Hawaii 'grassroots' anti-GMO rebellion run by Washington-based Center for Food Safety

On the 11th floor of the Gold Bond Building, on the edge downtown Honolulu, is the brain trust of Hawaii’s anti-GMO movement. The Center for Food Safety opened a new field office here on April 16, saying it wanted to foster public support to end irresponsible pesticide use and genetic experimentation on seed crops on the islands.

The Center for Food Safety is a well-funded nonprofit that spends millions of dollars on litigation, community outreach and politics to support organic and sustainable agricultural practices. It opposes GMOs, pesticides and other technologies that it worries might be harmful to humans or the environment. At a national level, the center lobbies for labeling GMO foods and pushes federal agencies for tighter controls on what products make it to grocery store shelves and which chemicals can be sprayed on crops. It supports maintaining seed biodiversity, protecting pollinators from pesticides and taking on inhumane animal processing practices.

Now the Center for Food Safety is focusing its attention on the Aloha State, where the debate over GMOs and pesticide use has galvanized the community, from the papaya farms on the Big Island to the hallways of the Hawaii State Capitol.

The nonprofit’s escalation has buoyed the anti-GMO movement like never before. But it’s the center’s decision to open up an office in Hawaii that has the biotech industry on high alert. That shows a level of commitment that some say won’t dissipate until the corporate seed industry packs up and leaves the islands.

“It’s a very real threat and it certainly is something that can happen,” said Mark Phillipson, a Syngenta executive who is also president of the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association. “Unfortunately, I think if it does happen it’s due to misinformation and people not knowing really both sides of the story and voting on something out of fear rather than out of facts.”

And while Phillipson says the Center for Food Safety doesn’t necessarily up the stakes of the political game — they’ve always been high — he worries that whatever middle ground there was for compromise will disappear. “I don’t think the Center for Food Safety is here to let agricultural biotechnology flourish and prosper,” he said.

But the center’s involvement in Hawaii and elsewhere has drawn its share of critics. The latest barbs question the Center for Food Safety’s true motives in the GMO movement. Critics say the big donors that funnel cash to the nonprofit have their own business interests at stake and too much influence over the center's actions. Those aligned with the biotech industry say that groups like the Center for Food Safety are lining up with wealthy donors, who want to promote the growing organics and natural foods industry, to influence legislation that would lead to a larger market share.

Jon Entine, founder of the Genetic Literacy Project, takes it one step farther. He’s even more skeptical of anti-GMO activists who label themselves as the underdog when they’re the beneficiaries of multimillion dollar foundations, some of which have direct ties to the organics foods industry that in 2013 reached sales of over $35 billion.

Entine, whose Genetic Literacy Project aims to promote the science behind GMO research, has attempted to document where various grassroots causes in Hawaii get their funding. Last year he launched his own investigation into the topic, which he later published in a pair of scathing online commentaries.

“Let’s be clear,” Entine told Civil Beat. “This is an industry versus industry battle.” At least the biotech companies have easily identifiable sources of funding, he said.

Read the full, original article: Taking Root: A Rising Voice in Hawaii's GMO Politics

  • DoubleCheck

    Good smear job. Here’s some background:

    Entine is the founding director of the Genetic Literacy Project, which is under the umbrella of STATS at George Mason University,
    and is affiliated with the Center for Risk & Health Communication.
    It focuses on the intersection of media, policy and genetics, both human
    and agricultural. Entine himself is not a geneticist, and only has a BA
    degree in philosophy and a National Endowment for the Humanities fellowship in journalism. (Wikipedia.)

    “George Mason University is nothing but a farm team for the Koch bros.
    Starting at George Mason, the Kochs groom their little recruits as
    foot-soldiers ready to enter the plutocratic circle-jerk that is the
    U.S. government and its corporate oligarchs. The financial oligarchy has
    the Ivies, and the Koch brothers have GMU. It’s that simple.” (http://exiledonline.com/sic-of-george-mason-university-an-exiled-reader-offers-more-reasons-to-hate-the-koch-brothers/)

    “Since 1985, George Mason University (GMU),
    and its associated institutes and centers, has received more funding
    from the Koch Family Charitable Foundations than any other
    organization–a total of $29,604,354. The George Mason University
    Foundation has received the most funding, $20,297,143, while the Institute for Humane Studies has been directly given $3,111,457. (http://www.desmogblog.com/koch-and-george-mason-university

  • RobertWager

    Doublecheck perhaps you can explain this:

    A Decade of EU-Funded GMO Research
    2001-2010

    Food Safety:

    “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.”

    • DoubleCheck

      Source?

      • RobertWager

        ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/kbbe/docs/a-decade-of-eu-funded-gmo-research_en.pdf

        page 18

        You might also like to read “Planting the Future” by the European Academies of Science Advisory Council 2013:

        “There is no validated evidence that GM crops have greater adverse impact on health and the environment than any other technology used in plant breeding.”

