person consumed in food made from the genetically engineered plants could be toxic or allergenic.” – FDA’s explanation – the developer in this case is Monsanto. ‘The developer’ is doing it’s own tests to show that they are safe. FDA is not doing there own tests, they are only reviewing what is given to them by Monsanto.
            What about the 64 countries where gmos are banned or labeled? does that burst your bubble? ha ha you are so funny. I have read these articles that you speak of Entine, I read both sides, and while i’m reading I don’t sit there and ridicule the other side like you do, that’s an open mind. So, thank you for your opinion saying I’m not open minded but your persistence to see this as a black and white issue affirms my belief that you are not open to learning the dangers of GE crops.

          • Celeste, Who is being black and white?
            I’m asking for peaceful co-existence so farmers have a variety of methods on hand to address global and local food challenges; you are crowing about political bans imposed in direct contradiction to findings by independent scientists at more than 100 agencies around the world–while not one independent international agency of note has raised serious health or environmental issues linked to GMOs. You consistently confuse politics of anti-GMO activists with consensus science. Your goal appears to be to demonize technologies that you yourself admit you have only a cursory knowledge of. Being open minded means seeking appropriate solutions based on challenges–thinking without ideological blinders. Genetic modification, along with judicious use of pesticides which are encouraged by organic and conventional farming, are a set of contributory tools to help address food and farming challenges. We need integrated pest and production management techniques. No one process has monopoly on that. No amount of independent empirical evidence–100+ agenicies and 2000+ studies–will be enough to ever convince you, because empirical evidence is not your currency.

          • Crowing about 64 nations who ban or label? while you crow about the 30 that allow it? In future arguments you should focus on your own argument instead of telling other people how they think or what my ‘currency’ is. We don’t need to go into more discussion because every argument you make is just saying that those tests say they are safe- even though those tests don’t address all of the issues but apparently you are not interested in that. Therefore no interest is had by you to consider other points of view-. That is fine, we obviously disagree but you don’t need to be so rude.

            I am asking for the food I eat to be labeled. We don’t label food for safety (if it’s unsafe it shouldn’t even be on the market) we label food to provide information to the public. That information is valid and more than 90% of Americans would like to see gmos labeled.

          • I never once even mentioned how many countries approve of GMO crops, let alone tout it as meaningful of anything. We have had two votes on GMO labeling. The only empirical evidence we have is less than 50% of people who voted when this was not just a flip opinion to a poll support GMO labeling in in their states. (And if it had been approved, it would have been overturned as illegal, as it is under US law.)

          • …actually, we DO label food for safety. What the hell do you think allergen information is? And hate to break it to you, but it’s not providing information if the public don’t know or understand what it actually is/means. You might as well announce an ingredient in a different language.
            What if 90% of Americans decided they wanted to know if a non-Caucasian was involved in the food making process? Completely useless information that makes no difference to the food, and would only be there to fulfil (rather racist) emotions and ignorant ideologies – should consumers have to pay more to know that information, even though it’s utterly useless at the end of the day?

    • Because it’s as pointless as putting on a label saying “this was made from crops harvested by a man named Bill on a Tuesday”. Do YOU want to pay double the price to receive information that is utterly useless to know? Labelling and marketing costs.

  2. It’s important to separate the actions of Monsanto, a corporation which is structured for profit maximization and like all other multinationals represents certain problems. With regards to GMOs it is important to acknowledge the findings above which validate scientists efforts, yet not uncritically accept all of what Monsanto does. Scientific method employed to better food production benefits all humanity, I can’t say the same about Monsanto.

    • It’s tempting to reply to the anti-GMO nutters by saying “we can support GMOs without supporting Monsanto,” but if you look into it, most of their anti-Monsanto claims are bunk too. There’s no evidence of abusive pricing (actual studies have debunked the “Monsanto has caused Indian farmers to commit suicide over bankruptcy” rumor and shown that, if anything, GMOs have reduced farmer suicides in India), nor has Monsanto been aggressively suing “innocent” farmers who just had seeds blow onto their lands, as the anti-GMO folk so often like to claim.

        • in 1997 his field was unintentionally contaminated by monsantos seeds, the next year he deliberately used those seeds to setup fields of canola with monsantos patented seed and thats why they sued, if he had just left it alone when it came in accidentally they probably wouldn’t have sued. Schmeiser isn’t exactly innocent.

          • If he is using seeds from plants sown by him in his own field, how is this in anyway his fault that Monsanto contaminated his crop? He can’t scrap his entire field because Monsanto can’t keep a lid on their product.

          • David, the conclusion of the independent authors of the Italian study was that in totality GMOs are entirely safe or safer than conventional crops. That was represented fairly and accurately in the report. Any individual study could raise some questions, but more than two thousand studies have yet to identify any serious health problems. Science is about replicability and consensus. That exists overwhelmingly with GMO crops.

          • Some are perceived to be just as safe but many studies show that they aren’t safer not do they yield better results. So why do we use them?

          • Simple. If any GM crop can thrive and produce similar (or greater) yields as traditional or organic alternatives, with far fewer and much less hazardous pesticides and insecticides – that is a good thing for everyone involved; Consumer, farmer, earth, environment, plant, insect… everyone.

          • that’s not all, there are more advantages in cultivating GM crops, for example developing enriched foods like the golden rice or developing crops that are resistant to harsh conditions, i mean there is no limit here , so many possibilities as we get more familiar with gene manipulation

          • At the end of the day, technology is progessing extremely fast, and not everything can be “dumbed down” for a thorough explanation to the average Joe / Jane. People shouldn’t be afraid and condemning about something, on the sole basis that they don’t understand it – as long as the people dealing with it, does.

            On the other end of the spectrum – those working with GMO and other gene fields, need to check themselves and their collegues once in a while – make sure they fully understand how the practical implementations can or will, affect consumers and the surrounding ecosystem – both long and short term. This so that we don’t cause irreversible negative effects, that could have been “easily” avvoided. We’re all humans, and can get ahead of ourselves when we achieve great results.

            But there has to be a balance. People are starving right now, and we’ll never have the slightest chance of easing that situation, without increasing yields and securing crop survivability.

          • Nooooo….now a more powerful pesticide has been approved by our government agency than ever before. You proponents better hope you don’t feed your kids with this one and I’ll bet you know all about it so you won’t! I hate trolls/shills bc they wouldn’t have a job otherwise. Whistler blowers are A WONDERFUL ASSET TO “WE THE PEOPLE “!!!!!!

          • Are GMO’s being used to improve health and nutrition and feed more people, or are they being used to maximize corporate profits, increase herbicide sales, and create a monopoly on seed stocks?

          • Both.

            Whats wrong with taking as much as you can get? Are you trying to say you are going to sell for less than what you could actually sell an item for?

          • David, the farmer could have used non Monsanto seeds. Instead he used patented seeds and brazenly lied about which is why the courts were not sympathetic to his position. Stealing is…illegal, last I heard.

          • You misunderstand– nobody is saying he had to scrap his entire field. He *specifically picked out* the Monsanto seeds and replanted those.

          • Before Monsanto, seeds are free any you can do with them as you wish.

            After Monsanto, you have to pay for seeds every year.
            —–
            The farmer looses. People in poor countries who can’t afford the new seed loose.

            It looks like it’s bad for the soil, bad for the environment, bad for farmers and bad for the consumer.

            More over, if we don’t want it in our food, shouldn’t we have the right to know and decide?

          • Monsanto patented seeds have to be paid for.
            You can use any other seeds you wish without paying for them.
            It is of course a fact that those patented seeds make the farmer more money or they would not buy them.

          • When you buy other people’s seeds. You own it and you can harvest your seeds and re-use them for free.

            You also don’t have to buy a specific companies chemicals.
            —–
            The fact that Monsanto’s seeds contaminate other people’s fields, who don’t even want their seeds is also an issue.

            Monsanto takes no responsibility for their contamination, but want all the rights.

            So neighbouring farmers are forced to switch over or waste land with a buffer zone.

            Who wants to be sued? Even if they will get vindicated because they didn’t cause the contamination, who could afford to go into a lawsuit with Monsanto? (e.g. 1997 they were vindicated after a long trial.)

            This farmer may have stolen the seeds in 1998, but why wasn’t Monsanto responsible for his contamination in 1997?

            What about other people in the future who are contaminated without their wish? What will their recourse be?

          • So you would be Ok with someone buying 1 of your patented ‘widget’ and then making others from that design.
            Not many new things would be developed with no way to recoup the development costs.
            No one says you HAVE to use any one specific chemical or manufacturers chemical.
            Most buy the least expensive.
            You want to reuse your seed then buy seeds without patents on them, they are available because anyone can replant them and sell the seed to you.

          • So, Monsanto doesn’t have a clause in their contract saying that people have to use their roundup herbicide, as I’ve read?

          • Why would they?

            That would result in much lower sales of the seed with very modest increases in Round Up consumption.

          • Most seed vendors like Monsanto that produce herbicides matched to the crops traits only include a clause in their contracts that say that if you don’t use their particular brand of herbicide, they won’t guarantee the crops performance and it won’t be covered by the crop insurance that they provide. That’s it. Whatever you read was either a lie or completely misunderstood.

          • no no such clause , they do make for example the roundup resistant canola so obviously you’d want to use roundup on that crop , or nothing at all if you wish

          • Do these widgets reproduce by leaving them outside in the rain?

            Do these widgets form the nutritional basis for human survival?

          • You do know that without their patents the biotech industry becomes worthless right?

            Monsanto has never sued anyone for accidental cross pollination. Every case involves farmers breaching their contracts. If one doesn’t like the contract then don’t sign it and buy seeds from other companies.

            And they actually tried to solve this issue with sterile seed technology which would prevent genes from spreading – also protecting the environment from mono culture – but this was of course put down due to the anti-GM movement, which is sad really.

          • Its funny. Breeders do that anyways with conventional techniques in cultivars where it is possible. The GMO thing just makes it possible for all crops.

          • Not if the seller doesn’t want to agree to those terms.

            You won’t get my top shelf cuts or seeds unless you bow to my demands. Go somewhere else if you don’t like it.

          • that is absolutely not true , Almost all conventional (non-GM) and organic hybrid seeds are patented and cannot be saved for use in the next planting season.

          • What bunk.

            I picked up seeds from my local grocers. 99 cents a pack. No restrictions on them what-so-ever.

            My local seed and heirloom variety provider, also no restrictions on harvesting my own seed.

            Most crops around the world are free. They are natural.

            You shouldn’t be allowed to own something that everyone can collect and grow on their own!
            —–
            Ok, so GMO people put money into technology and should be able to protect it.

            I don’t want their seeds anyway.

            Apart from that, you shouldn’t be able to patent and control something that will naturally spread millions or billions of spores and can’t be controlled.

            If you are allowed to, then you should be responsible for all the crop contamination caused by this patented technology.

            When you start talking about a field with thousands or millions of plants, each producing millions or billions of spores that can travel hundreds or thousands of metres, then I’m sorry, there’s no way to control that or prevent contamination.

            No worries, when the patent runs out in 50 years, then everyone can have it for free!

            Regardless, I don’t want it.
            —–
            The world has fed itself with free seeds for thousands of years.

            That is a right that has to be protected.

            It is freedom to grow your own food at no cost. It is a way for people to feed themselves for free.

          • it’s not bunk at all it’s a fact , just because you bought seeds that have no restrictions on them doesn’t mean that certain variety of hybrid seeds aren’t patented , I would imagine the conditions are different between buying small quantity of seeds for “personal” use such as the case of the retail small packets and buying seeds for farming purposes where a profit is expected to be made.. if you care to research it there’s a very long list of varieties of non GM fruits and vegetables that have patents on , Pink grapefruit for example is one of them .. whether it’s right or wrong it’s totally irrelevant since there are no restriction for growing your own food for free. 1930The Plant Patent Act of 1930 is passed. Since the passage of the Plant Patent Act of 1930, it has been possible to patent new varieties of plants in the United States.1954An amendment to the 1952 Patent Act clarifies that cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings were patentable.

        • Did you even read the link you posted? “The case drew worldwide attention and is widely misunderstood to concern
          what happens when farmers’ fields are accidentally contaminated with
          patented seed. However by the time the case went to trial, all claims
          had been dropped that related to patented seed in the field that was
          contaminated in 1997; the court only considered the GM canola in
          Schmeiser’s 1998 fields, which Schmeiser had intentionally concentrated
          and planted from his 1997 harvest. Regarding his 1998 crop, Schmeiser
          did not put forward any defense of accidental contamination.”

          • Schmeiser got his ass handed to him. His story made no sense. I feel bad for small farmers trying to make a living, but he was in the wrong,

          • Why should seeds be a patent to begin with? And no…farmers were being sued bc they didn’t use Monsanto seeds no matter if they blew innocently on their land to reuse them..btw…how in the hell could Monsanto as an example know? Geez! It’s. All about money. ..not feeding any population. ALL WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED WITH IS “WHY ARE EUROPEAN COUNTRIES BANNING GMO’S BUT WE CAN’T. ..HEALTHIER PPL IN EUROPE THAN HERE…RICHIST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!

          • Really, Frank? At least for the areas of science that I have been involved in, Wikipedia is a remarkably accurate and balanced source—even though the prose may be clumsy, due to the multiple contributors. Is there a Wiki that you think is particularly inaccurate?

          • Wiki is a good tentative source. You can reference it at the “wrong” time and get bad info.

            Lots of dumbasses think they experts.

          • Why force feed it when everyone who lives in the United States– probably including you– has eaten them on a regular basis?

          • ….and North American diet is the least healthy in the world. More obesity and more coronary heart disease.

            Europe and Asian countries are banning GMO’s.

            It’s not all about the US. Other people have done good science, that is not profit or industry based. The rest of the world sees that. The US can keep it’s head in the sand and keep trying to bully other countries into believing it’s sales pitch, but it won’t work anymore!

          • Um, actually Europe isn’t banning GMOs and is in the process of reversing its labeling requirements. Same in much of Asia. If you look up regulatory costs, you’ll see the US requires more testing than pretty much anywhere else in the rest of the world. Hate to rain on your anti-corporate/anti-science narrative with some facts, but…

            http://www.agbioforum.org/v13n1/v13n1a04-norton.htm

          • I’m not blaming obesity on GMO’s.

            It’s just a fact that our diet is a high starch diet that is less healthy and GMO crops happen to be a large part of that.

            The same can be said for any corn, soybean or wheat crop, GMO or not.

            However since GMO’s are a large fraction the supply of those produce, it’s still part of the obesity issue.
            —–
            I’ve looked at a lot of the studies claiming they support the safety of GMO’s and most are just regulatory studies on the implementation of GMO’s. Very few were animal testing studies, so they don’t actually show how safe GMO’s are.

            https://geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Ge-crops-safety-pub-list-1.xls

            There aren’t any satisfactory long term studies.

            A lot of the studies are recommendations on how to implement GMO’s into a country.

            Basically they say force it’s acceptance then deal with the issues of regulation afterwards.

            So accepting GMO’s is being done in the political arena. Big money and big politics.

            It doesn’t mean that it’s a popular move. It certainly doesn’t mean there isn’t a strong following in these countries that don’t want GMO’s. The study seemed to say a portion will accept it willingly, a portion of the population will accept it because it’s cheaper and a portion won’t want GMO’s.

            It’s what governments are doing regardless of the lack of proper testing. They accept the “equivalent” argument and use that to force the implementation.

            Just what is high “compliance” costs? I would say it’s the cost of ensuring patents are protected?

            Because it’s not the cost of ensuring that there is no cross contamination. You can’t stop pollen from contaminating non-GMO fields.

            It’s not the cost of animal studies to ensure food is safe, because most of the studies on the list were on how to implement and get GMO’s into the market as fast as possible and to deal with anti-GMO sentiments.

            —–
            Big government enforcing big business as far as I’m concerned.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_genetically_modified_organisms_in_the_European_Union

            So countries in the EU try to ban GMO’s and the EU denies them the right because it doesn’t meet their requirements.
            —–
            The point is, it is being forced on people whether they want it or not. That’s what you call compliance cost.

            It has nothing to do with safety testing or the safety of the food. It has to do with top down control.

            Otherwise, where are all the animal studies?
            —–
            As far as I’m concerned it’s David versus Goliath.

            I buy locally, support local business and non-GMO crops.

            I can’t do anything about GMO’s in processed foods other than avoid them.

            It’s more sustainable, uses less petroleum, energy and transportation.
            —–
            As I have said. Label GMO foods. I don’t want to subsidize GMO’s.

            That makes it fare and transparent.

          • Fat people are fat because they are predisposed to being fat.

            There is a reason I never get fat no matter what lifestyle I have. EVER. My step sister was 300lbs at 12yrs old. A REASON

          • Yes, thanks to better education, nutritional information and medicine.

            However, we’re exporting our western diet to other countries. More grains and sugar. There health will go down, not up.
            —–
            Again GMO’s are no more to blame than non-GMO crops. However, GMO’s will be a large fraction of that.

