10 studies proving GMOs are harmful? Not if science matters

|

Activists often cite the alleged potential health risks of genetically modified foods. One recent example of this—”10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health“, posted on Collective-Evolution.com—outlines many familiar concerns and points in each case to “credible scientific studies that clearly demonstrate why GMOs should not be consumed”.

Are these concerns credible? What do the studies cited actually claim?

1) Multiple Toxins From GMOs Detected In Maternal and Fetal Blood.

The blog post sites a 2010 study that alleges to show this danger. The authors identified the Bt protein Cry1Ab in maternal and fetal blood, a protein found in some GMOs, but also commonly used as a pesticide in organic farming. The paper is flawed. The researchers’ measurements were based on an experiment/assay designed to detect Bt’s Cry1Ab in plants, not in humans. As this post in Biofortified.org explains, the pregnant women in the study would have had to eat several kilos of corn in order to get the Bt measurements that were detected in their blood.

Additionally, there’s the “so what” factor. Humans lack the receptors for the protein, so it has no impact on us. Did you know that chocolate is toxic to dogs? Are you concerned that it might be toxic to you? Probably not (if you are concerned, then you’ve missed out on the greatest source of joy known to human taste buds…). Some chemical compounds behave differently among species, and both Bt‘s Cry1Ab and chocolate are examples of this.

2) DNA From Genetically Modified Crops Can Be Transferred Into Humans Who Eat Them

That’s not what the cited 2013 study concluded. The authors found that whole genes from our food can be detected in our plasma. That does not mean that they’ve integrated into our DNA; it means that they’ve been found floating in the space between cells. And that’s any food, not just GMOs. DNA from GMOs behave no differently than DNA from organic or conventional foods

If you aren’t concerned about the DNA from blueberries “transferring” into you, then you should not be concerned about DNA from GMOs either. The paper’s deepest flaw is that a negative control was not included in the sequencing experiments. Several recent papers (see here and here) have outlined the importance of including a negative control in experiments where there is very little DNA to account for possible contaminants from the environment and reagents. (For a lay introduction to the concept of contaminants in sequencing, see here).

3) New Study Links GMOs To Gluten Disorders That Affect 18 Million Americans

The article quotes for an alleged “study” by the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT). But there is no study on the link of GMOs to gluten allergies. There’s a link to a post on a webpage, but there isn’t a peer-reviewed article. IRT is a one-man band run by activist Jeffrey Smith. It is an NGO that advocates for the elimination of GMOs from our food supply. It’s not a university, college or research institution. It doesn’t do studies.

I’ve written about gluten allergies and GMOs. The Celiac Disease foundation has spoken out against the IRT’s report. GMO wheat has not been commercialized, so any association of gluten allergies with the consumption of GMO wheat is on its face absurd. As for charts that track an increase in GMO consumption in general and gluten allergies, it’s a case of association with no causation (i.e. the incidence of gluten allergies have increased over the past decade and the amount of GMOs we eat have increased too. But, so have the number of plasma screens manufactured).

4) Study Links Genetically Modified Corn to Rat Tumors

This claim is the infamous Seralini paper, which was retracted, and recently republished, in a different journal without being peer reviewed. The paper identified tumors in rats that were fed GMOs and/or the herbicide glyphosate longterm. But the strain of rat used was predisposed to tumors. The paper did not perform statistical analyses and used too few rats, so it was not possible to determine if the tumors were due to the food, the chemical or to the fact that the strain of rats would get tumors regardless of what they were fed. Finally, the findings from Seralini’s paper are contrary to other long-term feeding studies. An overview of the criticisms regarding this paper can be found here.

5) Glyphosate Induces Human Breast Cancer Cells Growth via Estrogen Receptors

This claim relates to glyphosate, an herbicide used in tandem with herbicide resistant genetically modified crops. The cited paper examines the impact of glyphosate on breast cancer cell growth. In approximately 80 percent of instances of breast cancer, the diseased cells are hormone sensitive, meaning they need estrogen in order to proliferate and spread. These researchers took two breast cancer cell lines: one was estrogen sensitive and one was not, and they examined the impact of increasing amounts of glyphosate on cell growth. They found that glyphosate has similar impact on breast cancer growth as estrogen, although the relationship was not as strong, and it did not have an impact on the proliferation of the non-hormone sensitive breast cancer cell line.

The paper had numerous technical problems, including the absence of data on controls, a potentially critical omission. Additionally, there actually seems to be a protective effect at higher concentrations of glyphosate: instead of reaching a saturation point where the addition of glyphosate no longer has an effect on cell growth, there is no significant difference in cellular growth between the cells that received the highest doses of glyphosate and the controls  (which is why the data from the controls is an important factor).

This experiment was done with cells in a petri dish—what’s called an in vitro tissue-culture experiment. Such research is of limited real-world value. The cells are often finicky and need plenty of TLC in order to grow well; different cell lines can also behave very differently. The authors of the paper note some of these issues, along with the fact that their data doesn’t mesh with previous studies that have examined the impact of glyphosate on cellular proliferation (this previous paper suggests that glyphosate actually protects against cell proliferation in vitro in eight different cancer cell lines and that glyphosate might be developed into an anti-cancer drug!).

Monsanto wrote a response to the paper noting that many studies examined the potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate and none has found that the compound causes cancer. Some news reports misinterpreted the study, writing that researchers concluded that glyphosate causes cancer when that is not the researchers’ findings: they suggest glyphosate may cause breast cancer to proliferate. Monsanto pointed out that even this finding is contrary to the body of evidence that exists on the topic. The authors admit to this fact and discuss the appropriate next steps to examine this issue in mice/rats models for breast cancer. I think that that’s a great next step. I’d also look at a few more breast-cancer cell lines.

This is the most compelling research paper that I’ve read about that suggests a potential health risk surrounding glyphosate. But the study must be reproduced and its issues ironed out. However, as I mentioned, the paper isn’t really about GMOs as a class: keep in mind that only a fraction of GMOs are glyphosate resistant (i.e. Round-up Ready crops) and the use of glyphosate is not limited to GMOs.

Additionally, the paper does several experiments with a compound in soybean whose impact on breast cancer cell growth is very similar to that of glyphosate’s—meaning that there are “natural” compounds in our food that seem to have the same impact on breast-cancer proliferation that this paper’s findings suggest for glyphosate. There does not seem to be a scientific consensus on the topic of soy intake in breast cancer patients, although several publications have examined this issue without finding a positive correlation (examples here, here, and here).

6) Glyphosate Linked To Birth Defects

No peer reviewed, published scientific study makes such claims. The source of this health concern is a publication by Earth Open Source, an anti-GMO NGO co-founded by an individual who also owns a GMO-testing and certification company, and whose business would clearly benefit through the promotion of anti-GMO sentiments (see “About the Authors” in this document).

7) Study Links Glyphosate To Autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s

The paper that led to this health claim does not constitute research. It’s a hypothesis and no research was done to support the hypothesis. The paper was reviewed by science journalist Keith Kloor at Discover Magazine who aptly compared it to a Glenn Beck chalkboard drawing.

The claims were printed in a pay-for-play journal (also known as predatory journal), meaning that for a fee, one can get nearly anything published. There have been several exposés on pay-for-play journals, and many scientists believe that the phenomenon is eroding the quality of science (here’s an overview from Nature.com; here’s an exposé of pay for play journals)

8) Chronically Ill Humans Have Higher Glyphosate Levels Than Healthy Humans

This claim is based on a paper published in the Journal of Environmental and Analytical Toxicology, owned by the Omics publishing group- a notorious predatory publishing company.

The authors examined glyphosate levels in humans and different animals. There’s no indication of what the animals were fed, how much, how they were kept or myriad other variables. Any of these could invalidate the study. The researchers do not say anything about the age, sex, weight, height, or genetic background of the humans, or how much they ate, if they washed their food, how long they had been eating organic/conventional diets and, most mind-blowing of all, there’s absolutely no definition for what constitutes being “chronically ill”. Any single issue that I’ve listed here would be considered a fatal flaw that would exclude the paper from publication in a more prestigious journal.

9) Studies Link GMO Animal Feed to Severe Stomach Inflammation and Enlarged Uteri in Pigs

In the study on which this claim is based, the researchers gave pigs GMO feed and non-GMO feed and identified the differences between the two groups. The paper has been thoroughly challenged by many journalists and scientists:

  • Journalist Mark Lynas highlighted the degree to which the data is cherry-picked. The difference in “inflammation” between the GM-fed and non-GM-fed pigs is apparent only when you break down the degree of inflammation into subcategories, but there’s no difference if you view it as a single category. Overall, there’s a high rate of inflammation for both groups, which is not explained in the paper. At the same time, there are several parameters where GM-feed could be argued as having a protective effect (there are 50 percent fewer heart-abnormalities in pigs fed GM-grain), but this isn’t discussed.
  • As explained by geneticist Anastasia Bodnar, the authors do not analyze the compositional differences in the feed between the two groups. Previous studies have determined that the environment (i.e., water, soil, geography) of a crop has a greater impact on proteins and metabolites than whether or not the crop is a GMO. As such, the differences seen in the pigs may not be due pesticides or presence/absence of the transgenic protein; rather, they are most likely due to differences in composition of the feed
  • Geneticist Val Giddings notes that the animals had abnormally high rates of pneumonia, which points to the possibility that something wonky was going on.

In conclusion, even if the paper’s findings are real, there’s no knowing whether that’s due to something associated with transgenes or not, because the researchers do not account for natural variation in the feed.

10) GMO risk assessment is based on very little scientific evidence in the sense that the testing methods recommended are not adequate to ensure safety.

Let’s set aside the fact that this isn’t a “Scientific Study Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health,” which is the claim set out in the title. There are three papers associated with this bullet point. The first one is a review and I agree with a few of the points it makes. It highlights the need for standardized tests and statistics in animal feeding studies for GMOs, and anyone who followed the Seralini debacle would probably agree. It summarizes papers that have performed feeding studies and their results. However, the review does not remove flawed papers from their overview and nor does it distinguish between feeding studies for GMO crops that have been commercialized vs. crops that have never been submitted for regulatory approval. The paper does not conclude, “GMO risk assessment is based on very little scientific evidence”.

The second paper is also a review piece. The first author is affiliated with “Friends of the Earth,” an anti-GMO NGO. It does not constitute novel research and has a clear editorial slant.

The third paper does not even qualify as a review. It’s a commentary published in 2002 in Nature Biotechnology, which is a high caliber journal. It outlined possible unintended consequences that could happen with a GMO—none of which have ever been documented or identified since then, to the best of my knowledge.

In conclusion, despite the title of the article, none of these studies proves or even persuasively suggests that GMOs can be harmful to human health. The majority are either obviously flawed or are not scientific studies.

The current scientific consensus regarding GMOs remains unchanged: they are safe and do not pose a health risk to humans. However, a scientific consensus is subject to change if there is sufficient reproducible evidence that may impact it, but none of the studies reviewed here constitute such evidence.

Layla Katiraee, contributor to the Genetic Literacy Project, holds a PhD in molecular genetics from the University of Toronto and is a senior scientist in product development at a biotech company in California. All opinions and views expressed are her own. Her twitter handle is: @BioChicaGMO

  • Loren Eaton

    Wow! A veritable murderer’s row of incompetence.

  • RobertWager

    Excellent take down of the 10 myths claim.

  • Mark Glenn Keen

    Waiting for anti-GMOers to accuse the author of being “on the take” since she works for a biotech company….sigh… when all else fails…

    • Joe Vaish

      I don’t think she’s on the “take”, as you put it, but it’s possible she could be. I just think she’s a naive ideologue

      • John DeGraffenreid Jr.

        So don’t trust the scientist who is specifically trained and qualified to talk about the very thing she’s talking about, but DO trust the conspiracy theory, jack booted thugs who want to take away my freedom to choose what I eat?

        You have not just jumped the shark my friend, you have nuked the fridge.

        • Joe Vaish

          Well, if some random guy on the internet says it, it must be true. Your ad hominem attacks mean nothing; they are just empty words. She may be trained, but that doesn’t mean she has much real-world experience or is doing anything more. Many of the scientists on the other side of the argument, most of them independent but working for universities, have much more experience than she. One has only to dig into the actual research, not just some Top Ten list, to realize the discussion is far from settled and over. But please, keep eating whatever you want. Eat shit for all I care, but don’t pretend that you actually know what you’re talking about.

          • John DeGraffenreid Jr.

            Wow.

            Seriously, wow. You just said that a scientist who works in and is an acknowledged expert bio-sciences has no real world expertise in her own chosen field because she has an opinion contrary to your own.

            I’ve seen some prejudicial BS in my day, but holy cow dude. This is just like the anti-vaxxer’s arguments where they claim to have “the real truth” and no amount of real science will ever convince them that they are not only wrong but grossly and incompetently wrong.

            I’d tip my hat to the arrogance but I don’t feel it should be rewarded.

          • Joe Vaish

            Not my opinion; other, well-respected scientists’ opinion. Using simplistic statements like “anti-vaxxers” doesn’t make your case any more convincing, not to mention it’s just another straw man. By the way, plenty of people have discerning opinions on the state of vaccines, as well as GMOs. You would probably realize this if you’d do some more research beyond simple websites that you agree with ideologically. Just throwing around words like “science” doesn’t mean you actually comprehend what it means. And, please, step away from the Reddit and go outside and get some sun and exercise. Maybe then you’ll be able to make some actual reasonable, cogent arguments.

          • John DeGraffenreid Jr.

            Here is where I point out that all you’re doing is attacking me and anyone who points out that you aren’t actually arguing anything other than this scientist, who works in and is an acknowledged expert in her field, isn’t qualified to make a statement in her own field of study.

            You then go on to say that a University teacher has more experience and authority than someone who is actually working in the field for reasons that remain unclear as you don’t actually give voice to something so sanctimoniously unsound because it would be utterly laughable on the face of it.

            Now, as I have never been to Reddit your rather pedestrian attempt at negating my previous points is rather amusing and only goes to show that you are, in fact, nothing more than a presumptuous and pandering little troll who only wants to shut down any discussion outside of what you approve of. You don’t want people to be actually informed, you want them fed your propaganda because an informed populace is a dangerous one.

            I want the Truth and if this woman is telling it, then you have no right to silence it because you don’t agree with it.

          • Clint Westwood

            Surely you have a right to believe any nonsense you want. It is indeed a free country.

          • Calamity

            WHAT SCIENTIST. YOU KEEP SAYING HE’S A RENOWNED SCIENTIST BUT YOU NEVER SAY HIS NAME OR THE PAPER YOU ARE REFERRING TO.

          • John DeGraffenreid Jr.

            The woman. Named in the above article. Who is a trained biologist and an expert in her field. Do please read the article above because it’s been quite a while since this was even published. I’ve said my peace and have no wish to go further since it’s fairly obvious no one was actually interested in listening to anything the opposition has to say.

            Have fun sticking your head in the sand. I hear that fear tastes like chicken.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            Having your Capslock on is shouting. It doesn’t make your posts easier to read either. Please take your Capslock off.

          • Calamity

            WHAT SCIENTIST????? WHAT’S HIS NAME!!!??? WHICH PAPER?

          • guest

            And that is exactly the problem. You folks have opted to abandon rational thought in favor of ideology and lies. You have no clue.

          • Joe Vaish

            No, her article shows a serious lack of discernment and isn’t particularly well-reasoned. If it were, it would include other attributes of human behavior that can affect research, including dogmatic, ideology based thinking, greed and numerous other ego-based behaviors that inhibit the scientific process. You are the one without a clue, I would say.

          • Calamity

            Said “guest” with no profile and no history. dude, you don’t even exist!!

        • Charlie

          “Jack booted thugs who want to take away my freedom to choose what I eat?”
          Funny. If you want to eat glyphosate, go ahead. For my part, I don’t want “jack booted thugs” forcing me to eat it without my knowledge.

          • Karen Bracco Aguayo

            Thank you! I had been wondering why no one had said this! As far as I am concerned, people can eat whatever they want! And they can NOT eat whatever they don’t want. So, why can’t we get these GMOs, at the very least, labelled? I know the answer, but it’s a pitiful one. I am wondering if anyone actually has a GOOD answer to this.

        • Clint Westwood

          The anti-GMO crowd wants labeling labels, nitwit, not bans. Just like ingredients on a candy bar have to printed on the wrapper.

          • John DeGraffenreid Jr.

            And I’ll believe that when they stop spreading lies and misinformation about the subject. No matter how much you might want things to be otherwise, you are not entitled to your own facts (as in making up your own facts). Until you’re ready to debate and/or discuss the matter honestly kindly let the experts and the adults do the talking.

          • Karen Bracco Aguayo

            And pro-GMO entities do NOT spread lies and misinformation? Isn’t that all the industry does??? Talking point 1, talking point 2, etc… Oh, and if they hint to this, side-step and hit them with this!
            Please, explain to me why you think GE food technology is NOT being used irresponsibly? We have NO answers, and yet they are already more than 70% of our food supply! Where are the long-term studies? And why do pro-GMO groups care so little about the unintended effects? How about the effects on the environment? What they are doing to topsoil alone is unacceptable! Water, air, earth. And now… nematodes? Some GMO mono-crops (mono-cropping is bad, in itself) are killing off necessary free-living soil nematodes. Where will it stop?
            Are you even aware that the large majority of all industry GMO crops are not even for human consumption? The “test” crops go to feed the animals we will eventually eat ourselves (even though most of these animals natural diet is NOT grains), or they go to make fuel!
            The industry controls over half of the world’s seed stock. How is this EVER a good idea?
            Excuse me for the rant, but I thought I would find brighter minds here. I am seriously let down.

          • Karen, what you wrote is a rant. Please provide a link to what you consider is a “GMO lie”. You make a lot of generalizations in your rant, but not one is supported by a link to any independent science source. In fact, many of your claims are the exact opposite of the facts. GM crops are more sustainably than organic agriculture if you do a life cycle analysis. For example, with Bt crops, you use almost no insecticides, while organic farmers massively use insecticides, spraying 5 or more times a season. Herbicide tolerant crops use far less toxic pesticides than do organic farmers, as just one example. Also GM farming allows no till agriculture, which enriches the soil and turns the soil into a carbon sink, improving climate change conditions, while organics and non-GMO conventional farming is sustainability disaster. As for “controlling” the world seed stock, what you write is just not true. Farmers get to choose whatever seeds they want. If the seeds do not perform as well, they do not choose them; there is no control. Patenting has been part of agriculture since the 1920s. Most organic seeds are patented. Patenting is limited to 20 years, so all seeds that are patented soon go off patent. This is a system designed to incentive innovation, not “control”. It would be great if you educated yourself a bit about modern agriculture.

          • BioChicaGMO

            Hi Karen,

            You’ve raise a lot of issues here. I’ll try to address them.
            1) “Why do pro-GMO groups care so little about the unintended effects?” Who said we don’t care? I just haven’t read any legitimate study pointing to an unintended health impact. Additionally, singling out GMOs for unintended consequences seems strange when they’re much more thoroughly tested/studied when compared to technologies such as mutagenesis.
            2) “What they are doing to topsoil alone is unacceptable”. Could you please provide me with a peer reviewed study that I could look over? Round-Up Ready crops have allowed for no-till farming, which reduces soil erosion.
            3) “Monocrops”. This is an issue with agriculture, not GMOs, unless you believe that berries and spinach in the supermarket are bought from a backyard garden. It’s an issue that needs to be addressed, but you’re limiting the extent of the problem by narrowing it down to only GMOs. Please see here: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/10/07/lets-play-gmo-jeopardy/
            4) “Are you even aware that the large majority of all industry GMO crops are not even for human consumption”. Again, you’re confounding the issue: that’s due to the type of crop being grown, not because it’s a GMO. Of course a huge percentage of the alfalfa grown in the US (GMO or otherwise) is for animal consumption. That’s because it’s alfalfa; not because it’s a GMO.
            5) “The industry controls over half of the world’s seed stock”. Again, not a GMO issue. Many, many non-GMO seeds, including those for decorative plants, are patented and sold. I haven’t seen anyone giving out cucumber seeds for free, and that’s simply because some company out there, who is probably owned by a much bigger company, took the time to create a strain of cucumber that’s suited to the climate where I live and the soil in our garden. That work took time and effort, and that company deserves the money I pay them for the packet of seeds that we plant in our backyard. Same goes for the GMO seeds used by farmers. See here: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/04/22/patents-and-gmos-should-biotech-companies-turn-innovations-over-to-public-cost-free/

          • Ian
          • BioChicaGMO

            That’s study #9 in the article written above.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Ian, have you read that paper carefully?

            While the authors can conclude that there is a statistical difference in the degree of severe stomach inflammation in pigs fed GM corn, the conclusions end there. The results may very well be a statistical anomaly. Look at the number of pigs with moderate inflammation. The number of pigs in the non-GM fed group with moderate inflammation is just outside the range of significance (p=0.58, threshold p=0.05). For mild inflammation, the numbers are roughly equal. Does that make any sense to you?

            Furthermore, this is not quantitative data. Inflammation was scored visually. There should have been followup analysis, like a complete blood count analysis. This would have provided much more convincing evidence.

            But I think the most problematic thing of all is that the majority of pigs in the study were suffering from pneumonia. Frankly, I just don’t see how anyone can point to this paper as credible evidence that GM feed is harmful.

          • Ian

            For me it’s not about the science, it’s about the overall goal of GMO’s. And that for me is Market share and controlling food sources. I am not a scientist, nor am I qualified to say or verify either way the scientific claims of the potential, or lack of, harmful nature of GMO’s. But I have extensively read and researched the way that markets work and am more then aware of the way that deception, gaming the system and regulatory capture play a large role within the markets and Government and my level of trust for entities such as Monsanto to act in the interests of protecting and being forthright with the general populace are about the same level I would give to letting a known, convicted pedophile look after a week long camping trip comprised of school children. Enough valid questions have been raised that erring on the side of caution in my mind is prudent.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Ian, I think that’s debatable. Yes, there are lots of commercial applications for GMOs and given the cost of producing GMOs, most commercial GMOs will be produced by for-profit companies. Few public institutions can afford to do so. But there are examples of ways genetic engineering can be applied in a non-commercial setting. Golden Rice is one example of how this can be done.

            I agree that the legislation surrounding GMOs (e.g. patent laws, ownership of genetic resources, saving of seeds, etc) needs improvement. The laws are patchwork, drawn from various pre-existing precedents and have been written by industry lobbyists in some cases. These are issues we should address. I would like to seem them openly discussed and addressed.

            One problem I frequently see is a conflation between perceived health risks and legislation (note, I’m not saying you have necessarily done this, just speaking generally). When these issues are conflated, it becomes easy for lobbyists and GM advocates to sideline legitimate criticisms about regulation by pointing at the unsubstantiated claims about health risks. Critics would be taken a lot more seriously I think if they admitted that there are such things as safe GMOs, and instead focused their arguments on better regulations and laws surrounding GMOs.

        • Calamity

          WHAT SCIENTIST? I’ve read over 1800 papers. The scientists that develop these products say clearly that they should be tested further. At least half of these recommend long term testing. Over a quarter of them say that the outcomes over the next 20 years are completely unknown. If you are quoting a scientist. NAME HIM! GIVE THE NAME OF THE PAPER. I can address it if you tell us the name and what is in it! Why won’t you tell us what’s in the papers or who wrote them?

          • noah

            name your scientist

          • Layla picked 10 articles (not all peer-reviewed papers): can you pick one and then respond with something SPECIFIC, not just telling us how many papers you claim to have read.

        • amosm

          Touché! (Love “…nuked the fridge”!)

      • guest

        Pretty typical of anti-GMO ideologues. Take a well reasoned argument from someone with a Ph.D. in the relevant field and smear them. The alternative health movement and the anti-GMO smear machine has turned much of the environmental movement into a pathetic joke.

        • Joe Vaish

          Saying something like “Anti-Gmo Ideologies” is essentially a straw man and an ad-hominem; it means nothing. First, and foremost, GMOs are not all the same; it’s a broad term. You can’t compare cross-breeding to inserting DNA from a mammal into a plant. Your disagreement lacks any reference to facts. Her argument is not particularly well-reasoned and her references are cherry-picked. Your lack of critical thinking shows in your post.

        • Joe Vaish

          By the way, just getting a PhD doesn’t mean anything other than you can regurgitate what you’ve been told and can put it in a cogent form. Impressive, but it doesn’t show critical thinking skills or the fact you are free from ideological thinking.

          • Calamity

            I got mine by hanging in till the bitter end. It has little to do with what you know as much as who on your board likes you and who doesn’t. Really. honestly. if you go through the process you’ll see a lot of people get doctorates by just paying for them.

          • Good4U

            Calamity, maybe it works that way in the “humanities” fields, such as social science, art history, musicology, and the like. It doesn’t work that way in the real, hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, and their related fields. Only through critical thinking, and learning how to apply it to authentic issues do Ph.D. candidates become awarded their degrees. It’s necessary to publish your research in a peer-reviewed journal, where your articles are subjected to scrutiny by others in the relevant field. Evidently you never experienced that sort of scrutiny, as your cynical post demonstrates.

          • Dean

            As an English doctoral student, I can promise you, doctoral programs in the humanities are just as rigorous as those in the sciences. Calamity up there clearly has not actually pursued a doctoral degree in the humanities. Please do not minimize the work and intelligence of those outside STEM fields. Thank you.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            You clearly haven’t got a PhD if you believe that, Joe Vaish.

        • Calamity

          WHAT SCIENTIST. WHY WON’T YOU EVER TELL US HISHER NAME? YOU KEEP REFERRING TO HIM AND YOU NEVER TELL US HIS NAME OR THE PAPER YOU REFER TO. WHY DO YOU IGNORE REQUESTS FOR HIS NAME?

          • Karen Bracco Aguayo

            It’s the scientist who wrote the article we are commenting on. Layla Katiree (don’t quote me on the spelling). She very well may not have real world experience. Many of these scientists live in the lab. They have no idea how the cultivation of the seeds/plants is hurting the environment. All they are aware of, and I am not speaking about all of them, is the successes and failures they have seen in the lab atmosphere.

          • Karen, you make a reasonable point that some lab scientists are unaware of real world experience. That said, scientists familiar with plant and animal biotechnology, who are not just lab scientists, but do work in the field, are almost 100% supportive of genetic engineering and its diminished impact on the environment. If are interested in a field view of the controversy, I highly recommend reading “Tomorrow’s Table” co-authored by a husband-wife team…he is an organic farmer and professor of organic agriculture and she is a plant biotechnologist. They discuss the plusses and minuses of both organic and GE agriculture–very informative.

          • BioChicaGMO

            Instead of trying to dissect who I am and what sort of “real world experience” I have, why don’t you comment on what I’ve written? Do any of the studies in the article by Collective Evolution “prove that GMOs are harmful”?

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Right, no outdoors test plots. No careful out doors observations. No idea what goes on in a field.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            Your CAPSLOCK is on.

      • Calamity

        Please explain why you would support a product that has achieved none of its stated goals. It does not increase yields. It has not reduced pesticide use. It does not in any way create a positive outcome for stockholder or customers. Has highly questionable safety, costs more than traditional methods, is banned in every country that has done independent testing? I can think of only one reason. That same reason that people had for supporting smoking and tobacco. Can you guess what that reason is?

        • BioChicaGMO

          Regarding pesticide use, positive outcomes for customers, etc, please see this meta analysis that suggests that there are many positive benefits: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0111629

          “Banned in every country that has done independent testing”: I’m interested to learn more about this. Do you have a paper/article that I could read on the topic?

          • Ellen

            Please watch this and tell me that there are positive outcomes for customers. I would revise your thinking http://althealthworks.com/4551/one-suicide-every-minute-gmo-seeds-from-monsanto-blamed-for-rising-death-rate-in-india/#sthash.H6dFCqw6.gbpl

          • Good4U

            Ellen, your link to the althealthworks website turned up a bogus article. Suicides by Indian farmers are mostly related to the intent of the current government & prime minister (Moti) to return India to the caste system that has plagued their society for millenia. Moti’s the same guy who tried to cast the N.Y. justice system in a bad light for prosecuting the diplomat’s wife for fraud, which she clearly was guilty of, but tried to hide behind her husband’s diplomatic immunity. The anti-GMO faction has tried to paint the picture that farmers are resorting to suicide because of their adoption of modern technology (which by the way Indira Gandhi strongly supported), when in fact it is due to their refusal to regress to the feudal system that had kept them in perpetual poverty. Any link to GMOs has been soundly debunked.

  • GenghisKhant

    An excellent article, something that I will be saving for future use.

  • jimbrauner

    Thanks for listing just a few of the ever increasing evidence that GMOs and glyphosate is potentially a terrible experiment foisted on people, especially here in the US. If GMOs are so great, I would expect the producers would not want to hide from me that they are in the food products that I buy.

    Here is a good article which I think sums up a serious lack of scientific integrity. The intellectual dishonesty of folks who claim to be scientists and who, based on a 90 day test by Monsanto on rats that GMO is essentially equal to non GMO is a modern travesty. I think the following article following puts it in perspective and reintroduces The Precautionary Principal into the discussion and points the way to go before we poison more and more people, land and animals.

    Nassim Taleb, a renowned New York University (NYU) professor recently raised eyebrows when he said genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have the potential to cause “an irreversible termination of life at some scale, which could be the planet.”
    What effects will the genetic manipulation of nature have on our worldwide ecosystem? Photo courtesy of Shutterstock

    Taleb, who specializes in risk engineering, has outlined the dangers of GMOs in The Precautionary Principle, a paper recently made available to the public.

    The threat
    Often, GMO seeds are favored because
    of their ability to yield larger harvests and avoid certain pests or
    weeds that usually eat up some of their productivity, reports Daily Finance.

    Taleb’s primary concern isn’t that ingesting GMOs is necessarily bad
    for people; rather, he’s focused on what effects the genetic
    manipulation of nature will have on the worldwide ecosystem. While Taleb
    concurs the risk of any one GMO seed ruining the planet is incredibly
    small, he argues that people are underestimating the domino effect of
    risk that’s involved.

    For example, if one genetically modified seed produced holds a 0.1
    percent chance of causing a catastrophic breakdown of the ecosystem,
    then the probability of such an event will only increase with each new
    seed that’s developed.

    Taleb writes that given enough time the “total ecocide barrier” is bound to be hit despite incredibly small odds.

    The argument hinges on the fact that GMOs represent a systemic, and
    not localized, risk. As GMO goods continue to be exported to countries
    throughout the world, the idea of being able to control GMOs in nature
    is impossible to guarantee.

    As Taleb says, “There are mathematical limitations to predictability
    in a complex system, ‘in the wild,’ which is why focusing on the
    difference between local (or isolated) and systemic threats is a central
    aspect of our warnings.”

    Responding to critics

    GMO supporters have criticized his work as GMOs have yet to
    significantly harm the ecosystem, but Taleb argues that point
    strengthens his theory.

    Daily Finance reports:

    The Precautionary Principle—which
    is what Taleb calls his warning—is all about managing risk, not about
    waiting for it to surface. The fact that GMOs are a systemic entity is
    undeniable. Taleb is equally skeptical of all entities that carry
    systemic risk—like too-big-to-fail banks.

    We don’t, as Taleb says, argue that a
    game of Russian roulette is safer with each empty barrel we find. It is,
    in fact, more dangerous.

    Visit EcoWatch’s FOOD and GMO pages for more related news on this topic.

    • Clifford Ageloff

      It is a principle held by Ivory Tower academics who have not found their way in the real world. and by no means is it a validation of the supposed dangers of GMOs. Would Mr. Taleb have approved the use of the internal combustion engine, considering in hindsight, what a transformative and troubling technology it appears to be?

      • jimbrauner

        I think your comparison to the internal combustion engine is childish my friend. The principal is to keep just such experiments as GMOs on people and corporate for profit only, academic and bought science from hurting humans. FIRST DO NOT HARM is another principal it encourages. In the case of GMOs we are talking about millions and millions of folks, especially in the US, getting sicker and sicker from food. We can’t even have GMO designation on our labels. This is the height of hypocrisy of an industry telling us their stuff is great and then denying us the right to know what is in our food. How is that for being proud of their products.

        I am happy to see that the jig is about up and it is just a matter of time before the whole GMO to sell chemicals house of cards will be coming down. Here is wonderful news that has broken through the monied political hold of Monsanto on our government agencies.

        Feds to Phase Out GMO Farms and Neonicotinoid Pesticides at Wildlife Refuges

        http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/25384-feds-to-phase-out-gmo-farms-and-neonicotinoid-pesticides-at-wildlife-refuges

        I am not against progress and even against genetic research and good results but given what I have learned I am totally appalled at what Monsanto and the AgroChem industry has and is doing to us to make money. I live about 10 minutes from Monsanto’s research in St. Louis County MO and just seeing their name any more turns my stomach.

        • Clifford Ageloff

          Bro, if you are reading ‘truth-out.org’ for your ‘information’ we have very little to discuss other than your cognitive dissonance.

      • William

        You can stop the advance of a combustion engine any time you want. A better comparison would be when you compare GMO with the Ebola virus. The problem there is that it is a long way away from the (more) civilized world. If a real, uncontrollable problem occurs with GMO, it is likely going to be in the USA. That is, if you ignore serious issues like CKD, that, at the moment, may not be directly linked with GMO but with Glyphosate, the spread of GMO and the increased use of Glyphosate wil make it happen elsewhere. It seems that, especially for Americans, what happens a long way away from home (but caused by American products) is just collateral damage to keep the price of food on their plates low while maximizing the profits for a few.