        “There is compelling evidence that GM crops can contribute to sustainable development goals with benefits to farmers, consumers, the environment and the economy. ”

        EASAC 2013
        http://www.easac.eu/fileadmin/Reports/Planting_the_Future/EASAC_Planting_the_Future_LAY_SUMMARY.pdf

        • DoubleCheck

          I see. I see also that you’re one of the top pushers of corporate-controlled GMOs at this site. Are you funded similarly to Jon Entine?

          I sorry, but the corporations that you work for are famous for disregarding human safety for their own profits. It’s a shame. These corporations have created all this distrust themselves by their own customary conduct.

        • RobertWager

          I am an academic and have never been paid a dime by any biotech company. Now, Care to discuss the links I posted?

          • DoubleCheck

            Care to discus the financing of Genetic Literacy Project that pays you to publish here?

          • RobertWager

            As I said no one has paid me anything. What part of this is unclear to you. Now about the EU funded GMO research?

          • DoubleCheck

            You wrote all those articles for the Genetic Literacy Project for free, all those articles demonizing those without total trust in those pushing GMO seeds?

          • RobertWager

            I have co-authored one article on GLP. What are you referring to? And yes it was for free.

          • DoubleCheck
          • RobertWager

            I write for lots of places. GLP picked them up from other sources. That is very clear if you read the link you posted. I actually have many more but all are for free. Its about educating the public with real science on GMO’s. Thats why I do it. And to be VERY clear. I did not receive a dime for any of those articles.

          • DoubleCheck

            The one on apples showed your bias toward profits over quality. What customer wants an apple in which bruising has been genetically hidden? You?

          • RobertWager

            Apples with apple genes controlling apple genes. you have a problem with this why? I see you do not want to discuss the European Science on GMO’s then.

          • DoubleCheck

            So that makes hiding the bruising from ignorant customers okay? I see that you don’t want to discuss corporate responsibility to ignorant customers who should be blindly trusting.

          • Neil

            Why won’t you answer Robert’s question regarding the conclusion from EU scientists?

          • DoubleCheck

            Because I’m well aware of that kind of research. I’m also aware of the corporate structure that controls it, how it’s used, and the high frequency of misrepresentation. That’s the big problem that GMO proponents have with people in general, and it comes from many examples of prioritizing for profit to the detriment of people both knowingly and unknowingly partaking of agro corporate products.

            With what I can see of GMO research, I would have no problem with it under a reliable and responsible system. But with what we’ve got now and with the attitudes I’ve been encountering here? No, I’m sorry.

            Instead of attacking me you and the others should be working to revise the system so that it can decently attract public confidence.

          • Carver

            If you’re worried about corporate influence in government research, try looking at the thousands of independent studies with no corporate or government funding that have determined the same things. If you’re worried about the degree of misinterpretation being high, maybe try reading the studies yourself and see if you agree with the methods used, the assessment of the data, and the conclusion.
            Because all you’re doing right now is making character attacks on other posters to avoid doing your homework. At least have the integrity to say “I’m not reading this” so we can affirm that you’re not interested in learning about the issue.

          • DoubleCheck

            Thousands of independent studies with no corporate or government funding supporting your position that GMOs are harmless? That sounds like you’re making wild claims without any regard to truth or integrity.

            Please re-read my last comment before you sound off again from total supposition.

            You must be very well indoctrinated, if you assume that ignorance about the issues is the only reason people disagree with you. Maybe it’s your ignorance that’s doing it.

          • While we’re on the subject DoubleCheck, could you please direct us all to the independent studies showing the benefits – and indeed the safety – of consuming organic food?

          • DoubleCheck

            Why? Don’t you know how to do a search? Besides, I’m not the one making claims.

          • I’ve already done such a search, and published a book with my findings: http://www.isitorganic.ca/
            I still believe organics COULD be legitimate, and provide what it promises. Sadly, at present, all research indicates that the organic industry is not even coming close to providing purer, more nutritious food.

          • DoubleCheck

            So? I’m not pushing organic, nor am I trying to sell a book. But congratulations on your web site. But your book seems slanted – “Hippies controlling our food system?” The corporate elite scarcely seem like hippies.

          • I never said you were pushing organic. The problem is that you’re attacking an academic with impeccable qualifications because you seem to be opposed to the use of genetic engineering in agriculture. Try fighting Robert Wager on the facts, if you can.

          • DoubleCheck

            So why are you going after organic and calling me an organic activist?

            From the first I was wondering about the derivation and financing of this site, since it was so uniformly contemptuous of discomfort with GMOs, which have become a tool for market control by agro coporations.

            If ever “organic” becomes another such tool for agro corporations, I will be every bit as skeptical about them as I as about GMOs in the hands of such profit-absorbed megaliths.

            Again, Robert Wager ducked original inquiry about this site, because he wanted to make me into the usual view that he was comfortable opposing.

          • Here is where I can be of assistance to you DoubleCheck. While it’s true that a handful of GMOs are indeed controlled by corporations, an ever-increasing number of GMOs are “open source.” GMO Golden Rice and brinjal are just 2 such examples.