            It’s exporting profits and worse health.
            —–
            It’s not all about GMO’s but it’s a whole system that is slowly making things worse.

            Profits over independence. Money over health.

            There are better, cheaper more local solutions to feed the world. The world doesn’t have to import the western diet to solve world hunger. It’s a short term solution at best.

        • What’s sad is that GMO supporters demand things should be their way and don’t understand that everyone should have a right to their own opinion and should be able to vote with their pocketbooks.

          Instead they want to deny others the right to choose (GMO labelling) and tell others what is good for them.

          It does sound a bit religious.

          • Yes, Bruce. Everyone should have their own opinion. But ignorance is not to be tolerated. What if mysticism like witchcraft were to crawl back to public policies like in the Middle Age, because many people believe that witchcraft is a fact, despite, and ignoring the overwhelming evidence of the contrary, because “they have their own opinion, and won’t change it”?

            Humble, intelligent and wise people will change their viewpoints with new proven evidence, regardless of their political, religious or philosophical values.

          • What’ I’ve read leads me to believe GMO’s in food are harmful.

            Everyone one having their own opinion does mean that ignorance should be tolerated. I.E. It’s not up to you to dictate who is right or wrong.

            However, I have a bachelor of Civil Engineering. I am certainly not ignorant and your bullying is not appreciated or wanted.

            Mysticism has nothing to do with it. The fact is that there are studies showing that GMO foods are unsafe.

            The fact that a lot of health effects, obesity, allergies are going up and a lot of it leads back to GMO foods as the culprit is a big concern.

            A lot of the claimed benefits and need of GMO foods is unfounded.

            I want to avoid GMO’s. Your opinion doesn’t change that.

            Avoiding GMO’s won’t affect you and can hurt, so why would you object?

            We need to move to a world that uses less petroleum, that means less chemicals, less big ag production, more local agriculture, methods that improve the soil, nutrition and grow more variety locally. A lot of eco-friendly solutions are available.

            I choose to vote with my pocket book, buy local, buy organic and buy non-GMO, and reduce my sugar, starch and processed food intake

            Those choice will make me healthier, use less energy, be better for the environment, better for my pocket book and better for the local economy.

            That is not ignorance. That is my life choice. I choose not to support GMO foods.

            Why are you threatened by that?
            —–
            FYI
            From what I’ve read inserting new genes by (e.g. shooting GENE covered gold flecks into DNA) causes a lot of effects that would make the food worse, such as;
            – Inserting into the middle of other genes destroying or altering their functionality
            – having the gene on all the time (by using a protein that keeps the gene turned on continuously) in all the cells so that the poison or protein is always being produced throughout the plant (This I assume would lead to lower nutrition since the plant is spending a lot of it’s resources producing a toxin continuously)
            – the activator may be turning on inactive genes that produce toxins or by producing more of a protein than normal produces unwanted protein production (e.g. 30,000 genes in the human body produce 80,000 different proteins -> a protein has more than one function)
            – Altering the function of other genes due to the fact that genes interact in a complicated way with each other and not singly as Genetic Modification assumes
            – using marker genes, that are cheaper, but promote anti-biotic resistance
            – the addition of extra DNA that my produce toxins
            – proteins that are possibly allergenic being added to foods that are normally not allergenic

          • So Bruce; being an engineer you should understand the importance of using studies to prove the stability of any engineered project.

            Where are the studies that show GMO’s are anything but safe?

            Hearsay does not count.
            Replicable studies are the only thing that stands up.

            If you wish to pay more for ‘organic’ food that is grown with chemicals that are more hazardous than lots use in ‘commercial’ farming then that is your choice.
            Just do not force the cost of labelling on the rest of us.

          • No problem we can label things as organic and non-GMO. Then it won’t cost you anything.

            There’s no excuse for not letting people who want to know which foods are or aren’t GMO have their choice. You can’t have everything your way.
            —–
            All you have to do is Google “GMO Health studies” and you get studies showing studies on the bad effects of GMO’s.

            I like how you dis-allow a study right off the bat.

            All I asked for was a study showing that GMO’s are safe. The actual report that I can read through fully or a reasonable summary of it, which I don’t find. Just people like you trying to convince me that you’re right.

            That’s just bullying.

            You can’t bully technology into existence, when it has so many health effects and isn’t needed.

            We don’t need food that is cheaper to produce. We need healthier alternatives that we want to purchase.

            If you’re okay with it, you’re welcome to it, BUT don’t force it on me.

            The big issue is choice. You don’t have rights unless I have rights. You don’t have rights unless you have responsibilities. The fact that big agriculture blocks legislation that would make things more transparent. Puts people in place to change the rules to their advantage shows what is wrong with your way of thinking.

            The “I’m right and you’re going to do things my way” approach is unacceptable and undemocratic.

            The fact that you are unwilling to let other people think for themselves shows a very how psychopathic your side of the argument is.

            I’m not trying to have an argument with you or anyone else. I’m simply trying to get information so I can decide for myself.

            I understand if you tell people something long enough they’ll accept it.
            Fortunately we have freedom and the Internet so we don’t have to listen to people like you.

            I’m sorry, but I have better things to do. So this discussion, which I never wanted, is OVER.

          • Do you not realize that there are thousands of studies that show no harm from GMO’s?
            Quit trying to look for what is not there.

            As for labelling organic that is exactly what I suggest.
            those who want the ‘special’ food from so called ‘organic’ production should pay the costs.
            Just as I grow non GMO Identity Preserved crops which I am paid a premium for to reward me for growing less efficient varieties.
            those who want the special foods or special labelling should pay the cost not those who want to eat the least expensive to produce food.
            I am not arguing just pointing out facts and am not bullying anyone unlike those who want to force costly and unnecessary labelling on everyone.
            As I have said if you want labelling then you pay for it on your special food and assume everything without that label is ‘ordinary’ food produced in the most efficient manner.

          • Natural varieties don’t destroy soil and are more sustainable in the long term. They have been grown for thousands of years without the intervention of big agriculture or the need for chemicals.

            It is how 3/4 of the world feeds itself, FOR FREE!
            —–
            Big money and big agriculture shouldn’t be allowed to ram things down people’s throats.

            If you want it, then label it GMO and the rest of us won’t buy it.
            —–
            Sorry that labelling things GMO will mean less people want to buy it, but you’re adding something to food without telling people. It should be treated no differently than any other additive.

            You’re making things less expensive for yourself by forcing it on unwanting participants. That’s not free market! That’s not letting the market decide!

            The natural food should doesn’t need to be labelled, the changed food should be!

          • Bruce – I agree with labelling. Why not!
            But I think it should be recognized that all foods consumed by humans are GMO’s. They bear no resemblance to the original species beyond being genetically related to the variety of species they were created from. This includes both vertical gene transfer and horizontal gene transfer, which occurs naturally – so the foods we eat actually contain many genes from unrelated species, much the way man-made GMO’s do.
            Now, I’m not saying that GMO’s are the panacea that some pro-GMO supporters would have you believe, but they are still a powerful tool in the toolkit. However, to make the claim “GMO is bad” is no different than finding a rotten apple and declaring “all fruit are bad”. People should have the choice, but the rhetoric is inflamed and over-blown on both sides of the debate.

          • – Séralini’s study

            – Arpad Puszt’s study

            – Book Seed’s of Deception had a lot of information on how genetic modification affects DNA and RNA.

            You’ll probably dismiss them anyway, but it’s independent and not tainted by industry influences.

            If you want re-producible, then re-do the study yourself.

            I’ve contacted Monsanto asking for samples to test. I doubt they’ll respond but I’m doing my part.
            —–
            The thing about science, is it’s not an absolute. It’s only right until it’s proven wrong.

            You trying to brow beat people by saying that other people’s studies have not been reproduced, doesn’t change that fact that they can be reproduced, except that everyone is afraid of the repercussions from Monsanto.

            It doesn’t change the fact that there are doubts, there is a lot of politics, legal maneuvering to scare people out of trying to re-produce studies and people like you trying to tell other people what to think.

            That’s not science. That’s bullying.
            —–
            If anyone can give me a link to a GMO study so I can decide for myself, please do.
            —–
            For everyone, Google the above studies. Look up some books. There is a lot of information out there.

            Eat whole foods (e.g. prepare vegetables and meat).
            Avoid sugar, too much starch/wheat/flour, processed foods and buy local (farmers markets and local stores.)

            Have a long and healthy life!

          • I’m not trying to prove anything.

            It says the findings have some merit. As to why it was pulled, that is curious.

            Just looking at the study, how can a more than 100% increase in the death rate be statistically insignificant?

            Why wouldn’t someone put pressure to repeal the study. Shouldn’t they try it to see if they get the a different result?

            In my opinion, there is too much collusion.

            Good studies are all perfect and bad ones are discredited. That shows it’s more about money than good science.
            —–
            Ultimately it’s about choice.

            I don’t want GMO’s. Let the people who want to pay for GMO’s do so and the ones who don’t should have the choice not to buy it. That’s fare and that’s democratic.

            You can’t use science to force things on other people.

          • No one is stopping you from eating ‘organic’ foods if you wish to.
            No one is forcing you to eat foods produced from GMO’s either is you do not wish to.

            But quit trying to say GMO’s are harmful when there are no studies which show that, at least none using proper steps and protocols so you get an honest answer.

            That is why Seralini’s study was retracted it did not follow proper scientific protocols so got faulty info.

          • Firstly the retracted Seralini study your referring to was retracted based on the fact it was a flawed cancer study, which if you have read his re published article along with the additional commentary he added, he clearly states it was NOT and never was a carcinogenic study, the critics of his study came from Monsanto as well as other pro GMO scientists.

            Just to make you aware the editor of the Food Chemical and Toxicology journal (FCT) was a former Monsanto employee and Monsanto have actually funded many of the FCT’s conference meetings, GMO lobbyists were leaning on the FCT which caused him to retract the study in which even the editor had admitted he could see no discernible reason to retract it also “The raw data underlying the study’s findings are also published – unlike the raw data for the industry studies that underlie regulatory approvals of Roundup, which are kept secret. However, the new paper presents the same results as before and the conclusions are unchanged.” which again concludes the nit picking in his study for it only to be republished and accepted within the scientifical community the same as it were initially,

            In a letter to Prof Séralini, Hayes (FCT editor) admitted that the anonymous reviewers found nothing incorrect about the results, but argued that the tumour and mortality observations in the paper were “inconclusive”, and this justified his decision to retract the study:

            “A more in-depth look at the raw data revealed that no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate in regards to overall mortality or tumor incidence. Given the known high incidence of tumors in the Sprague-Dawley rat, normal variability cannot be excluded as the cause of the higher mortality and incidence observed in the treated groups.”

            “The rationale given for the retraction was widely criticized by scientists as an act of censorship and a bow to the interests of the GMO industry”, says Robinson.

            “Some scientists pointed out that numerous published scientific papers contain inconclusive findings, including Monsanto’s own short (90-day) study on the same GM maize, and have not been retracted.[9] The retraction was even condemned by a former member of the editorial board of FCT.”

            Now the study has passed a third peer review arranged by the journal that is republishing the study, Environmental Sciences Europe.

            “FCT acquired as its new assistant editor for biotechnology a former employee of Monsanto after he sent a letter to FCT to complain about our study. This is in particular why FCT asked for a post-hoc analysis of our raw data. On 19 November, 2013, the editor-in-chief requested the retraction of our study while recognizing that the data were not incorrect and that there was no misconduct and no fraud or intentional misinterpretation in our complete raw data – an unusual or even unprecedented action in scientific publishing. The editor argued that no conclusions could be drawn because we studied 10 rats per group over 2 years, because they were Sprague Dawley rats, and because the data were inconclusive on cancer. Yet this was known at the time of submission of our study. Our study was however never attended to be a carcinogenicity study. We never used the word ‘cancer’ in our paper. The present opinion is a summary of the debate resulting in this retraction, as it is a historic example of conflicts of interest in the scientific assessments of products commercialized worldwide. We also show that the decision to retract cannot be rationalized on any discernible scientific or ethical grounds. Censorship of research into health risks undermines the value and the credibility of science; thus, we republish our paper.”

            http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsantos-roundup-ready-gmo-maize-causes-serious-health-damage/5388580

            http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/1

            ^^^ seralinis article regarding the retraction “Conflicts of interests, confidentiality and censorship in health risk assessment: the example of an herbicide and a GMO”

            So you should address and edit your comment because “You fail badly by leading off with that” as a line of defence for the invalidity of Seralinis article as a reference,

            In all honesty even if seralinis article does have flaws the way it was retracted and the controversy and influences on it only reflects the bias and lobbying effects when it comes to anything that says a bad word about GMO’s and portrays anything BUT transparency and integrity…

            happy reading

            That Food Man

            http://www.ttvitalnutrition.com

          • The republished Seralini study was NOT peer reviewed according to the editor of the pay for play journal that Seralini bought his way into. There is no evidence that anything other than science reasons were resulted in the original article being retracted. There is no evidence that Monsanto or any other company had any influence on an independent journal. The Seralini article was judged deficient and pulled. It’s been reviewed by various independent agencies, and been eviscerated. Here are just a few reactions: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/06/24/scientists-react-to-republished-seralini-maize-rat-study/

          • On 26th May, Dr Helen Wallace, the Director of GeneWatch UK, resigned her membership of the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) Steering Group for the GM dialogue, with immediate effect. In a public letter of resignation to John Curtice, the Chair of the Steering Group, she declared that it had become clear to her that the purpose of the FSA process was nothing more than a PR exercise on behalf of the GM industry. She also believes that the process would be a significant waste of £500,000 of taxpayers money[1]

            No different in America, In fact its worse…

            Monsanto have funded many of the FCT’s conference meetings so that’s not true there a looooaaaad of evidence that Monsanto has influence on the study[2][3][4], logically speaking first of all, its in their best interest to refute ANYONE that demonises their products, you are aware of how much money is invested into the growing and regulation of a GM crop dont you? this isnt anything new big companies like Monsanto have been doing this for years[5] so it would seem logical from a business perspective to defend their product, secondly seralinis study wasnt really that different from Monsantos orginal 90 day study which seralinis study was orginally inspired from and that passed all checks even though there were signs of harm, which were conveniently dismissed as biologically insignificant which by the way hasn’t been scientifically defined as of yet, so for now that means its insignificant when they want it to be and Monsantos orginal study certainly isnt without its flaws yet that flew through the review process[6]

            Its been pretty much accepted there’s a huge amount of conflicts of interest and revolving doors[7][8], the only ones that deny that are those that dont want to admit the truth.

            FSA resignation over pro gmo government
            [1] http://www.anh-europe.org/news/genewatch-director-resigns-in-protest-from-uk-fsa-%E2%80%98pro-gm%E2%80%99-steering-group

            [2] http://www.independentsciencenews.org/science-media/the-goodman-affair-monsanto-targets-the-heart-of-science/

            [3] http://earthopensource.org/index.php/news/148-former-monsanto-employee-put-in-charge-of-gmo-papers-at-journal

            [4] http://www.gmoseralini.org/professor-seralini-replies-to-fct-journal-over-study-retraction/

            Tobacco industry undermining evidence
            [5] http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/116/16/1845.

            Debate on GMOs Health Risks after Statistical Findings in Regulatory Tests
            [6] http://www.ijbs.com/v06p0590.htm

            association of financialor professional conflict of interest
            [7] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919210001302

            Conflicts of interests, confidentiality and censorship in health risk assessment: the example of an herbicide and a GMO
            [8] http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13

          • Just think about the politics and science related to Cannabis over the last century.

            Any claim can appear to be valid in some context. If I want, I can make Cannabis look like it causes cancer or cures it.

          • Conformational bias is a huge problem with humans. We literally evolved to have a lot of conformational bias in our perception.

          • I don’t think GMO procedures are hard to understand.

            They take genes attach them to gold flakes and shoot them into the nuclei of cells.

            They include a protein to keep the gene running all the time.

            They also add anti-biotic resistant genes and use those to test for which cells survive, so therefore have incorporated the new genes
            —–
            Basically it’s a crap shoot.

            It’s not an exacting process, it’s one that causes a lot of collateral damage and is very crude.

            It’s a butcher with an axe, not a surgeon as they would have you believe.

            We don’t test for the effects of the new proteins produced by these extra genes, activators or the effects of having an anti-biotic resistant gene incorporated into the food.
            —–
            They look at the nutritional value and say it’s equivalent, but they completely side step studying any effects of the new genes and what may have been turned on in conjunction during the process.

            They simply say it’s equivalent and avoid having to study it at all.
            —–
            That’s not good science. That’s politics.
            —–
            Also, because genes are being moved from one species to another, it’s horizontal gene transfer (one species to another, e.g. bacteria to plant), not vertical (in the same species, e.g. mother and/or father to daughter/son) as happens in nature.