      • That does a disservice to genuine academics, who are typically smart enough to question a doctrine like the PP. Most of us can’t afford ivory for our towers, either…

        At the heart of the PP is the same fallacy as in Pascal’s Wager: you can’t make a cost/benefit analysis without considering context. Here is a decent formulation of the argument: http://www.skeptiforum.org/the-missing-context-in-the-mathematical-argument-against-gmos/

        In the case of GMOs the relevant context is that banning transgenic technology does not stop gene transfer in agriculture; and since transgenics are a more controlled technique than mutagenesis or hybridising, they are in fact arguably safer. So under the PP’s immortal guidance we should reasonably ban *non*-GMOs, which are a genetic timebomb ;-) Or more reasonably, accept that GMO technology does not add a significant risk to what has been done for millennia. I’m astonished that Nick Taleb, who is not mathematically or logically incompetent, apparently hasn’t spotted that, but perhaps he’s too busy surfing the wave of being hailed as a perceptive soothsayer of disaster. Of course, if you keep predicting disasters everywhere you look, eventually you’ll be proven right.

        The main fans of the PP are not genuine academics or risk assessment experts, but those who want to ban something. For them the PP is a pseudo-respectable argument that is _always_ on their side. Pity it doesn’t stand up to the slightest rational scrutiny… as decent academics with a little mathematical competence know very well.

    • BioChicaGMO

      Hi Jim, your comment is very timely: a discussion just started on the GMO skeptiforum facebook site on the document you’ve cited. I invite you to join the conversation: https://www.facebook.com/groups/GMOSF/

    • Ellen

      Please watch this video about the devastation Monsanto product is doing to these farmers’ land and lives. http://althealthworks.com/4551/one-suicide-every-minute-gmo-seeds-from-monsanto-blamed-for-rising-death-rate-in-india/#sthash.H6dFCqw6.gbpl

  • @Layla—Some heavyweight debunking on your part! Thanks.

    Each of these 10 “smoking guns” could use a more detailed discussion. A common theme among many of the articles and studies is that they are “models”, but as G. Box said, “…all models are wrong, but some are useful.” The common weakness is that the authors do not present reasonable arguments for why they think that the models can be extrapolated to real-world effects in human. This is “science by innuendo”.

    • Calamity

      Outstanding. Thank you Peter.

  • Ron Hollis

    Overall these ten studies do bring up issues regardless of author’s points of contention. GMOs have never been conclusively and completely proven to be safe. As far as glyphosate consider the adjuvants contained in Roundup and real danger becomes apparent.

    Jul 30, 2014 For the first time in the world Roundup ( not just glyphosate) has been studied in the blood of rats, showing at .1ppb ( 50% less than is allowed in EU drinking water and thousands of times lower than is allowed in USA drinking water) rats showed sex hormone changes. The study shows that the adjuvents ( other chemicals) in Roundup make glyphosate 1000 more toxic. This ground breaking study proves the EPA does not have evidence to say Roundup is safe and should be recalled immediately. Nicholas speaks with Zen Honeycutt of Moms Across America at the “Food Safety and Sustainable Agriculture Forum 2014”

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fBQNNDrT-zM

    • BioChicaGMO

      Hi Ron, the video you’ve shown here is based on Seralini’s study, which was retracted. Please see point #4 in the article above.

      • Ron Hollis

        This is about the adjuvants in roundup and comparison to safety levels. By the way the retraction was political. Many scientist stand by his study and has been republished. Did you view the video?

        • BioChicaGMO

          Hi Ron, I did view the video. I assumed that the study and the rats that the person in the video is referring to is Seralini’s study. If my assumption is incorrect, I’d appreciate it if you’d point me to the study/research article. Thanks!

        • Adam Ornawka

          Adjuvant are short lived and dissociated when they enter the plant. Studying concentrated product in vitro is a very poor proxy for product applied at GRAS rates and having the registered pre harvest interval pass.

          • Ron Hollis

            Did you view this video? One drop roundup out 10 billion drops of water fed to rats. Why do you call this concentrated? At any rate who wants any part of roundup on the food we eat.

          • BioChicaGMO

            Hi Ron, as mentioned above, I did view the video. And if it’s referring to Seralini’s study, a review of the data has found that the rat’s symptoms were due to chance/random. Please see this report from the European Food Safety Authorities who reviewed Seralini’s data: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/2986.pdf
            The Wikipedia entry also has many useful links for further reading:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair

            Regarding your comment “who wants any part of round-up on the food we eat”, you can always stick to buying food under the USDA’s organic label if you are concerned. However, I encourage you to read the following piece for an overview of the amount of Round-Up used in agriculture and its relative toxicity: http://kfolta.blogspot.ca/2014/07/glyphosate-math.html

          • Ron Hollis

            The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) had to reject the study in order to protect its own previous opinions on this and other GMOs. The findings of this study, if confirmed, would overturn regulatory assumptions of safe levels of glyphosate and Roundup.

            Séralini’s Rebuttal

            Séralini’s study showed that 90-day tests commonly done on GM foods are not long enough to see long-term effects like cancer, organ damage, and premature death. The first tumours only appeared 4-7 months into the study.

            Summary answer:

            The Sprague-Dawley (SD) rat strain that Séralini used is also used in long-term 2-year toxicity and carcinogenicity studies by industry and academic scientists, as well as in 90-day studies on GMOs. If this was the wrong type of rat for Séralini to use, it was the wrong rat in all these other studies, and market authorizations for the thousands of chemicals and GM foods that were authorized on the basis of these studies should be revoked.

            Detailed answer:

            Critics say that the Sprague-Dawley (SD) strain of rat that Séralini used is naturally prone to developing tumours, so the increased tumour incidence found in the rats exposed to NK603 maize and Roundup may have been “spontaneous” – that is, they would have happened even without NK603 maize and Roundup. They conclude that Séralini’s tumour findings are meaningless.1

            However, the SD rat is a standard choice for long-term (2-year +) studies for tumour-causing and carcinogenic effects by independent and industry-sponsored researchers.2 3 4 5 6 The National Toxicology Program in the US uses the same SD rat from the same source as Séralini’s rats (Harlan) for its long-term 2-year carcinogenicity and toxicology studies.7 None of these researchers or research programmes has been challenged over their use of SD rats.

            “An absurd argument” – researcher

            In a newspaper interview, the Swiss scientist Dr Angelika Hilbeck of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology replied to the argument that Séralini chose a cancer-prone rat strain:

            “This is an absurd argument. Séralini chose the same strain of rat as Monsanto. Do we really think that a substance should be tested on an animal that is not sensitive to it? With these defamations they wanted to distract us from the fact that Séralini used the same methodology as Monsanto. Because if you take Séralini seriously as a researcher, you have to take seriously his study and the comparison with Monsanto’s study. That would put into question Monsanto’s study and hence the approval of GM maize.”
            Monsanto and other manufacturers of glyphosate, the main chemical ingredient of Roundup herbicide, used the SD rat in their two-year carcinogenicity and multigenerational reproductive toxicity studies that form the basis of the EU authorization of glyphosate.8 9

            If the SD rat was the wrong rat for Séralini to use, it was also the wrong rat for all these other studies. So market authorizations for the thousands of chemicals and GM foods that were granted on the basis of these studies – including glyphosate – should be revoked.

            The SD rat is also often used by industry in its 90-day tests on GMOs submitted to gain regulatory authorization. This includes Monsanto’s 90-day test on NK603 maize.10

            Séralini correctly used the same rat strain that Monsanto used, in order to make his study comparable to Monsanto’s. This is in line with the recommendation of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in its chronic toxicity protocol 453.11 The OECD says that for a chronic toxicity study, the same rat that was used in the 90-day test should be used. If Séralini had used a different strain, he would undoubtedly have been criticized for doing so and thus making his study not comparable with Monsanto’s 90-day test.

            Is the SD rat abnormally prone to developing tumours?

            The SD rat is about as prone to developing tumours as humans living in industrialized countries. Researchers view it as an excellent human-equivalent model for tumour-causing and cancer-causing effects.12

            This includes the fact that in rats, as in humans, the number of tumours increases with age.12 Far from muddying the picture, as critics of Séralini charge, the fact that old rats get more tumours accurately reflects the reality of human ageing.

            Background rate of tumours does not matter

            The background rate of tumours in the strain of rat that Séralini used does not matter and does not invalidate his findings, as explained by Judy Carman, associate professor at Flinders University School of the Environment and director, Institute of Health and Environmental Research, Australia.

            Dr Carman said:

            “Séralini undertook a properly controlled experiment. This means that he used a control group that was not given any treatment. This control group tells you the background level of tumours in that type of rat. In science, you compare this background rate to the tumours you see in groups that you have ‘treated’ in some way. In Séralini’s case, the treatment groups were treated with GM NK603 maize and Roundup herbicide, separately and together.

            “The aim is to see if the treatment increases the amount of tumours above the background rate. The increase is measured using something called the ‘relative risk’. For example, if a treatment results in twice as many tumours as the control group, then you say that the treatment has a relative risk of 2.

            “Science is done this way because we know that there are background levels of tumours in animals and people. For example, you have a small risk of getting lung cancer even if you do not smoke. But you have a much higher risk of getting lung cancer if you do smoke. In fact, you have about a 12-fold higher risk of getting cancer if you smoke than if you do not smoke, so the relative risk here would be described as 12 for smoking and lung cancer.

            “The rats that Séralini used may or may not have a high background level of getting tumours. It does not matter. The fact is, rats in treatment groups had a higher chance of getting tumours than rats than the control rats that did not get the treatment. Saying that the results were invalidated because the control rats had a higher background rate of tumours is as absurd as saying that smoking cannot cause lung cancer in an ethnic group if that group has a naturally-occurring higher background rate of lung cancer.”
            In Séralini’s study, all treatments in both sexes increased large tumour incidence 2-3-fold in comparison to controls within the experiment.

            By the beginning of the 24th month, 50-80% of female animals had developed tumours in all treated groups, with up to 3 tumours per animal. In the control group, in contrast, only 30% of the rats had tumours.

            The most valid control for any experiment is the concurrent control – the control group within the experiment. However, industry and regulators often use “historical control data” from a variety of other experiments to evaluate the findings in any one experiment – generally to dismiss findings of toxic effects and to claim that the substance or product is safe.

            Use of historical control data is bad scientific practice unless the comparability of each data point is established. But since it is common in the field of industry/regulatory science, Séralini briefly and in a summary statement evaluated his findings against published historical control data on the SD rat.

            Séralini found that the treatments in his experiments increased the incidence of mammary tumours 2-3-fold in comparison to spontaneous tumour rates in the same SD strain from the same supplier (Harlan),13 and 3-fold in comparison to the largest study with 1329 SD female rats.14 In addition, tumous in Séralini’s treatment groups developed earlier and faster than in controls. This suggests that these tumours had a different biological basis from those arising spontaneously.

          • BioChicaGMO

            Hi Ron,
            Regarding the use of SD rats by the NIH, that’s a good point. However, the National Toxicology Program’s website states “The NTP long-term toxicology and carcinogenesis studies (bioassays) in rodents generally employ both sexes of rats (Harlan Sprague Dawley) and mice (B6C3F1/N hybrid) with three exposure concentrations plus untreated controls in groups of 50 animals for two years.”
            Seralini only used 10 animals per group, which isn’t sufficient for the necessary statistical tests that need to be performed.

            I’m also copying the comments that I’ve provided for Jason Shoffler on the topic of the SD rats for your convenience:
            Regarding the fact that Seralini’s study was republished without another round of reviews, that information can be found here: http://retractionwatch.com/201
            The fact that SD rats are predisposed to tumors is well known. The earliest paper that I could find is from 1956 (http://cancerres.aacrjournals….. You claim that the tumor incidence is “slightly higher”. This paper from the 70s states that the SD rats had nearly 2x the rate of spontaneous tumors compared to controls (http://cancerres.aacrjournals….. As such, it’s a poor choice for long-term studies, which was the aim of Seralini’s study. I can’t imagine what sort of discussion was carried out in the lab when that choice was made… “Hmmm… we know that the rats are going to get tumors past 1 year. But lets keep them alive with their tumors, so that we can mimic industry standards. Since we’re not studying their tumors, it doesn’t really matter if they suffer.”?

          • Hi Ron, I sympathize. Wading through all this information can be hard. However, instead of simply cutting and pasting text from Seralini’s personal website, I strongly recommend that you read some of the citations that he makes, because they actually refute his own claims!

            For example, while Seralini used 10 rats per group in his infamous 2012 paper, Voss et al. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15588926) used 185! OECD guidelines clearly state that the statistical models to be used in a study should be defined in advance, and the number of animals should be selected accordingly. It is inconceivable to me that someone as experienced as Seralini did not know up-front that his study was doomed to failure, even though it cost several million euros to perform. To simplify the point: if I toss a coin three times and get ‘heads’ every time does this mean that I have a 2-headed coin? No. Seralini, and others, are trying to draw conclusions from finding the equivalent of three simultaneous ‘heads’. This is why mainstream science (and the original journal) have dismissed his results as being meaningless.

            Incidentally, I still don’t understand why activists groups like PETA are not publicly condemning the suffering and death of a large number of animals, for the sake of a meaningless study (or publicity stunt).

          • Ron Hollis

            Hi Peter, sorry but some cut & paste is necessary when both sides need be represented. Let’s not be closed-minded.
            Here’s Seralini’s response to some questions.
            What did you study?

            Our team is the most-published in the world on the impact of GMOs and pesticides on health. We have done studies on human cells and on rats, both short- and long-term (two years). Regarding studies in rats, we were the first ones to study so many parameters (tens of thousands for blood and urine) and for so long. These rats consumed regularly GMOs with pesticides, and at the same doses, GMOs without pesticides. The aim was to find out where any toxicity came from. We were the only ones in the world to do this, as companies and health agencies had never ordered tests lasting longer than three months. But the study was retracted with great violence by the journal which published it after a former employee of Monsanto (Editor’s note: manufacturer of Roundup and GMO seeds) was introduced onto the editorial board of the journal. He is the former head of GMO toxicology dossiers at Monsanto.

            What did this study show? Cancer?

            No. We first observed the toxic effect on the animals’ liver. GMOs and Roundup also caused very significant kidney inflammation and necrosis of the liver. The other phenomenon was inversion of sex hormones (excess androgen in females and too little estrogen). The third effect was also hormonal: mammary tumors and pituitary gland tumours. In our study, we never mentioned the word cancer, because there were tumours, which varied from more or less cancerous. We recorded everything , but we did not conclude on cancer. Deaths resulted because they had grown very quickly (internal bleeding, pressure on vital organs … ). This happened both with the pesticide and with the GMO alone. We understand the mechanism of action. The enzyme that is overproduced in the GMO to make it tolerate Roundup began indirectly to decrease the levels of amino acids essential for protection of the liver and kidney.

            But this study is questionable because you used a type more susceptible to tumours, groups of animals that were too small …

            We had control rats (not fed GMOs), and we still found two to three times more tumors [in treated rats]. And there were inversions of sex hormones, which nobody mentioned. Furthermore, these rats have been used in 250 000 toxicology studies, and with ten rats per group (a total of 200), the number of rats was within the norms of general long-term toxicity studies [like Séralini’s]. And Monsanto used the same strain of rat to test its GM corn! And they measured ten rats per group, a total of 40. There are double standards! The study was criticised by some tens of people: health agencies and lobbies. For me, the retraction was due to the study’s symbolic effect. This [retraction] allows lobbyists to say there has never been any study showing a health risk with GMOs. So that the Commission can continue to allow GMOs and so that this little phrase can always be used. This study was withdrawn due to the wrongdoing of lobbyists in the system, under pressure from Monsanto. The arguments of the journal were the same as those of Monsanto. In any case, we stand by our findings! And we will republish [the study]!

          • BioChicaGMO

            Hi Ron,
            I don’t want to keep going back and forth, if you’re simply going to post information from Seralini’s page. I’ve provided my perspective, stating that the choice of the SD rat was not appropriate given the number used. Additionally, keeping the rats alive for so long once they had tumors was unethical. I already know what Seralini thinks. I’ve read his papers, comments and rebuttals. I want to know what you think. Are you OK with Seralini’s choice of model organism, knowing full well that they were going to get tumors in the long-term? Are you OK with the fact that not enough rats were used to perform any useful statistics?

          • Ron Hollis

            Hi Layla,
            Just trying to see all sides to issue. I’m OK with Seralini’s rebuttal. Make sense to me. Criticism hinges on the incorrect assumption that Séralini’s study was intended to be a carcinogenicity study. You may say that Séralini used too few rats of a strain prone to tumours, so the tumours seen may have occurred spontaneously and no conclusions can be drawn. But Séralini’s study was a chronic toxicity study, not a carcinogenicity study. The increase in tumour incidence was a surprise outcome. The logical response to the findings is not to dismiss them but to follow up with a full-scale carcinogenicity study on GM NK603 maize and Roundup.

          • @Ron—I’m still not clear. SPECIFICALLY, what do you think is the single most compelling observation in the Seralini safety study.

          • BioChicaGMO

            Hi Ron,
            I think we may have some common grounds here. Could we agree that Collective-Evolution’s piece is inaccurate or misleading in stating that a “Study Links Genetically Modified Corn to Rat Tumors”?

          • BioChicaGMO

            Hi Ron, any thoughts about the commonality in our arguments?

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            The mammary adenomas were not significantly more frequent in the GMO-fed rats than in the controls.

          • Mlema

            that’s why it was ridiculous for Seralini to plaster photos all over. It was irrelevant to the study.

          • Mlema

            BioChicaGMO – why is it bad for Seralini to use a small number of this tumor-prone animal, but not for Monsanto?

          • BioChicaGMO

            Because the animals are prone to getting tumors in the long term, not short term. Monsanto’s studies are 90 days. For a 2 year study, which was Seralini’s goal, he should have either a) used something else or b) used more rats

          • Mlema

            8 years prior to the Seralini study, Monsanto published it’s research in the same journal, research using the same number and kind of rats. Monsanto=9 month, Seralini=2 years. These are toxicology studies. The European commission is spending a lot of money to re-do Seralini’s study. They’re going to use 50 rats. So maybe we’ll get to the bottom of this. I don’t think your criticism regarding the rats is valid, since this is standard accepted protocol, even in 2 year studies. But I agree with those who say the tumorous rats were awful.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            50 rats/sex/group is the minimum acceptable number in a 2-year study.

          • Mlema

            For cancer.

      • Mlema

        Retracted for inconclusive findings. A reason for which no other study has ever been retracted. There’s nothing wrong with the study that isn’t also wrong with Monsanto’s. Seralini has answered his critics, but those in the industry refuse to acknowledge.

        • BioChicaGMO

          How is a 90 day study the same as a 2 year study?
          I agree with you that the journal made a mistake in its retraction, but for a different reason: the journal should have just admitted that the paper shouldn’t have been published in the first place.

          This is from the notice in the retraction (http://retractionwatch.com/2013/11/28/controversial-seralini-gmo-rats-paper-to-be-retracted/ ).

          “there is legitimate cause for concern regarding both the number of animals in each study group and the particular strain selected. The low number of animals had been identified as a cause for concern during the initial review process, but the peer-review decision ultimately weighed that the work still had merit despite this limitation. 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.”

          Sure, Seralini has provided a rebuttal, but he hasn’t fixed the issues with his paper. He even had a chance to address the issues that critics raised. Instead, he just published the same dataset.

          • Mlema

            The Seralini study used the same kind and number of rats as Monsanto has. If the study shouldn’t have been published because it was inconclusive, then Monsanto’s safety research is also inconclusive. Seralini’s was a toxicology study. He stupidly used the ugly tumors to gain notoriety. Perhaps he deserved to have his study retracted just because he acted so dumb. But the facts remain: the study is above reproach and there’s a double standard being applied here.
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691514002002

          • BioChicaGMO

            So you believe that 90 days and 2 years are the same thing?

          • Mlema

            huh? No, 90 days and 2 years aren’t the same thing. Did I miss something?

          • BioChicaGMO

            Well, Monsanto’s studies are 90 days. Seralini’s study was for 2 years. As such, the argument that “Seralini was doing the same thing as Monsanto. He should be able to use the same rats” is not a correct statement. The rats get tumors in the long term. Seralini’s study was a long term study. As such, he should have used a different rat or more rats, to be able to perform the appropriate statistics.

          • Mlema

            I think it’s all about the controls. This wasn’t cancer research, it was about toxicity. Seralini made it about the tumors by parading the poor lumpy rats all over the media.

            Here’s what I see: when Monsanto does a feeding trial, the focus is on all the results that appear to be normal, and those that indicate problems (like liver and kidney lesions) are hidden, or dismissed as insignificant. But when Seralini does the research, all the focus is on those abnormalities which are irrelevant (some parameters which seemed to favor eating glyphosate) and the relevant findings are ignored.

            At any rate, if you are correct, we had best notify the European Commission, since they are spending a lot of money to repeat these studies, and will use 50 rats. We want to make sure they use the right kind, right?

            Thanks.

          • BioChicaGMO

            Do you have information on the European Commission’s study? I’d love to learn more about it.

          • Mlema

            The EFSA has guidelines for exactly the sort of study Seralini did. Seralini followed feed guidelines and sex differentiation in results where Monsanto didn’t.

            Here’s the problem I see: Although 10 rats are recommended for toxicology assessment for 12 months, 50 rats are recommended for carcinogenic studies for 24 months. So the critism of two year of SD rats is not valid. And ten rats for a toxicology study is not wrong. Seralini did a 24 month toxicology study. When the rats showed up with tumors, he paraded them around (in order to wake people up most likely and get the public battle going)

            So, the question is: should he have conducted a 2 year toxicology study? I don’t know. I think the reasoning is that he’s trying to find out what long-term exposure means.
            http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/3347.pdf

            So, what are the real reasons his study was withdrawn?

            The EU has requested that the EFSA do a 2 year carcinogenic study with 50 rats to follow up on Seralini’s results of MON603 research
            http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/fp7/192042/b-wp-201302_en.pdf
            (page 70)

          • Mlema

            NK603, not MON603

          • BioChicaGMO

            I asked the GMO-Skeptiforum (which is a Facebook group that I’d encourage you to join if you’re on FB) if anyone had an update on this project. Apparently, Seralini’s group withdrew from the study because they decided to shorten the analysis to 6 months, but use omics based technology to look for differences in the rats. See here: http://www.gmoseralini.org/criigen-withdraws-from-french-government-project-on-gmo-risks/

          • Mlema

            I’m not aware that Seralini is involved at all in the EFSA follow-up of his research on NK603 (which I linked you to a description of). Why would he be?

            You’ve linked to a project by the French Government: “Risk’OGM” (which apparently Seralini’s group must have belonged to and then dropped out of)

            These are 2 separate organizations. The EFSA is equivalent to the FDA for all of Europe. If you want updates, check with EFSA information sites. Sounds like your FB page isn’t a knowledgeable source.

          • BioChicaGMO

            You’re right; the French study is complementary to the 2 year study being carried out by the European Commission. http://www.gmoseralini.org/seralini-study-france-launches-long-term-study-on-the-risks-of-gmos/

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            The reason Monsanto’s trial didn’t comment on liver or kidney lesions was that there were no test article-related liver or kidney lesions found.

          • um
            Ros?

            the FDA was recently forced to put into the public domain 44,000 pages of confidential finding concerning Monsanto and their products, including studies on the hazards of using rBST hormones in milk production. And we’re supposed to trust GMOs?

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            My name is not Ros, you rude impertinent person.

          • Mlema

            False. The raw data showed a statistically significant number, but Monsanto not to report it.

          • Mlema

            False. There results were statistically significant but not reported by Monsanto. Monsanto was forced to release raw date which revealed the lesions.

          • Mlema

            The raw data revealed a statistically significant number of kidney and liver lesions. Monsanto dismissed and the data had to be forced public to reveal that fact.

          • Mlema

            You’re not looking at the same study. I’m talking about the one that Germany forced Monsanto to release its raw data on – which showed kidney and liver lesions. Monsanto didn’t report, although statistically significant.

          • Mlema

            It was a feeding trial for regulatory approval.

          • Mlema

            Why does every reply I make here disappear?

          • Mlema

            Does Monsanto have edit capabilities on this site? I’ve made several replies here to Rosalind and they’ve all subsequently disappeared. Anyway – there were liver and kidney lesions. You’re obviously talking about a different study. I’m talking about the one that a German court forced Monsanto to release the raw data on.

            here’s hoping this posts!

          • Mlema

            Why shouldn’t the paper have been published and why was it retracted? Is your sole reason that there were too few rats and they were the wrong rats?

          • BioChicaGMO

            Using too few rats is a fatal flaw. It’s not a small matter. Please see: http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2014/07/seralini-rat-study-revisited/

            Additionally, I think it’s extremely unethical that the rats were kept alive for so long with the giant tumors for a photo op.

          • Mlema

            your link and quote are from the letter Hayes wrote to SEralini’s group. What he wrote was irrelevant to the validity of the study. The paper passed peer review and no one could find a legitimate reason to retract it, so they said the data was inconclusive. Again, no other paper has ever been retracted for being inconclusive. This was about industry pressure. That’s the long and the short of it.

    • Clifford Ageloff

      Zen Honeycutt? She’s an anti-GMO activist, not a ‘source’ of credible information of ANY kind.

      • Randall H.

        I read how they collected their “comparable” corn for the study.

        We literally don’t feed animals that kind of nutritional variation, let alone do scientific studies.

  • Jason Shoffler

    If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”

    ― Malcolm X

    GLP:This claim is the infamous Seralini paper, which was retracted, and recently republished, in a different journal without being peer reviewed.

    ME:The Seralini may just be the most peer-reviewed paper in the history of peer-review.

    GLP:The paper identified tumors in rats that were fed GMOs and/or the herbicide glyphosate longterm.

    ME:Actually, there was kidney and liver toxicity as well as severe hormonal imbalances. Professor Seralini was looking for those. The tumors were a side note and complete surprise, not the main focus of the study.

    GLP:But the strain of rat used was predisposed to tumors.

    ME:Sort of true. The SD rats do tend to have a slightly higher tumor rate after 18 months than the other popular lab rat. So, it should be noted, it lowers the statistical weight after the 18month mark of cancer tumors developing. In Seralini’s case, the females started developing tumors in 4 mos. So, it should be noted, but unless there is any new evidence regarding the SD rats tumor rates, that revelation doesn’t really effect anything. Really seems to be a favorite with the GMO lobby for some reason.

    Now, since it was a chronic toxicity study the cancer has zero bearing on the toxicity results. The strain and number of rats was selected specifically to mimic industry safety test that Professor Seralini was duplicating.

    Sadly, Seralini was forced to do this because Monsanto refused to follow the scientific method like they were supposed to. Instead of duplicating the anomalous findings from their safety test that the general rules of ethics and good science would dictate, they, instead, decided that science NOR public health were in the best interest of the shareholders.

    So, Monsanto’s general handling of the study, by the strictest definition of the word, was unscientific. And quite clearly unethical due to the public heath hazard potential. Which, sadly is the level of ethics we should expect from them but don’t. It should also be noted, and taken seriously, that they probably have more potential health hazards they are hiding….

    So unscientific scum bag on one side….

    And on the other side, Seralini, who not only decided to follow the scientific method for what appears to be a growing social concern, he even did so facing constant harassment and threats to his career.

    GLP:The paper did not perform statistical analyses and used too few rats, so it was not possible to determine if the tumors were due to the food, the chemical or to the fact that the strain of rats would get tumors regardless of what they were fed.

    ME:Again, to rehash this point. Its a shame that the study is over a year old and Entine still doesn’t know, or won’t acknowledge what kind of study it is. Which is stated clearly in big bold letters on the front top of the study, cant miss it if you actually look at it.

    As I stated above, the tumors started at 4 – 7 months so the slight increase in tumor rates after 18 has little bearing on weight of his cancer findings. And it absolutely has no baring, whatsoever, on the main purpose of the test, the toxicity findings ,which was multiple organ damage and hormonal imbalances. So, GLP gets an F for journalism and a D- for scientific accuracy.

    GLP:Finally, the findings from Seralini’s paper are contrary to other long-term feeding studies. An overview of the criticisms regarding this paper can be found here.

    ME:There really is not a huge pool of long term studies to reference. Infact, Professor Seralini’s is one of the most robust, detailed and in depth chronic toxicity studies for GMO maize Ever..

    What there is an over abundance of, is these 30 and 90 day industry feeding trials, which are included with that big list of safety studies PR package the lobby throws at everybody. They don’t call it corporate junk science for nothing, folks

    • BioChicaGMO

      Hi Jason,
      Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Regarding the fact that Seralini’s study was republished without another round of reviews, that information can be found here: http://retractionwatch.com/2014/06/26/republished-seralini-gmo-rat-study-was-not-peer-reviewed-says-editor/
      The fact that SD rats are predisposed to tumors is well known. The earliest paper that I could find is from 1956 (http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/16/3/194.full.pdf). You claim that the tumor incidence is “slightly higher”. This paper from the 70s states that the SD rats had nearly 2x the rate of spontaneous tumors compared to controls (http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/33/11/2768.long). As such, it’s a poor choice for long-term studies, which was the aim of Seralini’s study. I can’t imagine what sort of discussion was carried out in the lab when that choice was made… “Hmmm… we know that the rats are going to get tumors past 1 year. But lets keep them alive with their tumors, so that we can mimic industry standards. Since we’re not studying their tumors, it doesn’t really matter if they suffer?”

      • Michael

        As I understand it, Monsanto used the same breed of rat to do their 90 day studies, that Seralini was trying to duplicate with a longer exposure time. Seralini was also criticized for the amount of rats tested. Again, it was the dame amount that Monsanto used.
        And to Repeat what Jason pointed out, Seralini was not testing for or looking for tumors. Continuing to use that as an excuse to discredit the study is ridiculous.

        • BioChicaGMO

          Hi Michael: by definition, Seralini was no longer duplicating Monsanto’s study when he decided to extend it to 2 years. It’s a fundamental aspect of animal research that you pick your organism based on the goals of your study. His goal was to perform a long-term feeding study using genetically modified feed, as outlined in the very first sentence of the paper’s abstract: “The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant NK603 genetically modified (GM) maize
          (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup application and
          Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb of the full pesticide containing glyphosate and
          adjuvants) in drinking water, were evaluated for 2 years in rats. “

          • Mlema

            Seralini’s mistake was parading his tumorous rats all over the media. If he’d just put the study out – which was valid and still is – there would be much less fanfare (but the industry would still have gone after him). Kidney and liver problems showed up in a re-analysis of Monsanto’s data done by Seralini some years earlier (don’t remember if it was the same GMO). The industry hates Seralini, and all GMO proponents insist that anything he’s done or does is automatically invalid because he’s Seralini.

          • John DeGraffenreid Jr.

            A study is only as valid as its methodology and his was flawed, at best. These kinds of things have to be held to the highest ethical and academic standards because of the potential for harm they could cause. (see the vaccines cause autism debacle)

            If someone can’t be bothered to cross every t and dot every i then they shouldn’t be doing the study.

          • Mlema

            I agree. But why is Seralini held to a higher standard than Monsanto? Please look for later comments in this discussion between myself and the author of the post. Also, there’s plenty of info online about Monsanto’s own study of MON863, and Seralini’s subsequent examination of the raw data, which, along with other independent review, proved to reveal critical oversights.

          • John DeGraffenreid Jr.

            Because Seralini attempted to prove harm. He was the one who chose to use the rats he did. He was the one who chose to promote his study as being unbiased when it was objectively anything but.

            He rigged the results and, therefor, cannot be taken seriously. If you already know what the results will be before you even get out of the gate, as he had to have known given the well known reputation of that breed of rat, then how can the results be honest ones?

          • Mlema

            The rats he used are the standard for these sorts of toxicology studies. They were the same rats used by Monsanto. The debate, as far as I can see, is over whether it was proper to use the smaller amount of rats with a longer term of study.

            What do you mean he “rigged” the results? The study was retracted for “inconclusive results”. There was no fraud, no protocol mistakes – just inconclusive results. No other study has ever been removed from the literature for inconclusive results.

            Please read the content of my conversation with this post’s author here:
            https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/08/05/10-studies-proving-gmos-are-harmful-not-if-science-matters/#comment-1564326699

          • John DeGraffenreid Jr.

            Perhaps you should reacquaint yourself with the definition of rigged.

            He used rats known for accelerated tumor growth, which strikes me as somewhat irresponsible given that you’d want rats that WON’T grow tumors if you spill water on them for this kind of thing.

            But hey maybe I’m just being silly in expecting honesty in these kinds of studies.

          • Mlema

            Sprague Dawley rats are bred for this sort of research. They need to have a certain susceptibility to various pathologies in order to be useful for research. Again, this is the standard and was used by Monsanto to do the same research on the same foods. The only difference was length of study. As long as there are good controls, the tumors are only significant for their cruelty. The difference between control rats and rats fed the GMO is what’s important, not that the rats got tumors. This was a toxicology investigation.