          • DoubleCheck

            Those two strains are having trouble because people are so used to getting screwed by the clowns saying that this is for their good.

            Too bad. Patience and trust-building should get over this in time. But whatever is built will probably be destroyed by another exploitation, simply because that’s the way the system operates.

          • I don’t like Jeffrey Imelt and General Electric. But I still use their light bulbs.

          • DoubleCheck

            Good for you. You can also insist on labeling so that you can eat GMOS even though you don’t like the company.

          • You need a reason to label something.

          • DoubleCheck

            Heh, your opinion and to hell with everyone that disagrees with you.

          • I’m more than willing to discuss and debate with you.

          • DoubleCheck

            After advising them at Heartland Institute, the home of fake science? Are you trying to help them out of their confusion?

          • I won’t take responsibility for everything Heartland has said or written over the years. I can only take responsibility for what I say and write. And I am grateful to Heartland, as well as to Jon Entine and his Genetic Literacy Project, for allowing me to speak and write on these subjects for them.
            So, to answer your question, I am trying to help anyone who will listen.

          • DoubleCheck

            Grateful to Entine?

            “The real Genetic Literacy Project site will be brimming with information about genetic science and related social issues, Entine assured me. “Unlike advocacy genetic sites,” he added, “it will not have a specifically pro or anti genetics agenda. It’s meant to be a transparent information site for policy and media people.” (http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/02/atrazine-syngengta-tyrone-hayes-jon-entine)

            When did he change his mind? Why? Or was he like Obama, never saying what he really intended from the first? You should know the answers to those questions before you presume to help people. I can be of assistance if you are willing to listen.

          • GLP covers both sides of this issue pretty well. I don’t need help with that thanks.
            But if I have written anything here or elsewhere that troubles you, please bring it to my attention. If it pertains to this article that we’re commenting on, then by all means, comment right here. If it pertains to something else, please contact me through my website: http://www.isitorganic.ca
            I’m always open to new perspectives.

          • DoubleCheck

            You’re simply amazing. “GLP covers both sides of this issue pretty well” is an outright lie. That “troubles you” mish-mash is more empty patronizing, and your claiming to be “open to new perspectives” means that you will work to “correct” them to the standard industry line. By working for Heartland Institute you’ve also established that science is nothing you defend out of personal imperative.

          • I can’t help it if you don’t like the people I associate with. So here’s the bottom line:
            There is no such thing as contamination of an organic crop by GMOs, not in science, not in law.
            Anyone in the organic industry lobbying for the labelling or banning of GMO crops is wasting his/her time. Such people have either not read the USDA NOP, or they have and they’re lying through their teeth.
            I am happy to debate this with anyone, anywhere, anytime.

          • DoubleCheck

            Bottom line, eh?

            Bayer Admits GMO Contamination is Out of Control

            $2 million US dollar verdict against Bayer confirms company’s liability for an uncontrollable technology

            http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_19777.cfm

            Are you claiming that a $2 million verdict is not “in law?”

            Also, are you saying ALL these are wrong?

            https://duckduckgo.com/?q=GMO+contamination+of+organic+crops

          • As I said, I’m more than willing to debate what I have said. If you think you have so much evidence to the contrary, what are you waiting for? Let’s have a debate!

          • DoubleCheck

            Why? You can’t even refute what I’ve just given you.

          • Really? You quote the OCA? Hardly a reliable source in this. That’s why I ignored it.

          • DoubleCheck

            Oh, I see, you say they were lying? and everybody else?

          • Yup.

          • DoubleCheck
          • This reminds me of the joke about the woman who confronted a farmer who was buying pesticides. She said, “Isn’t that stuff toxic?” To which the farmer replied, “Well it better be or why else would I buy it?”

          • DoubleCheck

            You agree with the farmer? that the stuff is generally toxic, not just to pests?

          • Yes indeed. Some most definitely are generally toxic. Take for instance copper sulfate, commonly used in organic farming. It’s completely toxic!

          • DoubleCheck

            I understand. Your work is to attack organic farming at its weak points. Good! You can improve on that by attacking the poisonous character of agro corporate business and making it better too.

            Maybe you work against the vicious sliming of scientists done by agro corporations and their supported allies, when they refuse to bury valid research that the agro corporations don’t like. Look into despicable slanders and career attacks orchestrated on Tyrone Hayes by Syngenta and its allies.

            http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/02/10/140210fa_fact_aviv?currentPage=all

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/08/19/1577/

            http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2011/11/tyrone-hayes-atrazine-syngenta-feud-frog-endangered

          • DoubleCheck

            All this dodging doesn’t make you look good or deep. But that’s okay….

          • DoubleCheck

            Now… you don’t believe OCA? you ignore it? How about Bloomberg?

            http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=adGubJZ21Uzo

            Are they lying?