            Whomever says there is vertical and horizontal gene transfer in nature is misleading people. Horizontal gene transfer doesn’t happen this way in nature. Vertical gene transfer is the normal root, and GMO’s aren’t the same as hybridizing crops.
            —–
            The procedure isn’t hard for anyone to understand so your name calling is uncalled for.

          • They include a protein to keep the gene running all the time.

            This is not true, and doesn’t make sense. What specifically are you referring to?

            Basically it’s a crap shoot.

            It’s not an exacting process, it’s one that causes a lot of collateral damage and is very crude.

            What genes are being added is in fact very precise. Where in the genome the new genes are inserted is semi-random. Sometimes it is inserted in a place that is not accessible to transcription factors, and therefore doesn’t express any gene product. Sometimes it inserts right in the middle of an existing gene, breaking that function. Most often though, it is inserted somewhere where gene function is not disrupted.

            We don’t test for the effects of the new proteins produced by these extra genes, activators or the effects of having an anti-biotic resistant gene incorporated into the food.

            This is just plain wrong. We absolutely do test what the proteins do that we transform plants with, including any antibiotic genes that are added.

            They look at the nutritional value and say it’s equivalent, but they completely side step studying any effects of the new genes and what may have been turned on in conjunction during the process.

            They simply say it’s equivalent and avoid having to study it at all.

            Again, just plain wrong. We absolutely do look at what happens to the expression of other genes. In fact, we look at the relative expression levels of every single mRNA product in the entire transcriptome. For example, at this moment, I am looking at the expression of starch synthesis genes in our high beta carotene lines.

            Whomever says there is vertical and horizontal gene transfer in nature is misleading people. Horizontal gene transfer doesn’t happen this way in nature. Vertical gene transfer is the normal root, and GMO’s aren’t the same as hybridizing crops.

            Horizantal gene transfer happens all the time in nature. We use agrobacteria to transform our plants. Are you saying agrobacteria just doesn’t exist in nature? Madness. It’s a red herring anyways, because natural doesn’t mean good, and synthetic doesn’t mean bad.

          • “They include a protein to keep the gene running all the time.

            This is not true, and doesn’t make sense. What specifically are you referring to?”

            If you don’t include an activator then how do you get a foreign gene to express?

            Genes are part of a chemical path that leads to turning it on or off. However if you put in a foreign gene there is no link, so how do you turn it on? How do you turn it off? You can’t, unless you include something to turn it on and that something isn’t selective, the only way to have it work is to to have it always on.
            —–
            “What genes are being added is in fact very precise. Where in the genome the new genes are inserted is semi-random.”

            Off course the genes being added are very precise, they are copies of the genes you want to add!

            No one is disputing that and it’s has nothing to do with the issue.

            The issue is the method of delivery. It is just blindly shooting it into DNA and seeing which one of thousands of samples take. It has NO precision what-so-ever.

            What damage is done to the DNA in the process? If thousands of samples don’t work, then do you think the ones that do work came out without some damage?

            It’s simply a crap shoot.
            —–
            “They simply say it’s equivalent and avoid having to study it at all.

            Again, just plain wrong. We absolutely do look at what happens to the expression of other genes.”

            If that is the case I would like to see a copy of some of those studies. If you could send me a link to a copy of the studies, I’d like to read it for myself.

            The studies I’ve read are vague, in-precise, to short, not relevant to safety (e.g. implementation studies) or you have to pay to read the full journal.
            —–
            “Horizantal gene transfer happens all the time in nature. We use agrobacteria to transform our plants. Are you saying agrobacteria just doesn’t exist in nature?”

            Of course it happens in some cases with bacteria to plants and animals. However, when it happens in nature it gets spliced into the DNA. It’s clean with no collateral damage.

            That’s my whole point. Nature does it cleanly and doesn’t artificially add anything or choose one gene that would not normally ever be transferred from a bacteria to a plant.

            The man made process is messy and in-precise and the natural method is clean without any collateral damage to DNA.
            —–
            When all is said and done, it’s a mute point.

            My whole point is I want to be able to decide what to buy and what processes to support.

            Industry not giving me that choice is choosing the cheapest solution instead.

            I would rather pay a little more, buy local, support the local economy and have a product that is more in line with what I want for a long term sustainable future.

            Decide with my pocketbook.

            Apparently because I don’t agree with GMO supporters I shouldn’t have that right. It should be decided for me.

            That’s not free market.
            —–
            Why should I unwittingly support something I don’t want?

            Why should I be subsidize you?

          • If you don’t include an activator then how do you get a foreign gene to express?

            Genes are part of a chemical path that leads to turning it on or off. However if you put in a foreign gene there is no link, so how do you turn it on? How do you turn it off? You can’t, unless you include something to turn it on and that something isn’t selective, the only way to have it work is to to have it always on.

            In order for transcription to happen there are things called “transcription factors” that bind to a specific sequence of DNA called a “promoter.” Different transcription factors bind to different sequences of DNA. A large part of gene regulation is related to the control of those transcription factors. When someone engineers a gene into a plant, they add a promoter sequence to the beginning of the codding region of the gene.

            Which promoter they choose depends on when and where they want the gene expressed. Sometimes you want to be expressed all the time everywhere, or maybe you want it only expressed in the roots, or only when flowering is occurring. The promoter chosen makes use of the transcription factors already produced by the plant.

            No one is disputing that and it’s has nothing to do with the issue. The method of delivery is just blindly shooting it into DNA and seeing which one of thousands of samples take. It has NO precision what-so-ever.

            Why do you see that as a problem?

            If that is the case I would like to see a copy of some of those studies. If you could send me a link to a copy of the studies, I’d like to read it for myself.

            Look up GWAS (genome wide association studies) or RNAseq experiments. Really cool techniques that produce mountains of data. The emergence of bioinformatics is really helping along our understanding of genomes and their expression.

            Of course it happens in some cases with bacteria to plants and animals. However, when it happens in nature it gets spliced into the DNA. It’s clean with no collateral damage.

            That’s my whole point. Nature does it cleanly and doesn’t artificially add anything or choose one gene that would not normally ever be transferred from a bacteria to a plant.

            The man made process is messy and in-precise and the natural method is clean without any collateral damage to DNA.

            I don’t know what you are referring to when you say collateral damage. Agrobacteria adds DNA to a genome in the exact same manner in the lab as it does in the wild, we just get to choose what is in the plasmid that gets transferred over.

            When all is said and done, it’s a mute point.

            My whole point is I want to be able to decide what to buy and what processes to support.

            Industry not giving me that choice is choosing the cheapest solution instead.

            I would rather pay a little more, buy local, support the local economy and have a product that is more in line with what I want for a long term sustainable future.

            Decide with my pocketbook.

            Apparently because I don’t agree with GMO supporters I shouldn’t have that right. It should be decided for me.

            That’s not free market.

            I have no problem with people making their own choices about what they eat. They currently have 2 labels that are already in use: Organic, and GMO-free. If you want to buy only those products, and pay a slight premium for it, I think that is a fine option for people to have.

            Why should I unwittingly support something I don’t want?

            Why should I be subsidize you?

            I’m not entirely sure what you mean here by you subsidizing me, but we all pay taxes, and some of those taxes are given out to research universities that conduct basic research into plant biology. I think we need more subsidization going into the NSF and other granting agencies that fund scientific research, and it irkes me that people complain about the paltry sum that allocated for scientific research in the US.

          • You are welcome to all the “non-GMO” labels you want. I don’t see anyone claiming that is wrong or bad

          • Thank you!

            A lot of pro GMO supporters insist that labeling shouldn’t even be allowed.

            They don’t realize that people who don’t want GMO’s are buying and paying for it unwillingly and unwittingly. So GMO’s are subsidized by people who don’t want GMO’s!

            Labeling just makes it fare, as it should have been in the beginning. The price of GMO food is artificially low because we are paying to support it even if we don’t want to.

            —–
            I’ve looked at the abstracts in the list of studies that supposedly support how safe GMO’s are;

            There’s a list of 1783 studies;
            https://geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Ge-crops-safety-pub-list-1.xls

            – Of the 50 or so studies that are actually doing animal trials, most are short term (90 days).

            – The one or two that are long term are pretty ambiguous or only feed the animals GMO food in reduced concentration for a short period before conception.

            – Most of the studies are on how to implement GMO’s or studies on public opinion and reactions to the introduction of GMO’s and policies to deal with the public and help promote GMO’s.

            – Some of them bring out concerns about gene contamination in local waterways adjacent to fields, protein and genes in the gut that may have some negative impact on the gut lining, cross contamination of non-GMO fields with pollen etc.
            —–
            -> So, in my opinion, the claim that there are thousands of studies supporting how safe GMO’s are, is bogus.

            – You can’t clump every study in as supporting GMO’s just because it has something to do with GMO’s when most of them don’t actually test the safety of GMO’s at all, only a few are short term testing of animal ingestion, some are mixed and some bring up concerns about GMO’s!

          • I’m not against labeling. It shouldn’t be GMO labels. It should be chemicals contained in the product.

            All things for sale should be tested for all possible toxins and we should’t be concerned with “is it GMO” or “is it organic.”

            I still eat BBQ knowing full well that its like eating a cigarette. I also eat Cornflakes with out worry of BT genes or glyphosate resistance because I don’t have allergies or chemical sensitivities.

        • When you go to a genetic course, there is this thing they call the “central dogma of genetics.”

          Its ironic because they have literal pictures supporting the existence of the thing the “central dogma” claims.. DNA

          • “When you go to a genetic course, there is this thing they call the “central dogma of genetics.”

            —–
            I think that’s like the word theory in science.

            Scientist say “The Theory of Evolution” or “The Theory of Gravity” but it doesn’t mean it’s a hypothesis, it means it’s a fact, supported by a large volume of hypothesis, testing and observation.
            —–
            Genetic Dogma must mean something the same.

            Genetic Dogma = the encompassing group of hypothesis, tests, observations and facts that make up the theory of genetics

    • I too used to say “The actions of one company in the GM industry is not justification for vilifying the entire technology.” But the more I read on Monsanto’s alleged crimes against nature and humanity, the more I realized that they’re all kinda bullshit.

        • You seem to have misread my comment. I was agreeing that most of the claims about Monsanto are just activist nonsense. After rereading my comment, I can see how it might be misinterpreted.

          • 1987 in an $180 million settlement for Vietnam War veterans exposed to Agent Orange. In 1991 Monsanto was fined $1.2 million for trying to conceal the discharge of contaminated waste water. In 1995 Monsanto was ordered to pay $41.1 million to a waste management company in Texas due to concerns over hazardous waste dumping. That same year Monsanto was ranked fifth among U.S. corporations in EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory, having discharged 37 million pounds of toxic chemicals into the air, land, water and underground. In 1997 The Seattle Times reported that Monsanto sold 6,000 tons of contaminated waste to Idaho fertilizer companies, which contained the carcinogenic heavy metal cadmium.

            Then in 2002 the Washington Post ran an article entitled, “Monsanto Hid Decades Of Pollution, PCBs Drenched Ala. Town, But No One Was Ever Told”. Monsanto began production of polychlorinated biphenyls in the United States in 1929. PCBs were considered an industrial wonder chemical – an oil that would not burn, was impervious to degradation and had almost limitless applications. Today PCBs are considered one of the gravest chemical threats on the planet.

        • The company’s first product was the artificial sweetener saccharin. During the Second World War Monsanto contributed to research on uranium for the Manhattan Project, which lead to the atomic bomb. During the 1940s Monsanto also become a leading manufacturer of synthetic fibres and plastics, including polystyrene – ranked fifth in the EPA’s list of chemicals whose production generates the most total hazardous waste. Monsanto championed the use of chemical pesticides in agriculture. Its major agrochemical products have included the herbicides 2,4,5-T, DDT, Lasso and Agent Orange, which was widely used as a defoliant by the U.S. Government during the Vietnam War and which was later shown to be highly carcinogenic. The Agent Orange produced by Monsanto had dioxin levels many times higher than that produced by Dow Chemicals, the other major supplier of Agent Orange to Vietnam. This made Monsanto the key defendant in the lawsuit brought by Vietnam War veterans in the United States, who faced an array of debilitating symptoms attributable to Agent Orange exposure. Internal Monsanto memos show that Monsanto knew of the problems of dioxin contamination of Agent Orange when it sold it to the U.S. government for use in Vietnam.

          Agent Orange contaminated more than 3 million civilians and servicemen, and an estimated 500,000 Vietnamese children have been born with deformities attributed to Agent Orange, leading to calls for Monsanto to be prosecuted for war crimes. No compensation has been paid to Vietnamese civilians and though some compensation was paid to U.S. veterans, according to William Sanjour, who led the Toxic Waste division of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “thousands of veterans were disallowed benefits” because “Monsanto studies showed that dioxin [as found in Agent Orange] was not a human carcinogen.” An EPA colleague discovered that Monsanto had apparently falsified the data in their studies. Sanjour says, “If [the studies] were done correctly, they would have reached just the opposite result.”

          Shall I continue?

    • Prejudice against farmers is at the heart of Monsanto ranting’s – nobody who hates Monsanto also has no love for farmers. They work long hours at low pay – their farms stink from manure which is carried by the wind. But the exact problem is the most anti – farming maestros will not do the farm work are seeking to regulate the workplace of those who will do the work and put them out of business in the name of progress. But then we’ll have no production at all – I’m sure the people who don’t work in the occupation know less than the people who do even though they’re more vocal. Every industry is at risk of being destroyed by dumb outsiders when you allow illegalization of the best – safest choice to be chosen by the producers of that product. It is protectionists trying to illegalize the better product.

  3. Just label the god damn food so I can stay away from it. Your family can eat GMO because I do not give a crap what your family eats. I do care what we eat hence the request for labeling. Why is it so damn difficult to do?

  4. Goodness, 1783 studies and you missed professor Judy Carman’s long term toxicology hog study at Flinders University in Australia and Professor Serelini’s 2 year rat study at the University of Caen? Someone is not doing their homework!

    • Goodness, you apparently did not read the article and its research outline. Those studies were not in the time frame examined. The fact is there have been 2000+ studies. And not one study studied examined by the independent science community has demonstrated any unique safety concerns about GMO crops that is not also true of conventional or organic crops. Those two studies you mentioned are in the GENERA database, which is evolving as the go-to independent library for GMO studies.

      As for those two studies–you of course must know they have been soundly rejected by the independent science community because of their faulty methodologies. Anti-GMO crusaders love to trot them out, just as climate change deniers love to selectively present data, but poorly executed studies by well known activists with stated ideological objectives is not science–that’s politics. Science?: 2000+ studies, with as many as 1000+ plus by government and/or independent researchers showing what those with a basic understanding of genetics/biotechnology would tell you–precise genetic modification through genetic engineering is actually safer than conventional or organic alternatives.

      Get back to me when independent scientists–not avowed activists–have replicated their data. Hasn’t happened (no prior examples) and no doubt will never happen. Science policy should be driven by empirical data/weight of evidence…NOT by one-off studies by industry and not by one-off studies by activist scientists. Repeatability is science.

      • Thanks, ZPT205. I also use a simple, very unscientific, rule-of-thumb, which is neatly captured by Skeptico:
        “The Seralini Rule. I have a new rule for debating anti-GMO people:
        If you favorably cite the 2012 Séralini rats fed on Roundup ready maize study, you just lost the argument.” http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2013/06/the-seralini-rule-gmo-bogus-study.html

        Fortunately, even the publisher of the scandalous Seralini paper has belatedly asked that it be retracted.

        It is, of course, unfair to pre-judge someone’s views; however, as a way of saving time, if someone hasn’t done their homework, and doesn’t “get” why the Seralini paper was a travesty of the peer-review process, it’s probably not worth the energy trying to discuss a larger issue.

        • They actually just went a step further and retracted it themselves when the authors refused to do so. Are you familiar with the Wakefield affair concerning vaccines? The parallels are quite similar.

          Of course, the conspiracy nuts are claiming that this was all Big Agriculture’s fault because one person who works for the journal happens to be a former Monsanto employee, even though that employee made sure not to involve himself in the decision concerning the paper.

    • And someone clearly never did their homework back in primary and high school, if they think the rat study is legit. There are two MAJOR issues with the “study”:

      1. The sample size is too small. And when I say too small, I mean it’s too small for any kind of statistical analysis – it’s physically impossible to determine if there even IS a correlation full stop, let alone if correlation equals causation.
      2. Rats, like most rodents, have an interesting feature in their genetic makeup: once they reach a certain age, they grow tumours. I had mice as a kid, and they all grew tumours after they reached a certain age. No matter what you feed them or what their health is like, they will grow tumours – it’s part of their DNA. So it’s hardly fair to blame GMOs when you age rats past that minimum age, and they end up growing tumours. Those rats would have grown tumours no matter what the food; proven by the fact that the control group ALSO grew tumours. Fancy that. Nothing to do with the food, it’s just their genes.