            Please find my earlier conversation for more information if you wish. I provided links there. Nothing was “rigged” – the study was peer-reviewed and found to be sound science. Again, the question seems to be about the number of rats for a 2-year toxicology study. Monsanto used the same number and kind of rats, but only for 3 months. Why would you expect to find evidence of toxicity in such a short time? seralini expanded the research, but should have used more rats because of the longer time frame. In two year cancer studies, 50 rats are used. As I explained in the comments I tried to link you to, the EFSA is spending a ton of money to expand this research and settle the issue.

          • John DeGraffenreid Jr.

            No. You see the reason that the study was retracted was because of the type of rat used in it. I have actually read about the retraction there sport and the main problem that many people had with it was the susceptibility of the rats to tumors, since that was what it was attempting to prove. (which is the very definition of rigging the results. Which I know because I understand how language works and how to put 2 and 2 together with this little thing called reason. It’s useful in sniffing out horse manure from reality)

          • Mlema

            ok. Now tell me why Monsanto’s studies are valid demonstrations of safety for consumption.

          • John DeGraffenreid Jr.

            A. The author of the above piece does all of that in spades, ergo I have no reason to further beat my head against the wall of concrete that exists betwixt yon ears.

            B. I’ve not read those studies nor do I care to because people have been eating this kind of food for more than a decade and, guess what, there was no massive break down in society the way that they keep claiming. In fact I’ll go a step further and say that the anti-science brigade bares singular responsibility for every death of starvation in areas where engineered crops COULD HAVE FREAKING GROWN had the science been able to develop further. You know those crops that are designed to grow in regions hit by massive droughts? Yeah. Every drop of innocent blood is on the hands of the luddites who frightened the people who needed that food for their survival into not using it.

            Now all our cards are on the table. At least I can sleep at night.

          • Mlema

            Your reply is baffling. The piece above doesn’t talk about Monsanto’s study of NK603 at all.

            If you don’t want to read the studies, and prefer to base your safety assessment on “we’ve been eating it and nothing’s happened” – that’s your choice. But don’t pretend it’s scientific. We’ve haven’t been eating GMOs – we’ve been eating non-protein extracts as ingredients in processed foods. But there’s protein in GMO corn – and that is likely in our food. But you have no way to know whether that has or hasn’t negatively impacted the health of those who’ve eaten it. There’s no way to correlate health effects with consumption.

            As far as innocent blood on the hands of “luddites” who’ve frightened people – that’s and absurd and hysterical statement. Give me one example of a GMO crop whose lack of availability has caused detriment to anyone. Most drought-resistant varieties have been conventionally developed, some with marker-assisted selection. I defy you to find one example of a GMO that could have prevented death and didn’t because someone scared the farmer into not planting it or people into not eating it. And I’m not talking about the US dropping pig feed in Africa – I’m talking about those drought or flood resistant GMOs you seem to think could save the world, Where are they? We have one DR corn in the US – of course modified for pesticide. It doesn’t yield as well as the non-GMO. Which is the trouble we’re currently having with Golden Rice too. These plants are weaker versions of their parents outside their trait. Bad news for farmers who need yield over convenience, and aren’t subsidized by tax dollars to pay for pesticides.

          • Mlema

            Sorry, you made me mad with your stupid insults. What I wrote makes it look like I’m against agricultural GMOs. I’m not. But I’m so weary of this rhetoric about saving the world and equivalence to non-GMO development. It’s false.

          • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

            Refreshing argument, Miema.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            I have read Seralini’s studies and they are absolute rubbish, and a disgrace to the peer-reviewers and editors who let them through.
            I have a decade’s experience in running toxicology studies in a wide range of animals including laboratory rats,in contract toxicology laboratories.

          • with a whole decade of experience, you’re about halfway to becoming an authority on your very first study subject, since long term effects studies require at least twenty years for effects in humans to be reliable. Oh…my mistake. your studies are on animals, and no experience in actual human studies?

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            Lifetime effects take only 2 years in rats.

            I haven’t conducted human studies, but I have reviewed hundreds. That’s my job.

            Seralini’s studies were in rats. You do realize that?

            How many 20-year human studies have you conducted?

          • Mlema

            So your opinion means something. Thanks for sharing it.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            The study was not retracted because of the breed of rat used. It was retracted because the data did not support the conclusions. The conclusions were unfounded.

          • Mlema

            What conclusions are you saying weren’t supported? Please be specific.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            Sprague Dawley rats are not a good choice for chronic studies because the females have a very high background incidence of mammary adenomas. Also, Sprague Dawleys are very prone to developing liver and kidney pathology with age.

          • Mlema

            Monsanto didn’t control for sex differences in their results. Nor did they use an isogenic food control as far as I can tell. The importance was in the controls. Many of the rats that lived displayed pathology. However, the GMO fed rats developed them multiple times faster. The results were sex-dependent, a differentiation which Monsanto chose to overlook in their own studies.

          • Mlema

            As I said in the conversation I’ve referred you to – it’s about the controls. The test group developed tumors 2-3x more rapidly than the control, and well within the typical time frame of a toxicology study (which is what it was)

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            He attempted to prove harm because the CRIIGEN Institute where he works gets a lot of funding from Greenpeace, which opposes GMOs, and ‘he who pays the piper, calls the tune’. Also Seralini has published a number of trashy paperbacks scaremongering about GMOs, and obviously he is interested in boosting his royalties.

          • @Mlema—Am I right in thinking that you have not actually read the Hammond (ref. 1) or Seralini (ref. 2) papers? If you had, you would appreciate that they are as different as night and day. Seralini was NOT just a longer-term repeat of the Hammond 90-day study. (For example, 40% of the data was not supported by a relevant control)!

            In order to help move this debate forward, perhaps you would tell us what do you think was the single most significant result from the Seralini paper?

            The statement by the editor that the Seralini group paper was retracted because the results were “inconclusive” was simply a very polite, euphemistic, way of saying that the data they generated were not consistent with the conclusions that they claimed. In plain language, there were no meaningful results! Without a result (just meaningless data), there was no point to the paper. (As an aside, the real scandal here is incompetence of the journal in not flagging the problems of the paper in the first place).

            The Seralini group chose to show results of biochemical analysis obtained after 15 months (not 2 years), but failed to present them in a conventional fashion (i.e. mean values, plus or minus the standard deviation—unlike Hammond et al.). Why? Could it be because no significant differences were seen? Instead, they chose to use an exotic mathematical analysis (Orthogonal Partial Least Squares-Discriminant Analysis) which I have never seen used for analyzing this kind of controlled study. Perhaps they really figured out a radically different way of analyzing the data. If so, great; but it was incumbent on them to demonstrate that it was valid, and make the case why this kind of approach was used instead of simply repeating what Hammond et had done? The phrase, “lies, damn lies, and statistics” seems to be appropriate here.

            Even today, the Seralini group shows no remorse, but shamelessly presents pictures of rats with gross deformities on their website—clearly designed to imply to the non-science public that a real, serious, effect was seen. I think that this display of images is the most damning demonstration of the true motivation of this group: creation of fear, in the absence of data. This is no longer science, just politics.

            Mlema, I admire your courage in defending the work of the Seralini group. Where we part ways is a basic principle of science: by default, any claim is assumed to be untrue, unless proven to the contrary. The Seralini group skillfully uses suggestion and innuendo to side-step this principle. Doubtless—unlike a naive undergraduate student—they were highly qualified to have designed and executed a clear, definitive, study to investigate the potential harmful effects of longer-term GMO corn or glyphosate. Since they didn’t—at the risk of trying to guess at motivation—one simple interpretation of this debacle is that they executed a small, poorly-controlled, study with the intent of suggesting some deleterious effects. Many people without a scientific training were fooled. (Personally, I would have given an undergraduate student a D+ and told them to re-do the study design—but that’s just me).

            ref. 1: Hammond, B., Dudek, R., Lemen, J., Nemeth, M., 2004. Results of a 13 week safety

            assurance study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn. Food Chem.

            Toxicol. 42, 1003–101

            ref. 2: http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0278691512005637/1-s2.0-S0278691512005637-main.pdf?_tid=dd9f5b04-49d0-11e4-bf06-00000aab0f26&acdnat=1412212394_554bd061f62ddbc9a49f160a273acf66

          • Mlema

            Seralini is a long-time critic of safety assessments of GMOs.

            The two papers were different because Monsanto’s was flawed. All your criticisms have been answered by Seralini, including those against his analytical methods. You can read for yourself here:

            http://www.gmoseralini.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Seralinial-AnswersCritics-FCT_2013.pdf

            And since the only conclusion Seralini drew was: “Our findings imply that long-term (2 year) feeding trials need to be conducted to
            thoroughly evaluate the safety of GM foods and pesticides in their full commercial
            formulations.” – I fail to see how the results didn’t justify the conclusions. I find the results concerning.

            http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14

            Science isn’t in the business of being polite. The study was retracted because of industry pressure. There was no fraud and no error. Lack of conclusiveness isn’t a reason to retract a paper. We have plenty of published papers with no conclusive results. Read Snell et al metastudy on feeding trials.

            I don’t like Seralini’s dramatics. But let’s face it – the industry would have been all over this study with or without his antics. They’ve taken down other scientists who are too public with negative findings. Seralini got what he wanted: publicity for his research. He stirred up the debate again and drew attention to the lax safety testing we have on these pesticide-driven GMOs.

            You say:
            “Where we part ways is a basic principle of science: by default, any claim is assumed to be untrue, unless proven to the contrary.”

            So, since the nature of development of some Gmos makes them more prone to changes that need to be thoroughly investigated pre-commercialization, based on your maxim, I would say that Monsanto needs to offer some proof that it’s product is safe. The claim that NK603 is safe to eat has not been proven, therefore, you must assume it to be untrue.

            In the US, assessment practices don’t account for evaluation of the toxicity of the actual food, let alone the food with the pesticides used in conjunction.

            The Monsanto study failed to use isogenic controls, to begin with. Also, it’s dosing didn’t follow protocol. And Seralini has shown that 90 day tests are too short. So unless you can show me how Hammond’s study proved the safety of NK603, your own motto makes your support of Monsanto’s safety research invalid.

            Seralini’s study drew attention to the fact that current protocols for feeding trials on GMOs need to be improved. The EFSA has invested a large sum of money to conduct research which will hopefully settle some of these debates. They will use 50 rats in a similar 2-year study. And yes you’re right about the length of time Seralini looked at for the actual toxicity study. That makes the results even more concerning.

          • Calamity

            I like people telling me that they think things are dangerous. It makes others look into it. We have blindly accepted that corporations are doing things as they should for the people with the appropriate amount of study, deliberation and care. There is a shadow on that. These corporations have been asked to make it right. They have, instead, decided not to allow anyone to see their research. Not allow the public to know what they are eating, and have further cost their shareholder hundreds of millions in lost profit through mismanagement and deception. Sounds to me like the science is almost secondary to the fiduciary responsibility of the companies involved. I would thing the FCC and the FDA would want to look a lot deeper.

          • BioChicaGMO

            I invite you to look at the GENERA database, where you can search for papers on the safety of genetically modified crops based on funding.

          • Mlema

            BioChicaGMO, can you link us to what you think may be the best example of a paper on GENERA that shows the safety of GE crops?

            Since all GE crops are different, do you feel each one should be similarly tested?

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            No, it revealed that Seralini has no understanding of clinical pathology, or of statistics.

          • Mlema

            We’re all expressing opinions here. Some should be taken seriously because they’re justified with rational explanations, facts, or links to explanations and facts. I don’t see that your opinions should be taken seriously.

          • Mlema

            Seralini’s study was retracted due to inconclusive findings. Saying that he has no understanding of pathology or statistics is just you not liking his work.

          • Mlema

            He isn’t the only scientist whose examination of the study and the raw data revealed poor controls and the dismissal of statistically significant results.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            What Seralini did to Monsanto’s raw data is what statisticians call ‘torturing the data until they confess’. The hilarious thing is that when by throwing a huge number of statistical tests at the data until he managed to find some significance, he misinterpreted the results in biological terms. When he found statistical significance in *declines* in liver enzymes and kidney parameters that are only adverse findings when those parameters are *increased* he called them liver and kidney changes. If they were be taken seriously (which no competent clinical pathologist would do) they would have to be interpreted to mean that the GM feed made the rats’ livers and kidneys healthier than those of the control rats.

          • Mlema

            We are obviously talking about different studies. The Monsanto study I’m referring to was also re-examined by a German group after a court order forced Monsanto to release their raw data. This is the study I’m saying showed liver and kidney damage. And it had nothing to do with enzymes. The raw data can be found online.

          • Mlema

            MON863

          • Mlema

            This isn’t true. I’m not sure what study you’re referring to, but the raw data from the Monsanto study is online. There were kidney and liver lesions – statistically significant – and Monsanto ignored that. German courts forced monsanto to release the data and hired their own scientists to review it. They found the same shortcomings as Seralini. Monsanto tried to go back and use historical controls to compensate for their lack of good method, but they really couldn’t put the cat back in the bag.

          • Mlema

            my replies to Rosalind continue to be removed from the site. Why?

          • Mlema

            Are you actually addressing the raw data of Monsanto’s own study on MON863? Seralini wasn’t the only one that found problems with Monsanto’s research: failure to use isogenic controls, failure to discriminate sex differences, and failure to report statistically significant data on kidney and liver lesions.

          • Mlema

            The raw data was kept secret by Monsanto until a German court ordered it released. Have you looked at it? You can find it online if you really want to.

          • Mlema

            My reply appears above. Can you link to the paper in which you say Seralini “tortured” Monsanto’s raw data?

          • @Mlema, You are obviously one of the courageous few who is willing to publicly defend the work of the Seralini group—even the infamous 2012 paper! What do YOU consider to be the most convincing conclusion from this paper (as it relates to the original topic of this thread—the safety of GM-based crops)?

          • Mlema

            Peter – that’s the thing. Seralini didn’t draw any conclusions. All he did was report his findings. There was no fraud or misconduct. He followed protocol to the letter. The paper was inconclusive. It only points to the fact that more independent research is needed because Monsanto’s research was in question, and Seralini’s repeat (with extended time) raised issues. As I mentioned in another comment somewhere on this page, the ESFA will oversee a study using more rats for the 2 year period.

          • Mlema

            Whenever I reply to Rosalind below, my reply disappears. So here’s my reply – let’s see if it posts here.

            Are you actually addressing the raw data of Monsanto’s own study on
            MON863? Seralini wasn’t the only one that found problems with
            Monsanto’s research: failure to use isogenic controls, failure to
            discriminate sex differences, and failure to report statistically
            significant data on kidney and liver lesions.

            The raw data was kept secret by Monsanto until a German court ordered
            it released. Have you looked at it? You can find it online if you
            really want to.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            All old rats get kidney and liver problems.
            Seralini’s claim in an earlier study that young rats got kidney and liver problems was based on his lack of understanding of clinical pathology. He called deleterious effects when the liver and kidney biomarkers in the serum went down, when in fact that indicates healthier livers and kidneys, not sicker ones, in the GMO-fed rats.

          • Mlema

            Do you care to show us what you’re talking about? What earlier study? One of Seralini’s? Monsanto’s? Can you link us to the study? If it’s Seralini’s you’ll be sure to have access.

          • Joe Vaish

            You were proven to be incorrect. Accept the fact you are arguing ideology and not facts and move on.

          • Calamity

            LOL- Our test is good. It was 90 days. Your test is bad. Exactly the same test. just two years. LOL. You guys are the biggest liars i can imagine. You would gladly poison children to keep your pathetic jobs, than come clean and retain your ethics. Pretty low, boys. Pretty low.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            The point is, if you keep female Sprague Dawley rats longer than 90 days, you are going to start seeing mammary adenomas, which Seralini did, but he was too spectacularly ignorant to realize that Sprague Dawley female rats are extremely prone to getting mammary adenomas.

          • Mlema

            It was a toxicology study.

      • Rosalind Dalefield

        I think it is very clear from his comments that Seralini had no idea that Sprague Dawley female rats are highly prone to mammary adenomas.

    • shenendoah-Michael Drew Prior

      Very strong argument, Jason.

    • Ron Shook

      I don’t have much of any in depth knowledge of any of the 10 points here, except that I read quite a bit about the Seralini study at the time and the points you make about the misdirection in this article are sterling. Thank you! I won’t have to repeat them elsewhere. I’m not a biological scientist but I can read misdirection when I see them.

    • Rosalind Dalefield

      Old rats get pathological changes in their livers and kidneys. That’s a done experiment. There was no dose-response relationship between dose and the liver or kidney pathologies, or in the incidence of mammary adenomas either.

      • Mlema

        Monsanto’s 90 day study showed kidney and liver lesions – the impetus for Seralini’s follow-up study, with better controls.

  • clunkygirl

    Anyone up for some reading and possible debunking? This was sent in response to some of my comments. I already read about some of these studies but I haven’t read them myself and I’m in grad school so I already have a lot of fun things to read (I promise, I will get to these because it’s the responsible thing to do). etherwood, et al, Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract, Nature Biotechnology, Vol 22 Number 2 February 2004.online http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v22/n2/full/nbt934.html
    These workers suggest that there is transfer but that the rate of transfer is “low” (IMHO any is a bit much considering consumption over time and the short bacterial reproductive time.)

    http://www.academicjournals.org/…/29De…/Sundaraurthy.pdf

    http://www.responsibletechnology.org/…/65-health…/5notes
    has a lot of information

    http://www.i-sis.org.uk/camvrecdis.php

    See also

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22059960

    • BioChicaGMO

      Good question. The first thing to keep in mind is that the DNA from a GM cell behaves no differently than the DNA from a conventional or organic food product. The first paper that you’ve cited from Nature Biotech is generally taken out of context. It’s findings are not specific to GMOs and its conclusion states: “Thus, it is highly unlikely that the gene transfer events seen in this study would alter gastrointestinal function or pose a risk to human health.”
      I have not read a paper showing that DNA from our food has integrated with our own DNA or with the DNA in the bacteria of our guts (if such a paper exists, let me know). There are multiple papers demonstrating that the DNA from our food can be detected in our plasma and organs.
      Regarding your point about transfer into the gut, it could be possible, and I imagine that the microbiome sequencing projects that are underway will help determine if DNA from our food transfers to our gut bacteria. But to say that it has happened is purely speculative and hypothetical. Keep in mind that in order for the bacteria to proliferate and “take over” our microbiomes, the adopted gene would have to confer some sort of selective advantage, and I have a hard time seeing how the genes that are currently used in GMOs would do that.
      In the end, if over the course of human evolution, the bacteria in our gut haven’t taken up DNA from nuts or other foods we’ve been eating for thousands of years, why would it start happening now for these specific crops?
      I’ve written about this a bit more here:
      http://frankenfoodfacts.blogspot.com/2013/11/gmo-dna-and-your-health.html
      http://frankenfoodfacts.blogspot.com/2014/05/rebuttal-to-genetically-modified-dna.html

  • Mlema

    I think the partisan nature of this site becomes apparent through posts like this one. 10 studies are “debunked” – but there’s no discussion of the dearth of actual safety feeding trials on bt foods that humans are now expected to eat as diet staples (instead of as ingredients bereft of possible problematic proteins). Foods like bt sweet corn in the US and bt eggplant in Bangledesh. You can count the studies done on one hand.

    Instead, we’re told that we’ve eaten billions of GMO meals already and no one’s been harmed. Aside from the truly unscientific nature of that assertion, it’s simply not true. The consumption of bt toxins many thousands of times what we’ve been exposed to previously hasn’t been investigated. We’re simply relying on the belief that since humans don’t have receptors for these proteins, they can’t hurt us. But feeding trials indicate that these proteins, as they exist in the GM food they’re engineered into, cause a number of problems like liver and kidney lesions, and immunogenic responses.

    This is nothing more than advocacy for the biotech industry. Here’s how you do it: find bad research and debunk it. Talk up the rhetoric: GMO is more precise, improves yield, is environmentally friendly, can help feed the world, etc. – when what we’re mostly talking about is pesticide-tolerant or insect resistant patented commodity crops.

    meanwhile, ignore valid studies that disagree with your claims and also ignore that there aren’t many studies at all on the most concerning aspects of this technology. Oh, and paint all those who raise concerns as anti-science and anti-GMO – even though those people may support well-reasoned applications of GMO.

    • @Mlema—You mention several studies about the safety (or lack of) of Bt. Could you provide links so that we could discuss more specifically? THX.

      • Mlema

        Not sure what you want to discuss. Here are a few studies. Every bt plant is unique.

        http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v31/n9/fig_tab/nbt.2686_T1.html

        I’d be most interested in your take on the safety of bt brinjal in Bangledesh – perhaps the first instance of a bt plant being eaten as a diet staple by humans.

        I’ve got the links to the studies that were done in India. If you want to discuss them let me know, since I don’t have them handy. Also, there are a couple of reviews on those studies.

        If you’re looking to discuss studies on the safety of specific bt food crops, then you must have some research in mind that you’re basing your thoughts on the issue on? I’d be happy to discuss those with you as well.

        • Mlema

          Here’s an interesting discussion on engineering bt into commodity crops.

          http://www.biosafety-info.net/file_dir/212769580449f14502b779c.pdf

          • Dr. Heinemann is a highly knowledgeable scientist, and is particularly adept at cataloging an amazingly large number of hypothetical scenarios—almost entirely negative ones. Science needs “devil’s advocates” like him. What he fails to do is to discuss the likelihood of these scenarios, or put these hypothetical risks in the context of all the other hypothetical—and known—risks that we face.

            I’d be glad to discuss this in more depth, but threads on GLP are not the ideal medium.

          • Mlema

            You are reading the paper very differently from me. I see him attempting to make calculations that no one else has bothered to consider. These are the questions that NEED to be considered when changing the genetics of vast amounts of biomass and doing it in the way we’ve done with bt.

            Are you familiar with the attempt to engineer a bacteria to break down field stubble on Oregon turf farms? Scientists crossed Xanthomonas with Kebsiella planticola. It was only by accident that the bacteria were prevented from being released. The EPA had already approved them for field tests.

            Why was this a lucky accident? Because it turned out the GE bacteria could have destroyed many species of plants by displacing the
            Kebsiella planticola normally growing around their roots and utilizing
            their secretions to make alcohol (which was the purpose of engineering
            them, but not their target)

            You can find more on that incident online if you wish. GE is a powerful technology. We can’t let the profit motive overwhelm our scientists’ recommendations of caution.

        • Brinjal (eggplant) is an important food crop in India, but is attacked by a variety of insects. One study found an average of 15 pesticide applications per season (!), resulting in 13% of samples having above the maximum recommended level of contamination. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/58472/2/art-5.pdf

          Substitution with a Bt transgenic would likely improve yields, reduce cost of pesticides, and reduce pesticide exposure both to the farmer and consumer.

          I consider the vocal objections by certain anti-GMO activists to Bt Brinjal to be unethical. In the West, many people make a big deal about “choice” not to consume GM-desrived foods: to me, a much more important “choice” is to give Indian farmers the right to choose the kind of pesticide technology they prefer.

          • Mlema

            So, you’re not interested in critically assessing whether or not the tests done on the engineered brinjal showed that the food was safe for human consumption, but are more interested in asserting that bt brinjal will: improve yields and reduce pesticide residue on brinjal.

            First of all, there’s no shortage of brinjal in India, and in fact it’s often fed to animals because of its overabundance. Second, IPM can and is being used throughout India to reduce the use of chemical pesticides.
            http://jbiopest.com/users/LW8/efiles/R.Srinivasan_1.pdf
            http://ppqs.gov.in/pack/ipmpackage/brinjal.pdf
            You don’t have any evidence that using bt brinjal would reduce cost of production or increase yield – only theory. Other bt crops have fallen prey to pests not affected by the bt toxins. It happened with sucking pests in bt cotton in India. Also, without as much as 50% of every planting being put in as non-bt, resistance to the bt toxins is inevitable. In both cases, pesticide use goes back up to where it was. This happened rather quickly in India with bt cotton. Using the indigenous genetics of brinjal in India and Bangledesh to engineer seeds with patented genes is just another way for Monsanto (Mahyco in Bangledesh) to take over a commodity in those countries and sell it back to the people at a profit.

            Unethical? Is it really unethical to question whether or not bt brinjal, which is a diet staple in India and Bangledesh, is safe for human consumption?

  • William

    Nice to debunk these studies, but I would be much more interested in really credible research, lasting at least 2 years using ‘normal’ farm animals and being fed 100% (perhaps some additives in the form of vitamins and/or calcium) GMO feed stock as it is produced in the field and as it would normally be sprayed (frequency and timings) with Glyphosate. Compare that with a control group fed non-GMO feed stock.

    The studies that I have seen don’t go further than about 30% GMO content. If it is so safe, why not do research on 100% to get the best chance of catching problems along the way.

    • BioChicaGMO

      Check out this study. It’s behind a paywall, but the description in the abstract seems to fit your criteria. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20579187

      • William

        Thanks for the link. Can only get the abstract but that gives a few things away. MON810 does not work together with Glyphosate. Also, previous studies (probably while this research was being carried out) found liver, kidney and heart damage in rats. Those results were immediately discredited and the EFSA stated that it was within ‘acceptable range’. (Most people suspect that the EFSA is infiltrated and controlled by Monsanto). The study in the link could have so easily added a few boxes to the research by establishing whether the cows of both groups were equally healthy for those and perhaps other organs. They had done the ‘time’, why not get all possible results? Is there something to hide? That is what I ask as non-science person. If you do a two-year plus study, you want to get as much benefit out of it as possible, including the impact on the health of the cows. Two years is hardly enough for cancer to fully develop, but the initial signs, and/or changes to tissue can be observed. Because that is not done, the whole study becomes of virtually no value. Yeah, for the farmers the results of milk production are similar. But the ultimate goal is feeding the same ‘stuff’ to people. For that, you need health studies on the effects of GMO corn. If scientists cannot be independent in what they are publishing, science is useless.

        One of the researchers was apparently working at the University of Munich at the time.

        When Mon810 was banned in Germany,(see: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/monsanto-uprooted-germany-bans-cultivation-of-gm-corn-a-618913.html) the president of the Technical University had this to say:

        *_However, supporters of genetic engineering argue that a ban could prompt research companies and institutes to pull up stakes and leave Germany. Wolfgang Herrmann, president of Munich’s Technical University, has said that a prohibition risks precipitating “an exodus of researchers.”_*

        So much for independent research.

        • BioChicaGMO

          Why would you interpret that statement as meaning that the researchers were not independent? A ban on the commercialization of products in their field of research makes their research more difficult. Stem cell researchers made similar statements during the Bush administration. Doesn’t make their research less independent.

          As for other long term studies, please see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22155268
          You can also search the new database in Genera, which will allow you to search based on source of funding: http://genera.biofortified.org/

  • Joe Vaish

    Lots of flaws in your “take down” as some have so eloquently described it. Take number 7, for insance. No where in the article you are referring to does it state GMOs are associated with Autism, Parkinson’s or Alzheimers. They merely noted a correlation, and stated there is not enough solid evidence either way to make a certain claim, but it is a possiblity. Like most people, you are arguing ideology under the guise of being rational. Sad.

    • BioChicaGMO

      Do me a favour. Go to the very first link in the article. The one that is hyperlinked to collective-evolution.com
      Scroll down to item #7. You’ll see that I copied, verbatim, the title of the bullet point, which was the entire point of my article, which seems to have escaped you.
      Sad.

      • Joe Vaish

        Thanks for making me do some due diligence. You are right; I conflated item #7 with the overall conclusion of the article, which was “So, if anybody ever tells you that GMOs are completely safe for
        consumption, it’s not true. We just don’t know enough about them to make
        such a definitive statement. A lot of evidence actually points to the
        contrary.”
        Also, I found out the author from Discover is not a scientist; he is simply an editor and freelance journalist. He quotes questionable sources, such as Kevin Folta (Google him). By the way, it wasn’t the author of the Discover article who said it was a Glen Beck drawing, it was somebody on Twitter. Also, the authors of the study that you put down as being in a pay-to-publish journal are 1) Consultant Anthony Samsel who has worked for the EPA as a consultant Here’s a brief bio on him:

        Anthony
        Samsel was a consultant at the world-renowned ‘think tank’, Arthur D.
        Little, Inc. in Cambridge, MA. He is now retired and engaged in
        nationwide community investigations of industrial polluters. He has
        worked on many environmental projects for the EPA, US Coast Guard, and
        Army Corps of Engineers and is the author of “Guide to Water Cleanup
        Materials and Methods.”​

        ​Anthony
        was the principle environmental and public health investigator, who
        successfully linked the Georgia Pacific Corporation to the chemical
        phenol and contamination of public drinking water wells. 2) Stephanie Seneff, an professor from MIT specializing in Artificial Intelligence expert who has recently turned her attentions to Biology.

        Of course, their article/paper has been criticized by some but it has over 248 references. Did you check and follow up on all those? They also have numerous other studies/overviews for glyphosphate, many of them in peer-reviewed journals. In the end, the truth is that you are as lazy and as much an ideologue as you accuse others of being. Just own it and your sloppy “science”. I suggest you take some time and actually read the papers they have published. You might actually learn something. Obviously being fresh out of graduate school isn’t cutting it.

        • Joe, You seem to be impressed by large numbers of references. Samsell and Seneff have published a couple of papers like this. A technical term for this is “Gish Gallop”.

          Yes, I have read both these papers more than once and waded through dozens of the “references”. Despite the ostensibly vast literature search, the authors seem to be uncannily unaware of the literature that would contradict their notions. I am confident that 99.99% of people hearing about the wild claims in these papers will not do the necessary fact-checking. These papers are political tools dressed up as science.

          • Joe Vaish

            Thanks, but your comment is basically a word salad with no substance. You offer no real counter evidence or research; only a generalized statement. This is a common tactic in debates but amounts to nothing. You could easily use the strawman “impressed by large numbers of references” to any other research. Those mentioned have done due diligence in their research and have a track record of achieving tangible results. You’re just some doofus on the internet.

          • @Joe. Some dressing for the “word salad”: http://ultimateglutenfree.com/2014/02/does-glyphosate-cause-celiac-disease-actually-no/

            Another simple example is the claim that glyphosate is to toxic to humans because it chelates metals. Yet normal dietary zinc is roughly 1000-fold higher than the typical exposure to glyphosate! (NB simple arithmetic + high-school chemistry required). Homework assignment: do the calculation for dietary calcium.

            In a recent interview about the dangers of glyphosate and GMOs, Dr. Seneff stated: “You wonder, if you were smoking organic tobacco, it might not be so bad for you, you know?” ( http://rs1234.freeconferencecall.com:80/fcc/cgi-bin/play.mp3/7124320460-1070367-15.mp3 ). While it would be amusing to do a more thorough debunking of the Samsell/Seneff claims, it would be outside the scope of this thread.

          • Joe Vaish

            I only had time to peruse your article, but all I can really say is that it boils down to the typical “he said/she said.” You make some points about, again, ideology, as well as potential un-scientific approaches. As you mentioned, going in-depth is beyond the scope of this comments section. However, a couple of simple rebuttals to your article. 1) From the University of Maryland’s site, considered by most to be on the leading edge of modern research, “The Center for Celiac Research estimates that approximately six percent of the U.S. population, or 18 million people, suffers from gluten sensitivity.” This is from 2011. Either way, it’s closer to what Seneff suggests and/or represents quite a jump from the .6 percent figure you put out there 2) Trends and Associations Don’t Imply Cause and Effect. This is the equivalent of saying “Correlation doesn’t equal causation,” which is incredibly sloppy for any scientist to say and, by itself, should throw a HUGE shadow of doubt on any sense of credibility. A much more accurate way to say this would be “trends and associations don’t NECESSARILY imply cause and effect.” The fact is, in many instances, it does imply cause and effect. Putting that silly chart showing organic food intake increasing autism rates is childish at best. The opposite extreme would be saying if I punched you in the face and you complained that it hurt I could easily blame the wind saying, “correlation doesn’t equal causation.” Either side of the issue/debate/evidence you fall on, apparently having a PhD doesn’t equal the ability to not be influenced by ideology.

          • I’m sorry that you are confused—or is it that you would rather not actually read the piece, in case it might make sense? Either way, feel free to go to the blog and leave a question, and I’d be glad to help explain the points.

            GLP is devoted to scientific literacy. Literacy requires work (reading, listening, asking questions, thinking). A little tip, Joe: when you don’t know something, ask questions first. It’s ironical that you seem to be using exactly the crude approach that Samsell/Senneff take in their two papers: doing a superficial information search about an area of science that you are obviously unfamiliar with, and then drawing a false conclusion.

            BTW As much as it would give me pleasure, this is not the place to debunk the flaws of the University of Maryland Medical Center website, which clearly contradicts published science. Don’t forget, University websites and press releases are marketing tools—not subject to scientific peer-review. Let’s hope they do a little more fact-checking when treating patients. I will ask them to correct the error, which has obviously been on their site since 2011.

          • Joe Vaish

            Ha ha. I’m not confused at all. I just recognize a poorly written article, full of bias, when I see it.. And I agree, your website is pure propaganda, with the usual cherry-picking and childish reasoning. You didn’t directly address any of my criticisms in your thinking, by the way, another great debate tactic. I understand at your age it can be hard to admit you’re not as smart as you thought you were, but you should at least make an attempt to be honest with yourself. By the way, here’s an article from Medscape showing the same figures that I mentioned: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/757916_5 and goes further to by saying it isn’t very well understood anyway. The National Foundation for Celiac awareness also quotes the same statistic http://www.celiaccentral.org/non-celiac-gluten-sensitivity/, as does Fasano from the U of M. Guess you’re in the minority in your estimate, but ultimately it may not matter as FODMAPS may be to blame. Keep up the good fight though, Pete, praying at your imaginary alter of the pristine peer-reviewed study and your imagined brilliance.