          • Molecular Geneticist

            Actually, I am going to paste in a comment of mine from a different discussion; a comment I feel is very relevant to this discussion. The discussion was regarding the topic/article “Poorest have most to gain from GMOs, hurt most by GMO scare-mongering”
            It is important that you understand that, without the proper education, you shouldn’t be taking sides…

            I am pretty sure the genetic literacy project should reflect both sides of such an argument. If you honestly think this is an unbiased website, you should just take a look at how much anit-GMO bashing you and your friend Jon Entine are partaking in. You are not a scientist, neither is Jon Entine, so you should probably go get yourself a Ph.D. before you start making such ridiculous statements. “Misconceptions, scare-mongering, etc.” … you are something else. Golden rice was a project launched by a colleague of mine, and the intentions were not to exploit local farmers for profit. That project was very successful, and wasn’t about exploitation and profit. Seriously, just think about how many billions of dollars Monsanto is going to make off of exploiting natural habitats with GMOs that are pesticide resistant. They do not care about you or your kids or anything like that. They are all about profits. The reason I know you don’t have a strong background in (true) cell and molecular biology is because you don’t even make the correct arguments. You are actually completely lost as a geneticist, and should probably stop making ridiculous statements until you go to school and learn how they engineer the genomes of these things. The genetic literacy project is run by people who don’t know anything about genetic engineering. If I’m wrong about that, please explain to me why you aren’t a bit worried about lateral gene transfer events between these terminator gene (etc.)- containing crops and other organisms which have not been engineered elegantly, but have just been haphazardly put together at the genome level… or, why you think it is alright to just cut and paste genomes without expecting any deleterious downstream outcomes. Boy, you are so convinced these things are safe to just put out in our environment that you should have a Ph.D. Because I have a Ph.D. from the #1 ranked chemistry department in the world, have written some of the most elegant genetic engineering and molecular biology articles in the literature, have spent years in biotech, and I really think we don’t know enough to just throw this stuff out there (just so Monsanto can profit and pay you out for your ridiculous comments); we will find multiple downstream repercussions from this, but the big guys will have taken all the profits and will be long gone by then. At which point, local people will have been completely exploited, and Monsanto will have officially paid you 1/100000000th of their profits- you’re a genius! I really hope your kids and your family are the first to experience the horrors of this, since you come across so sure of yourself. Just selling the innocent public a bunch of lies- you need to go get educated (so does Jon Entine), this is really a joke. I’m very unimpressed with your little genetic literacy project. Go talk to real scientists who have nothing to gain from either side of this argument. You don’t know the first thing about genetic engineering of plants, so please be better informed before you put crap like this on the internet.

            So, DoubleCheck, thank you so very much for being intelligent enough to not become a puppet for these money grubbers! Very pleased with your posts and attitude!!

          • DoubleCheck

            No profile. How come?

          • First Officer

            The SAS is strong in this one, isn’t it Robert?

          • First Officer

            You can tell an apple has been bruised by simply feeling it. You couldn’t see the browning anyway until you cut through the apple.

            Didn’t you know that?

          • DoubleCheck

            I didn’t know that you had eyesight as bad as your cognitive abilities. My sympathies.

          • DoubleCheck you sly fox you. I’m really surprised. I’ve never seen you push so hard against a person’s integrity like this. It appears Robert Wager really took your legs out from under you when he provided a citation for what he was saying. You had no idea where to turn so you a whole day trying to pigeonhole him as a stooge.
            Nice try. But no cigar.

          • DoubleCheck

            So verbosely defensive. I hit a nerve. You corporate corporate types have a lot to obfuscate.

          • I wonder if perhaps you’re the one who’s verbose here. Did you see how many comments you made trying to draw Wager’s character into question?

          • DoubleCheck

            I know. You think everyone should be utterly trusting of whatever you advocate. Sorry, if it offended you and made you meanly misinterpreting.

          • Your actions didn’t offend me; they surprised me because you made such a concerted effort to attack Wager while not once returning to the actual issue.

          • DoubleCheck

            Of course they offended you. That’s why you attacked so snidely. It was Wager who diverted from the issue I was pursuing of who was financing this site.

            Before you twist the story again, read my explanatory comment to Neil.

          • No… you quite clearly impugned Wager’s character… or at least you tried to.

          • DoubleCheck

            I was just asking questions.

            Remember this?

            “Entine is the founding director of the Genetic Literacy Project, which is under the umbrella of STATS at George Mason University,
            and is affiliated with the Center for Risk & Health Communication.
            It focuses on the intersection of media, policy and genetics, both human
            and agricultural. Entine himself is not a geneticist, and only has a BA
            degree in philosophy and a National Endowment for the Humanities fellowship in journalism. (Wikipedia.)

            “George Mason University is nothing but a farm team for the Koch bros.
            Starting at George Mason, the Kochs groom their little recruits as
            foot-soldiers ready to enter the plutocratic circle-jerk that is the
            U.S. government and its corporate oligarchs. The financial oligarchy has
            the Ivies, and the Koch brothers have GMU. It’s that simple.” (http://exiledonline.com/sic-of-george-mason-university-an-exiled-reader-offers-more-reasons-to-hate-the-koch-brothers/)

            “Since 1985, George Mason University (GMU),
            and its associated institutes and centers, has received more funding
            from the Koch Family Charitable Foundations than any other
            organization–a total of $29,604,354. The George Mason University
            Foundation has received the most funding, $20,297,143, while the Institute for Humane Studies has been directly given $3,111,457. (http://www.desmogblog.com/koch-and-george-mason-university

            That makes this site look like another corporate funded (surreptitiously) interest group.