    • GENERA is being compiled by the nonprofit Biofortified. It has about 650 on its list, and indeed miss some studies, but I don’t believe any “important” ones, whatever that means. They have run out of funding for now, but hope to get more and when they do, sometime within the next few months, they will have a searchable database of more than 2000. Whatever…the scientific consensus on genetically modified foods is overwhelming… about as overwhelming as the consensus on whether evolution is a “fact” or not.

      • On the 18 September 2013 the GENERA list contained 600 entries. In comparison to the Nicolia list I think compilers have been sloppy in their work. The Nicolia list contains a few repeats and errors as well, but in my opinion within a more typical range of human error for people trying to produce accurate work.
        There is no scientific consensus that foods derived from commercial GM crops are safe to eat. Further, no matter how big the claims of scientific consensus are they will never be so overwhelming as to prevent my investigating their validity.
        Nicolia et al’s varied use of the term “scientific consensus” is interesting, used in far more contexts than the particular power frame used by GM proponents/propagandists. Sometimes ‘consensus’ can mean ‘agreement of findings’, rather than ‘agreement of a particular group of scientists’ though of course consensus bias needs to be investigated in each case. I went back to investigate the IPCC Climate Change models where the term ‘consensus’ is used a lot. In contrast to GM foods (which actually could be tested to develop a quantification of comparative risk, assuming the dedication of a large amount genuinely independent resources to the task), testing the actual validity of assumptions in the global environment models is impossible to do without placing the whole planet at risk. As such, the modelling required a lot of discussion with careful attention to terms relating to likelihood and consequence – there needed to be debates and agreements on variables and modelled interactions.
        The profound scientific disagreement on the safety of GM foods could be resolved through actual testing – no ‘consensus in the absence of data’ is required.
        I’m not sure anything will stop the GM proponents trying to use ‘scientific consensus’ as a power term – it has been used in such a manner before – but if used as a claim that there scientific agreement that GM foods are safe to eat it is deeply misleading.

        • With all due respect, you are 100% wrong when you claim there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GM—not 99% but 100%. EVERY major science organization in the world including the central independent science academies in every major industrial country has come to the conclusion that GM crops or foods or as safe or safer than even organic alternatives–from the World Health Organization to the National Academy of Science to the Third World Science Academies. This no debate anymore except among conspiracy theory proponents. Here is a link to a GLP Infographic quoting many of these organizations—ALL independent: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/08/27/glp-infographic-international-science-organizations-on-crop-biotechnology-safety/

          • With all due respect, you are entirely wrong in the claim of scientific consensus, even considering state interests, trade obligations, funding bias, licence agreements, and even threats on scientists of the kind reported in the UK very recently, viz “Government policy in Britain, Canada and Australia is crushing academic integrity on behalf of corporate power” – Guardian, Monbiot http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/30/scientists-democracy-dissent-reasonable-boyd. Most institutions made strong qualifying statements though I note these are not put on GM proponent infographics. Being Australian I can pass on the information that the use of FSANZ is probably not your strongest move – FSANZ is not a ‘central independent science academy’ – it is a government authority with conflicting obligations to facilitate trade. I might write a piece on ‘scientific consensus’…

          • Are universities also churning out studies largely antithetical to anthropogenic global warming? Pretty much the opposite. Curious that the “corporations” haven’t gotten to those researchers. The Guardian, by the way, is about the least convincing source of counterevidence to anyone not notably of the Left.

        • Obviously you missed the part about 1000 studies being independent. Practice reading before you make silly comments.

          And if you want to know why the industry funds so many studies, it’s because the law requires they do so– you can’t blame them for that.

      • How amusing.
        What are the JADAD scores of these studies? How many samples, what were the P factors to assure quality. I challenge all the readers of this web and Monsanto to produce even 10% of these so called scientific studies that are double-blind crossovers. These are the only studies to be trusted, whether pro or con GMO.

  5. Contrary to the claim of the article, not all of the 1783 studies listed actually delve into research validating the safety of GMOs. Nor are all the studies listed actually studies. So it doesn’t really help the GMO case for authors of articles touting the vast research on the health and environmental safety of GMOs if the author didn’t even bother looking at the studies. Just knock this article up to more pro-GMO propaganda that’s meant to appeal to the pro-GMO crowd.

    Seems like the authors of the article merely did a subject search and referenced every possible article, study or editorial published in a science journal. Gotta wonder if they actually read anything they referenced.

    Better luck next time.

      • And what fear mongering would that be? Obviously you haven’t taken the time to read any of the links in the article so maybe it’s best if you weren’t intellectually lazy and read the list of “studies” for yourself.

          • There are the general articles like:
            Genetically modified foods: a taste of the future

            and

            Genetically Modified Corn— Environmental Benefits and Risks
            which are merely articles and are not studies.

            Then there is the entire category of “Tracecability” in the list of studies which have nothing to do with research on the environmental and health safety of GMO products.

            Right there you’ve eliminated a vast number of the claimed number of studies validating the safety of GMO products. So the number is hardly near the 1783 studies as claimed in the above article (the author just throws in the number 2000 out of the air without giving any validation either).

            So a bunch of claims and with no evidence backing that up, the article is merely pro-GMO propaganda which is easily refuted if someone actually bothered to look at a sampling of the referenced citations, and certainly not a case of “fear mongering” as a previous poster had claimed.

          • “In response to what they believed was an information gap, a team of Italian scientists cataloged and analyzed 1783 studies about the safety and environmental impacts of GMO foods—a staggering number.”

            The 1783 studies number comes from the amount of studies that a team of Italian scientists cataloged.

            The “2000+” is the amount of studies, in total, that have been done.

            So, to recap: there have been over 2,000 studies on GMOs. A team of Italian scientist have cataloged and analyzed 1783 such studies.

            Seriously, this isn’t hard to figure out.

          • Clearly you have a difficult time finding out what a study actually is so I’ll ask again, show me the methodology in the “study” in referenced nursing journal.

          • There are THOUSANDS of studies. Stop hanging your entire argument on one article. It doesn’t hold weight when you remove the myopia.

          • I just picked one as an example, I could choose many others but it’s not like I’d get an answer to any of them since it’s pretty obvious all of you know I’m right, that’s why my point has yet to be refuted.

          • Sure thing, Captain Delusional.

            What’s you point? That some of the links are to articles that use studies rather than actual studies?

            Okay, great. That doesn’t somehow validate your idiotic junk-science, though.

            I’m going to stop replying to your inanity because there is nothing to talk about with you other how “right” you are, which you aren’t.

            Anyways, I win because I said so. Seems about as reasonable as your own assertion.

          • Your second paragraph is that point and that the article on this blog is misleading, inaccurate propaganda. Your third paragraph is merely projection.

        • My husband works for bayer crop science and since he does…. I consider him an expert in this field. If he says all this about GMO’s are hype…. I believe him. Some people just aren’t happy unless they’re fear mongering people!!!

          • It’s not like there’s a conflict of interest there but I’ll ask again, what have I presented that’s fear mongering? If you guys have the science on your side I’d expect more than fallacies like appeals to authority or outright lying about something I’ve said.

            How is reading the “studies” your side presents the equivalent of fear mongering? Do you guys even read the science or do you all just know a guy who works for a GMO company?

          • Bayer has saved thousands with its crop science. The crop yields increases and prevented hundreds of millions of deaths from starvation. People who’ve never produced a crop don’t know the slightest bit about agriculture. They don’t know even the basics the affects of the weather, the pests, the challenges.

          • Oversimplification of world war two – your historical revisionism is creative. Technically the allies were the bad guys and the Nazi’s obeyed the rules. American’s smuggled goods to Britain with any flag from their box of flags. The times of world war were very different times – the Nazi’s were very patient before they finally attacked the U.S. They put up with a lot of cheating and suffered tremendous casualties. You no nothing about history

          • Didn’t think you would answer the question. Funny how “science” didn’t stop Germany and other countries from banning GMO. There is not one scientific study showing the effects of GMO long term in humans. Please direct me to such a study if I am wrong. I won’t even get into the revolving door between these companies and the FDA. GMO is not stopping world starvation. Throw that stupid argument out of the window. If people can’t afford to buy the food they still go hungry. Let’s not forget about all the farmers these companies put into debt.

          • Ronald Reagan sought to open up European agricultural markets to free trade and he succeeded in doing so. But in order to undermine that free trade agreement in order to have an unfair trade. The protectionistic European farmers magically misused the GMO issue completely nullify free trade agreements and the GMO pawns here can’t spot the obvious they returned to protectionistic tactics they had in place before Reagan. Reagan fought hard to open up European markets to American products. But the banning of American farm products is only about European’s returning to protectionists tactics and nullification of Ronald Reagan’s efforts at keeping world markets open for producers to sell in foreign markets

          • You’re just setting up unnecessary regulatory hurdles to tax the system. Your creating a fallacy that if we search long and hard enough we’ll find a long term effect if we keep studying it long it enough. But organic producers don’t study their product ad all – so while you’re waiting for the GMO long term studies to show a flaw, no data will prove the organic food is worse, because no long term studies are being performed.

          • Organic farmers are not munipulating the make up of the food like Monsanto is. Why do they need to do research on non gmo food? It’s the same food people have been eating and growing for centuries. GMO is new to the block here. I don’t understand what Organic farmers should be researching for. Please explain.

          • And the end product of GMO food is no different to non-GMO food. The molecular structure is exactly the same, your body processes it exactly the same, and funnily enough, the whole gene transfer thing that they do when making GMO’s occurs naturally in the wild ANYWAY. So…..

            And technically, people have been eating GMO’s for a looooooooooooong time. Ever see what a banana or corn looks like naturally? Almost everything you eat was genetically modified at some point in the past; the only difference between them and what we’re modifying now is that those plants were modified using selective breeding in a filed, where as the modern method is quicker and actually CONTROLLED, so you know exactly what you’re getting.

            I’d actually prefer if organic sellers were as strict about their food as people are about GMO’s; considering the number of E Coli outbreaks caused by organic food and their “organic” fertilisers and pesticides…ugh.

          • Countries that have banned GMO’s have done so due to economic and/or political reasons; science wasn’t the issue.

            And when they say “stopping world hunger”, they aren’t talking about in 1st world western countries. They’re talking about crops in 3rd world countries being made so that they can grow better, faster, or provide the nutrients that these people are dying from a lack of. Ever hear about Golden Rice? The crop genetically engineered to fix major nutrient deficiencies that were sending children blind?

          • Daniel,
            Please don’t feed a troll. As much as you or I might like to engage, endlessly, please don’t. Starvation is the only cure.

      • …how exactly is saying “Don’t worry, science says it ISN’T bad for you” fear mongering? Surely reassuring people that there’s nothing wrong is the exact OPPOSITE of fear mongering?

    • Doug, I’m glad that you have taken the time to study these 1783 articles. While we may quibble about whether all the articles should have been included, this is a phenomenal resource for people interested in getting closer to the truth. Can you highlight the best one or two references that indicate plants bred through GM technology are more likely to be unsafe than those bred using alternative approaches? Also, were there any key references that were missed?

        • @Dougl, if you main objection to JoAnna’s article was that not all the 1783 references were primary research, then I agree. (Or is that just another straw-man?). The authors of the Nicolia review clearly stated that: “We selected original research papers, reviews, relevant opinions and reports addressing all the major issues that emerged in the debate on GE crops, trying to catch the scientific consensus that has matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide.”

          Not all reviews or reports are peer-reviewed, but that doesn’t necessarily disqualify them from being part of a comprehensive examination of GE safety. Added to the existing dataset in the GENERA project, the review by Nicolia et al. offers an exceptional resource for anyone interested in GMO food safety.

          Very few people on earth will have read all 1783 references. However, please tell us if there was anything critical missing, or whether there was a smoking gun that wasn’t highlighted by the authors.

          • Yes, the articles were cherry picked by the researchers to support a pre-conceived conclusions. There mere fact that non-studies were included shows that there aren’t 1783 studies proving the safety of GMOs. Therefore the study is a fraud and the article on this page is merely pro-GMO propaganda. If, as the pro-GMO crowd often attests, they have the science to support their position then they wouldn’t have to resort to such dishonesty.

          • @Dougl, We’re all on the same side here. I am in no way hung up on numbers. Rather making claims of “fraud”—which is a distraction, because it guesses motives—please tell us about specific articles that were missed, or any key articles in the database that we need to focus on, to help forward this discussion.

          • Yes, they were cherry-picked. All 1,700+ articles.

            That’s not cherry-picking, you dolt, that’s consensus.

    • have you read all 1783 studies?! I’m really impressed with YOUR research! You should probably list all the exceptions then however, just to let us know which ones show evidence to which side of the case. Also, you should probably know that after investing 200 million euros in research including 50 studies over a span of 25 years, the European Commission stated that, “there is, as of today (december 2010), no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants.”

      • It’s not necessary to read all the studies to debunk the claim in the article that over 2000 studies affirm the safety of GMOs. One would be all that it takes but I did a random sampling of the studies and, as I expressed earlier, saw that not all the citations were studies and some of the studies never tested the safety of GMOs. Which means I read more studies than the author of the article (or, for that matter, you).

    • Not all the researchers are tip top yes, but all scientists can disprove their own bias and self deception. All scientists seek to have their work challenged as long as research is reproducible research and not I know the results of the research before I begin research and not seeking to discover the truth.

    • How easy it is for people to dismiss mountains of research by simply calling those who they disagree with “shills” or “sellouts.” You honestly don’t think that the Italian scientists who performed this meta-study READ the studies they wrote about? Do you ever realize how paranoid and ridiculous that sounds?

          • Gee, even with “legions of scientists” supporting you not one of you could explain how the article from the nursing journal is a scientific study. Imagine that.

          • Mate, some of the people on here actually have a education that exceeds yours, belive it or not (shock horror). Scientific articles, discussion papers and studies are different, congratulations for working that one out for us. However they are all an important part of this article used for highlighting the broad and massive amounts of work that has been done by actual scientists from all over the world. Actual scientists who have correctly formated, written and studied these things. Scientists who have dedicated there working life to be in a position where they have the authority to write such articles. These articles and the articles they are referenced from are not just claims and statements.
            Also, I don’t know anything about you but how can you not understand the importance and safety related to the traceability of our food, that’s a no brainer….
            Journels are full of scientific articles….. what are you even saying ?

          • So you don’t know anything about me but you’ve concluded that you know my education level. Rather dishonest really, but that seems to be the topic of the thread. By your reasoning, this blog could be listed as a source in the metadata study since what qualifies as a study know is anything that supports the author’s pre-conceived conclusion.

          • Sorry, I assumed, however with even minor or limited background in science and one would know what constitutes the “sources” scientific papers. How is what you said my reasoning ?
            This blog may be used in a study related to popular science and it’s relation to the public lol.

          • I suppose one has to reduce their standards if they’re going to support GMOs. Corporations have herbicides to sell so it’s not surprising that they’d let their standards fall to the wayside yet again when there’s profit to be gained.

          • I’m not going to lie, I support gm research and many gm crops, I’m also finalizing my science degree but don’t worry I’m not controlled by some allmighty corporation lol nor am I going to work with anything genetics related (can’t stand it)
            Soil degradation is a real problem all over the world and the food that we all eat isn’t going to become saline resistant on its own. As stated on here heaps, your eating gm if you like it or not, ultimately it’s like selective breeding (done over years and years) just more efficient, refined and tailored. Quite amazing actually.
            What if gm has the potential to feed everyone? Think of 3rd world countries being 100% self reliant, producing there own safe food. Simple things like blindness from vitamin deficiencies have been almost eradicated in places because of the introduction of gm crops and plants.

            And if your worried about gm crops wiping out the original species (evolution has been doing this for ages) then you can rest assured, you’ll find that most 1st world countries and a few international conglomerates have seed banks storing the genetic information of the past present and future. (Que creepy science alien music)
            Don’t worry guys most scientists don’t won’t to destroy the world….

    • Doug, You raise an important point about the term “study”. Articles published in scientific journals in this field fall into at least three broad classes: primary reports of new data; reviews of results from multiple, previous papers; and commentaries. Often the review papers are very valuable, because they provide context, they discuss strengths and weaknesses of the current state of knowledge, and they draw conclusions about the current weight of evidence on a particular subject. Reviews will often contain insights that were absent from the primary experimental research. I addition, reviews (such as in a cross-disciplinary nursing journal) also perform the important role of educating people about the current weight of evidence, even if the reader may not have sufficient expertise to judge it themselves.

      Therefore, I think it was totally appropriate for the Nicolia group to include reviews in their collection of papers. Doug, in your comments over the past few months, you seem to be focusing on methodology, and I think you have made your point. But do you have anything useful to add about the two core issues: 1) are there any papers that are “smoking guns”, strongly suggesting a reason for concern?, and 2) were there any key research studies that were missed from the Nicolia and Genera collections?

    • Thank you.