          • Joe Vaish

            By the way, just to be clear about this, your article states, from the
            Samsel and Seneff paper, “Celiac disease, and, more generally, gluten
            intolerance, is a growing problem worldwide, but especially in North
            America and Europe, where an estimated 5% of the population now suffers
            from it.” It’s obvious that they are including the statistics of both
            celiac and gluten sensitivity, yet you chose to state they were
            referring only to celiac disease. If it were only celiac, your
            statistical quote would be correct, but, again, it’s obviously not.
            Incredibly disingenuous and manipulative on your part. Add that to the
            failed logic of the graph about correlation and you have a very poorly
            written article. Feel free to correct your article. I did it for free
            this time, but next time you’ll have to pay.

          • Joe, if you cannot even quote my article accurately, then “What we have here is a failure to communicate” (Cool Hand Luke). Your courageous defense of Samsell/Seneff is impressive. Are you sincerely interested in discussing the potential role of GMOs or glyphosate in gluten-related disorders? If so, please go to my blog and comment—I would be delighted to pursue the discussion, and will gladly eat my words if I’m mistaken. Or are you merely interested in distracting the thread away from Dr. Katiraee’s GLP article?

            What I find interesting in Layla’s point #3 is that Dr. Seneff has recently hitched up with some of the popular fringe—a non-science political activist, a chiropractor, an altmed activist (“pineapple enzyme cures cancer”), and a nutrition graduate from Bastyr University. In a recent interview, Dr. Seneff bemoaned the fact that she had difficulty getting her ideas published in the mainstream scientific journals. I have no doubt that she will get much more publicity from joining Jeffrey Smith and associates, than by trying to break into mainstream biological science.

          • Joe Vaish

            Sorry, but I cut and paste from your article directly, so there was no misquote. There really isn’t any use talking about this as you continually use strawmans and deflect any direct discussion.

          • Joe Vaish

            I’m not interested in defending anyone; I’m simply trying to look at things methodically and logically. Here’s what your statement says in item #1 in reference to gluten sensitivity after the Samsell/Seneff article quoted the 5% statistics : “This is not true. While the prevalence of celiac disease has increased, the 2009/2010 estimate of prevalence of non-celiac gluten sensitivity in the general U.S. population U.S. is about 0.6% (Ref. 2).” Your reference (Ref. 2) then points to a study that is solely about celiac disease stating the 0.6% statistics. You failed to correct your own blog, as this was not the same as it was before! Either way, you failed. If you can’t do something simple like that, how can you even begin to have a rational discussion on GMOs or glycophosphate?

          • Mlema

            “GLP is devoted to scientific literacy.”

            Science teachers are devoted to scientific literacy. This site doesn’t teach science, it tells us that we should like GMOs and pesticides. Show me one post on this site that actually teaches science.

  • guest

    As a scientist with a Ph.D. in plant genetics and more than twenty years of experience in academic research in the field, I find this discussion deeply depressing. Frankly, most of the people that argue against GMOs are scientifically illiterate. Yes, they can ape a real discussion of the science, but they aren’t really competent to actually have one. And the vast majority of actual academic scientists know it. Because if you’ve spend years studying the field, it bloody obvious. But for the casual reader, they seem to know about what they are taking about when they peddle trash science as real. I think much of the leadership of the anti-gmo movement are a deeply cynical group of lying scum bags. Natural News is laughably idiotic, and yet it is regularly referenced by activists who don’t have the training to understand that. The Organic Consumers Organization is, ironically, a front group for Big Organic companies. And Jeffery Smith is a classic American huckster. If he wasn’t shilling for the anti-GMO schtick he would be doing something else. Faith healing, essential oils, flying yoga. Whatever. And Dr. Bronner’s. Have you actually read the words on their bottles of soap? It used to be kind of cute. Now, not so much. At any rate, not that it matters to them, but the net effect has been that the Environment movement has deeply alienated tens of thousands of actual scientists, including me. We are a tiny minority of the population. Most of us are pretty apolitical, but if we are political, we are generally pretty liberal, and deeply sympathetic to the Environmentalist perspective. But the shear volume of Stupid on this issue, like the vaccination issue, is deafening. I don’t expect the activists to hear a word I’m saying. Shill, blah, blah, blah. And I’m anonymous, so everything I’m saying could be a lie. But, for the rest of you, who are undecided, look carefully at who is talking to you. Ignore anonymous comments (even mine). There are many, very brave, academic scientists, who use their real names, who are deeply offended by the perversion of good science being promulgated by ideologues, opportunists, and greedy business interests. Why do you suppose that is?

    • Calamity

      Tell you what Doc, You provide any proof that no one has died from them and I’ll back off. Till then, you have a huge mountain of data to read. Oh, you don’t read data, because you’re not a doctor. Your a no one from nowhere with no experience? Really? I thought you were a doctor? No, You just say you are? I’m shocked. A PHD that can’t come up with a name, a profile. No citations off any papers. No stance or knowledge, but tells everyone how safe GMO’s are? I’m stunned. LOL

      • John

        I am just reading and laughing….I totally agree with the above PHD. Ppl like you disgust me. I have been scrolling down reading what you have wrote and you keep mentioning all these generic studies you’ve read but you have yet to put one forth on this comment page. And when you do its likely to come from one of the ridiculous aforementioned resources mentioned by the above scientist who you have obviously just “disproved”.

        • Lyric Smith

          I have been reading through these comments to see if anyone of these arguments can help me with a paper i have to write on GMOs.But none of these really helped me out .Most of them seemed to be childish in ways or completely bias. Personally i try to eat organically because no one is sure of the out come on the human body when gmos are consumed and like others i do not want to be a part of this experiment. They have not been tested long enough . Even if some guy with a PHD says its okay . Him and other educated people are just human , not god , not some mythical person that can foresee the fate of these new ” foods”. Can someone actually show me where they are getting all this information from ? instead of just insisting that you are right ?

          • Walter

            Check out Dr. Shiva….she knows and can help your research..

          • HA!

            (This was a joke, right? Oh god, I can’t tell anymore… http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe )

          • Dean

            you’re all jealous you’re too stupid to get your PHDs. The ave American’s IQ is 100. Barely capable of analytical thought. HAHA. I trust the PHD’s. They’re not Gods, but more trustworthy than you grammatically incorrect morons.

          • Bob Bobert

            Ever heard of Einstein? Newton? What about Tesla? Tesla was the perfect student.. never missed a lecture but had ideas that didnt fit with what scientists at the time accepted;. resulting in him losing his place in education and becoming arguably the greatest scientist of all time. Point being.. a phd does not make you right or more able.

          • not really convinced that eating corn which produces it’s own pesticides would be healthy for me.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            Better not eat any plants at all then.

          • Why? are you trying to say that all plants kill insects?

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            Many, many plants synthesize substances toxic to insects, and others synthesize substances to make themselves unpalatable to insects. Some of those substances synthesized to make plants unpalatable to insects are toxic to human beings.

          • and yet they all work withing the original 147 left hand proteins found in life on earth. some GMOs contain the 148th such protein… and you feel there has been enough testing done to ensure their safety?

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            No, they are not always considered poisonous, because whether or not they are poisonous depends on dose. There are a large number of potentially harmful plant-derived substances in the everyday diet, but they don’t cause problems as long as you eat a balanced diet and don’t eat too much of the harmful substances. If you refused to eat every plant that has substances in it that could kill you at a high dose, you probably wouldn’t have any plants to eat at all.

          • unfortunately Ros, I do understand toxicology enough to recognize that dosage is important. Also important is how those toxins are eliminated from the body. Many such are actually retained and build up over time. One fine example of such is mercury, found in almost every fish on the planet. While eating some fish is healthy, too much can cause mercury poisoning. How do the toxins in GMO crops pass through the human system? NO ONE KNOWS because it hasn’t been studied.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            What toxins in GMO crops, rude person?

            Relatively few poisons are bioaccumulative and regulatory agencies take a very, very dim view of those that are.

          • The ones that they haven’t bothered to test for, arrogant narcissist. ones similar to DDT and dioxin, which were declared ‘safe’ when introduced but were proven later, not to be. Ones that may not be directly fatal, or even directly harmful to humans, but change the flora and fauna within our digestive tracts.

            And once again you sidestep the real issue.

            Franken-food needs to be studied thoroughly BEFORE we discover that “OOPS, we were wrong again” happens. Prevention rather than grasping later for a cure.

            If this concept is too tough for you to grasp, perhaps an easier concept…. it is very difficult to unbreak an egg.

          • AaPenny Lali

            This is an interesting point. If the FDA and other agencies accept toxins in products because they are at a level that is acceptable, does the FDA also look into ALL the different toxins we are exposed to in a single day? If we are exposed to limited levels of toxins in just about everything we come into contact with, do these toxins accumulate and help one another negatively affect our bodies or is it all ok? I ask because my four sets of grandparents and most great-grandparents died between 85-98 years of age. However, my family has now lost 6 women in 15 years under the age of 60. I have a hyperthyroid and am the first in my family to have this condition. I used to not worry about what I ate or wore (make-up, perfumes etc) but now am wondering where is all the illness coming from?

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            Myr Silverleaf, there are not only 147 proteins on earth. There are millions. Where did you get the idea that there are only 147?

          • I did not say that there were only 147 proteins on earth. in facts in earlier posts I commented that there are vast numbers of them; however all life on planet Earth is comprised of a very specific 147 left-hand proteins. At least it was until the advent of GMO work, when a protein never before seen in any living organism on the planet, was spliced into our food supply.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            “all life on planet Earth is comprised of a very specific 147 left-hand proteins”
            This is complete and utter rubbish. There are at least 2 million different proteins in the human body alone. Not counting our microbial flora.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            By the way, it is rude and impertinent to shorten a person’s name without their permission.

          • rude and impertinent is your condescending attitude, Ros… you have yet to earn my respect.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            I don’t want or need the respect of someone as ignorant and stupid as you, and I can’t be impertinent to someone who does not outrank me.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            Bees pollinate the 660+ flowering plants that produce pyrrolizidine alkaloids that are extremely toxic to your liver, some of which have caused massive outbreaks of liver disease in human beings. At least some pyrrolizidine alkaloids are carcinogenic and it is likely that most are. Pyrrolizidine alkaloids are very, very commonly found in honey consumed by human beings.
            As another example, Google ‘grayanotoxin honey’
            What was your point about bees again?

          • the point, since you missed it, is that plants don’t develop toxins against insects when they depend on them for reproduction.

          • Rosalind Dalefield

            Incorrect, as it happens, because pollination and consumption are two different things.

          • Naryal

            Except, they do, you idiot. All the time. Milkweed is poisonous to most insects and animals, the exception to that being the Monarch butterfly in its’ larval stage.

    • Crissy Dobson

      Regardless of what current studies do or do not show, one thing is true… There is a fast amount of information about biology/genetics/human health that we still do not know.

      Gene therapy works in theory, but not in practice… does anyone truly understand why? No.
      Often in laboratory studies, introducing new genes into cells (human or otherwise) has off target or unexplainable results. Simply put, there is no way to know with certainty that there are no effects from consume GMO products, could they be effects that we currently do no have the knowledge base to monitor? Could there be no effects? Could the effects be long-term or as a result of cumulative exposure?

      Those answers can’t be answered now. But we can look at the history of laboratory made products and human health… for example pharmaceuticals. There is a desired effect, however there are often unforeseen off target effects. Many times the product is deemed safe.

      SCIENTISTS ARE CONFIDENT IN THE SAFETY.

      …and only after the product is released to the public for some time do the effects become evident and what was thought to be safe indeed isn’t. The patients who died, went blind, or suffered a number of “side effects” are the test subjects.

      Anything new, man-made for human consumption is an experiment. Only time will truly tell the impact. Maybe they prove harmless, but based on our history, I choose not to be a test subject.

      Sincerely,

      Biochemical Researcher

      Ps. As a scientist, I can say that in general, scientists are ignorant of their own ignorance. We have a history of thinking what we “know” to be true is “gospel” only to have much of current knowledge disproved by future generations.

      • Joe Campbell

        Crissy Dobson. This is someone who I can admire. Knowledgeable, Intelligent, yet humble. One who knows man is far from perfect and even science doesn’t have all the answers.

      • FCelestePizza

        I like how you start your argument with “regardless of what current studies do or do not show.” Also, it’s almost certain that most of the food you eat contains some GMO ingredients, so you are a “test subject”

        • Haribo Lector

          She might as well have said “Putting aside all the evidence” or words to that effect.

          • Awesomesauce Mcgee

            No, she used it right. She’s saying that the evidence can be questioned and there isn’t a definitive answer so put it aside. What she states after the comma is what she considers the unquestionable fact.

          • Jeremy Olson

            But there is no evidence to prove GMOs are unhealthy. Therefore, we can’t simply say “GMOs are dangerous.” like so many anti-gmos people do.

          • Bad Ballie

            Agreed, there are however numerous studies that state that GMO’s may not be safe, which is enough for me to say, OK stop, do further testing and prove it one way or the other. IT is not acceptable to say they may be safe, and leave it because the consequences will most likely not appear until after I am dead. One thing that has been shown though, is that the age old statement “life will find a way” holds true, and there are numerous reports that show that in some countries, GMO seed have “invaded” the natural crops to the point where up to 87% of all current crops whether originally GMO or not, now consist of GMO stock. I also worry that Obama has appointed the ex vice president of Monsanto at head of the FDA, it raises many questions the biggest being how long before the so called “terminator gene” in approved for distibution

          • Michael McCarthy

            “in some countries, GMO seed have “invaded” the natural crops to the point where up to 87% of all current crops whether originally GMO or not, now consist of GMO stock”

            Been reading natural science propaganda, it would seem.

          • Citation?

          • Michael McCarthy

            citation for GMO seeds not invading natural crops?

          • Is there any evidence that they have?

          • Michael McCarthy

            There is no such thing as a “natural” crop, so I would say no

          • Andrew Sprague

            For the record I am Pro-GMO. But I am against Pesticide Resistant GMOs. Yes there is definitely evidence. Monsanto actually sued a farmer in Canada whose stocks were pollinated by a neighboring GMO farm.

            But this happens with all fruits and vegetables. So even if Glycophosphate Resistant Genes got into other crops this would have little impact. The biggest problem is the integrity of the mutation in the GMO. It could trans-locate within the plant genome causing another mutation that we didn’t want. This is simple to test for though. You just breed the plant through a couple generations to make sure the mutation ‘sticks’. And furthermore with CRISPR this won’t even be a problem anymore.

          • So, when Monsanto screws up an organic farmers lively-hood, that’s “tough shit” for the organic farmer? Wow, what a sense of justice!

            And who says I am against all GMOs? Actually I am working on making a different type of crap – – excuse me, type of crop – – – – – NTESCs.
            Embryonic-type stem cells – – via NT (nuclear Transfer) – – stem cells with your DNA, full telomere length – – – as Oregon U. just did.
            For more, at http://www.iaam.ca click on STEM CELL LAB.

            Sorry about the mess at the site; we are rearranging and up-dating, using a different format.

          • Andrew Sprague

            Whoa. What a way to put words into my mouth. What I am saying is that 80% of sources given to me concerning Anti-GMOs studies is directly related to Pesticide Resistant Crops. It seems like a no brainer that being able to spray more pesticides especially glycophosphate based pesticides which have anti-biotic properties might give a rat cancer and thus humans perhaps as well. You mentioned Seralini whose work seems completely focused on this particular type of GMO. What is causing the negative effects in these studies? Pesticides or GMOs?

          • Jim

            Monsanto is using GMO pesticide resistance crops to wipe out small farmers and organic farmers (which it just considers as another form of “pest”) as well as insect pests.

            The crops in farms close to GMO fields gets pollitated by the GMO crops (bees, wind, birds, other insects etc can spread in for tens of miles or even more) THen Monstanto SUES THE VICITIM of its wanton release of GMO pollen into the environment for (supposedly) “stealing Monsanto’s intellectual property”)!

            This is planned and deliberate “with full malice aforethought” just yet another of many diabolical manipulations and sabotage that large argibusiness has and is using to destroy small farms, most especiallyb ones experimenting with alternative to agribusiness’s environmentally devastating approaches.

          • JP

            No. Stop just making up things.

          • Jim

            You clearly are in WAY over your head on the science.

            Transposons (Barbara McClintock’s “jumping genes”) move genetic insertions around the genome (but some have been modified to prevent that). CRISPRs insertions don’t move around like that but they do have many CURRENTLY UNRESOLVED problems, most especially that a portion of their insertions are RANDOM (which is an absolute bar to their use in therapeutics, BTW) But the big problems are unrelated to the tool. (BTW, zinc fingers are far superior to CRISPRs because they have a much lower rate of off target hits but more important, the off target hits they do have are in sequence highly similar to the target so easy to test for (you can’t do that with CRISPRs because some of their OTHS are RANDOM)

            THE BIG problem is totally separate from whatever genetic modification tool that is used (including even zinc fingers that are the only GM tool that leaves no traces other than the actual insertion) THe genes inserted can (and usually do) come from a totally unrelated species (because if the species was related you could use just conventional UNCONTROVERSIAL plant breeding/selection). And when those genes escape into the environment into species related to the crop into which they were inserted BUT TOTALLY UNRELATED to the species the gene came from) there is potential for severe ecological disruptions. AND ONCE OUT IN THE ENVIRONMENT THERE IS NO WAY TO GET THE GENES BACK. Just ask an Australian about Cane Toads or rabbits. Or a Kiwi about gorse.

          • Andrew Sprague

            ” but they do have many CURRENTLY UNRESOLVED problems, most especially that a portion of their insertions are RANDOM (which is an absolute bar to their use in therapeutics, BTW) ”

            This is only a problem when it concerns Eukaryotic cells. We can use selective markers in plasmids to ensure the correct mutation has transferred and has been used in hundreds if not thousands of studies at this point.

            “And when those genes escape into the environment into species related to the crop into which they were inserted BUT TOTALLY UNRELATED to the species the gene came from) there is potential for severe ecological disruptions. AND ONCE OUT IN THE ENVIRONMENT THERE IS NO WAY TO GET THE GENES BACK. Just ask an Australian about Cane Toads or rabbits. Or a Kiwi about gorse.”

            Rabbits had a non-GMO virus introduced to them. The Cane Toad project was scrapped. Do you have any studies that show Bt genes spreading though natural populations or any evidence at all to support your claims? I am willing to change my mind concerning this subject but so far every Anti-GMO comment has included insults and disingenuous claims. If not outright misrepresentation of the data on studies.

          • Farmer Sue

            If you’d read the case against Percy Schmeiser in Canada, you’d realize that the court ruled that Percy stole patented seeds. All farmers sign agreements with GE seed companies not to do that. And that is not uncommon with patented seeds, which have been in use over 85 years.
            There are articles on the lawsuit itself. Here is the summary on Wiki.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser

          • Andrew Sprague

            Actually that is not what the Wiki article says at all.

            “the trial judge found that with respect to the 1998 crop, “none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality” ultimately present in Schmeiser’s 1998 crop.”

            There was no evidence that he stole them. Just that he couldn’t prove that his field (in 1998) came about by contamination. Considering the team of lawyers Monsanto has I would say they convinced the judge that contamination couldn’t happen.

            “Schmeiser then performed a test by applying Roundup to an additional 3 acres (12,000 m2) to 4 acres (16,000 m2) of the same field. He found that 60% of the canola plants survived. At harvest time, Schmeiser instructed a farmhand to harvest the test field. That seed was stored separately from the rest of the harvest, and used the next year to seed approximately 1,000 acres (4 km²) of canola.” (1997)

            “The evidence showed that the level of Roundup Ready canola in Mr. Schmeiser’s 1998 fields was 95-98% (See paragraph 53 of the trial ruling[4]). Evidence was presented indicating that such a level of purity could not occur by accidental means. On the basis of this the court found that Schmeiser had either known “or ought to have known” that he had planted Roundup Ready canola in 1998.”

            His crop was contaminated. He saved those seeds separately and planted them. So if your crops get contaminated by a GMO you have to destroy them and their seeds.

            “All farmers sign agreements with GE seed companies not to do that.”

            No that is false.

            “When farmers purchase a patented seed variety, they sign an agreement that they will not save and replant seeds produced from the seed they buy from us.”

            http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx

            The farmer never signed any agreement with Monsanto and thus doesn’t have to abide by them. Furthermore the Court ruling was 5v4 not exactly a cut and dry case.

            “Led by Madam Justice Louise Arbour, the dissenting faction said a reasonable observer would conclude that “gene claims and the plant-cell claims should not be construed to grant exclusive rights over the plant and all of its offspring.

            “Mr. Schmeiser was entitled to conclude that since plants cannot be patented, they fell outside the scope of patent protection,” they said. “Accordingly, the cultivation of plants containing the patented gene and cell does not constitute an infringement. The plants containing the patented gene can have no stand-by value. To conclude otherwise would, in effect, confer patent protection on the plant.”

            I agree with Justice Arbour’s dissent.

          • Ctaj

            It happens in organic farming, too. It’s almost impossible to prevent cross-pollenization in an open field.

          • Bad Ballie

            Actually there are many reports questioning their safety, very few get peer review, its a question of money at the end of the day, those that do not accept the approved line simply lose it or do not get it in the first place.

          • Terry Hill

            OH snap!
            When science doesn’t support our wild, unsubstantiated claims… Conspiracy theories!!

          • Haribo Lector

            If there is no evidence to back up an assertion, the intellectually honest thing to do is to stop making the assertion.

          • the intellectually honest assertion is: we don’t know. Lets do SOME testing first.

          • Tomáš Hluska

            SOME testing? That’s done for decades by now. Also, it is impossible to prove the negative. Thus unless you provide evidence that GMOs are harmful, you shall treat them as harmless, if you are truly for truth. Or at least demand the same level of testing for conventional crops.

          • Ctaj

            How many hundreds of years has man been modifying genes in the food system? I think that counts for testing.

          • Fluoride Free Thoughts

            Have you not taken the time to understand what GMO’s do to rats??? Please do and realize that there are no tests on humans so FDA(Bought and controlled by corporations) can easily say that there’s no proof. Take some time to taste the pudding;)

          • GC

            Nothing?

          • Fluoride Free Thoughts

            you lack patience in an evident sort of way ;)

          • GC

            You lack the patience to investigate those studies on rats.
            Actually the article itself addressed the rat studies, so I presume you didn’t read it?
            And how would you know that the FDA is being bribed? Of course, an government institute with thousands of scientists are being given money without the government noticing. Of course.

          • Fluoride Free Thoughts

            Your questions are all irrelevant if you know how to assimilate all sources and the outcomes over years. Don’t be a disregarding idiot to make a personal, prideful point about things you only perceive to understand. Thanks for your patience.

          • something about how top executives from Monsanto, the FDA and EPA trade places like a merry-go-round, might just be an indicator of impropriety.

          • Manny Borges

            aaaaaaand you didn’t read the article. That study was addressed specifically.

          • Terry Hill

            Did you not read the article? The GMO-rat experiments were so flawed they were laughable. Seralini has a history of making stuff up for money, including his now infamous ‘aspartame’ studies (using the same cancer-prone rats).
            Bottom line, there is no causal link between GMOs and any health-related issues. Try looking at some university websites, or any of the hundreds of research papers done outside the US.

          • LOL the GMO rat experiments were 1000 times more ‘scientific’ than the ‘2nd hand smoke’ studies….yet smoking is banned in many public places…

          • Terry Hill

            Actually, Myr, that tells me you have either not read the ‘rat studies’, or have no scientific understanding.

            The rat studies on GMO consumption were terminally flawed, and the data used to support the findings did not in fact show any such evidence. In fact, the authors selected specific groups (excluding data that showed results contrary to their desired outcomes) and even these subsets were ‘marginal’. If this study had been legitimate, and the findings repeatable, the WHO and UN would classify GMOs as a group 1 carcinogen… WHICH IT ISN’T, no matter how much you want to find something wrong with it.

            However, the cancer-causing effect of smoke (direct or ‘second hand’/indirect) is scientifically proven and repeatable.

            Sorry, but your opinion in nonsense.

          • that tells me you haven’t read the studies and methodology of the 2nd hand smoke studies, not repeatable, totally subjective and based on questionnaires that lead a participant down a merry rabbit hole of ‘pffffffft…”

            However, there have not been just one or two studies done on the carcinogenic effects of GMOs on test animals, including lab rats. in fact there are more than 17 such studies by independent labs that have all come to the same conclusions. GMO’s can cause cancer in lab animals; but then so can distilled water.

            You say my opinion is nonsense? okay, I can live with that as your opinion. In MY opinion? you’re a Monsanto shill who avoids the necessity of further testing of the effects of GMOs on people.

          • Terry Hill

            On what basis do you conclude I’m some type of ‘shill’, other than your outrage that someone has a science- and evidence-based opinion that is contradictory to your delusional dogma?

            There is overwhelming scientific evidence supporting second hand smoke. Just as there are over 400 independent, peer-reviewed and non-industry funded studies that show no such imaginary cancer-GMO link.

            Other than Seralini, please provide me with a couple of those 17 links, because I have yet to read one that actually does anything that express the opinion of the author that ‘there may be a link’ based on little more than small data sets or anecdotes from questionnaires. Please, I would genuinely be interested in reading them.

            My opinion is based on my current study of biology, talking with my university professors and a literal plethora of existing research from over 200+ universities, medical and scientific research facilities around the world.

            I’d be interested in seeing what your opinion is based on.

          • there are already sufficient links posted in this thread, do your own footwork here. Current studies and talking with professors tells me you are still a student. Which immediately suggests that the information you are gleaning is already outdated. Be interested in knowing the publishing dates on your textbooks.

            Please feel free to post any links to the research from those 200+ universities. I’d be interested in seeing their conclusions.

          • Terry Hill

            While I have several hundred to choose from, I’ve been through these links here as a good cross-section, all showing the following:
            – every one of these is University of Government research – NO industry involvement (I’ve not included any research undertaken by any AgriChem or Chem company)
            – every one has declared their funding sources (no AgriChem/Chem company funding)
            – I’ve also excluded any research where a contributing author was an employee of a AgriChem or Chem company. Which is to placate scientific ignorance, because many chemists, biologists and geneticist that work for these companies also hold research positions or collaborate on research with universities (It riles me that such ignorance of science exists that even an association somehow taints their scientific integrity in the eyes of idiots, yet they can overlook Seralini’s funding from CRIIGEN, a well-known anti-GMO activist organisation.)
            – a cross section of national, state and international (incl. European Food Safety Auth. study, that included researchers from at least 8 country’s leading universities)
            – I’ve only included research, no Meta studies, no articles, no opinion pieces, even as all those I have are peer reviewed articles from high impact scientific journals, no matter how esteemed the presenters.
            – I haven’t included various oblique studies that do not directly target GMOs, such as water quality studies that show no GMO product residues, or those that look at things like Bt toxin persistence in soils etc (despite this being a major claim by anti-GMOers)
            – I’ve only included those which you can access an abstract for (academic-only papers are not included as I cannot include links for you to access)

            Please, take the time to read some of them. It took me a few hours to filter these out, through my university database search. There are literally hundreds more, but if you want more, I think it’s time you took your blinkers off and ‘did your own research’ too.

            Lead Author – Hyperlink – Year – Institution: (G) Government; (U) University

            Devare, M – http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038071707001095
            2006 (U) Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Cornell University, New York

            Bartheau, Y
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19123817
            2009 (G) Agence Française de Sécurité
            Sanitaire des Aliments, Laboratoire d’Etudes et de Recherches sur la Qualité des Aliments et les Procédés Agro-Alimentaires

            Onose, J
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18381229
            2008 (G) Division of Pathology, National Institute of Health Sciences, Japan

            Kroghsbo, S
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18215453
            2008 (U) Department of Toxicology and Risk Assessment, National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark

            Ma, BL
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21722080
            2011 (G) Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Researc Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ontario

            Wiedemann, S
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17933942
            2007 (U) Institute of Biochemistry and Molecular Medicine, University of Bern, Switzerland

            Beckles, DM
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22515236
            2012 (U) Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis

            Batista, R
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17496424
            2007 (G) Instituto Nacional de Saúde Dr. Ricardo Jorge, Portugal

            Adel-Patient, K
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21298004
            2011 (G) Unité d’Immune-Allergie Alimentaire, France

            Buzoianu, SG
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23097397
            2013 (G) Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Ireland

            Liu, P
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22709787
            2012 (U) College of Food Science and Nutritional Engineering, China Agricultural University

            Fermin, G
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21819140
            2011 (G) USDA-ARS-Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, Hawaii

            Gruber, H
            http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf200854n
            2011 (G) Institute for Crop Science and Plant Breeding, Bavarian State Research Center for Agriculture

            Gu, J
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23182224
            2013 (U) Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Aquaculture Protein Centre, Norway

            Sissener, NH
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21418706
            2011 (G) National Institute of Nutrition and Seafood Research, Norway

            Walsh, MC
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22574138
            2012 (G) Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Ireland

            Misra, A
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22743705
            2012 (G) CSIR-Indian Institute of Toxicology Research, India

            Qin, F
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22324875
            2012 (U) Department of Bioengineering, College of Food Science, South China Agricultural University, China

            Faust, M
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18024763
            2007 (U) Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University

            Jacobs, CM
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18281573
            2008 (U) Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois

            Sakamoto, Y
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18787312
            2008 (G) Department of Environmental Health and Toxicology, Tokyo
            Metropolitan Institute of Public Health, Japan

            Trabalza-Marinucci, M
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871141307002442
            2008 (U) Diagnostica e Clinica Veterinaria, Università degli Studi di Perugia, & Università degli Studi di Urbino “Carlo Bo”, Italy

            Daleprane, JB
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19011971
            2009 (U) Dept. of Nutrition and Dietetics, College of Nutrition, Federal Fluminense University, Brazil

            Stein, HH
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19098236
            2009 (U) Department of Animal and Range Sciences, South Dakota State University, Brookings

            Steinke, K
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20579187
            2010 (U) Animal Nutrition Weihenstephan, Technical University of Munich, Germany

            Yonemochi, C
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20163679
            2010 (G) Japan Scientific Feeds Association

            Brouk, MJ
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21426987
            2011 (U) Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan

            Randhawa, GJ
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21078358
            2011 (G) National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, Pusa Campus, India

            Fonesca, C
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270010
            2012 (G) National Institute of Health, Portugal

            Zhu, Y
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23000447
            2013 (U) College of Food Science and Nutritional Engineering, China
            Agricultural University, Beijing, China

            Bonadei, M
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19833075
            2009 (U) Dipartimento di Genetica e Microbiologia, Università di Pavia, Italy

            Devos, Y
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22576225
            2012 (G) European Food Safety Authority, Italy

            Cortet, J
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003140560700025X
            2007 (U) Institut National Polytechnique
            de Lorraine (France); Université Saint Jérôme (France); University of Aarhus
            (Denmark); Jožef Stefan Institute (Slovenia); Scottish Crop Research
            Institute (UK)

            Mulder, C
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17626475
            2007 (G) National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, The Netherlands

            D’Angelo-Picard, C
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21315818
            2011 (G) Institut des Sciences Du Vegetal, France

          • Hmm….Seralini wasn’t testing for cancer, he was testing for toxin build up. He used exactly the same number of test animals as Monsanto did for their 90 day trial. And the peer reviewed study wasn’t retracted until a Monsanto executive was made editor of the journal. Conversely, THREE major studies on the Pro side of GMOs have been retracted…

            Oh, just so you know, they did find toxins in the test subjects, transferred via the GMO feed to the rats. The tumor thing was a smoke screen by Monsanto, since everyone knows these rats are prone to them.

          • Terry Hill

            Ok, so you don’t know how science works. I get that.

            His ‘findings’, as published, “this was not designed as a carcinogenicity study” – yet the results were ‘harping’ about tumours. Coincidentally, if you are adept at reading data, and understand some simple statistical functions (standard deviation, etc), you’ll note that all tumour rates reported, as well as mortality rates, fall within the expected range for Sprague-Dawley rats. Scientifically, “nothing to report”.

            A basic, first year science student learns that you do not herald ‘findings’ that are not the purpose of your study as THE MAIN FINDING of your study. Yet this is exactly what his staged, media circus event was about.

            Secondly, his released data does NOT show what he claims, and as the study is not designed to look at carcinogenicity, he has not allowed for nor addressed any confounding factors. When a study is designed to look for cancers, all other possible causational confounders need to be isolated. It’s like saying, in isolation, that “soda causes lung cancer”, based purely on correlation during a study on soda consumption, while not identifying that 80% of the population are smokers. It’s simply that stupid.

            The first sign that this is a ‘setup’ study (designed to find what he wants it to find) is that the only referenced work (used as background to support the purpose of the study) he uses claiming any hint of possible harm ARE HIS OWN PREVIOUS WORK – and even in those papers, they are ASSUMPTIONS NOT BASED IN DATA.

            “Though the petitioners conclude in general that no major physiological changes
            is attributable to the consumption of the GMO in subchronic toxicity studies [2-5], significant disturbances have been found and may be
            interpreted differently [6,7]. A detailed
            analysis of the data in the subchronic toxicity studies [2-5] has revealed
            statistically significant alterations in kidney and liver function that may
            constitute signs of the early onset of chronic toxicity. This may be explained
            at least in part by pesticide residues in the GM feed [6,7]” – NOTE that references 6 and 7 are BOTH SERALINI PAPERS.