          • As I said, it’s not WHO says something, but WHAT they say that matters.

          • DoubleCheck

            So all it needs to do is sound good to you, eh?

          • Right… Robert Wager was providing you citations on what “sounded good.”

          • DoubleCheck

            That’s irrelevant. I was replying to your unsound blanket assertion, “it’s not WHO says something, but WHAT they say that matters.” No, it depends on the situation.

            As far Wager goes, he’s the one who stepped away from my original comment and tried to redirect the conversation unneccessarily to the playbook with which he’s comfortable.

          • You asked Wager for a citation. He provided one. Try to follow along now.

          • DoubleCheck

            Once you get in a rut, you never get out, never even look around for a way out, but just dig yourself deeper into irrelevancy, Aren’t you capable of remembering from one thread to another?

          • Here are your exact words:

            “I see. I see also that you’re one of the top pushers of corporate-controlled GMOs at this site. Are you funded similarly to Jon Entine?”

            You didn’t even look at the citation you asked Wager for. You went straight to attacking people like Wager and Entine because you disagree with them.

          • DoubleCheck

            No, I didn’t. I did that after stumbling into the relationship of Entine with George Mason humanities. You still didn’t read my first comment. Why because you disagree?

            Remember, Wager came after me and changed the subject entirely to the playbook he liked to use. that’s why he got the rough handling.

          • Wager never changed the subject.

          • DoubleCheck

            So you never read my first comment? Figures.

          • I sure did read it. As with most anti-GMO organic activists, you believe GMOs are being foisted upon us by a conspiracy of greedy corporate executives. What Robert Wager showed you is that the European Union agrees that GMOs are perfectly safe. And for some reason this bothered you so much that you had to try attacking his professional integrity.

          • DoubleCheck

            That would be the way YOU function. Here, I’ll pass on someone else’s argument, Shratboy, who certainly said it better than I would have:

            “The Agra-shills are a wily bunch. They know how to shuck and evade any appearance of impropriety. They are professionals after all. Their reputations precede them which is why they’re so coveted to play the outbound-facing friendly authority to the masses. They are Big Ag’s marketing Trojan horse.

            I’ve seen firsthand how these guys operate. It’s Clintonesque (depended on what your definition of the word “is” is…) insofar as how they stretch the language to deny any remuneration for their stalwart allegiance to the chemical King. In Entine’s case, “I don’t work for AEI. I get zero dollars from AEI.” Of course, he doesn’t work for them. He’s a contractor. A service provider. He’s simply offering a valued service (marionette) in return for monies that are probably paid out by the companies PR firm so it doesn’t come
            directly from AEI. It’s part of the ooze and slime byproducts of the chemical companies, beyond what drips from their production facilities, called marketing and communications.

            I’m fortunate to have seen the chemical industry up close and personal from a process control and industrial heating perspective. Sure, these facilities provide jobs and tax revenue for scores of communities throughout the US. The damages, unfortunately, in higher incidences of cancer, illness and disease are incalculable. This is our corporate-industrial paradigm today: profits balanced against public unfettered public risk. “But that’s the job of the EPA to protect the public!” Then explain to me how the gas & oil industries are exempted from the clear air and clean water acts? Chemical contamination is given in our current system. All regulators do is regulate how much damage can be done or limit what
            environmentalists can do to stop it. They, like the Agra-shills, are well-paid to play their role. Follow the money and you’ll find the shill payers.”

            I still can’t believe. You’re presuming to teach me science and you work for Heartland Institute.

          • DoubleCheck

            First of all, The European Union still bans all except one GMO for people. That’s quite a declaration of faith.

            Second, you don’t understand me or the organizations for which you advocate, or how corporations are motivationally constructed, if you can tost this one out, ” you believe GMOs are being foisted upon us by a conspiracy of greedy corporate executives.”

            Third, you belittle me as an anti-GMO activist with no other reason that you desire to put me down. How can you possibly reproach me for putting pressure on Wager?

            Fourth, speak for your own motivations, not for people you insist on forcing into the shallow mold you love to fight.

            Fifth, you work as a Policy Advisor for Heartland Institute, which kind of makes a mockery of your claim that truth in science is your motivation.

          • No, I’m not belittling you. I’m engaging in debate with you. But you keep trying to nullify what I say by who I associate with rather than WHAT I say.

          • DoubleCheck

            “As with most anti-GMO organic activists, you believe GMOs are being
            foisted upon us by a conspiracy of greedy corporate executives.”

            That’s not belittling? An absurd reformulation of what I’ve been saying?

            Then neither is this: As with most corporate tools, you believe that all others should be trusting of corporate propaganda and their dispensers.