      No one would give me an example of a study or a straight answer on those 1783 studies!

      It’s very suspicious when there is a 100% concensus. It doesn’t sound like real science when someone is quoting an absolute with no questionable or ambiguous studies.

      It sounds more like PR.

  6. probably somebody is looking at this topic upside down and i think is missing the meaning of what a market is: it’s a place where producers and buyers meet. buyers are the ones that “drive” the market, ’cause they spend their own money and decide what to buy, depending not only on what their needs are but also on their life philosophy. producers have to follow their choices and try to understand where they lead to. laws have the role to facilitate this “relationship”, supporting consumers to express themselves and feel safe. thus, i think it’s a logical consequence to label GMO foods, just because it’s a democratic right in a democratic State.

    • Luigi, I know you sincerely believe that it’s a democratic right to have label, and in theory, I agree…but none of the labeling proposals I have read would convey meaningful information to consumers. Scientific American–which I would assume that no one would question its independence, reviewed this challenge in a recent editorial in which it declared that GMO labels–the ones being endorsed by advocacy groups–are a really bad idea, unscientic and misleading. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/08/21/scientific-american-labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea/#.UlgdfCSv-uM

      So, what might be a meaningful label? Well, on tobacco products, we have labels that say that tobacco is harmful to your health or the Surgeon General has determined it is harmful to your health. Many labeling advocates site tobacco labeling as an essential inspiration. So, why not label products with GMOs in the ingredients section as such:

      –this product was made with USDA approved genetically engineered products that the World Health Organization and US National Academy of Sciences has determined are as healthy or healthier than organic foods. The scientific consensus is that the production of genetically modified ingredients results in less use of pesticides and a net sustainability gain.

      So, we are on the same page…let’s have a meaningful label that actually conveys information that can help the consumer make a choice based on facts rather than fear.

      Will you support this? Or is your real goal to create fears that are rejected by the mainstream science community with the same level of consensus that scientists reject creationism.

      • ln fact, GMOs do NOT “result in less use of pesticides”: in fact, the opposite occurs, because ‘pests’ are also biologic organisms, and they evolve defenses requiring increased doses of pesticides in turn. Roundup-ready is a case in point.

        • Thanks for your post. The empirical evidence contradicts your comment however. First, most GM crops are not herbicide tolerant varieties; that’s just a small subset. In the case of GM crops paired with the use of Roundup Ready, glyphosate is about 100 times less toxic than the chemicals it replaces, so the environment is doused with far less toxic chemicals even in the rare cases when the volume of glyphosate exceeds the volume of the far more toxic chemical it replaces. The problem of pest resistance is common all through agriculture, so it’s not a GMO issue. That’s dealt with through crop rotation. BTW, organic farmers often use the chemical Bt (which is in some GM plants) but at much higher volumes. They also use copper, which is many multiples more toxic than even the most potent synthetic chemical. Farming is very challenging; chemicals are necessary. It’s all about proper management. But statements like “GMOs result in the use of more pesticides” are just not accurate.

          • Contrary to your claim, glyphosate is still a chemical and the “amount of harm” is not a measure of the volume of herbicide. Since IScott mentioned pesticide use, replying with herbicide use as a rebuttal isn’t accurate. Studies show that pesticide use increases because bt crops only target certain species and pesticides still have to be used for non-targeted species which increase in number due to less competition from targeted species. As since evolution is a scientific fact, and targeted species to evolve, the only means of combating them is increase use of pesticide. That’s why long term studies have shown that GMOs result in increased use of pesticides.

          • You are right…the volume of a chemical does not equate with harm. Glyphosate is about 100 times less toxic than the chemicals it has replaced. It’s usage has led to a sharp fall off in the toxic impact of many agricultural practices. Organic farmers extensively use chemicals, including Bt, which is also used in some GMO products. Good farming practices require sophisticated pest management practices, regardless if they are using organic, conventional or GMO seeds.

          • Claiming something is 100 times less harmful than something else doesn’t exclude it from being in the realm of something that is harmful. Thanks for the little Monsanto talking point but it’s quite meaningless.

            In regards to good farming practices, the use of GMOs encourages monoculture and discourages things like crop rotation. So if your goal is positive farming practices then you can’t be in favor of gm crops.

          • Your use of “is still a chemical” to indicate a problem suggests ignorance and/or bias. Water is a chemical.

    • If you read the article, it states clearly that this study contains 1783, but it’s limited to 10 years. There have been studies over 30 years, many of them in the GENERA database. Between them there are already well over 2000 studies. Hope this helps.

  7. US Doctors call for immediate moratorium on GM foods
    “GM foods pose a serious health risk”, states a new report from the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM). The position paper, released on the 19th May, calls for physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid genetically modified foods (GM) and provide educational materials concerning health risks.

    • Andrew, the AAEM are alternative medicine proponents, not mainstream physicians. I’m sure many of them are sincere, but the organization is dominated by natural product hucksters and pseudo scientists. We’re not talking about the American Medical Association or the National Academy of Science or the American Association for the Advancement of Science, all of which have endorsed the safety of GM foods. These are crackpots, by and large.

      • You think you are going to find any mainstream studies? Monsanto, FDA, USA Gov., mainstream sci institutions – same line of people. GMO studies will never be unbiased as long as company like Monsanto is dominating GMO market. And should you trust company that produced:

        – Dioxin and Agent Orange (designed only to destory Vietnemese jungle – killed more than 400,000 Vietnamese while half a million children were born with birth defects and up to million people were disabled or suffered from chronic diseases. More than 3 million American troops and their offspring were also the victims of Agent Orange.

        -PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls – production started in 1920 , in 1970 it was finally banned). Took them 50 years.

        -DDT (In 1944 Monsanto among 15 other companies started manufacturing DDT as a pesticide for killing weeds. Despite all the claims of Monsanto that DDT was safe, the research in 1970s confirmed all the side effects and harms of DDT and DDTs were banned in 1972.). Took them 28 years.

        -Roundup (even more toxic than DDT). Of course, FDA and it’s host of scientist will say that is’t ok just like they did for DDT and Aspartam but you can find tone of sci. articles proving otherwise (which is kind of a miracle.)

        -Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) is injected to livestock for faster growth and production of more milk. rBGH growth hormones can cause painful udder infections in livestock which forces large commercial dairy farmers to give cows injection of antibiotics routinely. Human beings are exposed to rBGH growth hormones and antibiotics when they consume meat or dairy of livestock that are injected with hormones. Based on many studies rBGH growth hormones are related to breast cancer in women and prostate cancer in men. Hormones are also related to a wave of chronic diseases including colon cancer, diabetes, heart diseases and obesity. Both European Union and Canada have banned use of growth hormones in livestock.

        I am not going to put Aspartam here but I am not consuming any products with it just like I wouldn’t consume anything else produced by Monsanto.

        • DDT was blacklisted in a political witch hunt whose scientific rational was discredited almost as soon as the smear campaign started. Millions of poor people died as a result.

        • You know how many of those were created by the Government; they just hired Monsanto to follow their recipe.
          That’d be like blaming the ones who make bullets when criminals use them to kill people.

  8. Nearly all of those ‘most-studied’ tests were 90-day animal trials (3 months). The issues which are cropping up now are all long-term health issues which occur at around 18 months in animal studies. So it takes 18 months to grow a cancer and not just 3 months. Funny how you chose to omit that, huh? People will start to believe the corporations when they start to publishing some long-term generational studies. I used to work at Arthur D. Little. I know the difference. People aren’t stupid.

    • It’s sad that your son is sick, but there is zero chance that GMOs is the cause of it. There is no biological difference between a food made through the process of genetic modification versus conventional or organic foods. The US has been eating GM foods for 17 years and cancer rates are going down, not up. Cancer patterns and diseased patterns in western countries where GMOs are not eaten are no different. You have a right to believe what you want of course–that’s what religion is all about. Science is based on evidence and the empirical evidence is clear: GMOs pose no unusual harm. There is no biological possibility, certainly not in causing cancer, as even the disgraced Seralini admits.

          • There is not one case of any health related problems linked to GMOs because as they are not labeled- therefore doctors cannot ascertain the real cause of the illness. There are many illnesses that doctors are uncertain of the cause, if we could know what’s in our food and environment we could possibly find the cause.

          • Celeste, what you write is not accurate. Genetic modification is a process not an end point, so labeling that something is or is not GM would provide zero information to determining the causes of certain condition. There is no biological mechanism for the process of GMOs to create an illness. There have been more than 2000 studies and reviews, and this issue has reached a critical consensus.–the process of GMOs is not fundamentally different than the process of conventional breeding, other than it’s more exact and there less potential side effects–and they’ve been pre-evaluated. You’ll need to find a new bogeyman–the process of genetic modification is safe, as every major health organization in the world has concluded.

          • Jon, writing people and telling them they are not accurate in everything they say shows that you are not willing to consider other points of view. You believe whole-heartedly that they are safe, that is nice for you but treating condescendingly doesn’t help your argument.
            I believe that if you want to find the source of a problem, you need to find the root. What you eat everyday effects your health. How do people find out what they are allergic too? They deduce what it is they ate that they had a reaction to, they eliminate it and they see the improvements or not.
            We have a right to know what we are eating.

          • Celeste, when you make a statement that’s wrong it should stand uncorrected. The difference between me and you on this issue is that I respect empirical evidence and you believe all scientific is political and corrupt. To me that’s conspiratorial thinking. When every major science organization in the world, bar none, comes to the same conclusion, then we have a consensus. We have it on evolution (it’s real) and vaccines (safe). We have it on GMOs, despite a loud anti-science movement. There are very few food allergies, and none linked to any GMO product. Many people think they have GMO wheat allergies, but there is no GMO wheat. There are no GMO nuts. The body could not tell the difference between GMO corn and non-GMO corn, so if there were any allergies (and there are very few to corn), there would be no differences. All the approved GMOs have been run through the international allergen banks. Sorry, you’ll need another bogeyman.

          • Entine- this is not a black and white subject as you seem to think it is. What is your fixation with the bogey man? I don’t believe all science is political and corrupt, in fact I am in search of more research being done on this subject.
            There are more issues with GE crops than you seem to realize, such as environmental issues of mono-crops and all of the earths seed and food supply controlled by one company – Monsanto which is pretty scary.

            I don’t wish to argue the safety of eating them because as I’ve already stated (which you can’t really refute) is the fact that the FDA isn’t to be trusted with our health. Why do you think over 64 other countries either ban or label GMOs? Do you think that they believe that they are the safest food ever offered? No, they don’t because there are other scientific tests being done out there that don’t seem to be mentioned on the sites that you are reading about. We have the right to know what is in our food.

          • Celeste, you seem disinterested in distinguishing between political bans voted in by politicians and recommendations by scientists that endorse science and say ideology should not guide policy. When creationist factions on the Texas School Board voted to restrict the teaching of evolution in defiance of the science consensus, most people other than science denialists, made that disinction. That’s no different than when the European Commission and the European Food Safety Authority–among the most independent science organizations in the world, and which actually fund independent research on GMOs–come to the exact conclusions as the FDA—and yet European politicians voted to impose a ban on some but not all GMOs. That’s not science, that’s politics. Science says: GMOs safe. Activists say: Ignore science, let’s vote on fear. If you can’t embrace consensus science–and we are talking every major science organization in the world has found GMOs safe or safer than conventional and organics–than your religious beliefs in effect are no different than those of creationists. As for the monoculture meme, as you probably know, invoking that has nothing necessarily to do with GMOs…it’s an issue for all of agriculture. Monoculture is a complex issue, and I believe most nuanced scientists believe that large scale agriculture offers some enormous advantages over small scale varieties in many but not all situations. All tools are needed to confront local and global food issues. GMOs are safer or safer than alternatives. They are part of the solution but not a silver bullet. Get some balance in your life. Read a science book. Learn genetics 101. Pledge never to read Jeffrey Smith or site NaturalNews.com. Claiming the GMOS are evil else is just ideology–that’s where you are now. They are one tool to deal with complex issues. All tools offer benefits and challenges. GMOs and organics are no different.

          • It’s not a consensus. There are other scientists and nations around the world with differing opinions.
            Yes, mono-culture has to do with agriculture, and GE crops are taking over our agriculture so yes, they have everything to do with each other.

          • Celeste, you are resistant to the concept of empirical evidence. Consensus doesn’t mean everyone. You can go on the Internet and find thousands of scientists who support creationism or scientists who claim vaccines cause harm or scientists who claim that GMOs are not safe. In each of those cases, the consensus among experts is well more than 95%. You are part of a crank–and diminishing-minority. As for monoculture, large scale agriculture is not the same as monoculture. You need to freshen up on your basic agriculture facts and not just quote cliches from Michael Pollan. Neither GMOs nor large scale agriculture necessarily equals monoculture, and we need a variety of production systems to meet various global and local food challenges. My god, we would kill hundreds of millions of people if we switched to small scale organics if it it meant giving up large scale agriculture. If you support diverse agriculture–solutions tailored to specific challenges–than you would support GMOs in many situations (but not all) because they add to genetic diversity and are far more sustainable than organic agriculture–and you did not know that? Not in Pollan’s book? Not on Jeffrey Smith’s website? Try a basic ag book.

          • You should read Seeds of Deception.

            There are several reasons stated there why genetic modification would cause health issues.

            The issue isn’t what science you wish to believe. The issue is everyone else’s right to choose to believe differently.

            GMO foods should be labelled. If you believe it is safe then continue eating it. For us who don’t want to eat it, we should have that right.

            When a company and government assume all the rights and no responsibilities and our rights are ignored, that a very serious sign of psychopathy. It’s a big problem with today’s government and industry.

            “We’ll tell you what to think.” That’s not democratic and it’s not right.
            —–
            Here in Canada we did not approve Monsanto’s rGBH and Europe and many other countries have banned GMO’s. Do you think they are all wrong?
            —–
            There are people out there who are reclaiming millions of acres of desert and arid land with better methods of crop rotation, more strategic planting of trees, and appropriate flora and fauna and helping to feed people by giving them the tools and knowledge to become self sufficient.

            It is free from economics, chemicals and politics.

            We don’t need GMO’s to feed the world.

            Certainly we don’t need GMO’s in the US or Canada. We have more than enough food. Why experiment on people with a new food technology that is not needed?

          • Seeds of Deception is written by former flying yogic instructor and Maharishi cult member Jeffrey Smith, who has zero science background. It is a rant by someone with no understanding of GMOs. Only two countries in the world have banned GMOs. Every major independent science organization in the world says GM crops and foods are as safe and in many ways safer and more nutritious than non-GMO varieties.

          • I have to say, this whole exchange was very enlightening! Thank you to both you and Jon for talking about this in detail. I checked my source (as is always a sound practice for internet validity) and it turns out Genetic Literacy Project is founded by Jon Entine. His bio is here among other places: http://www.aei.org/scholar/jon-entine/ …always good to consider whom you are speaking with. He has a bias, but it is definitely backed by more than belief and some research. I, like you, dislike the poor and shady practices on the businesses’ handlings of GMOs, but through all my research it really does seem like the science itself is not the issue. Better care must be made to regulate business handlings and fund research necessary to foster highest quality goods for current and future consumption (rather than built in obsolescence to increase corporate profit at the expense of farmers). Ignorance of long-term effects of monoculture on the part of the farmer is also not GMOs but it’s easy to wrap them up in one unpalatable bundle instead of recognizing the overwhelming benefits of genetic engineering in itself. Super interesting stuff. I hope the past 7 months has been full of learning and challenging and more questioning and all that good stuff for you. Happy almost harvest!

          • Majority of places that ban them or label them do so because of economics or politics; nothing to do with science.

          • And I’m sure that you would be one of the many people to fall for the “Organic Vs. Conventional Banana Study” where everyone that tried the banana slice labeled “Organic” just KNEW that it was organic because it tasted more natural and more like how a banana should taste… Then got really mad when told that they just ate 2 slices from the same banana and the only difference was the label in front of the plate so all the differences were in their mind.

          • Pls. get back w/us in 10 yrs. and let us know how you’re doing since you think eating pesticides are good for you!

          • Cindy, you need to do your homework. There are dozens of genetically modified products, including cotton, salmon, papaya, and many others that are either not foods or do not involve the use of what are called Bt, which is what I believe you are referring to. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a naturally-occurring soil bacterium that kills target insects but biologically has no impact on humans as we do not have the receptors in our stomach to digest. (99% of pesticides are natural and almost all are harmless to humans). Bt is widely used in organic farming. Studies of Bt sprayed or incorporated in genetically modified crops have found in entirely harmless. Here’s an analysis by Cornell University: http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/24d-captan/bt-ext.html

            In GM Bt crops, Bt rarely end up in the food itself, except in extremely small amounts at worst–in far less volume than shows up in organic food, as Bt is one of the most widely used organic pesticides. I also suggest that you take a look at the latest USDA report, which noted a tenfold reduction in the use of insecticides as a result of the engineered Bt trait. Here’s a link to the USDA summary and the actual report: http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2014-march/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-by-us-farmers-has-increased-steadily-for-over-15-years.aspx#.U1vFceZdXR4

            So, if your concern is ingesting harmless Bt, I would strongly encourage you to cut organic foods out of your diet, as organic foods contain higher trace levels of Bt because of multiple broad leaft spraying per crop (GM Bt is targeted; not on the foods) and are the single major cause of exposure to the (harmless to humans) pesticide.