            Further, there have been similar, earlier studies done overseas for RoundUp ready Soy (Japan), over 104 weeks (similar term) but with a different species of rat – one less prone to cancer, and hence more appropriate for a toxicity study. Conducted by the Japanese government, with NO corporate funding from Monsanto or anyone else.

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18787312

            They found none of the what Seralini claims. Interestingly, Seralini avoids quoting this study at all. Why? It’s a fairly major study, and you’d think it was pretty relevant in scientific terms. It’s also really easy to find on any scientific database, or even Google.

            Why didn’t he cite this study? Because it totally destroys the whole pretext he begins with to justify his nonsense.

          • and yet you have to respond to the issue that all of the principle pro GMO papers have also been retracted…..

          • Terry Hill

            None of the principle pro GMO papers have been retracted. WTF are you talking about? Of the hundreds of papers finding no harm from GMO, vs. the handful that claim to find harm (almost all of which are either unpublished, retracted or published in 100% predatory publications that admit they have no peer review)?

            Didn’t you just point out it was THREE. And didn’t I say – yes, if they were, they obviously had flaws. And if they weren’t republished in predatory, non peer reviewed ‘journals’, it would be because they actually had HONEST researchers who recognised their errors?

            Your argument is nonsensical.

          • Here is the link to prove my point:

            http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/03/11/retracted-gmo-studies.aspx

            Obviously you have been misinformed. Funny thing is, that these three papers have snowballed into hundreds of pro GMO retractions. Pamela Ronald’s work, the basis of so many additional studies, are flawed; far more blatantly than any of Seralini’s work. The above article also names several other international researchers who have found opposite conclusions to Ronald’s papers.

          • Terry Hill

            Myr, while I detest the anti-GMO ad hominem approach to “science”, Mercola is neither a geneticist nor biologist. He’s an anti-GMO activist. He’s less credible that Dr Oz, and frankly, quoting his website does your credibility no favors.
            To address the article, however (another anti-GMO smear campaign), lets look at the facts.

            You should really not take ANYTHING that Mercola says on face value. He is a lair – and this is more evidence of that.

            1) Why were the articles retracted?
            http://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/can-the-scientific-reputation-of-pamela-ronald-public-face-of-gmos-be-salvaged/

            If you would like to read the actual Independent Science News story – the studies were retracted AT THE REQUEST OF THE AUTHORS. They identified the errors. AND Ronald wasn’t the lead author of the papers, either. How about you at least ATTEMPT to get your facts right before attacking ethical scientists.
            http://retractionwatch.com/2013/09/11/doing-the-right-thing-researchers-retract-quorum-sensing-paper-after-public-process/

            2) So when an author recognises their own errors and voluntarily retracts their research, that is unethical? No, Seralini is the definition of unethical, who continues to deny his errors and then paid
            to have his discredited work in a non-peer reviewed journal – yet you
            accept his science as valid? No real science journal will touch his work – which even he admitted were funded by anti-GMO organistions. Oh come on, please!!

            3) Was it a GMO experiment?
            NO. It was research that would need to be replicated by GMO researchers in the future. Read the actual study. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029192

            4) The errors in ONE of the retracted papers stem from one of her TEAM’s work, were based on errors in a strain of
            “As a result of recent experiments in my laboratory, I wish to comment on
            the report of Han et al., 2011. Specifically, members of my laboratory
            have recently discovered critical errors in strain PXO99Δax21 used in
            the reported work. Because key parts of the work depend on the integrity
            of strain PXO99Δax21, we are now repeating all of the experiments using
            newly generated and validated strains.”
            So it was retracted because there was a second strain of rice, where the study specifically stated a single strain. This is known as ETHICS. You cannot report one type of finding when you’re looking for another. You know, like if your conducting a toxicity study they claim that GMO feed gave your rats cancer. ETHICAL SCIENCE.

            5) So you make the point that the retracted studies are the basis of other work, therefore the other work is tainted? Actually, your ignorance of the scientific process is once again evident. I hope you’re learning here.
            ONE of the studies was cited in 113 further papers. Not all were research papers – several were discussion papers. Not all were about GMO – about 40 were looking into other plants and processes and referred to the methods used, not the findings. Another 26 actually QUESTIONED the findings of the work. Not a single ONE of those that cited these works were actually ‘building’ upon it.

            No, Myr.

            This article, from 2013, based on research from 2011 and 2009, didn’t impact their reputation or the reputation of the lab. IF they had falsified findings, lied to the media, made false claims not supported by data – THAT would ruin their reputations. A voluntary retraction is ethical science.

            Thank you for posting this though, as I use this again when other idiots claim that somehow Seralini isn’t an unethical, grubby, paid shill for the anti-science movement.

          • Peter Olins

            It’s ironical that you mention Pamela Ronald’s work. She admitted and cleaned up the mistakes in her retracted paper, and published the repeated research this year. That’s what Seralini should have done, but didn’t.

            http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/1/6/e1500245.full.pdf

          • so then why did it take more than a decade for this to happen? obviously the peer review system failed miserably. if it takes that long to fix paperwork…just imagine real testing

            btw papers…plural

          • Peter Olins

            I am impressed, Myr: you got me again! You make things up and people respond as though you are actually sincere in your claims. You have done an effective job hijacking a thread devoted to an important topic, and I can only conclude that you are much smarter and knowledgeable than you pretend to be.

          • Perhaps now you will stop being so condescending and dismissive. I don’t ‘make things up’ and I agree that GMOs (the horizontal kind) are a very important topic.

            More than a decade of studies, literally hundreds based on Ronald’s work, have since been retracted to be redone.

            Doesn’t it bother you that Seralini’s work was retracted on the basis that it was inconclusive, yet Ronald’s work, found to contain contamination and other errors, didn’t find any issues even though they used exactly the same numbers of test animals?

            Wouldn’t you expect ~something~ to show up in the original data before publication?

          • gmoeater

            Myr. You are seriously quoting Mercola articles for a legitimate citation? You are on the wrong site if you think that has any credulity whatsoever. Take it over to Food Boob’s FB page or something. Mercola is a joke on this site.

          • Jason

            Hundreds of pro-gmo retractions? Now you’re just making shit up.

          • gmoeater

            But then, she’s using mercola as a reference, so this is totally to be expected. Garbage in, garbage out.

          • obviously you did not read the article at the link I posted. Here’s a quote from it for you:

            “In this case, the first of Dr. Ronald’s retracted studies has been cited eight times.8 The second? 113 times.9 That sounds like an awfully large cleanup job in a field that’s already heavily criticized for its preponderance of “lousy science,” to use the words of award-winning geneticist Dr. David Suzuki.”

            And this does not include the fallout from the 2011 study retraction…. making things up? HARDLY

          • Jason

            Oh… I read the article. And checked the citations. You can easily go to the two retracted articles and see the other pieces that have cited these articles. Not only do those citations not even add up to “hundreds” of citations, but none of them have been retracted. I guess that’s what you get when you rely on Mercola.

            I’d be interested in your explanation of how these two studies are “pro-gmo” anyway. This should be good!

          • first you may want to take a remedial math class…. second you may wish to remember how to count in base 10…. and then a basic English class with an emphasis on words and their definitions; because if you actually read the NEWS article on Mercola’s site concerning Ronald’s papers and the resulting retractions, you wouldn’t have posted your query in the first place.

          • Jason

            Ironic that the person claiming “hundreds” is telling me about remedial math. I suspect if you actually fact-checked Mercola like I did you wouldn’t bother reading his junk anymore because you’ll find him not to be very reliable.

          • his science doesn’t have to be reliable to report news. I suggested remedial math, simply because there were THREE… not TWO… or Ronald’s papers retracted. the first from 2001. So why did the highly vaunted peer review system fail to catch the errors for 14 yrs?

          • Jason

            Ok…three papers. What ever. The point is that it’s no where close to “hundreds” of retracted studies. Hell…the 3 studies you’re referring to aren’t even gmo studies!

          • hmm…so Pam Ronald isn’t the foremost researcher on the pro GMO front…. Didn’t do the 90 day rat trial for Monsanto, etc etc etc…and the first study wasn’t that rat trial for Monsanto….. get real

          • Jason

            I said the studies you referred to. Had you bothered to read them?

          • just they synopsis of each. I have real work to do as well. Statistical analysis.

            You still haven’t even gleaned my purpose here have you. I am not anti- GMO, just feel there needs to be more testing and proper labeling. Deliberate horizontal migration has not had enough time to know the truth.

          • Jason

            Well, it’s been around an awful long time. Horizntal transfer & random mutations are part of what creates evolutionary advantages. Deliberate or not isn’t really important. One just needs to show how it COULD present a larger risk than the same deliberate hybridizing & artificial selection. So far, no ones even done that.

          • agscienceliterate

            Heavens, no … Pam Ronald is a geneticist at UC Davis. She co-authored “Tomorrow’s Table” with her husband, organic farmer Raul Adamchak. She was not involved in any rat studies.
            She has been developing a rice that will withstand flooding without rotting, to use in places like Bangladesh where flooding for more than a day or two will ruin a whole crop.

          • agscienceliterate
          • agscienceliterate
          • agscienceliterate

            Excellent TED talk with Pamela Ronald.

            https://www.ted.com/talks/pamela_ronald_the_case_for_engineering_our_food?language=en

            I also highly recommend the book she and her husband co-authored. Here’s info on Amazon:

            http://www.amazon.com/Tomorrows-Table-Organic-Farming-Genetics/dp/0195393570

          • Pam and I happen to see eye to eye on a number of points. The very term GMO is too broad and virtually meaningless as it is currently being used, for one.

            I found it interesting that she was talking about ‘Golden Rice’ in future tense, when it has already been an epic fail, so this puts a date on this interview for those that can do math.

            I also agree with her that genetic modification can have ‘unforeseen effects’… granted this can happen in nature as well, but we don’t need to add to the problem.

            I admire her stated goal… feed the world. but… this is a transportation issue, we already grow enough to feed the world, the problem is in getting it to those that need it.

          • agscienceliterate

            She is absolutely not. She has not done rat studies. She is a geneticist at UC Davis.

          • guess your intell is flawed

          • Jason

            Are you sure YOU’VE read the mercola article?

            “She may have to turn down her criticism a notch, considering the fact that not one but two of her own studies were found to contain sizeable scientific errors, rendering her findings null and void. Questions have also been raised about a third study published in 2011, according to the featured article.”

            Does that sound like 3 papers were retracted to you? What were you saying about remedial math?

          • sounds like the three I referred to… keep reading. also sounds like 3, not 2

          • Jason

            Ugh… Ok. Sure. You believe what ever it is you want to believe.

          • Terry Hill

            Apparently, according to Mercola, a contaminated sample is a ‘sizeable scientific flaw’. Oh, but wait… that study has been re-done, completely, and guess what…

            Still found to be valid.

            Oops. Damn those legitimate scientists, hey Myr…

          • Peter Olins

            Ronald’s new paper:

            http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/1/6/e1500245.full.pdf

            It’s a fascinating tale of the endless war between plants and their pests. The more we understand these interactions, the greater the chance that we can exploit these insights to develop crops with better pest resistance.

            Pest damage is a huge threat to worldwide food sustainability, and basic research such as Ronald’s could play a critical role in addressing this challenge.

          • I bet you also feel that ‘Independent Science News’ is also an untrustworthy source, since Mercola simply reposted their findings in his article. Here: http://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/can-the-scientific-reputation-of-pamela-ronald-public-face-of-gmos-be-salvaged/

            Also astonishing that all the links you posted, to articles and studies in another thread, were all dead ends. No pages, unavailable, and non existant.

          • Terry Hill

            Really? Did you have your internet turned ON? Because I’ve been through every one. Every Single ONE.
            Again.
            They are all live links. Oh, or do you simply block pubmed now, because ‘science’?

            Let’s start with one:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18787312
            Can you read that? Particularly the last sentence.
            From the Department of Environmental Health and Toxicology, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Public Health. Tokyo, Japan – NO corporate affiliations.
            “These results indicate that long-term intake of GM soybeans at the level of 30% in diet has no apparent adverse effect in rats.”

            I’ve gone back and every single link is valid.

            Nice try.
            You’re starting to sound like Hans Kugler in your denial here.

          • interesting..that link worked. And yes I read it. Must have been difficult to find non GM soy since 98% of the crop is GM. Was my internet on? I was streaming a movie simultaneously, so s’pose it was working eh? 104 weeks…a record! now let’s have two additional species included in that study, and let’s up the feeding level to what a non breast fed human infant would be consuming.

          • Terry Hill

            Any ‘science news’ page that hypes conspiracy theories and ‘science’ that doesn’t include any critical review of the content, or even offers any idea about WHO is actually running or editing the pages for content, is suspect.

            Here’s a tip.
            If the pages you rely on for news don’t divulge the credentials of the reviewers, editors or writers, OR if the credentials are ‘shady’ (i.e. a computer scientist commenting on biology, or a Ph.D. in chiropractic or alternative medicine commenting on genetics), the story is probably also highly suspect. Stop suspending your scepticism to alleviate your cognitive dissonance.

            There are perhaps a handful of scientist, in every field, that are qualified to comment but who, for philosophical or religious reasons, choose to deny overwhelming scientific opinion. You see it in climate change. You see it with creationist ‘scientists’. And you see it in genetics.

            Unfortunately, “Independent [the key word
            Seralini is a good example of ‘science gone junk’. So are Latham and Wilson. They are considered, within the global genetics field (not just US, but Globally) as “denialists”. They are self-confessed activists (like Carmen)…Here’s a link to an article about the takedown of Latham and Wilson’s denialism papers by real scientists:
            http://marycarmichael.com/2010/12/22/dna-denial-and-the-rise-of-environmental-determinism/
            The first line contains many more links to rebuttals of their stupidity. Latham and Wilson actually promote that “genes have little to no effect on who we are”… or any links to diseases? Really? The must have missed first year biology.

            So, NO, I do not think yet another activists page is somehow a ‘legitimate’ source, when all the actual science, GLOBALLY, disagrees with it. I trust my professors and lecturers (and the 60-strong genetics research department here at my university). I don’t believe in conspiracies based on acknowledge bad-science.

            Why do you continually think that the personal views, not supported by any repeatable science data, of what actually amounts to no more than a dozen outspoken, self confessed ‘activists’ (most of whom are not even trained in the field they are commenting on), is valid over the tens of thousands of geneticists, molecular biologists and food scientists who disagree with them? Do you honestly believe that a company the size of Starbucks (in terms of financial assets) can manage to pay off the entire scientific community, when the oil industry (roughly 500x more financially profitable) cannot buy 5% of climate scientists? Do you even realise how STUPID that sounds?

          • hyperzombie

            Doesnt Jonathan Latham, own independent science news and Bioscience Resources? Like that is the opposite of Independent.

          • so you tell me why a company with just over $1.6m in tangible assets would put $1.5m into anti labeling lobbying. And Pepsico with negative tangible assets puts in $4m+ and coca cola put in almost all of their net tangible assets into this anti labeling lobby.

            The reason is simple, their reported assets are bogus, perhaps legally, but still not a truthful representation of what they have. I worked for a not-for-profit corporation for a short time, the salaries were nearly double industry standard, and the ‘donations’ and ‘projects’ were very well funded. My point being is that income can be and often is diverted to off the books control. Take Donald Trump for example…. $8.7 billion, yet this man filed bankruptcy when? Tell me that the aforementioned companies can’t or don’t follow the same principles.

            Why the oil companies ‘can’t’ buy climatologists is also easy, there is still too much debate on the actual causality of climate change. The point being is that they don’t have to buy them.

            Here’s an interesting article you will probably just dismiss out of hand like usual, of politicians paid off by Monsanto: http://www.nationofchange.org/extensive-list-politicians-paid-monsanto-1369754283

          • Terry Hill

            So we can add financial literacy to the ever growing list of things “Myr Silverleaf doesn’t understand”. Excellent.

            So you’re ALSO a climate change denier. Not surprised. 97% scientific consensus there, too.

            Stop posting every one of your conspiracy theory links as some sort of evidence that I am, for some reason, supposed to accept over all of the scientific evidence. When the journalist [sic] uses “I’m speculating” to start a sentence, what does that tell you?

            Do you care that while Monsanto donated $382,000 (according to this article), Whole Foods donated $476,000 (according to donation records)?

            Have you tried those links again, because I see several others have now, and they all seem to work. Or are you using your science denial to pretend they aren’t there?

          • really don’t think you should go there terry, accounting was a minor of mine.

            Did I deny climate change? not at all, just the causation.

            and you better check your sources on lobbying expenditures. here’s a link: http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/lobbying-and-advertising.html#.Vle7KPmrTWI

            your numbers are inaccurate to say the least.

            I have not gone back to your posted links, perhaps all the sources you posted were down for maintenance simultaneously? gives rise to questions does it not? Do you honestly believe I make stuff up? If you do you are more an idiot than I thought before.

            Do you not believe that I have a passion for this topic? that I present facts as I can find and descern them? Do you feel I like arguing with stick in the mid advocates of an untested PRODUCT foisted and hidden in the foods people eat every day?

            I do this for two reasons. Get some real replicatable, broad spectrum, conclusive, testing done; AND to label products properly to give the average consumer the right to decide for themselves what they want in their diet. If you say that this is not legitimate you LIE again.

          • Terry Hill

            So you already think everyone who doesn’t agree with you is an idiot. Good to know.

            Also good to know you also are in the AGW denial camp. Of course, what do climatologist know, right?

            Now, if you also believe chemtrails are real, you and crazy “Doctor” (in what, I don’t know) Kugler will have the whole spectrum in common.

            The figure I quoted was the direct donations to pubic officials in congress, as cited in the article you linked, Myr. Once again, this is an example of you setting goalposts, then moving them. If you want ‘like for like’, how about some honesty, please?

            Accounting was a minor? Then why do you quote net assets? Surely you understand the difference between net reportable assets, tangible assets and expenditure? However, a corporate balance sheet from an annual report (where you get your donation figures from) is a handy guide. ‘Donations’ and ‘Cash’ are reportable (wherever they go), so unless you also believe all organisations have massive cash slush funds (in which case, you’d have to also believe the Organic Food Industry does too), it’s all pretty straight forward. Net profits (EBITDA) are a good figure, less corporate taxes, of course. Oh, then less any distributions to shareholders via dividends.

            Not-for-profits are another beast entirely – where they sink all profits into wages and salaries (usually the salaries of the directors), donation etc., so there is essentially a ‘zero’ balance sheet outcome. Why do you think the anti-GMO movement loves NFP organisations so much. It’s hardly like they’re transparent.

            So to boil it down, you are arguing that you believe that the (estimated) 250,000+ scientist around the world working in plant biology, molecular biology, genetics and related fields, almost all of whom support GE and GM technologies, are all paid off by Monsanto. Wow.

            And you haven’t gone back to check, despite several other posters on here managing to get to the links? Most of my links were via PubMed, because I’m sure you don’t have academic access (or anyone else on here who might want to look at the studies), so I had to find open access previews – unless PubMed was down when you tried (conveniently). I’d suggest if you really want to claim you have any type of balanced perspective, and expect anyone who is pro-GMO to read all the rubbish Mercola posts and Natural News articles you claim as ‘proof’, perhaps you should do everyone the courtesy of actually reading the evidence contradictory to your narrow perspective. Otherwise you’re not demonstrating any form of critical thinking, your demonstrating confirmation bias.

            But we digress.

            What type of testing would be suitable for you, Myr? I’ve asked this several times. How much is enough? What testing would be sufficient for you?

          • I believe I stated the parameters pretty succinctly. Multi species study, at least four variety of appropriate test animals, wider numbers in the study groups, and feed levels that at least approximate the consumption levels that humans experience. Of course that last part will be difficult to determine since GMO foods simply vanish into the ether of commerce.

            I found it strange that all the links were down. even the two that weren’t from Pub. Obviously since I am still posting here, there is no problem with my internet as you suggested.

            The link you provided later worked just fine, but there was no statistical data included, so moot.

          • Terry Hill

            As you should be aware Myr, as it is published research, you can get access to the data. Unlike Seralini, there is no attempt to hide it. It is just not open access.

            Out of interest, do you also suspect that of being a ‘bought’ study by Monsanto? Because the findings suggest GMOs are dangerous, so by your anti-corporate reasoning, would that not be the case? Either way, I was suspected you’d find some way to dismiss it off-handed.

            I am genuinely disappointed that you haven’t bothered to check any of the links I posted again, because there are feeding studies of GMO foods to pigs, sheep, cows, rats and chickens, all in different studies (on different continents, by different universities and government agencies).

            A quick look (very quick) found the following. I am hazarding a guess here, but I think much of what you ask for is probably accessible and has already been done, if you choose to look.

            And once again, I’ve also checked that none of these listed studies are either by, for or funded by any agro-chemical or associated corporate interest (All are university or government research). There would be three times this number if I included independent or corporate scientific studies.

            Here’s one on rats and Bt corn:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18381229
            “Evaluation of subchronic toxicity of dietary administered Cry1Ab protein from Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurustaki HD-1 in F344 male rats with chemically induced gastrointestinal impairment.”

            Here’s two on GM corn fed to cattle (Switzerland):
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17933942
            “Effect of feeding cows genetically modified maize on the bacterial community in the bovine rumen”
            (Germany) 2 year study:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20579187
            “Effects of long-term feeding of genetically modified corn (event MON810) on the performance of lactating dairy cows”

            GM corn fed to mice (Portugal):
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21298004
            Immunological and metabolomic impacts of administration of Cry1Ab protein and MON 810 maize in mouse.

            GM corn fed to pigs (Ireland)
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23097397
            Transgenerational effects of feeding genetically modified maize to nulliparous sows and offspring on offspring growth and health.

            GM corn fed to hens (US – Illinois)
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18281573
            “Performance of laying hens fed diets containing DAS-59122-7 maize grain compared with diets containing nontransgenic maize grain.”

            Feeding GM Soy to sheep (3 year study)(Brazil)
            http://www.livestockscience.com/article/S1871-1413(07)00244-2/abstract
            “A three-year longitudinal study on the effects of a diet containing genetically modified Bt176 maize on the health status and performance of sheep”

            And, just to round it out – a human trial on soya allergens (GMO and non-GMO).
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17496424
            “A proteomic study to identify soya allergens–the human response to transgenic versus non-transgenic soya samples”

            All of these links work RIGHT NOW. All are available via GOOGLE search on title, if you somehow don’t manage to get the links working.

            There are literally dozens more, that I know about, including feeding GMO corn meal to salmon, more cow/pigs/rat studies than you can poke a stick at. If you bothered to look.

          • that human study for allergens had a test group of 5…. REALLY? and they found 2 new potential allergens…. here’s to safety and a real test sample

          • Terry Hill

            Oh, I get it. Don’t worry about recognised scientific norms for sample sizes. You want them to get the biggest samples they can, until they DO find something, right?

            I guess your years of experience and study in toxicology and immunology (and understanding what acceptable sample sizes are in generation of statistics) would surely allow you to build a better study than any of these.

          • all I can say to that Terry, is that the bigger the sample the closer to real the results get. SURELY they could have gotten more than 5 people with soy allergens for the testing…. flipping a coin 5 times would probably lead to the conclusion that one side lands 3:2 times more often than the other. Possibly 4:1, and at its extreme it always lands on the same side ….

            I actually DON’T want them to find anything wrong, because when they do it means that lots of people are going to be in for a rough time eventually.

            But of course it also means they can’t stop looking

          • and the chickens? a whopping 18 birds that don’t even compare to humans.

          • the mouse study showed differences in metabolism but not immune systems

          • its also intriguing that everyone of the above studies showed changes in internal organs in the GM fed subjects… and isn’t maize =corn? better check your three year sheep study from Brazil….

          • gmoeater

            Untested? Hidden? Not true. But then, you have been told this time and time again. Here’s a link to Federal GE crops testing.

            http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/GEPlants/default.htm

            Of course, if you are an anti-government conspiricist, then you will not pay any attention to this. In that case, you shouldn’t expect your government, which you don’t trust, to force meaningless labels onto foods just because you want to know which are GE and you are too lazy to look that up yourself.

          • Terry Hill

            Every link works. Ever one. Try again.

            Tested.

          • BiologyReality

            Thank you – yes, I’ve looked through several. They’re all quite rigorous.

          • BiologyReality

            I agree – every link worked so far. I’ve looked at about 75%.

            Are you just dismissing them because they threaten your assumptions?

            That’s rather intellectually dishonest (though, from reading your posts so far, not unexpected)

          • Terry Hill

            Mercola doesn’t have a strong track record for reporting facts or science.

          • Terry Hill

            Myr,
            I’ve already explained to you on another thread, which you quickly drop when it gets too hard, that citations don’t necessarily invalidate further papers, because if you follow those citation lists you’ll find that several are ‘discussion papers’, several more cite the original papers for ‘further study needed’, and some even are contrary to the initial work.
            And NONE of the three papers are about GMOs. If you had even bothered to read them, they are actually about isolating and identifying genes and their reactions to bacteria.
            And the retractions were voluntary, by the author: One when they realised the grain purity in the study may have been compromised. If only Seralini and the ant-GMO movement were so ethical…

            When I shut down your ridiculous argument, you simply go full-troll and jump to another thread with the same tired, discredited nonsense. Give it a rest.

            Please show ANY evidence you have, other than the Mercola article, of ANY of these retractions. If you can’t support your claim, STFU about it.

          • agscienceliterate

            Myr, you are seriously referring to Mercola’s own website for a reliable link to prove your erroneous misconceptions about GE study retractions? That is not a credible reference.

            Pamela Ronald is an excellent scientist. You would benefit from reading her work, co-authored with her organic farmer/researcher husband Raul Adamchak. Read their book “Tomorrow’s Table.”

          • Loren Eaton

            Learn what you’re talking about before touching the keyboard. Pam is pro-GM. The retracted paper was about signaling molecules in rice. Basic research. Not a whole lot there about promoting GMO’s. From Retaction Watch:

            “AS A RESULT OF ADDITIONAL EXPERIMENTS IN P.C.R.’S AND S.W.-L.’S LABORATORIES, WE WISH TO retract our 2009 Report, “A type I–secreted, sulfated peptide triggers XA21-mediated innate immunity” (1). Specifically, we have not been able to consistently reproduce the results shown in Figure 3. We have also discovered critical errors in Figures 2 and S3. The strain PXO99∆ax21, used in Figure 2, was mixed up with another strain (PXO99∆raxSt). When we repeated the experiment with the validated PXO99∆ax21 insertion mutant, this strain is still avirulent on Xa21 lines. These results indicate that this insertion in Ax21 does not abolish the ability of PX099 to trigger XA21-mediated immunity. Regarding fi gure S3, by using more sensitive methods, we have discovered that Ax21 is also secreted in the mutant strains PXO99∆raxA and PXO99∆raxC. Although we recognize that some parts of this paper may remain valid, we note that key parts of the work depend on the results of Figures 2 and 3. For these reasons, we retract the main conclusion of the paper that a type I–secreted, sulfated peptide triggers XA21-mediated innate immunity.”
            Of course the gotcha crowd (Latham, Robinson, Quist, Love and ‘I haven’t done decent science for 20 years Suzuki) got their panties in a wad….as usual.

          • and the remaining retracted papers Loren? And why did this go unnoticed for a decade and a half?

          • Loren Eaton

            Citing a retracted paper does not necessarily mean that YOUR paper will be (or should be) retracted. Most citations are in the intro and discussion and aren’t part of the ‘meat’ of the study. And once again, papers that deal with signaling molecules have nothing to do with work on the safety of GMO’s. Extrapolating a mistake in her lab to cover any opinion she has on GMOs, their use or their safety is exactly the kind of flawed logic we’ve come to expect from people like you.

          • read this: http://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/can-the-scientific-reputation-of-pamela-ronald-public-face-of-gmos-be-salvaged/

            and stop hiding behind the broad spectrum definition of GMO. The contention is on cross phylum transmigration of genes, not crossbreeding or hybridization.

            Then add to it all the total lack of tracking and labeling to obfuscate evidence… small wonder they can’t find any. But the corollaries are still there.

            Perhaps there is a connection between Farmer Sue’s 40% increase of production of GE sugar beets, the refining process of sugar, and the increased incidence of diabetes. I don’t think I could live with myself if I knew for certain I was helping to kill people en masse.

          • Peter Olins

            Yes, people doing basic research sometimes make mistakes. Why on earth would Mercola draw attention to this? Using this unfortunate event to defend Seralini’s retracted research is comical.

            Then again, it seemed to work for Myr.

          • Peter Olins

            Thanks for citing the Japanese paper! This is a large and thorough study, but I have never seen it mentioned before. It would be great to see a full translation, but the tables provide a wealth of information.

          • So, since you brought this up, what do GMO’s do to rats?
            (Just to save time, if you have to use the word Seralini in your response, don’t bother).

          • To everybody who wonders why Peter can’t stand the word “Seralini”: In a short thought exchange with me Peter refused to acknowledge that prof. Giles Seralini, Caen U, France, was a top GMO researcher (whose paper, showing SD rats developing tumors, organ malfunctions after being fed GMO corn, was retracted by a new editor at the journal who – guess what? Came from the GMO industry, and re-published; view pictures of the GMO-fed SD rats at http://www.DrHans.org ). Now confirmed with 230 scientists supporting Seralini’s magnificent work, and writing an open letter about GMO industry harassment (1.), and confirming that there was no consensus among scienrtists about GMO food safety (2.).
            1)
            http://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/seralini-and-science-nk603-rat-study-roundup
            2)
            http://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/no-scientific-consensus-on-safety-of-genetically-modified-organisms

          • Ruby Rod

            I’ve seen my fare share of websites that look just like that since the late 1990’s. Every one of them was unprofessionally laid out, spewed exaggerated claims, had shock-value pictures, and plenty of advertisements by the website owner. The Nuremburg files by Evangelist Neal Horsley comes to mind. Although to be fare, I won’t dare compare you to him, just the websites.

          • Terry Hill

            No, Seralini is a ‘paid for opinion’ shill. Look up Seralini’s contribution to the Aspartame debate – the ‘study’ he did is similar to this fake GMO study in too many ways. And it was found out pretty quickly he was paid to make those findings by the US Sugar Industry, after they searched the world for the least-ethical scientist they could find.

            No, Seralini’s study was retracted for a number of reasons, the least of which being the poor construction of the study and the fact that his data did NOT support his findings.

            No, Seralini’s study hasn’t be republished in any reputable journal. He found a fringe ‘pay to play’ publisher and his sponsors paid to have his paper republished in a low-impact activist journal.

            IF Seralini’s studies were legitimate and repeatable, the WHO/UN would confirm GM Corn as a Class 1 Carcinogen, but there is nothing but silence. Remember, it is you anti-GMO types who harp on about how glyphosate is ‘carcinogenic’, because of the Class 2A rating. So why do you think there is no repeatability to Seralini’s study? Why do you think the UN/WHO is silent?

            Oh yes, it’s all part of the great ‘chemtrails/illuminati/new world order conspiracy’…

          • Strange, Peter,

            Seralini’s work had to be peer reviewed PRIOR to publication…. Obviously it met all criteria to be published in the first place. And then this guy from Monsanto becomes an editor for the Journal………

            Seralini’s studies had nothing to do with proving a carcinogen, simply toxin accumulation in the test animals; using exactly the same number of subjects as Monsanto did with their rat tests.

            Why are you buying into the propaganda about tumors when everyone knows that this variety of test animal is prone to them anyway?

          • Terry Hill

            Myr – you apparently don’t understand how the peer review process works. An ‘internal’ peer review may be conducted prior to publication, but when that is from within an anti-GMO organisation, I doubt it would be conducted with any rigor. A cited reason for retraction was that it was not adequately reviewed prior to publication (funny, but when proGMO studies appear, an argument I hear from antiGMOers is that ‘the peer review process is faulty!!’… except when the research is something I agree with!).

            Once a paper is submitted for publication, it is sent out for peer review. The reviewers of Seralini’s original submission admitted to not reviewing the data or study structure, only the content. Then, the re-published work wasn’t peer reviewed at all!
            http://retractionwatch.com/2014/06/26/republished-seralini-gmo-rat-study-was-not-peer-reviewed-says-editor/

            You’re correct in that the study wasn’t to find evidence of cancer – however that was the main finding and was trumpeted by Seralini – this was one of the main complaints against the validity of the study. As it was not a study for tumours, appropriate controls were not in place and confounders were not addressed.

            Do you also know Monsanto and Seralini are not the only ones to undertake rat-feeding trials for GMOs? There are several others, from non-industry funded sources, from several countries. I’ve included the links to these in response to your other post.

          • And what is your position concerning the THREE papers that establish the pro GMO that were retracted and NOT republished?

            Does this not indicate that more review, more testing, needs to be done?

            Have you assumed that I am anti GMO? Because this is not true. So many ‘miracles’ have been touted over the past half century, and so many have been proven false…. Tell me with honesty that 90 days is sufficient to prove or disprove ANYTHING.

          • Terry Hill

            Again, scientist are also humans, and also fallible. Except Seralini, right?

            I say ‘Bravo’! If the papers were flawed, they should be retracted. Whatever the reason – poor design, lack of addressing confounding factors, incorrect or assumed results not supported in data…

            Three papers retracted out of several hundred isn’t a bad rate. Good to see that the peer review process works, right?