            Finally, birds of a feather don’t flock together anymore?

          • It’s science at issue here, not the corporations that employ that science. If you don’t like Monsanto, don’t use their products. But why ban an entire field of science?

          • DoubleCheck

            See? You keep showing why debating you would be silly. You keep making wide assertions on cherry-picked data. You keep attributing things to me that I never said.

            “If you don’t like Monsanto, don’t use their products.” That’s about as silly and childish recommendation as I gotten from you.

            “But why ban an entire field of science?” I never said anything like that. A debate with stuff like that coming from you would be a debate with shallow nonsense.

          • Then where do you stand on GMOs? Safe or not?

          • DoubleCheck

            Black or white are the only colors you see by your programming, eh?

          • Well then surely we can make the same assertion for the safety of organic food. May people have fallen ill and died from eating it. No one’s died from eating GMOs.

          • DoubleCheck

            Those criminal charges against Syngenta for animal deaths were also a lie? (Yup?)

          • How did these animals die exactly?

          • DoubleCheck

            Read for yourself. Tell me it all lies.

            http://cattleindustry.blogspot.com/

          • If this is true, then I will stand by your side as lawsuit after lawsuit is lined up against Syngenta, and watch them go bankrupt. But if it’s true, it does not draw into question the science of genetic engineering. It draws into question Syngenta’s product.

          • DoubleCheck

            You can restrict yourself in regards to doubt if you want. I think that this draws into question all agro corporation products. After all, they all play by the same rules and the same imperative to pervert and subvert those rules for profit. That’s why when you ask me to declare all GMOs harmless, I think you’re asking me to be silly. As long as corporations have any power in the food business, we all need to stay alert. That’s why we need more funds in the regulatory agencies…. (you’ll love this) more inspectors.

          • DoubleCheck

            Another thing: GLP picks up your articles from other sources without informing you?

  • CycloneFarms

    “Please pay attention to me!!! I’m lonely!!!”

    Signed,
    DoubleWrong

    • DoubleCheck

      Clever, for you, heh, heh.

      • CycloneFarms

        QED, chump.

        • DoubleCheck

          Your jealousy makes you keeps you coming.

          • It’s not WHO says something. It’s WHAT they say.
            The Nazis figured that one out after they lost German Jew Albert Einstein to the United States.

          • DoubleCheck

            Oh, I see what your saying: their secret agenda isn’t important.

          • Who’s “they”?

          • DoubleCheck

            I can’t tell you. It wouldn’t be secret anymore, and they might kill me for taking the scales off your eyes. You’re such a good little tool.

          • At least tools are useful.

          • DoubleCheck

            In your case in the worse way.

          • Prove it.

          • DoubleCheck

            Heh, re-read your posts.

          • Great… another dead-end from an anti-GMO organic activist.

          • DoubleCheck

            Another self-serving, ridiculous assumption by someone “blinding” himself to the operation of power.

            Are you really that dense? Or are you just insisting on seeing the kind of opposition you feel most comfortable attacking?

          • Sorry… no idea what you’re trying to say. Robert Wager made a point. You challenged him by asking for a source. He provided one, and you turned to attacking his character.
            That’s what we’re talking about here. Please stop obfuscating.

          • DoubleCheck

            Obfuscating? Because you want to force your own self-interested redefinition on me?

            All I did was ask him for his source, for which I knew he was just jumping to have me ask. I was being kind to him, and you say I “challenged” him? You must get hurt and mad a lot.

            Then because I wanted to check him out, because of the kind of site this appears to be, I “was attacking” his character. Maybe his character is fine, and he’s lending himself to manipulation by the hidden controllers of this site with the finest of motives. His answers certainly suggest that, and I would never have perceived without the questions that so upset you.

            Besides, a quick glance at his source allowed me to see that it was all stuff with which I was familiar, even though I’m sure it had details that weren’t.

            Please stop trying to mash me into some mold you’re comfortable with slamming.

          • No… you didn’t challenge Wager when you asked for a source. You challenged his integrity SUBSEQUENT to him providing a source. You later did the same with me.
            You’re not here to debate facts. You’re trying to eliminate your competition so you can ignore the facts we bring to the table.

          • DoubleCheck

            No, you’re just programmed to fight some demon of your own construction.

          • If “a quick glance at his source allowed me to see that it was all stuff with which I was familiar” … then why did you turn to attacking him?

          • DoubleCheck

            You just read what you want and ignore the rest. It makes me uneasy about the reliability of the contents of your book.

          • Read it and see.

          • DoubleCheck

            You’ve persuaded me it’s not worth the money.

          • It sounds like you only spend money on books that you already agree with. Why bother?

          • Only one way to find out. Read it.

          • I’ll take “Am I really that dense?” for $500 Alex!

          • DoubleCheck

            You lose. You obviously did it to follow your favorite script of attacking the other as being ignorant.

          • Nice chatting with you.
            No… really.

  • Neil

    “Good smear job”

    So, you see no irony in starting with that sentence?