            I hope this addresses your concerns.

          • Thanks for the info. I will continue eating organic and growing my own food. I don’t want to support chemical companies. And doesn’t Monsanto give big bucks to Cornell?! And pls. tell me why almost daily other countries are banning GMOs? I’m sure you’ll have an answer for that too! Thanks for your input and you have a great day!

          • A recent study has found that the herbicide glyphosate, sold under the trade name Roundup (and others), is present in alarming levels in breast milk of American females. The study found that samples of mother’s milk from women in the United States contained levels of the weed-killer that were 760 to 1,600 time greater than the amount of pesticides allowed by the European Water Directive. Those levels are still less than the 700 ug/l maximum contaminant level (MCL) that the Environmental Protection Agency has decided is safe.
            This pretty much debunks everything you just wrote!

          • Cindy, I really urge you to make an effort to lean bout critical science thinking. What you are citing is not a a peer reviewed “study” but a review paid for completely but two anti-GMO activist groups. It was contracted out to an organization that has no experience in doing academic independent studies. The review was not peer reviewed, has not been published in an independent journal and is the very definition of junk science. No legitimate news organization even reported on it because it’s so transparently activist propaganda and promoted/paid for by Sustainability Pulse, which is a well known junk science site…you can read the GLP profile of its founder, Henry Rowlands, on the GLP. The “review” also contradicts 100s of independent academic and government reviews in more than 20 countries. Science is about repeatability–do results show up in multiple studies. Here is a deconstruction of this piece of propaganda: http://academicsreview.org/2014/04/debunking-pseudo-science-lab-testing-health-risk-claims-about-glyphosate-roundup/

          • Thanks Jon! I am a member of Moms Across America and I will back up this study. Round up is killing us that I know and when I have time I will send you scientific studies obviously you ignore! Enjoy your day!

          • Ah, now your promoting of junk science is clear ! Get back to me when reputable scientists with advocacy ties do a peer reviewed study in a first line (not pay for play) journal…and it’s replicated. Short of that the science community will rely on real science and the 200+ studies that show glyphosate is less toxic than salt and some approved organic pesticides.

          • Unfortunately Jon, my one comment didn’t get printed when I asked you why daily other countries are banning GMOs and not accepting our crappy GMO food?! Glyphosate less toxic than salt! That is too funny! Now I’m guessing you work for Monsanto or some other chemical company! My discussion w/you is through!! Goodbye…

          • Cindy, I’ve censored none of your comments. As far you are citing of “bans” of GMOs as a useful indicator: There are about 120 major international science oversight organizations. Every single one of them has issued a statement saying that GMOs are safe. Here’s a link to a few of the major ones such as the World Health Organization and the National Academy of Sciences and the European Commission and European Food Safety Authority: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/08/27/glp-infographic-international-science-organizations-on-crop-biotechnology-safety/

            When the science score card reads 100+ to 0, that’s a pretty good consensus…as strong as the consensus on human induced global warming or evolution. Only Peru has banned GMOs based on the information I have. Other countries restrict GMOs in some fashion, such as not allowing cultivation, such as in the UK. But GMOs are in foods and in food grains eaten by animals that are then eaten (as non GMO labeled foods) by the population.

            Not one high level science organization in any western country that has restricted the use of GMOs in a political vote supports these restrictions; they were voted in by politicians–no western science organization has supported these restrictions. It’s political because of the hysteria generating success of organizations like yours–just like politicians in Kansas and Texas have voted in to teach creationism after crackpot anti-science groups lobbied against it. Political votes do not equal science. Get back to me when the National Academy of Sciences or the German Academy of Sciences or the French Academy of Sciences pulls its endorsement of the safety and sustainability of genetically modified foods.

            As for how glyphosate ranks in toxicity, this information has been widely publicized in science journals–which you and your organization obviously have zero interest in reading, as your goals are propaganda and not education/information. Here is one of dozens of comparison charts, this one published by the University of Florida: https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/PI/PI17000.pdf As you can see, glyphosate is far less toxic (lower numbers are more toxic) than salt, caffeine, bleach and many other substances. Here’s two fact sheets for you, if you want to create a little kerfuffle among your true believers and actually engage in MAINSTREAM SCIENCE: –http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.pdf
            http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor-glyphosate/glyphosate-ext.html

          • Hi Cindy, I’ll save you the trouble…
            A quote from a letter by Viljoen (2013) in Food and Chemical Toxicology:

            “Several studies have reported on the toxicity of commercial formulations of R and/or glyphosate on mammals, Nile tilapia and sea urchin (Clair et al., 2012; Daruich et al., 2001; Gasnier et al., 2009; Gui et al., 2012; Jiraungkoorskul et al., 2002; Koller et al., 2012; Malatesta et al., 2008b; Marc et al., 2002, 2004; Paganelli et al., 2010; Romano et al., 2012).

            Despite this, a recent industry sponsored review concluded that ‘‘the available literature shows no solid evidence linking glyphosate exposure to adverse developmental or reproductive effects at environmentally realistic exposure concentrations’’ (Williams et al., 2012). The authors of the latter suggest that where glyphosate toxicity has been observed, it is the result of ‘‘surfactants present in the formulations and not the direct result of glyphosate exposure’’. This argument is irrelevant since it is the formulation that is being applied in practice and is part of the ‘‘herbicide complex’’ of chemicals taken up by the plant.”

            In their response to Williams et al. (2012) by Bellé et al. (2012).
            http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1093
            They point out the following:
            1. “The authors consider our results as “not environmentally relevant” because of the concentrations used. The sentence was repeated five times in their article. This is a speculative assertion since (1) we observe effects at concentrations (8 mM affecting 100% of the individual cells at short time exposure) below the usage concentration (20 mM) of the herbicide. Therefore, regarding the considerable amount of glyphosate-based product sprayed worldwide, the concentration of Roundup in every single micro droplet is far above the threshold concentration that would activate the cell cycle checkpoint. (2) The effects we demonstrate were obtained by a short exposure time (minutes) of the cells to glyphosate based products, and nothing excludes that prolonged exposure to lower doses may also have effects. Since glyphosate is commonly found present in drinking water in many countries, low doses with long exposure by ingestion are a fact. The consequences of this permanent long term exposure remain to be further investigated but cannot just be ignored.”

            Bellé et al. (2012) also point out that:
            “The authors do not take into account in their interpretation of our results the very poor cell membrane permeability of pure glyphosate (Riechers et al. 1994), although they do state that “commercial formulations include a surfactant system . . . allowing penetration of the active ingredient.” Since our results were obtained for short exposure time at neutral pH, we ascribed the absence of cellular effect of pure glyphosate to this poor permeability. To our knowledge, pure glyphosate is not used as an herbicide in agriculture applications and we ignore whether, in such conditions, pure glyphosate is or not an herbicide.”

            In other words in pure form glyphosate cannot be taken up by the cell and that is why a surfactant is used. How many safety studies sponsored by industry have included surfactant? In an industry sponsored review of glyphosate, Williams et al. disregard the role of the surfactant in the uptake of glyphosate.

          • In a letter to the editor of Food and Chemical toxicology, Viljoen (2013) observed that “One of the most central issues relating to the safety of glyphosate tolerant GM crops, but which has been ignored in most studies, is whether the commercial herbicide should be included in the treatment practice of the crop being used in feeding studies. A search of the scientific literature regarding animal feeding studies to specifically determine the human safety of R crops, identified 16 studies …. In only three studies was the application of R” (Roundup) “noted but in two of these not further described as to allow experiments to be independently repeated. Thus, very few feeding trials assessing the safety of R tolerant GM corn, canola or soybean is certain to have used a product that is known to be comparable to what would be found in the food chain.”

            Viljoen (2013) further commented that “… a recent industry sponsored review concluded that ‘‘the available literature shows no solid evidence linking glyphosate exposure to adverse developmental or reproductive effects at environmentally realistic exposure concentrations’’ (Williams et al., 2012). The authors of the latter suggest that where glyphosate toxicity has been observed, it is the result of ‘‘surfactants present in the formulations and not the direct result of glyphosate exposure’’. This argument is irrelevant since it is the formulation that is being applied in practice and is part of the ‘‘herbicide complex’’ of chemicals taken up by the plant.”

            Bellé et al. (2012) have responded to Williams et al. (2012) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1093… and point out the following: “The authors consider our results as “not environmentally relevant” because of the concentrations used. The sentence was repeated five times in their article. This is a speculative assertion since (1) we observe effects at concentrations (8 mM affecting 100% of the individual cells at short time exposure) below the usage concentration (20 mM) of the herbicide. Therefore, regarding the considerable amount of glyphosate-based product sprayed worldwide, the concentration of Roundup in every single micro droplet is far above the threshold concentration that would activate the cell cycle checkpoint. (2) The effects we demonstrate were obtained by a short exposure time (minutes) of the cells to glyphosate based products, and nothing excludes that prolonged exposure to lower doses may also have effects. Since glyphosate is commonly found present in drinking water in many countries, low doses with long exposure by ingestion are a fact. The consequences of this permanent long term exposure remain to be further investigated but cannot just be ignored.”
            Furthermore, Bellé et al. (2012) also point out that “The authors do not take into account in their interpretation of our results the very poor cell membrane permeability of pure glyphosate (Riechers et al. 1994), although they do state that “commercial formulations include a surfactant system … allowing penetration of the active ingredient.” Since our results were obtained for short exposure time at neutral pH, we ascribed the absence of cellular effect of pure glyphosate to this poor permeability. To our knowledge, pure glyphosate is not used as an herbicide in agriculture applications and we ignore whether, in such conditions, pure glyphosate is or not an herbicide.”
            In other words in pure form glyphosate cannot be taken up by the cell and that is why a surfactant is used. So how many safety studies on glyphosate sponsored by industry and evaluated by the EPA have included surfactant? Basically none! In an industry sponsored review of glyphosate, Williams et al. disregard the role of the surfactant in the toxicity of glyphosate. So hat is why independent studies (that use the formulation) show toxicity, and industry sponsored studies (that use pure glyphosate) do not.

          • I’ve been eating food in the US since I was born (25 years ago) and I don’t have cancer, I’m not blind or pissing blood, and I don’t have a third ear. I’m sure most of that food was genetically modified. Pesticide isn’t the same as genetically modified produce.

          • You are wrong Celeste. He has considered your view point, and found it inaccurate… and just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are condescending to you.

          • Thanks for your opinion Ishmael. But I do not think that I am wrong in the fact that Entoman has been condescending in his argument and I don’t feel that he considered my viewpoint either. He puts down people that argue against them saying they are not smart and haven’t read about the subject. That is personal attack instead of a debate, therefore condescending..

          • Of course you don’t think you’re wrong but you are in fact wrong. You have based your opinions on demonstrably false claims. That’s not.meant to be condescending its trying to illustrate that the information you used to come to your conclusions is false, therefore when confronted by this truth you should reevaluate your position based on verifiable evidence. You refuse to do that and it’s incredibly frustrating to those of us trying to educate people on the facts about genetic modification.

            As to the point of Mr. entine not considering your point of view, While scientists use expert consensus as a benchmark it should not be misconstrued to mean science is democratic. Scientific evidence cares nothing for the sensibilities of the human condition such as “opinion” or “belief”. So while you may be entitled to your beliefs you are not entitled to be free of criticism of those beliefs, especially when those beliefs run contrary to the evidence or as in the case of your criticisms of GMOs are found to be completely unfounded

          • I believe in science just as much as you gmo supporters do, who always claim that we are science deniers. In fact I would like to have a bit more scientific studies on this issue. Your so called consensus is not in all actuality quite true, when looking at the 64 Nations have either banned or labeled GMOs and Over 130 nations who have signed on to the Cartagena Protocol, an agreement to take the precautionary principle regarding GMOs.
            Also, we don’t label ingredients because they are dangerous. We label all ingredients because it is our right to know what is in our food.

          • Celeste, As a scientist, I’m always glad to see more data (!), but what SPECIFIC study do you think needs to be done to distinguish crops that have been modified by biotech versus alternative technology?

          • The GM organisms may be expressing genes combinations that do not currently exist in our food chain. So the same studies that would be done for the FDA, for any new chemical being sold into the human food chain, should be applied here.

          • Long term studies on animals, from birth to death and several generations onwards, eating GMO’s would be welcome.

          • He DID consider your viewpoint; if he didn’t read it and consider it, he couldn’t reply to specific points, could he? He would just say “you’re wrong”. But he went through your argument bit by bit, and explained what was wrong with each point. He read your argument, he considered it, and he found it to be incorrect in the face of evidence, and then pointed that out.

            Not considering an argument would result in the person simply saying “you’re wrong”, refusing to read it, refusing to respond to what you were actually arguing, etc etc.

          • It’s hard to not get condescending when the person is a cult member that refuses to adjust their beliefs with the input of new information.

          • “writing people and telling them they are not accurate” is informing them of their factual error in hopes that they will go out and EDUCATE THEMSELVES on the topic and not stick to their outdated or erroneous information… Like how Creationists continue to use arguments to support their cause that have been utterly debunked decades ago… But they’re cult members, as you seem to be, and thus don’t allow reality and new data to contaminate their preconceived beliefs. “Beliefs” as in “A View Held WIthout or i the Face of Contradictory Evidence”.

          • um, wtf? Many instances of genetic engineering ARE fundementally different than ‘conventional breeding’, specifically when they allow researchers to selectively inject the genes of a bacterium or plant into the genetic sequence of a fish or mammal. it’s incredibly disingenuous to suggest otherwise. hybridization is ONE thing, but creating pesticide-resistant (that will POISON insects) plants is another.

          • Genetic modification adds something to the cell structure.
            So the nutrition may be the same, but what does the extra DNA and proteins they produce do?
            Unless we have GMO labelling we would never be able to trace it.
            Is the rise in allergic reactions due to GMO’s? Obesity? Irritable bowel syndrome?
            We are doing a long term study on people with no way of tracing it.
            By labelling things GMO or Organic if you must protest, then there will be a way to trace the effects of GMO’s.

          • Genetic modification adds something to the cell structure.
            So the nutrition may be the same, but what does the extra DNA and proteins they produce do?
            Unless we have GMO labelling we would never be able to trace it.
            Is the rise in allergic reactions due to GMO’s? Obesity? Irritable bowel syndrome?
            We are doing a long term study on people with no way of tracing it.
            By labelling things GMO or Organic if you must protest, then there will be a way to trace the effects of GMO’s.

          • See my statement on “Seeds of Deception”.
            It’s not cross breading where genes are being swapped between plants of known lineage and characteristics.

            It’s blasting genes onto DNA and disrupting the DNA sequence.

            They say that a lot of effects would make the food worse, such as;
            – Inserting into the middle of other genes destroying or altering their functionality
            – having the gene on all the time (by using a protein that keeps the gene turned on continuously) in all the cells so that the poison or protein is always being produced throughout the plant

            Etc. See below…

      • When I switched to eating more whole foods (preparing my own vegetables and meat), avoiding sugar, eating less starch (e.g. aren’t pancakes just cake for breakfast? Go back to bacon and eggs!), processed foods and GMO’s it helped me.

        – The eczema on my fingertips, I had for 10 years, cleared up!