            If they haven’t been republished, perhaps the researchers where honest enough to recognise the flaws in their own studies, rather than simply going to another journal that would publish them without a peer review, and for a simple payment?

            Perhaps we wouldn’t be having this conversation if Seralini et al had been that honest.

          • unfortunately those three papers I mentioned were the basis of hundreds of other works and are also being or have been retracted

          • Terry Hill

            No, they haven’t. I responded to you on this – you didn’t read either the article it was lifted from nor the links that article provides.

            These papers were retracted by the authors when they realised their grain sample wasn’t pure. So they didn’t make claims they couldn’t verify with evidence…like Seralini didn’t.

            Oh, here’s a 104 week study for you, too

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18787312

          • Peter Olins

            Hans, let ‘Fluoride Free Thoughts’ defend his own wild claims. Just don’t use this conversation as a lame excuse to promote your personal website!

            Now, if you truly consider Seralini’s 2012 retracted paper to be valid, just tell us what you consider to be the most credible claim, so that we can discuss. Don’t just post links to political sites: tell us specifically what YOU believe.

          • Peterchen, Peterchen! Was sollen wir mit Dir machen?
            Twisting facts — joining the ever growing group of BS-sers (that can’t come up with real facts), having no leg to stand on?????
            Du kannst das doch besser machen!

          • Pogo333

            But Herr Dr. Hans, others also have no use for Seralini’s work, and have yet to see you address any of the legitimate issues that have been raised about the 2012 publication/retraction/2014 re-publication. The journal that re-published it is a decent Springer journal (Environmental Sciences Europe), but the editor of that journal pointed out that the paper was being re-published without peer review – so Seralini did not have to respond to the many criticisms in the re-publication (http://www.nature.com/news/paper-claiming-gm-link-with-tumours-republished-1.15463). If people here want to read it themselves, it is here: http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14. You can see in Figure 4 and Table 6 the complete lack of a dose response from a diet of 11% GM corn plant up to 33% GM corn plant, and from three doses of roundup in water, which is VERY odd. There should be some dose response. Also, the responses are the same whether it is GM corn only, GM corn + roundup. or roundup only. Doesn’t that strike you as exceedingly odd that all three of those treatments do the same thing, and yet there is no additivity of any kind? Of course, there are no statistics on any of this because the sample sizes were insufficient. Subsequent nonparametric analyses of his raw data (included with the re-published paper, after two years of requests from colleagues) indicate no significant differences between the controls and any of the treatments for any parameters.

            The authors also provide precious little detail in the Methods about the plants used in the study, besides the varieties used and that they were grown under “normal conditions”. What constitutes “normal conditions”? Did they receive any insecticides while being grown? How much water was used in the roundup application, and when was it applied relative to the time the cobs were sampled? Shoddy descriptions of the experiment that prevent accurate duplication of the experiment.

            I could go on and on, but will stop there. I had a group of my students critique this paper in a discussion of GM crops and they shredded it. This is garbage science and doesn’t deserve the praise it is receiving. You have never addressed any of the criticism, but instead continue to praise the work and author perhaps hoping that if you do it long enough the critics will give up and quit. Saying that Seralini is a top GMO researcher is like saying that Putin is a top humanitarian.

            Und es ist sehr nett dass du immer noch Deutsch kannst. Freut mich.

          • Just a few quick comments: I only “listened in” with the discussions after an anti-aging colleague challenged me to do so – – suggesting that the rift between orthodox and anti-aging medicine/views expresses itself everywhere. He was absolutely correct! Sad, but a reality. As many of us in anti-aging see it: money-dominated special interest bullshit (with profits out-weighing any concern for people’s health) on one side, and alternative, anti-aging, medicine – skyrocketing – on the other.

            And now to you.
            1) YOU: “others also have no use for Seralini’s work.”
            RESPONSE: you mean other GMO-lovers, GMO interests? In Europe he is recognized as a top scientist; I could quote you researchers who (including myself) look at his papers as immaculately detailed, and precise – -” like a perfect thesis,” with support for him as leading scientist demonstrated again with hundreds of scientists signing a supporting “open letter” when all this GMO-harassment became so obvious.
            http://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/seralini-and-science-nk603-rat-study-roundup

            2) YOU: referring to Seralini’s paper: “lack of a dose response from a diet of 11% GM corn plant up to 33% GM corn plant, and from three doses of roundup in water,”
            RESPONSE: I did read the paper again, and, with every possible detail discussed, this minor detail appears unnecessary; but, why don’t you ask him this question before, with a hysterical urge to tear him down, you draw conclusions? Here is his e-mail:
            [email protected]

            3) YOU: “I had a group of my students critique this paper in a discussion of GM crops and they shredded it.”
            RESPONSE: Come on now; what do those little twits know? But they know what YOU think, and, so obvious, they want to kiss DADDY’s ass. HALLELUJAH!

            Bis bald!

          • Pogo333

            1) Seralini may be regarded as a top researcher in some circles, but not very many. But that is merely a matter of opinion. I know how you feel about him and his research, but my opinion is that your opinion lacks any critical assessment of Seralini’s work, which can be avoided by “just looking at the pictures”, which you are kind enough to provide illegally on your website. Odd that you venerate this man, but then violate the copyright on his work (which he doesn’t own, by the way). That open letter is nonsensical.

            2. Dose response is unnecessary?? Have you never done toxicology work? Any toxicological material exhibits a dose response. In the absence of a dose response, it can safely be assumed that the material being evaluated is unrelated to the expressed symptoms. Or the researcher selected the wrong range of doses for assessment. In either case, Seralini’s work failed to find a relationship. This lack of relationship between the treatments and the tumor formation is further supported by the lack of a relationship between tumor incidence and gm crop alone, roundup alone, or GM crop plus roundup. They were all the same. That makes no sense, and suggests again that there is no relationship but that the results are artifacts. And, of course, in the absence of sufficient replication there is no way to conclude otherwise. Unless you have an agenda to maintain.

            3. Maybe you were taught in an environment where students felt compelled to share their teacher’s opinion, but I don’t run my classes that way. This particular class was a group of 9 graduate students and I shared no opinion with them about the paper previously. They led the discussion and I mostly listened. When I offered input I shifted my opinion back and forth to force them to truly analyze the paper without being swayed by my opinion. But then you don’t know much about my opinion toward GM crops, either, beyond what you assume from these boards. My GM world isn’t nearly as black and white as you think it is. But I can live with that.

          • Pogo:
            Sometimes I – honestly – get the impression that you really see nothing wrong with GMOs(?)

            See my – a few minutes ago – lengthy response to Terry Hill’s challenge re. the article at AcademicsReview. I responded because I expect Terry (or somebody else) to respond to my challenge to evaluate the Norwegian Government scientist’s conclusion that GMOs are NOT safe – – the basis for rejecting GMOs in Norway.

            NORWEGIAN GOVT STUDY: “No scientific evidence of GMO food safety”
            “Contrary to this assertion (-from
            MONSANTO, that GMO foods are safe-) , the literature provides indications of harmful and adverse effects to the environment and to health (both animal and human), as well as to socio-economic conditions, particularly over the medium- and long-term.”

            http://genok.no/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/010615_GENOK-HTIntactaBrazil-FINAL_web.pdf?page=1#post-100919

          • Pogo333

            I’m not sure if you are asking something of me or not, but I don’t have time to review the Norwegian document right now.

            I have concerns about GM products, especially some of the new RNAi materials in the pipeline, but I also see great potential for good in them. What I find sad is people like yourself who find nothing RIGHT with GMOs, and so cling to any bit of science, pseudo- or otherwise, to prove that point. And so you end up regaling a Seralini and a Seneff, neither of whom add anything credible to the discussion, except that they are scientists and agree with your position. You just keep hammering on those same few keys, in the debate equivalent of the Chinese water torture. Es ist reiner Quatsch, mein lieber Spitzbub’.

          • Pogo: The world goes in cycles.
            On a radio show where I am co-host, I was – – with my (and others) making ESCs via Nuclear Transfer – – just referred to as one of the original gene-(actually DNA) manipulators. Ha, Ha!

            How this connects to my worries re anti-aging, endocrine disruption, and newly evolving risks was presented in an introductory talk to doctors at the 2012 A4M medical congress. If you get bored with your daily routine, check it out. It is available (for free) at ACADEMIA.edu :
            https://www.academia.edu/8421849/Endocrine_Disrupters_and_Genetically_Modified_Organisms_Negate_Anti-Aging_Protocols_Leaving_Only_Specific_Stem_Cells_as_Effective_Counter_Measures

            What REALLY worries me about some people who complain about Seralini IS THEIR obvious LACK OF UNDERSTANDING LONGEVITY STUDIES/ RESULTS:
            Giving a – theoretical,Seralini-like – longevity study example (# of animals kept simple for easier math):

            100 animals in “treated” e.g. GMO-fed
            10 animals in “controls.”
            Results (theoretical) 20 animals died in “treated”, and 2 in “controls.

            THE COMPLAINT: “see, because of the smaller number of animals in the control group, they now will say that 10 times more animals died in the “treated” than in the “controls.”
            IT TOOK THEM SOME TIME – – and I had to explain with percentages – – to understand why the summary of this longevity (my response) study was: :

            NO! No difference between treated and controls; no effect.!
            I had to explain it with “same percentage of animals in both groups died.”

            And brainless complaints/thinking like this is

            used against the Seralini study?????.- – and taken serious as “proof” that Seralini’s “study design” was wrong?

          • Pogo333

            Dr. Hans, the simplified study you are describing is a badly designed mortality study, not longevity. In a longevity study, one measures the time to death, not simply the number dying. In a mortality study one measures the numbers dying within a pre-determined period (with duration depending on whether it is an acute or chronic study). So, saying that 20% died in a longevity study is meaningless. The question is how long they lived (e.g., days, weeks, months, years). In a mortality study you would report the percentage that died in the pre-determined period. So, what you are describing is only appropriate for a mortality study.

            Also, the design of your fake study is horribly unbalanced, which seriously affects the results and interpretation. You are indicating that there are 10 times as many subjects in the experimental as in the control group. This asymmetry changes the relative values of individuals in each cohort. Whereas the death of one subject in the experimental group only changes the overall outcome by 1% (1 out of 100), the death of one subject in the control group affects the outcome by 10% (1 out of 10). Thus, each individual adds a completely different weight and variance in the two groups, making comparisons useless. And we end up with a situation where it takes 20 rats in the experimental treatment to have the same effect as 2 rats in the controls. Very poor design. You need a balanced design where each group – experimental treatment and control – would have received 55 subjects each of the 110 used. Although if I were designing the experiment, I would probably run 5 replicates of 11 subjects each for the experimental and control treatments to introduce variance for analyses (whether it were a mortality or longevity study). The design you presented, besides being horribly unbalanced, precludes analysis with parametric methods. Another major flaw. But Seralini made basically the same errors, so your example roughly proliferates his errors, making it a reasonable example of his work.

          • Sometimes I get the feeling that – – so much in a hurry to express criticism – – you don’t read what I wrote.
            I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU, and I noted that
            “Giving a – theoretical,Seralini-like – longevity/mortality study example (# of animals kept simple for easier math).”

            What I expressed – – what worries me – – is that some “professional” Seralini objectors – – preaching from a high-horse “I know everything” position – – interpret results INCORRECTLY ( – as you described).

            So, what are these so-called “professionals”?
            Bullshitters that are taken seriously when expressing their – WRONG – criticism?

            PS: For our longevity studies, the life-spans of mice (“controls” on a standard Purina mouse chow), were very well defined,

          • Pogo333

            Dr. Hans, I’m confused by your response. So you are saying that you are critical of Seralini’s paper because the study was poorly designed and lacked replication? If so, what is the criticism to which you are applying your scenario? All of the critics of Seralini I know would agree that your scenario is defective, and therefore the Seralini study is defective. Or are you referring to the lack of differences between the treatments and controls that is often pointed out by critics? I’m unclear of your point.

          • Peter Olins

            I have always thought that Seralini 2012 would be a great teaching tool for college students in biology, statistics, or even politics.

          • Pogo333

            It’s a good one for the GM crops debate, but it doesn’t offer anything for statistics other than being an example of weak experimental design. Certainly a good paper for a discussion of critical thinking and the power of external pressures on the integrity of science.

          • J. Randall Stewart

            Seralini’s longivity findings are male rats live onger when fed RoundUp.

            How does this fit with your anti-aging theories?

          • In your dreams! Sometimes quoted, but never responded to when asked for reference. SO, REFERENCE PLEASE !

            In the meantime: REAL results from the Seralini paper:
            http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14

            “In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5 to 5.5 times higher. Marked and severe nephropathies were also generally 1.3 to 2.3 times greater. “

            “Males presented up to four times more large palpable tumors starting 600 days earlier than in the control group,”

            From

            Results:
            Biochemical analyses confirmed very significant chronic kidney deficiencies, for all treatments and both sexes; 76% of the altered parameters were kidney-related. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5 to 5.5 times higher. Marked and severe nephropathies were also generally 1.3 to 2.3 times greater. In females, all treatment groups showed a two- to threefold increase in mortality, and
            deaths were earlier. This difference was also evident in three male groups fed
            with GM maize. All results were hormone- and sex-dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors more frequently and before controls; the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by consumption of GM maize and Roundup treatments. Males presented up to four times more large palpable tumors starting 600 days earlier than in the control group, in which only one tumor was noted. These results may be explained by not only the non-linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup but also by the overexpression of the EPSPS transgene or other mutational effects in the GM maize and their metabolic
            consequences.

            Conclusion:
            Our findings imply that long-term (2 year) feeding trials need to be conducted to thoroughly evaluate the safety of GM foods and pesticides in their full commercial formulations.

            PS: a suggestion, derived from our longevity studies with SA, Jackson Lab, mice, and which ALWAYS went past 90 days:
            Re-name the “90-day established industry studies”
            as
            “90-day-pull-the-wool-over-peoples-eyes GMO-industry BS farces.”

            Why don’t they do 3-day studies? Would guarantee “no difference between treated and controls.” – – – which, interpreted by any GMO parrot, would mean “Safe.” Ha, Ha, Ha!

          • J. Randall Stewart

            So did any group of male rats in the Seralini study live longer when fed glyphosate?

          • Anybody can bullshit!
            YOU claimed that – Seralini study – male rats fed Roundup (glyphosate) lived longer.
            ALL I ASKED FOR was a reference to your claim.
            So, no reference to your – bullshit – claim???

            Another GMO Troll avoiding an answer?

          • Terry Hill

            Hello again, Hans. It seems your cognitive dissonance is still strong.

            I happened upon this study while looking through a mountain of non-industry funded, global scientific papers that showed equivalence of GMOs, and noted you’re still trolling out the Norwegian ‘Report’ that I’ve already addressed. So, you don’t learn?

            This is how science works – an actual study by actual scientists, not a junk-science stacked study by an activist to ‘find’ evidence he wanted.

            Oh, it’s a 104-week study. By the Japanese government.
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18787312

            And you obviously still haven’t read my review of Seralini’s data? Simple analysis of his own data prove his findings are NOT supported by the data.

          • gmoeater

            Terry, Hans thinks academia.edu is a credible source for publication. And Hans is listed on Quackwatch. I would be very surprised if he could even understand your review — his vocabulary is limited to “troll” and “bovine-poo poo.” You are trying to reason with a 10-year old namecalling playground bully.

          • gmoeater

            Terry, just read your link to the abstract to the 104-week Japanese study. Very interesting! Thanks for posting it here.

          • Hello Terry:
            In a recent lengthy response to you I commented on your remarks about Seralini, and also showed you that the Norwegian study was really done by the Norwegian Government, listed names of scientists (I had talked to) that worked on the study, besides being headed by Georgina Catacora-Vargas who was, PREVIOUSLY with the Faculty of Agricultural, Livestock and Forestry Sciences, University Mayor de San Simon, Cochabamba, Bolivia.

            GMO Trolls – – when it comes to real, extensive, studies – – just love to deny them. So, please don’t follow their – – extreme ignorance-demonstrating – – patterns.
            I challenged several GMO ElToroPooPooers to show anything wrong with this study. But, obviously incapable of doing so, they chicken out:
            http://genok.no/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/010615_GENOK-HTIntactaBrazil-FINAL_web.pdf?page=1#post-100919

            Again, because sometimes doesn’t come up:
            http://genok.no/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/010615_GENOK-HTIntactaBrazil-FINAL_web.pdf?page=1#post-100919

            Or just paste it into address – URL – line.

            PS: one more comment about the – frequent – bullshit complaint that Seralini used tumor-prone SD rats:
            What do you think humans are? Tumor/cancer -resistant?

            My – extensive – longevity studies at RU, Chicago, were right along the lines of Seralini’s “LONGER than the phony ’90-day-pull-the wool over people’s eyes
            GMO-BS farces’ “.

            So, Terri, you seem honestly concerned about finding answers. But when somebody with real experience in this field shows you that your arguments are on very shaky grounds, acknowledge them, instead of humping on them from a slightly different angle, and sit back and wait: somebody may publish something in support of your thinking.

          • Terry Hill

            Hans, I find it sad and almost embarrassed for you, that someone like you, who claims to be an academic, constantly resorts to such poor tactics as ignoring responses, false flags/herrings, argumentative fallacies and childish commentry.

            I responded to your Norwegian ‘study’ nonsense, and you ignored it. No response.
            1) It wasn’t a study, it was a paper, making recommendations to the Norwegian government. You failed to comprehend that from the TITLE “Sustainability REPORT”.
            2) It wasn’t BY the Norwegian government, it was FOR them.
            3) It reviewed another study, done in South America, and recommended further studies.

            So the report recommends a precuationary approach stating there were gaps in the findings – fair enough. However, I can challenge it’s overall validity.

            The finding that “the literature provides indications of harmful and adverse effects to the environment and to health (both animal and human)” – unfortunately, leans on the discredited work of Carmen and Seralini.

            As for your continued, off-topic waffling – another red herring – what does the credentials of the author have to do with the topic? Seralini is well credentialed, too – it doesn’t mean they don’t make errors (or in Seralini’s case, manufacture evidence and lie).

            Regarding Seralini – as every one of your other points have been addressed and taken down – In my very long response where I SHOWED the data he provided did not demonstrate his claims – The fact that he used Sprague-Dawley rats indicates that he had ulterior motives for his study. Combine that with his claim that his study was NOT a carcinogenicity study, and that 60% of his ‘findings’ that he trumpeted and heralded to the media circus he set-up to ‘release’ his findings (prior to peer review)… it’s not hard to see it was more like a product roll out than science.
            Again, if you were actually half the scientist you claim, Hans, you’d also know what every first year science student learns – you cannot claim ‘findings’ in a research paper that your research was not looking for. If he found coincidental tumours, an ethical scientist would have recommended further study on the tumours and constructed such a study to remove confounders that would affect tumour growth. As no such controls were in place, his ‘conclusion’ that GMOs caused the tumours in itself can be outright dismissed.

            Oh, and one last thing. You’d be happy to know (as you continue to rant about ’90-day blah blah’ – scientific community standard for toxicity test, but hey, what do you know about science, right) – In responding to another anti-science douche-bag, I found this. Happy reading:
            It’s a 104-week (yes, two years) study on feeding GMO soy to rats (not Sprague-Dawley). And it was ACTUALLY done by a GOVERNMENT organisation, not an independent advisory group with unknown agendas.

            Department of Environmental Health and Toxicology, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Public Health. Tokyo, Japan:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18787312

            Guess what? That’s right… sorry to burst your bubble. NO evidence of any toxicity, tumours, inflamed organs…

          • Terry Hill

            And please tell me again what your longevity studies have to do with GMO consumption? Please, drop that dead horse.
            No one cares about your longevity studies, they are 100% irrelevant to this discussion.

          • Terri – please – leave fantasyland and come back to scientific reality, as – so clearly – demonstrated about European GMO-rejection in:
            http://genok.no/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/010615_GENOK-HTIntactaBrazil-FINAL_web.pdf?page=1#post-100919

          • Terry Hill

            So… Why no comment on the 104 week study?
            As for J Randall Stewart’s claim – that some male rats in Seralini’s study lived longer when fed Glyphosate feed – that’s actually in Seralini’s data. But you would know that if you actually looked at it.
            Why do you insist on a single NON GOVERNMENT advisory paper as some type of proof?? It’s NOT a research study, it’s not BY the Norwegian government, and it wrongly quotes Seralini as valid research (issued before that gutter-trash was retracted).

            Every time you’re proved wrong, you move the goal posts?

            Give it up, Hans. It is you that should come back to scientific reality, you deluded buffoon. I’ve called you out on every single piece of BS you’ve thrown up here, yet you can’t get past your cognitive dissonance/deliberate arrogance.

            Even the European Food Safety Agency (with contributing academics from several leading UK and continental universities) has now found glyphosate is probably NOT carcinogenic.
            http://www.ift.org/food-technology/daily-news/2015/november/19/efsa-finds-glyphosate-unlikely-to-be-carcinogenic-proposes-exposure-threshold.aspx

            The jokes been on you, Hans. Give it up, you’ve looked foolish for too long.

          • J. Randall Stewart

            Was it the feed, or the actual glyphosate?

          • Terry Hill

            Several rats fed glyphosate-soaked feed outlived the controls. In fact, from Seralini’s own data – mortality was HIGHER amongst the control (non-GMO fed rats). He conveniently leaves this out of his data.

            One of the problems with Seralini’s data is that the control group, against which he bases claims on ‘witch rat died first’ and ‘had less cancers’ was only 10% of the rats studied.

            Mathematically, when you have 9 study rats for every one control rat, the chances of a study rat dying first is 9:1. So the fact he trumpeted that study rats ‘died earlier’ is pure nonsense and irrelevant to the study outcomes.

            All rats, both control and study-groups, had tumor incidence, tumor size, morality etc within expected (2SD) statistical limits.

            I’ve even showed my old research statistics lecturer (a Doctor of Mathematics in statistics) Seralini’s data, and with about half an hour she called me and said “Nothing in this data support the claims of the study”.

          • J. Randall Stewart

            Thanks for the reply, I didn’t have the source bookmarked I had on that, and I was too dumb or lazy to get it again within a few minutes of looking. Besides, talking to Hans is sometimes entertaining, but not exactly productive.

            I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer either, as evidenced by my “B” out of college level statistics. But that was one of the most useful classes I took. I could look at the data myself and see that is wasn’t statistically significant.

          • Terry Hill

            You don’t have to be an ‘A’ student to understand science, you just need the capacity to think critically and apply reasoned deduction based on evidence. And I agree, it is imperative to understand research statistics (yes, it was a hard subject!) if you want to be able to discern fact from spin. You’ve done better than Hans!

            I’ve noted that Hans name comes up a few times on Quackwatch for his views on pseudoscientific nonsense and long-winded, off-topic waffling, so despite his constant red herrings and irrelevant references to his ‘longevity studies’, any appeal to authority he thinks he has is null and void. He has demonstrated no understanding of the scientific method, the purpose or process of peer review, or even the difference between a research study and an opinion article – which frankly astounds me, since he claims to have a Ph.D. (He is also ‘president’ of various ‘alternative’ and ‘natural’ medicine groups, believes ‘chemtrails’ are real etc).

            I’ve asked him what exactly his Ph.D is in, and where/by whom it was conferred… but no response. I wonder if it isn’t one of those $2500, one-page essay type, like a Ph.D. in Natural Healing?

          • unable to find ANY facts/study re glyphosate-fed animals live longer.
            It’s most likely like the carbon industry’s intentional planting of bogus arguments.

            Give me reference if you have one, please.

            The real risk with glyphosate is endocrine disruption; read about it, or listen – video – Theo Colborn, Florida U. – – mimicking estrogens:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2r2Rx8VRq48

            also
            http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-health/endocrine-disruptors-are-our-boys-and-men-at-risk

          • Terry Hill

            Hans, stop obfuscating. It’s in Seralini’s own data, you twit. Are you incapable of reading data, or, as I suspect, simply being deliberately ignorant?

            You continually claim some scientific credentials, therefore I’m not going to spoon feed you the data AGAIN. It’s there for you to look at.

            Seralini’s data (that doesn’t support his own findings) is now on his website. Read it and weep.

            Reference: Seralini’s data.

            Oh, and ANOTHER off-topic post when your last argument is destroyed? No comment on the Japanese 104 week study?
            You’re really pathetic.

          • Peter Olins

            “deliberately ignorant”
            — a euphemism for “dishonest”?

            Hans’s comments on threads like this are the scientific equivalent of graffiti—but without the artistic skill.

          • Soooooooooo typical: when you don’t have facts/references you ElToroPooPoo and revert to name-calling!
            Some time ago you insisted that the Norwegian Government study – rejecting GMOs – wasn’t a Government study. I PROVED IT TO YOU, challenging you to find something wrong with it, AND YOU WERE UNABLE TO DO SO!

            Now you – – like many GMO lovers – – can’t come up with a URL to a “fact” you insisted on, AND AGAIN YOU WERE UNABLE TO DO SO, and following your established practice, instead revert – again – to name calling.

            So, to bring you up-to-par, here is the latest video, answering questions you – constantly – insisted to deny:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Njd0RugGjAg

            And how about the (phony) GMO-industry cover-up of the “established industry 90-day (safety) studies” that I re-named “90-day pull-the-wool-over-peoples-eyes GMO industry farces” ?

            Seralinis “longer than 90 days” studies exposed the GMO-industry BS, and (re length) are in agreement with our longevity studies at RU, Chcago, elaborated on in by book “LIFE-LONG HEALTH; learn how to control your genes to stay young with age.” available at nonprofit, health education ($ 1.99) at http://www.iaam.ca .

            Now, Terri, aren’t you happy that you brought it up?

          • Terry Hill

            Hans, I am really concerned about your mental stability. It’s rich that someone who has consistently behaved like a tantrum-throwing eight-year old (“PooPoo”) complains about name calling. You seem to be unable to even spell the most straightforward five letter names, like “Terry”. Which, no doubt, is yet another of you pathetic attempts to get under my skin because your arguments are so weak.

            “Some time ago you insisted that the Norwegian Government study – rejecting GMOs – wasn’t a Government study. I PROVED IT TO YOU” – proved what?
            1. It isn’t a study, it’s a review. Are you unable to read?

            2. It isn’t a government study. It’s provided by a third party ‘independent’ consultancy group.
            3. It still referenced Seralini, before Seralini was retracted. So it’s reference to ‘GMO concerns’ are less than valid.
            4. False flag: find something wrong with it? I don’t challenge the recommendations of that particular review, in that on the evidence it goes by, it finds insufficient evidence of safety. What I do challenge is YOUR deranged assertion that ‘insufficient evidence of safety’ equates to DANGER! It calls for further study – again, I don’t have any problem with that.

            Hans, what do you mean ‘can’t come up with a URL’ – for what? Every time (time after time) I prove you wrong – and believe me, it’s getting easier as your deranged ramblings continue – you ignore the evidence and change the topic.

            Here, because you are apparently ‘internet impaired’:

            http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14
            NOW – Go to the data. Open the Excel spread sheet. Look at the bottom lines. See how many control rats and study rats (GMO/Glyphosate fed) rats lived to the end of the study. More control rats (% of population) died than study rats.
            I’m sure even a pseudo-scientist like you can understand the high-school level mathematics involved.

            A YouTube video? Since when has YouTube been a depository of reputable scientific research? Do you believe it’s OK, that if you research doesn’t hold up to honest peer review, or is totally un-replicable, that simply posting a YouTube video makes it real?

            While you’re continuing to ‘bang on’ like a rusty gate about ‘Seralini’s Longer than 90 day study’ – Why are you continuing to ignore the Japanese Metropolitan Institute of Public Health?
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18787312

            Why do you continually ignore this genuine scientific study, by REPUTABLE, NON-CORPORATE (non-activist-paid) scientists, and divert? Oh, that’s right. Because your argument is weak and diversion, false flags and misdirection are the last resorts of the con man.

            The judge had you figured out years ago. Using lies and fabrications you know are untrue to further your agenda makes you a poor excuse for a human being, Hans, and an even worse excuse for a scientist. This isn’t name calling, this is what you are.

          • BiologyReality

            Good question. No response to your posted study. Interesting lack of intellectual honesty from the Dr…

          • gmoeater

            I’ll buy your TG dinner if you can get this guy to get off the “poo-poo” language, and answer any of your questions, Terry. It’s either that, or “shills” or “trolls.” He ain’t got nuttin’ else to respond with. Nothing.
            Of course longevity studies are irrelevant to GE discussions, unless you are either ole Hans, or Food Babe.

          • gmoeater

            Great link, Terry – I had not seen that 104-week study before. Thank you.

          • Andrew Sprague

            His Anti-GMO stance is dogmatic. Can you show me a paper that shows ONLY modified genes do any damage? Every single paper or study I have read always includes Pesticides and Herbicides. This is a problem with these chemicals not with GMOs themselves.

          • If the “His” refers to me, it shows that you live in a fantasyworld, disconnected from reality!
            What are the major two types of GM-corn all about?
            Answer:
            One has a built-in manufacture of a pesticide (that kills the bugs that want to eat the corn) – – – and with this one you (the ignoramus that eats this crap) gets a lot of endocrine-disrupting, poisonous pesticide.

            The other has a built-in gene so that the GM-corn is resistant against herbicide – – – – and with this one you (the ignoramus that eats the crap) gets a lot of (again endocrine-disrupting), poisonous herbicide.

            Seralini fed both types of GM-corn to SD rats, and pictures of the GM-corn-fed rats can be viewed at http://www.iaam.ca (there just scroll down).

            And in the process we exposed “the industry established 90-day safety studies” as “Pull-the-wool-over-peoples-eyes 90-day
            GMO industry farces.”

            In parting, let me quote you the summary statement from a recent Tufts U. study:
            “Half of the Studies Find Cause For Concern … The Other Half Are Studies By the GMO Food Industry itself.”

          • Andrew Sprague

            His refers to Seralini. You refer to my point exactly. It is pesticides and herbicides that are hurting people not the GMOs themselves. Pushing an anti-GMO agenda based on this evidence seems unethical because it doesn’t actually prove GMOs are the culprit. Rallying against the US Corn, Soybean, Wheat subsidies would be much more beneficial to the public. For these reasons I cannot help but see Seralini’s views as dogmatic. Just today I went through the citations of an anti-GMO meta analysis that completely misrepresented other studies. It suggested horizontal gene transfer from GMO foods to intestinal bacteria when the study they referred came to the complete opposite conclusion. And they even quoted a line of the paper that made it seem like the study completely agreed with their analysis. I am not looking to follow someone’s ideology I just want to see non biased studies. I wouldn’t even read a Monsanto paper I know they are pure evil. They created agent Orange and Bovine Growth Hormone.

          • Actually, ‘Agent Orange’ is a new term for Dioxin, a waste product from producing Carbontetrachloride which has been around longer than Monsanto. Carbontet has caused brain damage in thousands of people but its appeal as a dry-cleaning agent (especially for haberdashers) led to the idiom ‘Mad as a hatter’. Monsanto’s crime here is looking to find a new way to ‘use’ what they already knew was a deadly toxin.

            As for the idea that the GMO’s may not be directly responsible for harming people, consider this: The get-away driver is just as guilty as the robber who shot the guard. The idea that GMO crops are enabled to withstand higher concentrations of pesticides (in some cases, specifically ‘Round Up Ready’ crops) What would be the point other than to put more poison on them?

            As to your assumption that you won’t find random genes from the foods you eat in your DNA? Incorrect assumption, you DO find said random sequences frequently.

          • You mean the retracted Seralini study? You’ll have to do better. The methodology was too flawed to draw any conclusions. The controls developed tumors too.

            A legitimate study can easily be done. Why don’t you do it? Certainly, you have funding for such a basic study. And given the reviewers comments when the paper was retracted, it would be simple for you to repeat the study with adequate experimental design, appropriate strains of animal models, informative control groups, and clear results, right? This would, if done properly, certainly be material worthy of Nature, Science, NEJM, The Lancet, etc. It would really be an incredible read.

            So why aren’t you performing this simple experiment to show how horrible GMOs are for humans instead of bloviating uselessly on a discussion forum, doctor?

          • agscienceliterate

            Fsm, to do a legit double-blind study on humans, to address activists’ erroneous claims that “GMOs have never been tested for safety on humans!!” would require two control groups of humans, carefully monitored to eat either zero GE foods or foods with GE, preferably starting at birth to address activists’ erroneous developmental claims. The good Hans would need to remove babies from their monthers’ arms and segregate them for this “experioment.” Which would go on how long, Hans? A decade? OK, a decade. Then, these human children — preferably a large group for statistical reliability, like maybe 100 or 200 children — would be followed for the rest of their lives to determine whether they had negative health effects (to test the null hypothesis that “GE foods cause cancer”). Oh, and these human children would have to have their food segregated into GE and non-GE for the rest of theire lives, because, who knows? — ending the experiment at age 10 and putting these human children back into the general population to eat whatever they want, including GE foods starting at age 11, could taint the results at age 60 or 80 or whenever they start testing for cancer “caused” by GE foods.

            Additionally, of course, none of these human children would ever be subjected to other independent cancer-causing variables in their entire lives, including coffee, sunlight, cigarettes of course, and a host of other known cancer-causing variables (when taken at extreme doses).