    • DoubleCheck

      I see an irony. You presenting irony when there’s the irony of corporate deception so widely spread. I did no smear. I merely pointed out connections by which the manipulation of public opinion is operated. GMO proponents do the same thing right here and elsewhere. Are you accusing me of being as bad as they?

  • tripplecheck

    How much does the 35 billion dollar organic food industry pay you to shill, hypocrite? I’m sorry, but your corporate masters have lost any shred of credibility.

    • DoubleCheck

      Hypocrite? How? Because you assume I play your way?

      • Whether or not you’re a hypocrite Mr. DoubleCheck, the multibillion dollar organic industry plays by the exact same rules of lobbying and propagandizing as all moneyed interests do.

        • DoubleCheck

          That’s why they don’t want to be labelled, eh?

          Comparing the vast power huge agro corporations to the much smaller organic “industry” is ludicrous. But if you’re worried about organic, then you should be frightened to death of the agro corporations. Why do you fight for them?

          • Sorry, I’m fighting for science. I don’t really care how big a company is that employs that science. Size only maters if you’re a dinosaur.

          • DoubleCheck

            You may think you’re doing that, that’s because you’re being oblivious of how power in the political and economic world function.

          • I think you’re oblivious to how innovations are brought to market for the good of humankind. Alfred Nobel, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Bill Gates… they all benefited from large capital infusions to make their inventions into affordable realities.
            As I say, size doesn’t matter… unless perhaps you’re jealous.

          • DoubleCheck

            “Jealousy!” Ever the accusation to justify greed, so I guess that accusation say more about you than about me.

            Alfred Nobel and his dynamite? For the good of humankind? You’re scary.

            All of the ones you mention didn’t do it on their own and they all had competition that good fortune allowed them to overcome. The large capital infusions turned them into swaggering bullies obliterating the freedom of the market they were in. Think! Do you really want to claim that they did better because of that capital than what would have come out of the competition they destroyed and bought up?

          • Every road, every bridge, every building… everything you consume in any way-shape-or-form from the mining industry, results from Alfred Nobel’s invention of dynamite.
            How typical of an activist to only see the negative.
            Tell me, do you reject knives as well since people are sometimes stabbed with them?

          • DoubleCheck

            Alright! You finally made a point where i can concede some validity.

            Then, of course, you follow it up, with some more nonsensical babble that show that you’re not discussing things with me but fighting with one of your private demons, or maybe a collection of them. This is most entertaining.

          • You’re welcome.

          • Molecular Geneticist

            I think you’re an awful scientist. You are totally one sided on this issue. No pioneer in science would ever do that. You are clearly paid off.

          • Thank you for calling me a pioneer in science.

        • McNamara

          Mr Popoff I read your comments in the associated article “Taking Root: A Rising Voice in Hawaii’s GMO Politics” where you mention Location , Location, Location and try to spin it as an organic quest, when you and the Hawaiians know the major reason the biotechs are is the islands is because they can grow (and drift their chemicals) all year long…which is at the heart of the Hawaiian opposition to GM’s

          • Hawaii is the home to the GMO papaya. Without the GMO papaya, we would have no papayas.

          • DoubleCheck

            So? Because of that we’re all supposed to permit everything without labeling? Seems like you’re trying to scare people off with that attitude. (By Jove!)

            We don’t need that, especially when GMO technology may be the only way we can save our citrus industries from citrus greening, also to preserve ourselves from mosquito spread diseases coming with global warming.

          • Anti-GMO organic activists want to label GMOs to scare people into buying more organic food. That may not be your intent; but you need to know this is what’s driving GMO labelling campaigns.

  • McNamara

    “Hawaii ‘grassroots’ anti-GMO rebellion run by Washington-based Center for Food Safety”

    What total bs. The office for the Center for Food Safety only opened on April 16, 2014. The Hawaiians have been protesting GMO’s independently for years.

    • By Jove you’re right McNamara! The authors of this article failed to mention all the other anti-GMO ORGANIC groups involved in trying to ban this perfectly valid science from the face of the earth. But I believe they are correct in pointing to the Center for Food Safety as the headquarters for all of this.

      • McNamara

        By Jove Mr. Popoff… Here’s Mr. Entire pitching his wares in the Island in 2013 – Its up on Youtube for all to see:

        “A GMO-Free Kauai local Mom, debates with Jon Entine at the Kauai Farmer’s Market. Jon and other Pro-GMO lobbyists are on Kauai to lobby against GMO Bill 2491, the “Right to Know” Bill currently before Kauai County Council. They were flown in by the HCIA BioTech association, and part of their PR campaign is to stop by local farmer’s markets to discuss GMO’s, Pesticides and Biotech with organic farmers, from the position that it’s safe for us on Kauai, and that we should trust the GMo BioTech industry scientists. There is a heated discussion around Atrazine, which was found in Waimea Middle School drinking water here on Kauai, the use of restricted use pesticides on Kauai, and the moratorium on new experimental GMO’s until environmental assessments can be done on Kauai.”