        Regardless avoiding GMO’s will automatically help you avoid processed foods, sugar and starches.
        —–
        Don’t let people bully you. It doesn’t matter how many times they say there is no evidence, because there is.
        ——
        See “Seeds of Deception”
        From what I’ve read inserting new genes by (e.g. shooting GENE covered gold flecks into DNA) causes a lot of effects that would make the food worse, such as;
        – Inserting into the middle of other genes destroying or altering their functionality
        – having the gene on all the time (by using a protein that keeps the gene turned on continuously) in all the cells so that the poison or protein is always being produced throughout the plant (This I assume would lead to lower nutrition since the plant is spending a lot of it’s resources producing a toxin continuously)
        – the activator may be turning on inactive genes that produce toxins or by producing more of a protein than normal produces unwanted protein production (e.g. 30,000 genes in the human body produce 80,000 different proteins -> a protein has more than one function)
        – Altering the function of other genes due to the fact that genes interact in a complicated way with each other and not singly as Genetic Modification assumes
        – using marker genes, that are cheaper, but promote anti-biotic resistance
        – the addition of extra DNA that my produce toxins
        – proteins that are possibly allergenic being added to foods that are normally not allergenic

    • Read “Seeds of Deception”
      From what I’ve read inserting new genes by (e.g. shooting GENE covered gold flecks into DNA) causes a lot of effects that would make the food worse, such as;
      – Inserting into the middle of other genes destroying or altering their functionality
      – having the gene on all the time (by using a protein that keeps the gene turned on continuously) in all the cells so that the poison or protein is always being produced throughout the plant (This I assume would lead to lower nutrition since the plant is spending a lot of it’s resources producing a toxin continuously)
      – the activator may be turning on inactive genes that produce toxins or by producing more of a protein than normal produces unwanted protein production (e.g. 30,000 genes in the human body produce 80,000 different proteins -> a protein has more than one function)
      – Altering the function of other genes due to the fact that genes interact in a complicated way with each other and not singly as Genetic Modification assumes
      – using marker genes, that are cheaper, but promote anti-biotic resistance
      – the addition of extra DNA that my produce toxins
      – proteins that are possibly allergenic being added to foods that are normally not allergenic
      —–
      When I switched to eating more whole foods (preparing my own vegetables and meat), avoiding sugar, eating less starch (e.g. aren’t pancakes just cake for breakfast? Go back to bacon and eggs!), preparing my own food and processed foods and GMO’s it helped me.
      – The eczema on my fingertips, I had for 10 years, cleared up!
      —–
      Don’t let people bully you. It doesn’t matter how many times they say there is no evidence, because there is.

    • When I switched to eating more whole foods (preparing my own vegetables and meat), avoiding sugar, eating less starch (e.g. aren’t pancakes just cake for breakfast? Go back to bacon and eggs!), processed foods and GMO’s it helped me.

      – The eczema on my fingertips, I had for 10 years, cleared up!

      Regardless avoiding GMO’s will automatically help you avoid processed foods, sugar and starches.
      —–
      Don’t let people bully you. It doesn’t matter how many times they say there is no evidence, because there is.
      ——
      See “Seeds of Deception”
      From what I’ve read inserting new genes by (e.g. shooting GENE covered gold flecks into DNA) causes a lot of effects that would make the food worse, such as;
      – Inserting into the middle of other genes destroying or altering their functionality
      – having the gene on all the time (by using a protein that keeps the gene turned on continuously) in all the cells so that the poison or protein is always being produced throughout the plant (This I assume would lead to lower nutrition since the plant is spending a lot of it’s resources producing a toxin continuously)
      – the activator may be turning on inactive genes that produce toxins or by producing more of a protein than normal produces unwanted protein production (e.g. 30,000 genes in the human body produce 80,000 different proteins -> a protein has more than one function)
      – Altering the function of other genes due to the fact that genes interact in a complicated way with each other and not singly as Genetic Modification assumes
      – using marker genes, that are cheaper, but promote anti-biotic resistance
      – the addition of extra DNA that my produce toxins
      – proteins that are possibly allergenic being added to foods that are normally not allergenic

  9. So if they are safe why do they fight tooth and nail not to label them? We label fat content, Sugar content, etc… Why not state the way the ingredients or the food was grown? Don’t people have the right to this as consumers? Why all the secrecy?

    • Because unnecessary bureaucratic overhead costs everybody, mainly consumers, a lot of money. Unless there’s a good reason for labeling, compulsion is inappropriate. If the FDA cannot be trusted to decide what is safe and needs to be labeled, it should be disbanded. Otherwise, it should be heeded (albeit not blindly).

      • The FDA should not be trusted and we have seen this in case after case in history. From DDT, PCBs and rBGH (which by the way were all Monsanto products) they have been released and promoted in public, then later find out they cause cancer. So…
        Also, the FDA doesn’t actually perform any scientific tests, they require the companies, in this case Monsanto, to send them their test results in order to show they are safe.
        Therefore, we need to make our own informed decisions. Ergo- labeling is clearly justified.

        • The FDA funds some studies and reviews all of the critical ones necessary to make an independent evaluation. That takes years of careful evaluation and research. Many international organizations actually fund and oversee studies, such as the European Commission (which endorses the safety of GMOs despite the opposition by politicians–science matters.) There have been more than 1000 independent studies of genetically modified crops. Not one study in a major journal has found any health or safety related problems linked to the process of GMOs. Science may not matter to you, but it does to the World Health Organisation, the EU, the National Academy of Sciences and every major independent science organization in the world. Obviously, the science conflicts with your religious views about science; we see this all the time in people who are opposed to teaching evolutionary theory. But please, don’t confuse religion and ideology with science.

          • “The FDA funds some studies and reviews all of the critical ones necessary to make an independent evaluation.” that’s a very political statement. it’s called ‘double-talk’, in that what you are in fact saying , is that the FAD does not test, why don’t you leave politics out of heath issues, and don’t intentionally leave out all the scientific findings that have led to European and other foreign countries, and even the main island of Hawaii disallowing the planting of GMO seeds…there are still a few people left alive, that believe that mother nature is a bit more intelligent than people with a bunch of letters at the end of their name, whom sense themselves as Demi-Gods~~~.

          • Buster,

            The EFSA is the central body that reviews the safety of foods in Europe. Unfortunately, many individual governments have overruled the EFSA when it comes to GMO-derived foods. (Check out their site http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/panels/gmo.htm )

            Europe is a sad case of politics trumping science, but there’s no reason why the US needs to join the other lemmings.

            “Mother nature” is incredibly dumb, but this is not the place to get into an intelligent design debate. However, you raise an important point: the current Western trend towards anti-rational/anti-science decision making is a major threat to our society. Fortunately, there are a handful of websites like this that are trying to help us from slipping back into the Dark Ages.

          • You really think it is rational and scientific thinking that leads society? What society is this, and how do I join it?

          • Bravo. The conundrum continues, though. Science illiteracy breeds distrust and fear, embracing of pseudo-science. Ignorant are easily manipulated.

        • here is the problem with that belief. even if monsanto and the fda could manipulate all the studies in the usa, there were studies outside of tis influence. it would take millions of dollars tp bribe the studies in other countries, much more than bribing in the nation.

          i will say that we need to be careful with genetically modified materials though. the unknown is feared, but not always unfoundly.

      • Well it should be disbanded then because NO government agency can be trusted. Especially when those government agencies start hiring insiders of the the GMO crowd like ‘Michael Taylor who is now the senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. Sure that’s no conflict of interest now is it?

      • Well, the FDA cannot be trusted so let the disbanding begin. Do you realize how many billions of taxpayer dollars go to subsidizing already enormously profitable agribusiness? Their farming method is unsustainable; their greed-driven business is too. If they didn’t receive those hundreds of billions of dollars from taxpayers, a hamburger would cost about $35.

    • Insiders claim is indicating lack of understanding that even if they are biased by being insiders – it doesn’t matter, because reproducible science is reproducible. Total avoidance of science as the solution to the debate whether they are corrupt, why because if you’re selling malarkey you don’t want science to disprove your malarkey. Yes people who have scientifically proven their claim is correct. Do want the question resolved scientifically, but those who don’t want it solved scientifically are the corrupt. Science is unbiased – but pseudo science is biased.

    • They fight tooth and nail because a big, fat, “CONTAINS GMOs” label on the food suggests that it is unhealthy, which it is not, and it will be very bad for Monsanto’s profits. I would do the same thing if I was Monsanto.

      • I would like GMO food labelled, so I can make my own choice. Vote with my wallet.

        That’s capitalism.

        Corporations influencing or denying people the choice is corporate non-sense. It’s not free capitalism and it’s not letting the market decide.

        People being able to decide for themselves, is democracy. Companies influencing what we can know collusion and fraud.

        What Monsanto wants is less important that what individual people want.
        —–
        Big corporations don’t care about people’s health or the environment, so they should never be allowed to be in charge.

        They work for us, not the other way around.

        • If you had taken a single biology course, you’d know that the DNA alterations performed on the plants you’re talking about would have no effect on you or the food’s safety. Plant DNA doesn’t transcribe onto human DNA (I don’t have time to explain this, read a biology textbook for more info.) Even if you were the only human being on the planet for whom this was a possibility, the combination of digestive enzymes in your mouth and intestines combined with acids in your stomach destroys whatever DNA isn’t cooked out of your food to begin with. You eat about a gram of DNA per day, which is about 225 billion base pairs. In contrast, a single strand of human DNA contains about 3.2 billion base pairs. In other words, if it were possible for GM plant genes to affect you, then you would already have sprouted udders, or at least feathers by now.

          GM crops don’t PRODUCE any toxins; they’re simply immune to certain ones that kill other plants.

          I’m just not sure how you can ‘vote with your wallet’ when you’ve got absolutely no clue what you’re ‘voting’ about. Oh well. Guess that’s ‘Murica for you.

    • Troll, Labels have always had the requirement of being scientifically justified. Not only is this true, but I think you actually agree with it too:

      The Astrologist believes that the phase of the moon upon harvest impacts the health and safety of food. The Astrologist calls for labeling the phase of the moon upon harvest in the name of ‘more consumer information’. Do you believe this should also be labeled? After all, it meets all of the logical requirements in your post for “no secrecy”, “right to know”, etc etc.

      Or, just perhaps, would you be willing to admit that even you think that anti-science ideas should not be labeled?

    • If you’re not a rapist, why would you fight having a big red sign that reads ‘RAPIST’ stuck in your front yard?

      Labeling GMOs implies that there is a significant difference between them and their non-GMO counterparts, and that eating GMO foods poses a specific health risk. Neither is true, labeling as if it is the case is lying. Anyone who wants to avoid all GMO foods can do so right now by buying only certified organic foods.

      Some people might believe that eating crops harvested under the full moon will turn them into a werewolf. Holding this unsubstantiated belief doesn’t give them the right to have ‘not werewolf safe’ labels on everything, nor should the rest of us have to pay for werewolf labeling. A law mandating werewolf labeling would give credence to their lycanthropy/full moon harvested food theory, cause farmers to change their harvesting habits for no good reason, and deepen consumer’s ignorance on the matter.

  10. I am seriously confused after reading this. I have seen tons of studies and etc. stating that GMOs are bad for the environment. So, clearly either the studies that say GMOs are bad is wrong or these studies are wrong. But, how do you know which one is true or not since they are both scientific studies. Someone has to be wrong then. Well, here is a list of studies and articles talking about how GMOs are bad: http://www.organicauthority.com/foodie-buzz/eight-reasons-gmos-are-bad-for-you.html
    http://www.scienceandsociety.emory.edu/GMO/Environment.htm

    A quote from a website shows that your studies are not valid because GMOs are not very new and we have not had enough time to see the effects of them on environment and people. “Many GMOs are so new that we haven’t had time to weight the effects, good or bad, of these items. Foods such as Bt-resistant corn may be making the world safer, by reducing the need for pesticide sprays. However, they may cause trouble for the environment in other, as-yet undiscovered, ways.”
    http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/gmos-good-or-bad-planet.

    • Josh, I’m not quite sure how to respond. I can assure you you have not seen “tons of studies…stating that GMOs are bad for the environment,” as there are none–zero. There are claims on websites, such as “organicauthority.com”, but that’s not a science site; it’s an activist site. As the scientific article in this article points out, there have been more than 1700 studies in the years 2002-2012 alone, and well more than 2200 studies in total, and not one study in a major peer reviewed science publication has found any environmental or safety problems that are unique to GMOs. Some studies have pointed out that the use of some GMO seeds can lead to superweeds, but that’s also true of conventional seeds–it has nothing to do with the type of seed and everything to do with crop management, rotation of crops, etc. GMO crops have been in existence for more than 30 years and have been planted for more than 17 years. There is not one safety or health or environmental issue that has been identified in the world unique to GMOs. Mainstream scientists–not fringe organic or anti-GMO websites–overwhelmingly endorse the environmental and health safety of GMOs. I’m talking real, independent scientists–the World Health Organisation, the National Academy of Sciences, the European Food Safety Authority, the European Commission, the German Academy of Sciences—more than 100 organizations in all. Here is a list with links of major organizations: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/08/27/glp-infographic-international-science-organizations-on-crop-biotechnology-safety/#.Uqvtv42j_uI . There are no mainstream scientists critical of GMOs. (Some people can raise legitimate questions about conventional agricultural practices, but that is a different debate that’s often lumped in with the GMO discussion.) That should tell you something about the credibility of “professional critics.”

      • What is your definition of a mainstream scientists? Those that agree with your position? And those that don’t agree with are not mainstream scientists ..right? So you always win? Clever and shady.

        • Mainstream scientists are ones that do not have an avowed position and do not belong to corporate or advocacy groups. So independent scientists with links to the National Academy of Sciences or the World Health Organization or the German Academy of Sciences are mainstream; a scientist for Monsanto or any of the scientists with ENSEER (European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility) which is an anti-GMO front group of fringe scientists are not. Actually very clear. As of today, there are almost no mainstream independent scientists that question the safety of GM crops…far fewer than question the validity of evolution or man-made climate. That’s what makes them “fringe.”

          • I think both sides are guilty of this including you Jon:

            “Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1]People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence),belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

            A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people’s conclusions. Explan

      • “I can assure you you have not seen “tons of studies…stating that GMOs are bad for the environment,” as there are none–zero”
        Whoa. That’s not right. The biggest doubts that independent scientists raise with our current GMOs are environmental.

    • I would suggest, Josh, for you to look at publications from scientific journals, not the sources you cited. They are pointed and not based in science. Scientific journals have to go through a peer review process, reviewed by other scientists that had nothing to do with the study, to make sure they are valid. The biggest thing when dealing with getting conflicting information, is knowing how to find the empirical evidence through credible sources, to see the information yourself.

  11. The US organic food industry is worth more than $30 billion dollars a year—more than triple the sales of food-related products by Monsanto or DuPont. This is big business with vested interests and political influence.

  12. GENERA is not an “independent” organization, their board of directors is made up of pro-GMO and biotech industry people, especially David Tribe, a viscious and vociferous pro-GMO blogger, zealot and internet comment troller. GENERA even co-ops the term ‘Franken Food’ and twists it into a cuddly mascot.

    GENERA has an agenda, they say so right in their website: “the claim that there is no science, hardly any science, or only industry science conducted on genetically engineered crops kept coming up. Some would say that the few independent studies always found problems.
    Dr. David Tribe started to assemble a list of studies to refute these claims, and to show the studies that support the safety of these crops for consumption, the environment, etc.”

    http://www.biofortified.org/2013/10/making-sense-of-lists-of-studies/

    In other words, the whole “list” has a predetermined outcome, to “refute the claims”. It’s politically motivated, and as such, pure propaganda.
    Fucking hilarious.

    • Brad, if you curse again you will be banned from this list forever and your comments expunged. The GLP welcomes healthy discussions.

      As for “independent,” the word is not defined as “agrees with Brad.” Independent means that the person or organization is not being paid for their views or is financially or ideologically compromised by pre-determined conclusions independent of what the empirical evidence suggests . Someone who works for Syngeneta or Greenpeace would not be considered “independent” even if he/she did great research. Each individual’s research should be evaluated on its on merits, and no one should embrace or dismiss research or analysis from someone with documentable industry or ideological ties–but he/she would not be independent.

      Whatever you may think of the scientists at Biofortified, the organization and the scientists are the epitome of independent. They do not take industry money. Their work is well respected in the science community. Their research is grounded in empirical data and reflects the consensus of 95% of the mainstream genetics community.

      The fact that their basic conclusion–that they reject simplistic and erroneous claims that there are few or mostly flawed studies demonstrating the basic safety of GMOs–happens to conform with the views of every major independent science organization in the world–bar none–does not by some twisted logic make them not independent.

      Also, as far as I know, and I am quite familiar with their work and writings, no one affiliated with Biofortified has taken a “political” stand on any issue related to agricultural biotechnology, as you insinuated

      Because of YOUR ideological view of science you may reject their individual conclusions; you may consider the World Health Organisation and the National Academy of Sciences promoters of ‘junk science.’ You’d be wrong on all these accounts, but you are welcome to your opinions, however misguided. You are not welcome to manipulate the facts though.