            Or, to prevent a lifetime of confinement of these human children now turned adults, they could be merely dissected to test for cancers at age 11.

            What do you think, Hans? You approve of these protocols? No? Then just WHAT protocols would YOU use for a reliable and scientific double-blind replicable study? (Replicable with, say, another 200 children or so)

            Or do you want to do a rat study yourself, Hans? Why not? If the protocols and sample sizes and methodology are legit, I’d kick in $10 myself to help you “replicate” the Seralini study you worship.

            Otherwise, perhaps it is better for you to keep your mouth shut until you have learned something about Seralini, rats, GE, and approved scientific trials. Heck, I’d give you $10 myself, just for you to do that.

            You on?

          • I didn’t even want to get into the human models. I just wanted him to repeat the Seralini experiments, correcting for the obvious experimental design flaws. He’d certainly improve on his current total lack of credibility.

          • agscienceliterate

            I would love to see his protocols for a rat study. Long before he ever touches a rat.

          • Mr. A

            There is no valid evidence that coffee causes cancer in humans

          • tumors, cancer, ulcerous growths…. this is rat results

          • Shadeburst

            It has been scientifically proven that if you are bitten by a radioactive spider you gain superpowers. 71% of all responsible scientists agree.

          • Are you referring to the retracted Seralini study? You’ll have to do better. The methodology was too flawed to draw any conclusions.

          • BiologyReality

            Yes, I have.

            Here’s a good one (posted elsewhere on this thread)
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18787312
            – real scientists, real study.

            Or do you believe a study constructed by an anti-GMO activist, paid for by an anti-GMO organisation, because it better fits your paradigm?

          • Andrew Sprague

            You mean what Pesticides do to rats. How can conclude that it is ONLY the Genetic Material giving rats cancer and not the pesticides?

          • Seriously, which statement do you prefer concerning what you might eat or feed to your children:

            1.) there is no evidence indicating that this my be unhealthy,yet.

            2.) After extensive testing and human trials, we have determined that this is beneficial to your health.

            To date there have been ZERO human trials concerning the safety of GMOs, and several studies that have indicated that the increase of GMOs in our diet leads to cancers… Neither have sufficient time to establish ‘proof’. Err on the side of caution? or profit.

          • Terry Hill

            No, there hasn’t. If there has (other than the rat trial), please post one or two links? I’d love to see them.

          • Michael Fest

            What many people fail to realize when they suggest that long term testing needs to be done is that the process of creating gm foods isn’t the same as creating, for instance, a new drug. Drugs require long term testing to establish their effects on human biology. A gm food doesn’t contain anything new. They simply produce a protein (or sometimes stop producing one) that was not previously part of that particular organism. The effects of any protein selected to be expressed are already well known and understood. There isn’t any plausible reason to require long term testing for something that has no hypothetical way of changing the health risk.

          • Unfortunately your assumption is in error. Migrating genes from organisms changes the way they work; ie: corn with ‘naturally’ occurring pesticides, and resistance to herbicides like Glycosphate. Studies have shown the potential migration of proteins via the digestive process. Do you really want these things in YOUR kids?

            90 day trials on test animals are insufficient to establish any level of safety; and Monsanto admits that there have been ZERO human trials.

            But this is all on the science side of the issue. At present, in the USA, 93% of consumers have demanded labeling and disclosure, Vermont has already set such mandates in place, and 20 other states have similar legislation on the table.

            Monsanto, Pepsico, and others, have spent just over $27million to block labeling. about 33% more than simple compliance would have cost. Perhaps they want to cover up the fact they have been shoving something people don’t want on them……

            Regardless, there have not been sufficient studies done to sooth the fears of the general public. Both sides have had published peer reviewed studies retracted. And in the long run, ignoring the demands of the consumer leads to loss of profits. Simple example is the ‘debate’ of VHS vs Beta… Despite beta format’s superiority, it failed the consumer by being over-priced. At this point in time, the science doesn’t matter, there isn’t enough of it to sway the public. Doesn’t mean that in the future GMOs won’t become the miracle food source, but performance will have to be far better than the Golden Rice debacle, will have to show an actual increase in yields over conventional farming, will have to stop destroying the beneficial micro organics in the soil, etc etc etc…. so far, GMOs (not hybridization) have not lived up to the promises made.

          • Michael Fest

            No, the genes produce the same protein no matter what organism they are in. Migration of proteins via the digestive tract? That doesn’t make any sense and i would like to see such studies. Most people surveyed also wanted labels for food that contains dna too, just shows what people don’t really understand.
            All of these things are already in me and my kids and we’re doing just fine. You fail to make the distinction between a protein and a drug, which is common, and these proteins are well known and have been consumed for a long time unlike new drugs.
            As far as gmos not living up to expectations, then why are they still commonly sought after by farmers who are the ones that primarily benefit from them?

          • http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/07/15/new-study-links-gmos-to-cancer-liverkidney-damage-severe-hormonal-disruption/

            Of course you’ll just poo-pooh this as anti GMO rhetoric, despite the numerous references included.

          • Michael Fest

            You’ve just posted a link to the article that this page has critiqued.
            Maybe I’m missing your point?

          • since you’re asking that question its obvious you have. considering that the Seralini study was republished including additional data, and no one has submitted a real reason for the original retraction, its evident you are behind on current events.

          • Michael Fest

            There was additional commentary, not data. It was retracted because it was determined by the publisher that flaws in the design of the study couldn’t support it’s conclusions.
            This isn’t the first time a paper has been republished but that doesn’t mean it’s any less flawed.

            http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/seralini-gmo-study-republished/

          • Plus, the paper was not peer reviewed prior to republication, so Seralini never directly addressed the strong and valid criticisms directed at the study, expt design, and conclusions. It’s worthless crap.

          • it was thoroughly peer reviewed prior to its initial publication….why didn’t they refuse to publish then?

          • Michael Fest

            Many studies have made it through the publisher’s review process and are later retracted. It’s not unheard of for additional scrutiny to result in a retraction after publication.

          • does this not suggest that the current review process is invalid, for ANY paper? How many ‘pro GMO’ papers have been later retracted?

          • Michael Fest

            What’s a “pro GMO” paper? Retractions are done for reasons other than subject matter.

          • are you silly in the head or what? Just as some positions oppose the use of GMO’s, hidden behind the veil of misdirection, ie ‘anti GMO’ there are those that promote false assumptions that vertical gene splicing is beneficial, ie ‘pro GMO’. Most popponants mix the two very different methodologies as being the same, vertical vs horizontal gene manipulation, when in fact they are very different indeed. Horizontal gene manipulation occurs when crossing similar species, such as donkey and horse to produce mule; where-as vertical gene manipulation takes genetic material form one class of species, ie bacterium, and injecting it into an organism that would never naturally develop it ie: corn, or soy. This is propagandist fabrication and assertions of safety have no basis in scientific research; simply because the distribution of tampered with ‘crops’ have not been tracked to destinations where actual results could be ascertained. Which of course only leaves corollaries as any evidence of foul play. And the corollaries are numerous but ‘unprovable’. Not one GMO company has met the requirement to PROVE safety of their products. NOT ONE. Yet this trash is foisted off on an unsuspecting populace, who is told they don’t need to know that what they are eating or feeding their children has been tampered with. And no, legitimate retractions are not done for reasons other than subject matter.

          • Michael Fest

            “are you silly in the head or what?’
            Yes,  frequently. My head is the only one I feel comfortable in and it can occasionally be a fun place.
            The rest of your comment hinges on the basis that nature adheres to some sort of rule or employs a safety mechanism that is being circumvented when genes are traded artificially or from organisms that aren’t compatible in a reproductive sense. There is no evidence that incorporating a gene from a different organism violates any rules of nature (since nature does this occasionally on her own) or that any natural safety mechanism exists.
            Suggesting that “foul play” is involved is pointless.  And again insisting that “safety” must be proven is nonsensical since no other breeding technique has, or should be, required to endure the impossible burden of proving safety.
            And your suggestion that the seralini study was retracted for reasons other than that it couldn’t support it’s own conclusions lacks proof.

          • my ‘suggestion’ that Seralini’s study actually did support its conclusions was that it was thoroughly peer reviewed prior to its initial publication, and then, mysteriously all those peers that reviewed it were wrong? Add the ‘totally coincidental’ appointment of an editor who came from Monsanto’s corporate pool… and I suppose you have to admit there was something more than just a substance issue at work. At the very least, that particular editor should have recused himself, just a any competent attorney or judge would do in light of potential conflict of interest issues.

            As to ‘foul play’ I am not suggesting. I am stating unequivocally that GMO crops were foisted off on the global population, without letting the general population know that these ‘New and Improved’ food substitues were on the shelves or being stuffed into livestock.

            Additionally, nature DOES play by a rules book primarily, I have yet to see a hybrid cat/dog and these are both mammals, far closer genetically than bacterium and corn….. Yes of course there must be exceptions, there always are to any rule, and yes genetic material can be exchanged via the digestive system, typically this leads to either junk genes or illness, rarely does it lead to a viable new organism, but there are a few (this is where you point at sweet potatoes and say ‘SEE?! LOOK!’ Name 9 more out of the millions of species that have evolved on earth over the past 4 billion years).

            The idea that GMO companies PROVE safety is not my idea, although I agree with it, This is a mandate these companies are legally required to comply with. Monsanto has it posted verbatim on their website. If they cannot comply, then they should not release any unproven product on the market.

            Thousands of manufacturing companies shout from the rooftops when they release something ‘New and Improved’ so why has Monsanto, Pepsico, Coca-cola, and others spent millions to avoid this obvious advertising campaign? How does a company that on paper has a net worth of $1.5million, spend an average of $7million a year in lobbying costs?

            Mind you, I am not anti ‘biotech’ I honestly believe that someday this field of study can have significant impact. Even today there are some ‘discoveries’ that have practical application, such as Aspartame, as a paint additive to roach proof your house FABULOUS! But you should never put that poison in your body. Even cockroaches know better.

          • Michael Fest

            Yes, the paper was peer reviewed. It met the requirements to be published, didn’t have illustrations drawn in crayon, and was deemed suitable for publication. Immediately after it’s release, which was done in a rather unusual way (advanced copies to press released under a gag order prohibiting outside experts to be consulted for translation to the journalists. The coincidental release of a book and documentary by Seralini about the paper’s findings.), the paper received heavy criticism from other experts in the field. This happens. The initial review by the journal’s staff isn’t a proof of validity of the paper. Retractions happen, and hopefully would continue to do so. This is a sign of a reputable publisher.
            “I am stating unequivocally that GMO crops were foisted off on the global population, without letting the general population know that these ‘New and Improved’ food substitues were on the shelves or being stuffed into livestock.”
            They are food, not substitutes. One at a time genetic changes alter the plant far less drastically than other breeding methods which result in many unknowns in reshuffling the genome. Mutagens, such as ruby red grapefruit have mutated genes that may not be found in any other organism.
            Again, safety can’t be proven. Nothing is 100% safe. Only the amount of risk compared to other similar instances can be calculated. No expert has even come up with a credible hypothesis as to how genetic modification could result in a safety issue greater than that of traditional methods.
            The reason monsanto doesn’t advertise to the general public is that their customers are farmers and the farmers are aware of what they are buying and how the products came about.
            As far as examples of naturally occurring transgenic organisms, I only have 3 references but one is all that is needed to prove nature shuffles genes across the species barrier. Humans carry genes from potentially more than 100 bacterial genes. I thought that was pretty interesting. And the reason we don’t see any cat-dog hybrids isn’t due to “rules” set by nature. It is the result of the evolution of species. After a significant number of changes in a genome occur the organism becomes incompatible with it’s ancestors in a reproductive sense. Hybridization deals with this issue by a method called back breeding.
            I would disagree with you about aspertame as well (mostly anything in moderation is fine). Since when are cockroaches worried about diabetes or their waistline? ;-)

            Natural transgenics-

            Meadow grass

            https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101104083102.htm

            Butterflies

            http://phys.org/news/2015-09-naturally-gm-butterflies-gene-wasp-associated.html

            Humans

            http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/humans-may-harbor-more-100-genes-other-organisms

          • Excuse me? Journal staff is the peer review process? Don’t think so. And the remarkable coincidence of a ‘new’ editor with ties to Monsanto being hired just prior to the retraction? As to heavy criticisms….any idea how much criticism was lavished on Einstein’s Relativity theorem? and still is? See, it breaks down at the quantum mechanics level…. but still taught as gospel in schools…..

            And of course you have the 5 distinct string theories that finally, after 30 yrs, all fall into place with heavy gravity theory…..

            Now, you might think these are all unrelated… but the truth is they all have one thing in common. It took TIME to test, retest, experiment, recalculate and eventually come to a more acceptable THEORY. This is awesome in how peer review actually makes the science get better.

            HOWEVER, your argument about not being able to ‘prove safety’ holds no water. This is not a debatable requirement. it is LAW, not science. If they can’t PROVE then they should not sell, and legally CANNOT sell openly. It doesn’t matter that Monsanto’s primary customers are farmers. Far more than that are involved in disguising what is in our food on the shelves or in the livestock we buy. Tracking, segregating, and proper labeling are not these huge hurdles they are being made out to be. the addition of a few letters on a package is insignificant, especially compared to the funds being shoved into politician’s pockets to prevent it.

            And with your whopping 3 examples of transgenic organisms, you wish to say, yes it happens. Ok it does, in about 1/1000000th of a percent of all species of life on the planet. And yes there are still basic ‘rules in propagation in nature, not talking about mutations or mad scientists, gene count and compatibility is what keeps species separate for the most part (1 million times to one, probably more so). We’ve had more species go extinct last week than you can find examples of transgenics in the past 4 billion years. Perhaps there’s a lesson in that somewhere.

            Now is when you point at the miraculous solution that saved the banana crop from a horrid plague of bacterium. A heinous plague that would have taken bananas out of the common markets for years. My question is how did this plague start? it appeared so suddenly and just as quickly a solution was found. My guess is that both the infection and the solution are GMO products.

            As for your quip about roaches being worried about their waistline? not really sure you could call the joint between abdomen and thorax a ‘waist’ and of course that’s not what they worry about. What they recognize is that Aspartame is a poison, regardless of dosage. They recognize that this chemical remains in your tissues long after you have passed the bulk of the contents, it is residual, and has been linked to increased incidence of diabetes, disruption of gut flora, and loosely associated with increased cancer incidence and organ failure. The bugs are smart enough to avoid it entirely. On the other hand, most humans aren’t willing to grasp the concept that ‘calories in < calories out = weight loss' and that the healthy end of adjustment is the 'calories out' portion of the equation.

          • Michael Fest

            That line was supposed to read “The initial review and by the journal’s staff isn’t proof of validity of the paper” . I’m aware that peer review is done outside the employment of the journals.
            As far as the physics examples, there are many mathematically attractive and interesting theories in quantum mechanics that exist but the standard model is still going strong. It may still be a long time before we understand many of it’s aspects. I completely agree on testing theories.
            If you don’t agree with the idea that you can’t prove safety, then give me an example of something that was proven 100 percent safe. I think you’re missing the point that safety can only be practically established relative to something similar.
            As far as only having 3 transgenic examples- one is sufficient. It is evidence that there is no universal law against it. I’m not even sure how many examples there may be but perhaps no one is documenting this due to lack of importance.
            Your guess about the banana is little more that unsubstantiated conspiracy theory unless you have evidence to back it up. Back in the 50’s we all ate a different type which was wiped out by a similar plague (before there were GMOs).
            The bit about roaches was meant to be amusing (I guess I have to work on that). I was trying to steer the conversation towards a more friendly exchange. And I disagree about aspartame and dosage. With few exceptions the saying “the dose makes the poison” applies, certainly to aspartame.

          • something 100% safe for consumption by human beings… virtually anything can be made unsafe when taken out of naturally occurring circumstances; however, you miss the point, whether or not it can be done, it is a legal requirement that it be done. If any producer fails to prove safety, it is illegal.

            The requirement is posted on Monsanto’s own pages. Basically, the mandate says stop doing this stuff until you CAN prove safety. This is why the proliferation of GMO produce has been hidden, why distributors of these products that contain GMO products are so determined to prevent labeling. This is why farmers get blackmailed, threatened, or promised increased profits, depending on their position concerning GMO crops.

            Here’s the page at Monsanto: http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/biotech-protein-safety.aspx

          • Mr. A

            Plenty of natural pants are poison. You are batshit crazy

          • Mr. A

            Anti vaxxers are craxy

          • RJ

            Mir Silverleaf, do you know why we “pooh-poo” it?
            Answer: because bullshit = pooh-poo.

          • stop lying RJ, you pooh-poo it because you think you are smarter than everyone else. You are NOT. And the Pooh-poo is between your ears.

          • agscienceliterate

            It is just anti-biotech rhetoric. So are the references.

          • just as your position is just pro biotech propaganda with no real studies to do what is required. Look at Monsanto’s own website, they are required to PROVE safety, not just guess that it’s close enough.

          • Michael Fest

            No one can prove safety of anything. The relative risk of harm is what is important.

          • Peter Olins

            I have never seen anyone make these critical points so succinctly!
            (Do you also write haikus?)

          • Michael Fest

            Lol. Fortunately for everyone, I do not write haikus.

          • That is a false assumption Michael, the whole safety legislation against lead based paint should show you that, the removal of DDT as a common insecticide should show that also. Our govt sanctioned the use of dioxin as a defoliant was done despite knowing full well that it was toxic to more than just plants. GMOs of the vertical variety are nothing more than a profit driven scam at the expense of human safety.

          • Michael Fest

            Nothing can be proven “safe”. There is risk in everything. Relative risk is what is established as a guideline for safety.
            GMOS are not a “scam” by any stretch of the imagination. Their wide adoption and clear benefits thoroughly demonstrate that.

          • Andrew Sprague

            Because it is. Did you even read any of the articles? Almost every single one is about Pesticide/Herbicide toxicity. Yes pesticides are bad. The only interesting one is about GMO plant DNA is Human blood. And wait one second… They don’t even mention using GMO’s once in the paper.

            “The analysis of all the publicly available circulating cell-free DNA sequencing data of over 1000 human subjects confirms our hypothesis that the presence of foreign DNA in human plasma is not unusual.”

            It is all anti-GMO rhetoric and terrible science that is easily picked apart. Most Pro-GMO people like me are against Monsanto’s Pesticide Resistant GMOs.

          • deb waite

            All I know is if I eat a GMO food I get rashes, boils and itching, when I stay away from them the rashes, boils and itching goes away and it has been going on 4 years now. My immune system was ruined until I found out the truth!!!!!

          • agscienceliterate

            “The truth,” eh? Tell us, Deb. What specific “GMO foods” did you eat that brought on these symptoms? GE is a process, not a food. But go ahead, tell us your story. What did you eat that you believe was a “GMO food” ? Inquiring and curious minds want to know.
            Boils, rashes, itching, and damage to your immune system. Hmmmmm. How very strange. So yes, exactly what foods did you eat that you think were “GMO foods” that you currently do not eat? Be specific.

          • deb waite

            I already know the truth-so do not waste your time trying to convince me.

          • agscienceliterate

            Curious what you eat that you believe is GE. So you won’t say? I think you have no idea whatsoever what foods have been processed with GE grown ingredients, and are just making this up as speculative hippie woo. Otherwise you would actually and sincerely be interested, curious, and motivated to find out what is actually causing your boils, rashes, itches, and damage to your immune system. But you are uninterested, because you “know the truth.” Good. May you be boil-free, rash-free, itch-free, and immune-strong. Organic foods and non-GMO certified foods are made exactly for people just like you. Right up your alley. Enjoy.

          • Andrew Sprague

            Sorry that is completely false. I have spent hours pouring over papers and studies looking for evidence of horizontal transfer of GMO genes to Human micro flora.

            “Studies have shown the potential migration of proteins via the digestive process.”

            What proteins are you talking about here? Anyways of course we use the proteins from GMO foods, amino acids in proteins are the building blocks of every single protein in your body. Perhaps you meant DNA? Which is what I was referring to in the my first sentence. And there is no ‘good’ research about horizontal gene transfer from a GMO to even the bacteria in your stomach. Quotations around good because I have found lots of trash studies misrepresenting their sources to promote their own ideas.

          • Anonamus Chicken

            Hello, do you mind if you could send a link of some of those papers if they’re online? Just a high school student who picked GMOs for a science project.

          • Peter Olins

            Tell us more about the question(s) you are trying to answer in your project.

          • Mr. A

            Silver leaf is also an anti Vaxxer that wants kids to die

          • Jim

            You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. What is far more disturbing is that you appear to have no idea of just how ignorant you really are. NEWSFLASH. (just one of many examples) One GMO food on the market has a gene for BT toxin added to it, a protein that is both totally foreign to man and totally foreign to ANY foods ingested by man.

            While the effects of the BT protein are well known in the plant in which it NATURALLY occurs and in the insects which eat it (to which it is a poison the plant uses as a defense) we know NOTHING about what it does in man NOR DID WE TEST IT. We tested only the products that we EXPECT it to be broken down into in the digestive tract. THE PROBLEM WITH THAT is that there are many conditions in which individals cannot break down proteins that most of us can (celiac disease, lactose intolenace and a huge number of others). PLUS man has the highest level of genetic variation in enzymes that break down foods of almost any species (because we have evolved within virtually every environment on the face of the entire planet (except only Antartica) So there will inevitably be many peope than cannot break down BT toxin, so it goes into their lower digestive tract AS THE FULL TOXIN. And we haven’t tested to see what that would do.

            This is flat out criminal negligence. THe food industry and the GMO people DO NOT CARE as long as it happens to only a subset of people AND IF IT ISN’T ON THE LABEL THERE WILL BE NO WAY OF FIGURING OUT WHAT IT IS THAT IS MAKING THAT SUBSET OF PEOPLE SICK.

            It’s exactly the same situation as it was with tobacco. They DO NOT CARE IF THEY KILL EVEN MILLIONS OR 10’S OF MILLIONS OR PEOPLE, so long as they can avoid taking responsibility for it.

          • Michael Fest

            Bt has been used in crop protection for nearly a century and has been tested for its effects on humans- http://ucbiotech.org/answer.php?question=31

          • Jim

            True but totally inapplicable and highly misleading. The critical difference is that previously BT as used as an external application. Now the plants are being genetically modified so that the toxin is present WITHIN THE PLANT where it cannot be washed off and there is no possibility of timing applications with regard to harvest or use only when an insect is actually a problem etc.. THe inevitable result will be that amounts people are exposed to will be vastly larger.

            FAR more serious is that once the plants are grown the gene will ineviatbly escape into the environment (Studies have shown that such genes can be spread thru pollen (and insect carriers etc) to similar crops or closely related plants in the wild many miles distant. And this gene would give plants a selective advantage over the wild types meaning it would inevitably become very common in closely related wild plants and then back into NON GMOed closely related crops.

            NOTE WELL

            The EPA does not require long-term studies because the protein’s
            instability in digestive fluids makes such studies meaningless in terms
            of consumer health ”
            Absolutely not true. This applies only to healthy people and only to those with the most common genetic variations. The are many health problems that cause marked deviation from normal levels of acidity and of relevant enzymes in the digestive tract.
            The EPA is playing “brain dead” here for the benefit of industry.

            “(8). In vitro digestion assays were used to confirm
            degradation characteristics of Bt proteins, whereas murine feeding
            studies were used to assess acute oral toxicity ”

            Mice are not humans and have very different natural diets and digestive enzymes. While such studies have the potential to provide warnings of possible toxicity they are not remotely sufficient to establish safety IN HUMANS

            There is a huge amount of genetic variation in enzymes used in digestion in homo sapiens, vastly more than in most species, because of our long evolution in every corner of the globe (with the sole exception of Antartica). THere are many such variations that cause otherwise normal humans to get adverse reactions from foods widely eaten (celiac disease and milk intolerance, for example) That’s not a problem when the individuals can just avoid the foods. BUt it BT genes are added to food crops they will BECAUSE THIS GENE CONFERS STRONG SURVIVAL ADVANTAGE (unlike, for example, the gluten in wheat and the lactose in milk) and will inevitably become widespread in an extensive range of food crops if it is allowed.

            This is wanton negligence “with full malice aforethought” in that is willfully ignores the well known problem of high genetic variations in food enzymes in humans.

            THE DANGER IS GREATLY EXACERBATED by the industry’s attempt to make labeling of GMO (or “non GMO”) illegal as it would very effectively obscure any problem that arose even if they were very serious and affected millions of people. (The problem with trans fats took many decades to surface despite that they were killing millions of people AND THEY WERE LABELED precisely because their use was so widespread, exactly at BT would inevitably become widespread in our food supply far beyond the level that the GMO’ed plant were used due to inevitable transfer of the gene to other food crops.

            Exactly as was done with nuclear power, the industry and government is controlling the discussion so that the areas of greatest danger are being ignored and a very false impression of safety is given to the public. But with GMO the danger is far greater. As devastating as Chernobyl and Fukishima were (it’s still highly dangerous to eat some animals even many thousands of miles from the location of the meltdowns) GMO plants, especially modifications like adding the BT gene, could be far worse. Because, unlike with Chernobyl and Fukishima, where the amount of material released, although staggeringly large, was still finite and limited, there is no meaningful quantitative limit on the spread of a gene, most especially, one conferring high selective advantage to an extensive range of plants, into the environment.

            The industry is not even comparing “apples to oranges” here, more like rocks (inanimate objects) to oranges (LIVING organisms) and the difference is hugely significant. They are willfully misleading the public exactly as they did with nuclear power (“Electricity will be too cheap to meter” , we have safe ways to store it (wrong repeated on every method attempted for over half a century and they STILL don’t have one), it is safe, no real danger of an accident, (In fact, due to many factors accidents are statistically inevitable, especially given with economics that reward industry for taking huge risks and fail to significantly penalize them for damages) as history has clearly shown.

          • agscienceliterate

            Jim, you do not understand the mechanics of Bt. (Come on, this Google search below took me 10 seconds. Get responsible for your own education.)
            Bt does not affect the human gut the same way it does the insect gut. Read this university paper about Bt. Click on the side link about safety issues, and learn the difference between an insect gut and the human gut.
            http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/how_bt_work.html
            Also, there are requirements for insect refuges (mandatory distances) for the specific type of insect that is being controlled, for each Bt crop. It is the Bt farmer’s responsibility to maintain these insect refuges.
            Your speculations of “inevitability” are just Fearmongering speculations, and are not based on fact.

          • Jim

            The mandatory distances have already been proven to be worthless. Pollen can be carried by wind much longer distances, carried by bees and other insects and thru other mechanisms. And all it takes is one single transfer and the gene is out, with no way of ever “recalling it” Genes that have a powerful selective advantage for the plants they spread into will inevitably become widespread in the environment. THIS is by far the greatest danger that the industry studiously ignores and suppresses discussion of.

            Even with the very worst of nuclear accidents (Chernobyl, Fukishima) the AMOUNT of radioactive material is finite and limited (albeit massive with the two cited). But with releases of genes (spread thru pollen into related wild plants as well as non GMOed versions of the same crop) there is no such limit on the spread. If the gene has high “fitness” (as a BT gene likely would) it could remain in the environment and continue to cause problems indefinitely – tens of thousands of OUR generations, even long after we’ve gone extinct.

            THIS IS NOT A CONCERN with conventional plant breeding where the genes have to come from closely related species (because whatever related plants we move them to have already been exposed to them (at low levels) ever since they evolved without our “help”. But when we move genes from very distant species this is not remotely the case and there is huge potential for harm WHICH IS NOT REMOTELY BEING INVESTIGATED.

            These companies all know that, just a will past problems, under current politics, THEY will never be held responsible. THEY make the profit while WE pay the price. Why would they not take great risks under such gross misregulation and misenforcement? The fault is OURS for continuing to tolerate such outrageous abuses by corporations and governments.

          • Peter Olins

            Your argument makes perfect sense: a single grain of pollen might escape.

            But what exactly do you think is the most likely consequence—or even the worst-case scenario? What “powerful selective advantage” do you fear?

          • agscienceliterate

            And there is absolutely no evidence that this fearful scenario has happened. All speculative. He forgets, however, that organic farmers have a responsibility to keep their weed and other crop pollens out of other farmers’ fields. His speculation is all based on science fiction “IF” scenarios.

          • hyperzombie

            well if pollen can travel so far, why is there still no GMO popcorn? Or very little Mbr corn?

          • Michael Fest

            **”The EPA does not require long-term studies because the protein’s
            instability in digestive fluids makes such studies meaningless in terms
            of consumer health “**

            What does the EPA have to do with this? Perhaps you meant a different govt entity.

            **” Now the plants are being genetically modified so that the toxin is present WITHIN THE PLANT “**

            In reference to BT, it is a toxin to specific larval invertebrates, not much else. To the rest of us, it is just another protein. Harmless when consumed along with the other proteins in the same food.

            **”FAR more serious is that once the plants are grown the gene will ineviatbly escape into the environment (Studies have shown that such genes can be spread thru pollen (and insect carriers etc) to similar crops or closely related plants in the wild many miles distant. And this gene would give plants a selective advantage over the wild types meaning it would inevitably become very common in closely related wild plants and then back into NON GMOed closely related crops.”**

            Genetically modified crops have been grown for decades. Where is the example that this has happened, and more importantly, what is the plausible scenario where a gm crop is capable of passing one specific gene (the one which scares you) uncontrollably into the environment. Also, why would this particular gene have a “selective advantage” ? Nearly everything a farmer plants won’t survive through a few generations without human assistance. Any wild plants growing nearby wouldn’t be compatible in a reproductive way.

          • Jim

            You biology background is non existent (did you by any chance go to a charter or home school?) The gene causes production of BT toxin which is toxic to many insect pests that would otherwise attack the plants. The fact that even that flagrantly obvious connection escapes you demonstrates that you really have no idea what the discussion is about.

          • Michael Fest

            I have no special education in biology, nor would I resort to acting like a d*ck as you seem so comfortable doing.
            Bt is a protein toxic to a very narrow range of larval insects.
            http://www.docfoc.com/btgen-npic-orst-edu-factsheets-btgen

          • hyperzombie

            Ummm,Bt is a natural soil bacterium, you are exposed to it all the time.

          • agscienceliterate

            You are unaware, Jim, that Bt is used on organic crops, right?

          • Jim

            Of course I am. BUt using it ON a crop is massively different from inserting a GENE for it into the crop where it is ALWAYS present in every cell of the food (not merely on the surface which could be peeled, not merely used when there is an actual insect attack BUT MASSIVELY WORSE, the gene would inevitably spread into other, non GMOed (at least not INTENTIONALLY GMOed) crops and even other closely related food crops. And once spread, like Cane Toads and rabbits in Australia, there would be no way to get rid of it. IT would be a continuing problem for at least hundreds, quite possibly thousands of years.

            It appears that with every new level of technology the damage caused by disasters becomes ever more widespread and even longer lasting. Chernobyl spread contamination many thousands of miles away and even this much later certain animals are not safe to eat even many thousands of miles away. But that nothing compared to the worldwide spread and UNLIMITED time the damage from a GMO release could be.

            Were YOU aware that studies have shown that genes added by genetic modification can spread to related species in the wild tens of miles away from the crops? Were YOU aware that human genetic variability in food enzymes makes it almost certain that a significant number of people won’t be able to break down and detoxify the BT the way that the safety studies ASSUME (without testing) that they will?

            YOu are being presented a very biased set of information and apparently swallowing it whole without serious evaluation.

          • Peter Olins

            Jim — Before you launch into a diatribe about “…criminal negligence…”, perhaps you should check your facts.

            Neither celiac disease nor lactose intolerance involve an inability to digest proteins.

          • Jim

            You are dead wrong about celiac disease where the genetic variation causes inability to break down gluten/gliaden (wheat proteins). You are technically right about lactose intolerance where it’s an inability to break down a sugar (lactose) rather than a protein (a minor slip on my part) but this point is meaningless because the basic point about individual genetic variations conferring vulnerability to problems from food constituents that do not affect most people still stands. Protein is just one of many food constituents that can be involved in such conditions. Sugars, starches, fats etc can be involved as well.

            Celiac disease involves an immune reaction to a protein that WOULD NOT BE THERE to cause a reaction unless an enzyme normally present that breaks it down was missing. So CD absolutely does involve an inability to digest a protein even thought the PROXIMATE cause of the problems is an immune reaction to it.

          • Peter Olins

            Hi Jim,
            I have worked in the field of gluten and celiac disease for a number of years, so I was surprised by your claim that the disease is caused by an enzyme deficiency, since this is totally contrary to the scientific research that I am aware of!

            I have seen this idea proposed on a number of “alternative medicine” websites (often sites that claim to offer their own miracle treatment), but have never seen any scientific literature to support the idea.

            Of course, it’s conceivable that I might have missed a recent critical paper that completely overturns the existing science, so please would you provide a link so that we can discuss this further. Thanks.