        • DoubleCheck

          Nice post, Entine really comes across as a con man lobbyist.

          When I found the relationship between Entine, this site, and the Koch-domesticated George Mason University, I had to push and find out some more.

          Thanks.

        • You want me to watch a 26-minute video? Can’t you just make your point?

          • McNamara

            Read the video summary

          • I watched the first 5 minutes McNamara, and it was just Entine arguing with a woman about atrazine. Nothing to do with GMOs.
            As for Entine himself, he may indeed receive money from places you find repugnant. But what matters is WHAT he says.
            Respond to the facts. That’s all.

          • Just to be clear: Since years before the GLP was launched, I received no money in any form from the American Enterprise Institute either as a contractor or directly or indirectly. I have received no money in any form from the Center for Health and Risk Communication, a liberal think tank at George Mason University. The Genetic Literacy Project receives 98% of its funding from three foundations: Searle, Templeton and the Winkler Family Trust–none has any connections to agricultural biotechnology and the foundations are all totally independent. The other 2-3%–less than $7000 — comes from people who have donated through the website. The GLP is totally independent. Anyone from any ideological perspective, if he/she is interested, can contribute articles for the cite as long as they are fact based; contact GLP through our “contributors” page if you are interested in writing blogs/articles. We also carry coherent articles from the news and websites from all ideological perspectives.

          • McNamara

            “There is a heated discussion around Atrazine, which was found in Waimea Middle School drinking water here on Kauai, the use of – restricted use pesticides on Kauai’-, and the- moratorium on new experimental GMO’s- until environmental assessments can be done on Kauai” ~from video

          • The two are completely unrelated. And besides, GMOs reduce pesticide use.

          • McNamara

            Reduce pesticides?
            “Genetically engineered crops have led to an increase in overall pesticide use, by 404 million pounds from the time they were introduced in 1996 through 2011”

            http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/us-usa-study-pesticides-idUSBRE89100X20121002

          • People who should know better are terribly confused on this McNamara.
            When it comes to GMO Roundup-Ready crops, yes, more Roundup is used per-acre, but at the expense of other much-more toxic alternatives. And, overall, pesticide (herbicide) use is reduced… drastically.
            When it comes to GMO Bt crops like corn, the exposure to the environment by the bacterium Bt is reduced to 0 (zero) because only pests that try to eat the corn succumb to the effects of Bt on their digestive systems. Meanwhile, when an organic farmer applies Bt to a crop, the Bt can drift to non-target areas and can affect non-target pests.

          • McNamara

            Actually in Hawaii:
            GMO & Pesticide Experiments in Hawaii: The Poisoning of Paradise

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maggie-sergio/gmo-pesticide-experiments_b_3513496.html

          • The article has no science in it; it’s fear-mongering. The atrazine levels on the islands are below EPA levels (which themselves have a 100 times buffer zone, so we’re talking thousands of times lower than what might cause danger when exposed continuously, which is 10,000 times or more lower than what the casual exposure in Hawaii might be). Here is some science context: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/08/19/1577/

          • Again you’re equating GMOs with pesticides. The development of the GMO papaya in Hawaii had nothing to do with pesticides.

          • McNamara

            No you’re trying confuse the issue.

          • Really? Were you aware that many farmers in Hawaii grow GMO papaya under organic management?

          • McNamara

            Molokai Mom’s

          • Great, another video.
            With all the billions of dollars floating around in the organic industry, and all of its billionaire-backers, why can’t you cite a single publication to support your views?

          • McNamara

            This is a real ‘person’ on the ground experiencing the side effects of GMO production and testing in her Hawaiian community.

            Wouldn’t you like to hear ‘her’ reality vs rhetoric?

          • Why would I want to listen to someone whine? There are already very clear rules protecting farmers of all varieties from pesticide drift, and organic farmers have the additional protection of the USDA NOP. If someone has been harmed by pesticides, they should hire a lawyer and sue whoever did it.

        • Oh my goodness McNamara. I just watched the first 5 minutes of this video. What does atrazine have to do with GMOs?

          • McNamara

            First Draft Bill #2491 is an ordinance that makes public health and impacts on the environment a the top priority with respect to pesticide usage by the biotech industry.

            The ordinance would require that the GMO companies on the Island of Kauai be legally required to fully disclose to the public what pesticides are being sprayed as part of their research activities.

            It also mandates pesticide buffer zones around schools, hospitals and other public areas. This bill also requires that an environmental impact statement (EIS) be completed before any further expansion of the GMO industry on Kauai.

          • There is, at best, a tenuous link between GMOs and pesticides.
            Genetic engineering is a process used to developing new crop varieties, most of which have little or nothing to do with pesticides, many of which REDUCE pesticide use.

        • DoubleCheck

          Did you know that Mischa Popoff is a Policy Advisor to the Heartland Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute)?

          Here’s an article from Mother Jones that you may already be familiar with about Jon Entine:

          http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/02/atrazine-syngengta-tyrone-hayes-jon-entine

Send this to a friend