  13. Most of the problems in genetic engineering will probably be solved by paradigm advances in physics in string theory.
    The main problem the Food and Chemical Toxicology Editor claimed was the reason for the extraction of Dr. Seralini, PhD.’s article was the use of only 10 rats per male and female groups.”Concerning the statistical power in a t test at 5%, with the comparison of 2 samples of 10 rats, there is a 44% chance to miss a significant effect of 1 standard deviation (SD; power 56%)(1.)
    However, Dr. Seralini’s, extracted research design was nearly identical with Monsanto’s animal feeding studies for NK 603, MON 810, MON 863 [Sprague-Dawley albino strain, with 10 rats per gender group]. But Monsanto’s designs were only 90 days, while Dr. Seralini’s design found rats fed Round up Ready’s glyphosate for 2 years, developed cancer tumors.
    Thus Monsanto’s NK 603, MON 810, MON 863 corns, ethically should be time wise/intelligently recalled [extracted] because their experimental safety design has a 44 % chance the corn could be toxic. In fact Dr. Seralini did a more competent statistical analysis of Monsanto’s original studies, and found indeed Monsanto’s lab rats had signs of liver and kidney diseases (2.).
    There are many other peer reviewed research studies showing Monsanto’s paradigm is flawed and dangerous. Here are just a few.
    According to the Journal of Insect Conservation and Diversity, published in 2012, By Dr. Brower, PhD., and replicated in the Journal of Insect Conservation and Diversity, published in 2012, by Dr. Oberhauser , PhD., 90 % of Midwest milkweed has been destroyed inadvertently by glyphosate. A subsequent 80% of the Midwest monarch butterfly population has been decimated.
    According to a study published in Entropy, 2013 (3.), glyphosate is connected to gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. There are over 250 research articles cited in this review article.
    Medical research published in Chemical Research in Toxicology, shows glyphosate and glyphosate based herbicides, “interfere with key molecular mechanisms regulating early development in both Xenopus and chicken embryos, leading to congenital malformations… The phenotypes obtained after GBH treatments or injections of glyphosate alone are strikingly reminiscent of those observed as a consequence of an excess of RA signaling in vertebrates and humans,” exposed to aerial glyphosate and spraying (4.).
    An approximated 0.07368 parts per million (ppm) of herbicide glyphosate were found in Canadian non-pregnant women’s blood. These women live in cities away from farms. Worst of all, trace amounts, 0.00014 ppm, of the corn’s GE bacterial insecticide, Bt-Cry1Ab, were found in the fetuses of Canadian pregnant women, according to Reproductive Toxicology, published in 2011 (5.). This is the area of highest danger in Monsanto’s flawed paradigm: damage to the human fetus and/or fetal DNA mutations from exposure to Monsanto’s herbicides and insecticides.
    The study which was extracted has incredible statistical analyses, useful for teaching fast track high school seniors destined for DNA research: multivariate analysis, principal component analysis (PCA), partial least- squares to latent structures (PLS), and orthogonal PLS (OPLS). This study should be reintroduced into Food and Chemical Toxicology, as a “blueprint” design for the benefit of humanity. A minimum 100 replications should be made by scientists like Dr. Seralini, who are not funded by biotech corporations, using the same design but especially with large rat samples, 100 to 1,000 per gender group.
    Digital PCR should be used in all US hospitals to precisely quantify how many of all of Monsanto’s copyright toxins are in human blood. Correlations and potential co-morbidity variables can thus be established, especially for pediatric illnesses. -Will Davis

    • There are zero long term controlled studies on humans on any food or chemical…not one. Obviously you have no understanding of testing methodologies. Essentially, what you are saying is that you reject the consensus view of the World Health Organisation and the National Academy of Sciences and every major independent science organization in the world…now that’s a firm platform to voice your views.

      • You’re right about foods, wrong about chemicals. That’s one of the ways GMOs have been able to slip by relatively unnoticed. But in my opinion they need to be studied much more extensively considering their application on society.

        • GMOs have not “slipped by” anyone. No agricultural products in history have been more carefully and extensively studied, and to date there is not one health related incident–not so much as a sniffle–linked to the consumption of foods whose ingredients have been modified by genetic engineering. Contrast that with the thousands of deaths linked to the consumption or organic foods, where oversight is almost nonexistent.

          And I repeat: there has been no–not one–long term controlled study on humans on any food or chemical. Too many variables; the data would be useless and the exercise unethical.

          • Please tell me you’re being sarcastic. If not you’ve just summed up why biotech giants are run by sociopaths and why supporters are almost as bad.

          • “it would be very easy to accomplish this in a prison setting”….unless I am misunderstanding this , it seems like you are suggesting the use of prisoners to be the test subjects to determine the safety of GM foods. It is you whom we hope is being sarcastic.

          • Well considering that the general public is currently being used as the test subjects, I fail to see how using prisoners is any more unethical.

    • Hi Pit Boss. I understand where you’re coming from, but it’s almost impossible to think of how to do such a study, even if you wanted to. You would need to have hundreds of closely-matched people, for a period of years, all eating EXACTLY the same food, with the only difference being the food source.

      Even for a SHORT-TERM safety study, the only ethical study is for drugs that have the potential benefit of treating a disease: it’s not ethical to deliberately give people substances that you believe will be toxic. For example, even though we know that lead is toxic to animals, we cannot test how toxic it is in humans.

      Even if you could do such a study, what would you test for? There are literally hundreds of possible changes in the human body, many of which would only show up after autopsy. I, personally, do not support the idea of hundreds of dead bodies on an autopsy slab, looking for changes that we have no reason to expect to occur, based on our prior knowledge.

      Finally, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of compounds in foods that we already know are toxic in test animals at HIGH doses. Are you advocating that we ban mustard or carrots until we have long-term human safety studies on these, too?

      • We have been eating those food like mustard for millennium, so we feel we don’t need to test them. But now we know some people can’t eat some foods due to allergies. No we didn’t advocate a ban, but we did get labelling, which is what the public are asking for with GM. The refusal of which is creating the primary barrier to consumption, through the perception of the removal of people’s choice.

        The second barrier is the failure of anyone to prove to the consumer that these new unique foods are safe, and its a crop by crop decision, no matter how little difference the modification makes to the end product. It may be a minor, but it is a distinct difference, due largely to the extent this was proclaimed when GM was first marketed. We got that it was new, but not now that some are trying to forced us to eat it.

        In the face of a change. we tend to rely on what we know, until the new is proven safe. The alternative is to blindly accept something in the knowledge it may harm us.

        If we make a major food crop toxic to humans, that would be a tragedy, and the death-knell of any company that produced the seed. Caution is due.

        • Bruce, no food can be “proven” safe. Any food has the potential to harm someone dependent upon their individual biology. Labeling a food as “GM” or “organic” provides no scientific information as to potential safety of any individual food. For a label to be meaningful, every single food, regardless of how it was grown or what seeds were used, would have to least every single protein and also how each of those proteins could interact with each other. That’s impossible to do. Short of that, labeling as is being discussed…saying something is GMO or not…is both useless and deceptive. It conveys no actionable information from a science or medical point of view.

  14. You can’t prove safety of modified food, you can only fail to prove it’s unsafe. These studies are short-term. That means probably that 99% of the mice didn’t die eating the stuff. What it means for humans over a life-span of 80 years, and/or in the next generation, who knows? It took quite a while, from the bonfires of our ancestors till 30 years ago when it was found by epidemiological studies that charcoaled food enhances the risk of cancer.

    Natural adaptation to novel molecules in food takes many generations. One of the most recent was lactose-tolerance. People that died from lactose-intolerance while switching to dairy products have been eliminated from the gene pool, guided by natural selection over thousands of years. Are the Genetic Modifiers counting on the same selection mechanism perhaps?

    But let’s assume 99 or even 99.9% of the mice didn’t die in all these studies, probably sponsored by the same companies that have invested a lot in GGOs. Wouldn’t there be a perk for clinicians in favorable studies? Would studies be included that yielded less favorable results? If not, that would be amazing since it’s common practice in clinical trials of drugs.

    Drugs, however, are life-saving, even if not all the side-effects have been accounted for yet when they are released. Modified food isn’t necessary at all, we don’t need it. So why not err on the safe side and just stick to natural food that has been around for many thousands of years? Or will we at least have the choice by clear labeling of the stuff? Currently, the Modifiers are lobbying intensively to avoid any labeling, for instance in the EU.

    Will GGOs reduce hunger and poverty by higher yield? I’ve lived for some years in a very “poor” area, median income 2$/day/family. Nobody was hungry there, reverting to subsistence farming and cattle-raising in a natural way. They might need more land to grow natural products instead of GGOs, but that’s how it always has been and why should they change to something that risks to be a poison in the long run?

    Consumer food GGOs are not about any scientific advance. They are just about more money for the Modifiers.

    • Your post makes no scientific sense. You can say the exact same thing about our entire food supply. Almost every grain, fruit and vegetable has been modified, in an accelerating rate, over centuries, but mostly in recent decades. Novel combinations of genes have been created. Moreover, mutagenesis–dousing seeds with radiation and chemicals, which can result in organic grains, fruits and vegetables (eg: organic ruby red grapefruits) have created thousands–about 3,000+–new novel foods in the past four decades. None has been tested, and by your ‘theory’ should be evaluated over many generations and could well result in health problems. Of course your ‘theory’, from a science perspective, is total bull. (and your charcoal analogy ridiculous). Our bodies are adapted to deal with many changes in the environment, including barrages of bacteria which assault us every day…so the entire thesis is silly. And in fact, GMOs are precisely evaluated and tested…unlike the ‘mutated’ foods we eat every day, including 95% of your daily diet. Please, take a genetics 101 course….

      • Nice red herring. He’s 100% correct. There is no effort in the biotech community to prove safety over time. They can, but apparently don’t have to so they don’t. We’re consuming things that our bodies are rejecting, but since there are no long-term controlled studies they can claim “everything is safe” and proceed to call you an anti-science monster if you dare question the path we’re on. Biotech has proven itself to be nothing but a whole lot of empty promises disguised as science.

        Perfect example: Nutrasweet (aspartame). Monsanto’s miracle sweetener that’s 100% safe. At least, that’s what they said when they released it in the 80s. The FDA approved it with no problem, just like they do with every new GM crop. Do a search for aspartame side effects and see what science thinks of this stuff now, 30 years later.

        You don’t hear much about this, because big ag’s money keeps it from getting out. They have a long history of threatening news stations with lawsuits when they dare attempt to investigate one of their products.

        You sure seem to have some scummy friends.

    • Well stated! However, simple logic doesn’t seem to affect the pro-GMO strawmen posting here. Too much profits and too many GMO-careers at stake I guess, gotta stick with the propaganda as long as possible…

  15. Regardless of the merits of GMO’s, the industrial farming system is inherently unsustainable and destructive to the environment. Arguing for the safety of a technology, while its implementation does more damage than it solves, is pretty fruitless.

    • Howard, you can argue that the “industrial farming system is inherently unsustainable” or that “technology…does more damage that it solves”, but those are minority views among sustainability experts, farmers and economists, including organic farmers, who heavily rely on advanced technology (have you ever been to a medium or large scale organic farm?). What is clearly unsustainable is organic/small scale farming. It’s less productive, eats up resources and results in gobbling up of land as food demand skyrockets–it’s a direct path to global food insecurity. I recommend, for example, that you read a well known progressives take on this issue, “The Infinite Resources” by Ramez Naam.

  16. Anyone who agrees gmos are safe… hahahahah in your face … I rather not be a Monsanto lab rat thank you very much… Lolol Bann Gmos Im signing every petition out there to ban gmo in The Usa

  17. Thank you, JoAnna Wendel, for this article. It has been very useful for pointing people claiming this hasn’t been studied to one place where they can see a summary.

  18. I participated in a blind study. My skin itches, then gets pustules, then falls off within 10 mins of eating GMO’s… I was one of those people who thought anti gmo people were just loony or trying to start some kind of fad.. I was wrong.. do your own research don’t listen to talk..people can and will say anything for money in this society. I tried to post pics of my hands with and without gmos’s but your site kept deleting them!! So if anyone would like to see they could contact me personally..by the way I worked in the health field for 10yrs.

  19. Affirm? You can’t affirm safety. The only thing you can prove under a study is that under those condition and methods used in the study, the following results that were measured happened. Plus, the vast majority of those studies on the spreadsheet were not testing the toxicology of GMOs at all. Even those studies with a title that supposedly meant they were conducting toxicology studies were just articles on how to conduct a tox study on GMOs if one was actually done.

  20. This is from one of the studies: “The 90-day-long tests are insufficient to evaluate chronic toxicity, and the signs highlighted in the kidneys and livers could be the onset of chronic diseases. However, no minimal length for the tests is yet obligatory for any of the GMOs cultivated on a large scale, and this is socially unacceptable in terms of consumer health protection. We are suggesting that the studies should be improved and prolonged, as well as being made compulsory, and that the sexual hormones should be assessed too, and moreover, reproductive and multigenerational studies ought to be conducted too.” Here is the link: http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10

  21. The world is depleting resources so fast and farmlands are getting damaged daily and becoming wastelands. In case we really want to stop global warming and still feed the ever increasing population with limited resources GM is the only way to go. GM is all about reducing the number of years required to get a specific trait in a crop. If we would have been slectively breeding we would have grown the same genes in our crop we now have to fight diseases in 100 odd years. Stopping the journey of GM because of politics is a deterrent to science. Remember that rice was also a grass and it took many centuries to make it rice through slective breeding. We just do not have that much of time now.

      • Bzzzt! 100% wrong. Bacterial transfer of genes from bacteria into plants (transduction & transformation) is happening all the time, and has been taking place ever since the beginnings of life on this planet. It’s happening also between bacteria and animals, including in your own gut, right now, “as we speak”. That’s how genes get around, and it’s the reason that you share about half of your own genes with the plants that you eat. It’s an entirely natural process, and none of it is in the least bit controlled by humans. You just didn’t know it. You should seek more knowledge before posting things that are not true.

  22. all you have to do is eat a GMO “pretty” tomato (with zero taste) and then compare it to an heirloom tomato to realize the difference and that the way science has destroyed that one example is criminal.

  23. If GMO’s are so “safe” and great for us why are the biotech companies along with the GMA pouring millions into anti-labeling campaigns, what are they afraid of? Not to mention the fact that GMO’s have been outlawed all together in several countries and more to come as well.

    • It’s been outlawed in Peru and Saudi Arabia, I believe–that’s it. The NY Times, Scientific American, American Medical Association, LA Times, Oregonian, National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science oppose labeling as its deceptive to the consumer since foods with GMOs are functionally and nutritionally identical to non-GMO versions (though they can be superior if enhanced with vitamins…that should indeed be labeled when that’s the case.

      • Actually John, Russia, China, Mexico, France, and Argentina have banned all GMO importation and planting of GMO seed for certain crops like corn and soy.

      • Oh, the food industry wants to draw the line at GMO labeling as misleading… There’s no reason for them not to allow GMO labeling for those that want to make the choice. The labels are going to be reworked soon anyways for the new nutritional layout, might as well get it done at the same time so it doesn’t cost extra.

          • Really?

            Chemicals are used in organic food production.
            Natural is a man made term. It is a philosophical term.

            Did you read the FDA labeling rules yet?

          • Which makes my point. They allow that but don’t want to allow companies (there active efforts to make laws banning it) to choose to label their food GMO free.

          • You do not understand the issue. You do not understand labeling rules. You seem to think it is some sort of conspiracy, yet you have not offered anything to show that GMOs need a warning label.

            As for grains, you are never going to get GMO free. Even if you have GMO free grains, they will be mix in with GMO grains.

            There are so many problems with labeling that anti-GMO people ignore.

            “The consumer should know” is not a valid argument.

          • I didn’t say GMOs need a warning label. I said companies that don’t use GMOs should be allowed to label as such. There are active efforts to create federal laws to prevent that.

          • I see lots of products with labels that say, “GMO FREE”

            I saw some orange juice that was labeled GMO FREE. That is funny. Currently there are no GMO oranges used to make orange juice. That is like putting a NO FAT label on a watermelon.

            Where can I read about the effort to stop this?
            They would have to change the FDA labeling rules to not allow “GMO FREE” labels.

            link?

          • I apologize, I went back, reread, and realize I misread the article. It was only a reference to preventing states from allowing it.

            As far as the no GMO label on orange juice, you could compare it to a NO FAT label on watermelon juice, but not on a watermelon. Orange juice can easily have additives or fortification that are derived from GMO sources. You could probably call the label redundant if it’s also labeled “100% pure orange juice” with no other listed ingredients. Now if they labeled an actual orange GMO FREE, that would be a different matter.

          • No. Orange juice that contains stuff other than orange juice has to be labeled as such.

            The FDA labeling rules would not allow GMO warning labels not due to an evil conspiracy, but due to rules that are in place for all foods.

          • But can still be labeled “100% juice” if those additives that are listed are very small in volume comparatively.

          • It can not be labeled orange juice then.
            My point remains, current FDA rules would not allow a warning label for GMOs. It is not some conspiracy, it is the same for all food.

          • Really, then there are some very big names in orange juice violating the rules right now…

            Are you maybe confused about what I was referring to originally with labeling? Were you assuming that the labeling would be part of the nutritional label because I mentioned they were going to need to redesign their labels anyways?

            I guess I could have been more specific and said they will have to redesign their packaging for the new nutritional labels anyways. That was in reference to one of the arguments against it, the cost of reworking the packaging.

          • Sigh. The rules are clear. It is not important.

            Either way, mandating labeling to warn of GMOs is not feasible under the current food labeling rules including nutritional guidelines.

            A label is not needed. If you want to avoid GMO foods, buy foods that are labeled as GMO free and buy organic foods. Your best bet is to grow your own food. That is what I do.

            Many companies proudly label their food as GMO FREE, it is a good marketing ploy.