          • Jim

            What you have missed is that biology is vastly more interconnected and complex than most realize and because of that, every time science studies an issue, what it actually studies is a SIMPLICIFICATION. We try to pick the most “significant” factors to study but all too often don’t make a good choice. In addition our studies are often limited to a small selected subset of the condition by accepting as “normal” things that are really far out of a truly normal range due to conditions far outside of the normal range that our culture imposes. (Cholesterol levels are a good example: optimal ranges that are far healthier than the grossly abnormal range falsely considered “normal” in Western culture are treated as “abnormal” and very falsely considered “unhealthy” due to the truly normal levels being IN THIS CULTURE so unusual that the number of those at those levels are dwarfed by the number of those who have similar levels despite the abnormal Western diet because they have serious medical conditions that override some of the effects of the diet. Because statistics lump those with “low” cholestrol due to healthy diets with those with similar figures despite their diets because they have serious medical conditions that override (in that one respect) the influence of their diets. This poorly selected grouping gives the very false conclusion that such low levels are “unhealthy” . What shows how false this is, is that in cultures (almost absent today) where a healthy diet is the norm, rather than extreme exception as in Western culture, better health is associated with such “low” levels that with higher levels.

            WHAT SUBSET you choose to focus on can have huge consequences.

            The KEY POINT here is that in biology and medicine NOTHING is as simple as it is generally portrayed as being. And the choice of the selected subset that is displayed (or studied) is inevitably affected by many assumptions, many of them unconcious, and values/priorities of those making the decisions.

            Similarly with celiac disease, much of mainstream medicine has chosen to focus on the proteins that, WHEN THE DISGESTIVE SYSTEM FAILS TO BREAK THEM DOWN, cause serious problems. This is associated with a number of genetic variations:

            IN addition, celiac disease is not a monogenic disorder but one affected by genetic variations at a number of different locuses.

            Some affect how strongly one reacts (or fails to react) to the “offending” proteins if not broken down properly. Some affect whether you break it down or not. (there are a number of other strongly influencing gene variations at other sites (hemochromatosis (two copies of C282Y) can strongly compensate for a genetic profile that otherwise would confer overt celiac disease (I happen to know this because I am C282Y/C282Y and was protected from many of the overt effects of CD by the excess iron – until I diagnosed the hemochromatosis and got the excess iron removed which then “unmasked” my CD)

            If you choose to focus on the proteins as the cause, that is your CHOICE. However there are many other factors involved and CHOOSING to focus on one, or a limited subset may seriously hamper your ability to defectively cope with the disorder. Unfortunately in our medical culture, physicians are heavily indoctrinated in what are (in most cases) the most significant factor and generally ignore the rest. So those patients for whom other factors are more significant (and due to the number of different genes affecting the disorder there are many (as with most multi locus conditions) get poor results from standard treatment.

            It it is necessary to have BOTH alleles (genetic variations) that prevent the protein(s) from being broken down AND alleles that confer susceptibility to the proteins when not broken down, it is JUST FLAT INCORRECT to state that “the cause” of the problem is (only) a sensitivity to the protein.

            One (of many) critical point here is that you can effectively prevent problems from small amounts of gluten/gliaden in your food (often well “hidden” and NOT on the label) by taking WITH THE FOOD enzymes that break down the “offending” proteins. If there is ever a gene therapy that can change the allele for the enzyme(s) to the variations that do break down the protein (and with zinc finger technoloy it is quite possible that someday we’ll be able to change the gene IN SITU (“correct” the existing copy not merely add some other copy at some unnatural location) so that people with the condition can break down the protein and whether or not they have a sensitivity to it will then not generally* be an issue.

            What the medical profession is heavily indoctrinated to ignore, is that current knowledge is highly limited. And failure to appreciate that there is a lot more going on than you know about severely limits the effectiveness of the application of what you do know. Which is one (of many) major reasons why the USA medical profession is doing such an appalling bad job (highest cost per capita in the entire world (and by a HUGE margin) while a miserable 30 something in effectiveness/quality and steadily sinking).

            I have consistently found that unconcious assumptions that what one knows is all there is, is invariably an indication of a very low level of effectiveness. And the medical profession is a prime example of that.

          • Peter Olins

            Jim , I tried very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt—that, perhaps you might have some scientific insight that I had (embarrassingly) missed, which would have been useful to me, and anyone else interested in the topic of this disease that affects literally millions of people.

            Now I realize that I had wasted my time. Silly me.

            Bye.

          • Peter Olins

            Sorry, Jim, I don’t understand your response.

          • Peter Olins

            Just admit that you were mistaken in your earlier claim, and then I’ll gladly move on to discussing your other ideas.

            (Otherwise, I’ll just assume that you’re attempting to distract).

          • Err on the side of feeding more people better and more efficiently.

          • err on the side of profit with disregard to safety……

            GMO crops have not shown any increase in yield over conventional methods, have not shown more nutrition than conventional farming…and only promote higher use of pesticides and herbicides manufactured by Monsanto

          • They do NOT use more pesticides than other farming methods. (Do you have any evidence that they do?)

          • Farmer Sue

            Myr isn’t big on evidence. She has a lot of opinions, though.
            GE crops show far higher yields over conventional, which is why farmers pay premiums for GE seeds. In my area, GE sugar beet growers show a 40% higher yield than non-GE sugar beet growers.
            Farmers buy GE seeds from Monsanto and dozens of other seed companies, which also sell conventional and organic seeds.
            Farmers certainly do not use more pestices. Farmers use significantly less.
            She knows all this stuff. Farmers here have said it over and over. Yet she is too lazy to even pick up the phone and call her local farm bureau to get the real scoop.
            Opinions without knowledge are just babbling noise. My mother used to call that “diarrhea of the mouth.”

          • My mother had a term used to indicate a person too stuck on their beliefs to be open minded….called constipation of the brain. Have you not realized that there are multiple types of GMO? stop including crossbreeding and hybridization in your definition Sue. The main point under contention is the deliberate cross phylum introduction of genes.

            Yes, yes yes..it sometimes happens in nature such as sweet potatoes that everyone keeps pointing too. I don’t eat them. Don’t eat refined sugar either, principally due to its addictive and hazardous effects.

            You suggest calling my local farm bureau, but I wonder why I would bother with that since the farmers are being targeted to distribute GMO garbage.

            As to your assertion that farmers use far less pesticides? as compared to whom? One of Monsanto’s selling points is the development of corn with higher tolerance to Round-up ( a glycosphate based herbicide, which also kills microbiotics in the soil and predatory insects). Why would they vaunt this if it wasn’t what farmers wanted?

            How much do you currently owe Monsanto? Please include the mortgage lien in your calculations.

          • Farmer Sue

            And my mother said that a person too stuck in their beliefs had brains shut “tighter than a hog’s ass at fly time.”
            The deliberate cross phylum introduction of genews? Give an example. Give one that excludes mutagenesis.
            Good for you for what you choose to eat. I don’t care, sweetie, what you eat.
            Farmers use far less pestides, and far less toxic, than they did before GE crops. You really going to argue with me about that? Yuppie arrogance.
            Glyphosaste does not kill insects, dear. It is an herbicide. Insecticides kill insects. You really didn’t know that? Yet are willing to spew more nonsense, to a farmer?
            I don’t owe seed companies any money. Why would I? I buy the seeds I want from various seed companies. You are hog’s-ass stuck on Monsanto, dearie.
            And you are too lazy to call your farm bureau because you think you know what they will say.
            You know squat about farming. You know a lot about arrogance and ignorance, though.

          • The amazing thing about herbicides is that they also kill insect life, microbial, and other beneficial life forms typically found in soil. Dioxin is an herbicide…funny that it is also the cause of many servicemen developing cancer(also know as agent orange). And just so you know, dioxin is a waste product from producing carbon tetrachloride… also extremely toxic, causing brain damage, most often used for ‘dry cleaning’ and the origin of the idiom ‘Mad as a hatter’ until they found other, safer methods. It took decades to figure out this issue, and the govt is still denying the harmful effects of dioxin on troops exposed to it.

          • Peter Olins

            —taking too many trips to the dry cleaner’s, Myr?

          • is that the best you can do Peter? You disappoint. I believed that someone of your infinite charm and wit could come up with something better. I mean after all the reading and analyzing you’ve done you should at least suggest some sort of genetic trait passed on by family, at least that would be in keeping with your stance on genetic manipulations.

          • Farmer Sue

            Gub’mint conspiracy !!! Cover ups! And this idiot thinks that herbicides kill insects and life forms…. Poor widdle Myr, who doesn’t know the difference, or care, about the difference between herbicides and insecticides. Brain damage? Well, there does seem to be a considerable amount of brain damage on this site. Myr thinks that repeating something over and over makes it true.

          • Jeanie L.
          • Farmer Sue

            Jeanie, glyphosate is the same risk as sunlight, vinegar, and coffee. The IARC’s conclusions have been responded to numerous times by scientific communities. And, just a hint — Mother Jones ain’t a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and you are just embarrassing yourself by quoting it as your source.

          • Peter Olins

            Hi FS. I understand what you are saying, but I sympathize with Jeanie: it is extremely hard for the typical person, without relevant scientific training, to find accurate information about food safety. Google, especially, is not helpful here, and will typically point to activist or pseudoscience websites.

          • Michael Fest

            Dioxin is not intentionally produced or used for any commercial purpose, it is an inadvertent waste product. “Mad as a hatter” has nothing to do with dioxin, it was mercury that caused the issue.
            Modern herbicides are designed to kill plants, not insects, and glyphosate based products are very good at reducing collateral effects.

            http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/mad-as-a-hatter.html

          • Pogo333

            Gene movement across phylogenetic groups is more common in nature than most people realize. A recent publication on the tardigrade genome indicates that over 17% of the critter’s genetic material is foreign (http://phys.org/news/2015-11-huge-chunk-tardigrade-genome-foreign.html). Chances are you are toting around viral DNA and producing viral gene products at least on occasion (think shingles and chicken pox). And those mitochondria you are using to power every cell in your body are misplaced exogenous bacteria, and have introduced an entire exogenous genome. Be grateful for at least some of your foreign genes!

          • I understand that some trans-phylum gene migration happens. Heck every pro GMO’r points at sweet potatoes as their prime example.

            Many pro -GMO’rs also suggest that the digestive tract of a human being destroys all incoming organic matter… that DNA of food isn’t important. So please, illuminate us on how this trans migration of genes occurs, and why we shouldn’t be concerned about it.

          • Andrew Sprague

            That isn’t how gene migration works. Retro-Viruses insert their DNA directly into your cells and every time they divide they spread the DNA. You don’t simply get random genes from foods you eat. If that were the case we should have random sequences of plants, fungi, and other animals.

          • Farmer Sue

            She does not. She has opinions. There is a long road in Myr’s life, between her opinions and facts.

          • ‘FARMER’ Sue…. I do have opinions as protected by the 1st amendment; but I also do investigations into the validity of assertions made by our govt agencies, and at who’s behest they are made. You however are nothing more than a nay-sayer, bent on producing an additive product, proven to increase the incidence of diabetes…for profit. Do you sleep well at night knowing you are partly responsible for causing a slow painful, debilitating death to people for a buck or two in your pocket?

          • and there is also a long road between your profits and actual morals Sue. How do you sleep at night knowing you participate in poisoning people?

          • Farmer Sue

            You are soooo cute, little Myr! Thinking I can’t have both profits and morals. Your cute little hippie thinking. I sleep very well at night, thank you for caring. I feed people safe, approved, healthy foods that provide more soil and water sustainability than ever before. I am very proud of all farmers who wisely use biotech to reduce pesticides and provide safe and healthy food for people. And my profits? Oh yeah, profits are immoral in your woo-land. My profits go toward feeding my family, taxes for roads and bridges (that you use), libraries, schools, food, heat, mortgage, and donations. Haven’t poisoned one person yet. And that’s because I don’t sell to Chipotle, which can’t make the same claim.

          • little Myr? I could probably take you out with one punch. As for morals, profits can be made, and should be made; but not at the expense of addicting people to substances like highly refined sugar. FDA approved? sure… but then so is aspartame, and even cockroaches are smart enough not to eat it.

            Your sugar beets are poison.

            Profits on the other hand are simple commerce adding value to something so other people can benefit and in the process you get to feed your family. There is nothing immoral in appropriate profits; but like the tobacco industry, your profits come with a cost in lives.

            I make a profit as well for my labors. I can’t say I haven’t killed anyone, but not from the work I do now. However, you saying you haven’t poisoned anyone? That is a flat lie, Sue. It doesn’t matter that you don’t believe you sell to Chipotle, perhaps not directly, but you do.

            I pay my taxes also, which pays for the roads YOU use as well. I don’t have a mortgage because I paid for my house, but I still pay property taxes, sales tax, etc etc.

            Finally, if you actually wish a personal confrontation? I’ll oblige.

          • Actually, GMO/conventional have about a 37% yield advantage according to the LATEST FDA statistics on 370 crops..released last month: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/10/11/usda-data-370-crops-organic-farming-lower-yields/

            As for pesticides, organic farmers use more in volume, but use ‘natural’ pesticides rather than synthetic one. There is zero evidence that natural pesticides are safer; many are far more toxic than targeted and tested synthetic ones:

            https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/05/18/myth-busting-on-pesticides-despite-demonization-organic-farmers-widely-use-them/

          • Farmer Sue

            Yup. That is certainly true with GE sugarbeets in my area.
            But she knows that. It’s been repeated over and over again here. Along with other facts about GE farming, countering her repeated erroneous misconceptions.
            Far easier for her to keep spewing the old Food Babe lies than actually pick up a phone and call her local farm bureau for info.
            Ignorance plus lack of curiosity is a dangerous and evangelist combination.

          • Farmer Sue

            Ah, now there’s a credible site! (Not) Myr, sweetie, you need to start reading more credible scientific literature. Or talk to a farmer. Call your local farm bureau. Or better yet, read this site and don’t post, until you have a better handle on farming and biotech. Until then, you sound not only misinformed, but like a silly little girl.

          • Deplorable Enzeee

            What about the Farming Systems Trial done by the Rodale Institute?

            How do you explain that? Just curious.

          • Farmer Sue

            Bull puckey. Yield is up 20 – 40% for sugar beets. Same nutrition as conventional and organic (I never claimed more). More yield per acre. Less pesticides, from multiple seed companies. Sorry you have such a brain fart over Monsanto, but they are just a seed company, like numerous others.
            For an ignorant little urban yuppie activist, you sure do have a lot of opinions about farming, though. Doesn’t it bother you to be so misinformed all the time?

          • Sue? you’re just a liar. more yield per acre? perhaps more pieces, more weight, but definitely not equivalent nutrition. Especially when you consider that most sugar beets are so refined to produce sugar that there IS NO nutrition remaining, just an addictive substance used by the food industry. Refined sugar has been shown to be as addictive as cocaine and has been suspect in the escalating number of people with diabetes. Those studies are on-going.

            Ignorant? hardly. Little? again hardly, I could take you out with little effort. Urban? ARE you KIDDING? What makes you think you have any idea of how or where I grew up. And Darling? you are the one that is misinformed.

            Stop killing people.

          • Farmer Sue

            Of course more yield! Call your local farm bureau and ask about yields for all kinds of GE crops. Uh, duhhhhhh …. That’s why farmers pay more for GE seeds.
            http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1282246/err162.pdf
            I know it gets your knickers in a twist to be wrong all the time, and you have to resort to calling me a liar because you have zero to demonstrate your ridiculous claims. And, for the fifth or 19th time, (you ARE a slow learner), the molecular structure of sugar, after processing, is exactly the same for sugar from GE sugar beets as from sugar grown from non-GE sugar beets. But you have been told this over and over. You just can’t stand it that farmers tell you know squat about farming. And you just can’t stand it when people in the biological sciences tell you that you are wrong, wrong, wrong. It infuriates you, I know. Calm down. Go get a nice little meal at Chipotle.
            Your problem seems to be with sugar. Great. Don’t eat it. My point is higher yields from GE seeds. Much higher.
            Disabilities? You still don’t know the difference between correlation and causation? Sheesh, ignorant little Myr, we have been telling you this for months and months. Please go back to your high school science textbooks.
            Addictive as cocaine? Okay, dearie, I think you are reading just a little too much Fewd Boob, who is even more ignorant than you are.
            Ignorant? Why, yes, you are. You know nothing about farming, genetics, molecular structure, yields, pesticides, or sustainability. Yes, you are incredibly ignorant, and you come across as an elitist urban concrete-dwelling arrogant yuppie activist who has never set foot on a farm.
            And you could take me out? Love for you to try, sweetie. Come on over to my farm and let’s see who can last through a day, just one day, of planting or harvest. Hah!
            I love it when you have the arrogant, narcissistic gall to tell me that I am misinformed about farming! You, who are overfed, rich with money to spare on your Starbucks card (you post while you are drinking your triple mocha venti caramel latte), who have never set foot on a farm. You don’t even know which end of a cow gets up first. You are just too cute, widdle Myr. But totally ignorant.
            Killing people? Naaaah, just feeding them. I know that infuriates you!
            Go back to reading and posting on Fool Boob’s site. A much better match for your level of intellect, dearie.
            Make a new year’s resolution, dearie. Call your local farm bureau and tell them what you have told me. They will wet their pants laffing, and then someone will patiently explain farming to you. Make a resolution to learn before you open your mouth and insert foot. You would benefit from a lot more listenin’ and a lot less talkin.’

          • Thanks Sue, I needed a laugh today. As a matter of fact I happen to know how cows get up, I also know that Jerseys have much smaller teats than Herefords. I’ve milked both by hand.

            The fact that you know what a triple mocha venti caramel latte is suggests that you’re more likely the one sucking them down. BTW venti is the cup size and should be listed first.

            Tell me where your ‘farm’ (if it exists) is, and I will gladly oblige you in a contest of work or combat, your choice of course, but I would prefer combat. And after I kick your ass I’ll probably take you to bed so you can worship me even more. Perhaps then you will start to really do what farmers are supposed to do. provide FOOD…not poison.

            I understand your frustration that I have achieved a level of prosperity that most rural persons don’t ever get to see, but this does not mean I started urban or am urban in any sense of the word. I’d invite you to my cabin, but being such a twit, as you are, I don’t think you could find it with a gps, a map, and hand written directions.

            Stop growing poison, Sue.

          • Farmer Sue

            I don’t grow poison. I grow food that you eat. And you will never know where my farm is. And no, I don’t do combat, but thanks for the offer. Tell you what. You eat what you want (of which some may or may not come from my farm or my neighbors’, or people like us). You take your fighting combative know-it-all yuppie self elsewhere, where misinformation-driven hostility runs rampant in your hippie commune. Prosperity? Whatever. Means nothing without a sense of perspective on the planet. Your hostility is palpable, and without cessation from suffering your prosperity means diddly squat.
            You seem to hate it that farmers and consumers choose GE foods. It goes against every little concept you have gotten from Food Boob and the like. That’s fine. Your hate of biotech is sad, but personally I don’t give a hoot about your fixed and paranoid ideas.
            Eat well. Go to Chipotle today.

          • yuppie? not… hippie? not…. combative? absolutely when people profit on the suffering they impose on others. Planetary perspective? as in all those so called conspiracy theories that mandate population reduction by any means necessary? Some of them make too much sense to be ignored, and I’ll bet you bought into one or two of them; which is why you sell poison to the world….

            Hostility…don’t you think it’s right and proper to be hostile against people trying to poison you?

            and farmers choose to grow GE food……but consumers are kept in the dark since there is no labeling no tracking, and no way to know what has been screwed with or not.

            My prosperity will go to lobbying FOR GMO labeling. In fact I have already donated more than your pitiful farm is worth towards it. But in the end, Sue, it is up to you if you wish to continue to poison people or switch to something that is real and healthy. I admire farmers..I honestly do. It is those that chose the ‘Dark side’ that need to be dealt with. You can choose better.

            Fixed and paranoid ideas? are you frikin kidding? Have you read any of the Toxicology reports? the Carcinogenic reports? the limited allergic reaction reports? Have you read the reports on how much the seed companies and mass produced food companies have spent to hide where GMO crops are used? Tell me Sue…how can a company, with a net value of $1.5 million spend $8million a year to stop a $500k(one time charge of graphics) to avoid having to track its ‘safer product’.

            Does this make sense to you? Do you honestly feel comfortable on that side of the fence?

          • agscienceliterate

            You have never posted a reliable citation. Lots of opinions, zero evidence. I make my decisions based on scientific evidence, not on Internet-based woo. Post a peer-reviewed citation for any of your many erroneous claims.
            And voters have repeatedly rejected labeling in those states where the issue was on the ballot. Labeling has only passed in a handful of states through legislative action, not by desire of the voters.

          • are you stupid or what. Voters are what drive government. Many states are bringing labeling issues to the ballot, and more will follow suit.

            Check my previous posts, it’s easy, just click on my name; you will find hundreds of peer reviewed studies that dispute your assertion. Plenty of evidence; and none of my ‘claims’ have been erroneous.

            Internet-based ‘woo’. Isn’t that exactly what this thread is all about? The false assertions of safety, the extremely limited testing, and the complete failure of GMO to ‘PROVE’ safety, as is required by the mandates given to the GMO community. You can check Monsanto’s pages on the requirement to PROVE… not guesstimate safety of their products. Hasn’t been done yet.

          • Peter Olins

            Do you recommend snorting sugar, or is it better to freebase? Have you considered caramel?

          • Ha ha, funny….. Personally I don’t do refined sugar; but your suggestion of caramel sounds like it comes from personal experience…. at least now we know what is clogging up your few remaining brain cells.

          • Farmer Sue

            An urban Starbucks latte-swilling over privileged overfed concrete-dwelling activist yuppie calling a farmer a liar about the farmer’s own experience? Wow, that is a new one.
            Yield? Way up. Nutritional aspects of GE foods are the same as for non-GE foods, including organic. If you think otherwise, document that ridiculous claim.
            You have a problem with refined sugar, not with GE sugar (which is molecularly exactly the same as non-GE sugar). Solution? Don’t eat refined sugar.
            Addictive as cocaine? Citation, please. How much do you eat, anyway? You may be addicted to sugar, but I’m not. Document your ridiculous claim.
            You can take me out with little effort? Honey, you wouldn’t last one day working on my farm, planting or harvesting. You would be crying for your cellphone and a Starbucks by 8am. (We start at 4am).
            Kill people? Nah, just feed them healthy, nutritious food. Including you.
            Misinformed? Not about farming.
            You’re cute, sweetie, but not very bright.

          • Jeanie L.
          • Jim

            Maybe if you spent a little time actually educating yourself about the actual arguments against GMO (instead of mindlessly accepting all of the misleading “straw dog” misrepresentations of the opposing arguments the industry and government is putting out you’d see that you yourself are far more ignorant than those you are complaining about.

          • Farmer Sue

            Yeah? You wanna tell me about farming, Jim? Believe me, I have read all of the hype about GE already. I throw you activists off my land all the time. You know nothing about farming, you latte-swilling cement-dwelling entitled ignorant activist yuppie. You falsely educate yourself with internet garbage and then seriously have the cojones to come here to tell a farmer about farming? Get lost,.

          • Martin Greenleaf

            As a farmer who has used them all I can say without hesitation that is a totally false statement. Yields are higher and pesticide use is significantly lower. And even on GMO crops I rarely use any pesticide manufactured by Monsanto (not that I wouldn’t)

          • Farmer Sue

            Totally false, right. Higher yields, less runoff, better water conservation, less diesel fuel … the list goes on and on. And she has been given citations and links and information over and over. She keeps planting the same old junk weeds over and over again. She is a very slow learner.

          • Err on the side of potentially murdering people with unforeseen consequences from GMOs

          • Mr. A

            which peer reviewed studies published in journals indicate a research in cancer in humans?

          • http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/07/15/new-study-links-gmos-to-cancer-liverkidney-damage-severe-hormonal-disruption/

            interesting that Seralini has been republished in a journal not Pwnd by a Monsanto executive.

          • Mr. A

            page is broken and is a spam cult site. Which exact GMO is alleged to cause cancer? Or you’re saying all of them do, which is not realistic since GMOs have existed throughout world civilization. Genetic mods happened randomly constantly. Youre wrong.

          • Andrew Sprague

            The main conclusion: Pesticides cause cancer. Oh really. And because Monsanto makes Pesticide Resistant GMOs. Therefore GMOs cause cancer. Literally every single time I read one of these papers it is crap.

            Here is one conclusion from the most interesting paper. The Title from the website:

            “DNA From Genetically Modified Crops Can Be Transferred Into Humans Who Eat Them”

            The conclusion from linked article: “The analysis of all the publicly available circulating cell-free DNA sequencing data of over 1000 human subjects confirms our hypothesis that the presence of foreign DNA in human plasma is not unusual.”

            Wait I thought this was supposed to about GMOs? Oh I see they are just extending that conclusion to GMOs. And it isn’t unusual to have foreign DNA in human plasma anyways. Well then.

          • Jim

            You might want to try some actual THINKING occasionally instead of knee jerk reactions.

            NEWSFLASH: Monsanto’s GMO to make crops “roundup tolerant” is for the express purpose of allowing vastly greater use of that pesticide. So instead of waiting for actual insects to use it, it would be used routinely and constantly.

            So it is totally irrelevant whether or not the GMO itself causes cancer or not.

          • Andrew Sprague

            “NEWSFLASH: Monsanto’s GMO to make crops “roundup tolerant” is for the express purpose of allowing vastly greater use of that pesticide.”

            Thank you captain obvious. Perhaps if you had better reading comprehension you would realize I am analyzing the papers that are not about Pesticide Resistance because those studies are fundamentally flawed. The specific line I copy pasted is from a Citation of a paper that claims GMOs cause Gene transfers. Where the citation actually said the complete opposite.

            “So it is totally irrelevant whether or not the GMO itself causes cancer or not.”

            Yes it does. It makes a big difference whether GMOs or Pesticides are the main factor for causing cancer.

          • agscienceliterate

            You have been told numerous times why we don’t experiment on human beings with caged double-blind studies. There has been more testing for GE crops than any other foods. You also know that the “studies” linking GE to cancers are bunk and have been dismissed by mainstream credible scientists. Your allegations of “murder” sound more like activist pandering than thoughtful comments based on evidence.

          • Jim

            The studies have been carefully designed to avoid the areas where the danger is greatest.

            Just as was the case with the tobacco companies, these companies have no real concern for the public welfare and are crafting/tweaking the science to APPEAR to support their pre set agendas.

            The tobacco companies produced a massive amount of carefully crafted and highly selected (there is no requirement to publish results that don’t support their agenda) to give what turned out to be a totally false impression. The biotech industry is doing exactly the same thing.

            We still have the same government and the same regulatory agencies that have failed us so miserably so many times in the past.

            WHat is DIFFERENT is that this time the damage would be PERMANENT. THere would be no way to clear it up (mostly, hopefully) in a few GENERATIONS as with smoking by just ramping up the education (because UNLIKE with GMOs released into the enviroment and UNLABELED even in the target plants) people can CHOOSE not to smoke and increasing taxes, etc.

            How bad would smoking have been if there was no way to stop it for hundreds of generations, IF EVER?

            if there is one thing we should have learned by now, its’ that regulation and testing without INDEPENDENT oversight is meaningless and only gives a very false sense of security.

          • agscienceliterate

            Ah, fallback to a conspiracy theory. University paper not enough. Distrust of universities and government. Well, Jim, although I can help you with the science, I cannot help you with your paranoid personality disorder. That is out of my jurisdiction. Conversation over.

          • Jim

            I well understand why you cannot help anyone with science issues. Which is probably why your arguments are ad hominen

          • Josh

            Exactly

          • Jim

            And add to that that the industry is trying to make it virtually impossible to detect any problem if they do arise by making it illegal to label.

            It took over a half century to find out the devasting effects of trans fats (partially hydrogenated oils) and that’s even when they were on the labels! It foods were not labeled as to whether or not they were GMO we’d never sort it out even if millions were dying. And THAT Is EXACTLY the way the GMO industry WANTS it to be.

            They’re “sure” that it’s safe. But, just in case it isn’t …..

          • gmoeater

            Label it as what, exactly?

          • Robertt1

            I think there is a simple thing which could bring a lot of credibility to this issue. All the pro-GMO scientists, politicians and activists (including those from this site) should put their money where their mouths are and enroll in a big human test, in which they should consume only GMOs for, let’s say, 10-15 years. They should be monitored permanently.
            All the propaganda rats can become lab rats and help their “noble” cause.

          • Michael Fest

            It’s unlikely that any meaningful test could be devised that limited a person’s diet to strictly genetically engineered foods. There lacks a sufficient variety which could supply adequate nutritional requirements.
            What hypothesis would you test for? You can’t include all GMO’s since the methods of producing them vary. What controls should be used? Should there be a group that ate only hybrids? Should there be a group that only ate only selectively bred varieties? It turns out that your request isn’t as simple as it may seem. But it isn’t necessary to do that since the relative risk of genetically engineered foods has been established to be as safe, if not safer, than other breeding methods.
            Using the technology to develop beneficial traits and helping to feed the world more safely and efficiently is indeed a noble cause.

          • actually, there is evidence that links GMOs and the use of Glycosphate, rBST hormone, Aspartame, and other compounds to health issues.

            Instead of saying ‘there is no evidence proving GMOs are unhealthy’, shouldn’t we be demanding proof they are not? The longest study on the effects of GMOs done by Monsanto has been a 90 day lab test on rats, Serinilli extended that with the same number of test animals, and presto! tumors!… and it wasn’t even a test designed to find carcinogens. It was a test to determine toxicity level build up… and again PRESTO! TOXINS!

          • Amy

            You cannot simply say “GMOs are safe,” either.
            There is no evidence that GMOs are safe for humans, animals or the environment. Until they are proven 100% safe, they should not be used in food. At the very least, products that contain GM ingredients should require labeling. Nobody should be used at a test subject without their knowledge and consent. Ever.

          • agscienceliterate

            Incorrect, Amy. There is no evidence that GE foods are NOT safe. (nothing on the planet can pass any test whatsoever showing that X is “100% safe.” That is not how science works.) In fact, there are thousands of studies showing that are they as safe as conventional foods.
            Labelindg “made with gmos” tells a consumer nothing. It is only a political movement, to demonize biotechnology. Labels will give the consumer no helpful information. Nothing about safety, allergenecity, or nutrition. GE is a process, not a “thing” or a substance “in” your food. It is like mutagenesis of foods (including organic) — a process. Mutagenesis, by the way, moves thousands of genes around imprecisely, with zero oversight. Through chemical baths and irradiation. No calls for labels there. GE, on the other hand, moves one gene with precision and known outcomes, with the highest testing in the world.
            You are not a “test subject.” It is very easy to avoid GE foods if you really are afraid of them. Avoid all foods made with soy or corn, and there ya go. And, you can eat organic and non-gmo certified.

          • Amy

            So, agscienceliterate, do you support the non-labeling of GMO foods? Do you believe that consumers do not have the right to know what the food they are buying contains? I already avoid GMO tainted foods, anything made with corn or soy and most processed foods. I grow my own or buy from local organic farmers. Not all people are aware that the food they buy and serve their families is made from the garbage that is GMO corn and soy, since the packages aren’t labeled, at least not where I live. Are you on the side of the GMO manufacturers in saying these things should not be labeled? Everyone should have the right to know what is in the foods they are eating. It’s just a shame that the foods that are most affordable to a lot of people are the foods that have been polluted by genetic modification.
            I am not opposed to scientific discovery, except when people aren’t made aware of possible risks to their health. Would you eat something because it might not be bad for you, or it might not kill you, or render you infertile? Or would you, like most thinking human beings, prefer to eat foods that you know are safe?
            By not labeling GMO containing foods, those companies are taking the choice away from people who simply do not know.
            Irresponsible and disrespectful is what that is.

          • Josh

            Or say all GMOs are safe like so many pro GMO people do.

          • Jim

            What kind of idiot thinks that we should assume that some new technology is safe until we prove otherwise. (well look in a mirror, for starters)

            The USA government for one: TENS of THOUSANDS of chemicals NEVER tested being produced in the 100’s of thousands and even millions of tons yearly. We “planned” to test them (sort of) but over half a century later STILL have not gotten around to it. Not even to the “highly likely to be dangerous” (because of the relevant chemistry) list.

            Our government is under the full control of madmen who do not care how much misery, suffering, disability and death they cause, so long as they make money from it. That’s not a suspicion, it’s well established FACT.

            Tobacco.

            Love Canal

            Flint Michigan (and DOZENS more just like it)

            Hydrogenated fats (trans fats)

            “Fool me once, shame on you,
            Fool me twice, shame on me.
            Fool me every time for tens of thousands of times for centuries, and I’m just an American.

          • Melony Johnson

            There is no evidence to prove GMO’s are healthy. Therefore we cannot simply say
            GMO’s are safe, like so many pro-gmos people do.

          • agscienceliterate

            Nearly 1800 studies not good enough for you Melony? People and millions of animals eating them for over 25 years? What’s dinner to proof would you like, dear? Are you ok with mutagenesis? (look it up) you OK with the many pesticides used on organic foods?

          • Guest

            I think “anti-gmos” people are simply saying that THEY don’t want to eat GMO’s or release them on the environment at large without long-term, properly conducted and UNBIASED study. :)

        • Waxil Davidson

          All of our food has been genetically modified simply by humans selecting and isolating certain strains over the past 10,000 years. The original corn was as tiny little stalk with about 8 big kernels on it, through natural mutation, and human selection (not natural selection) we modify things all the time. The ignorant have this made-up narrative in their minds that they manufactured, of evil scientists in a lab injecting poison into our food, it’s comical.

          • Waxil? NO! You are WRONG. Cross breeding plants requires that nature allow the connections between the total DNA strands of the host species. GMOs insert otherwise impossible genes into new organisms. Alligator and sheep for example to create water-proof wool. NOT POSSIBLE in nature, but could be done with GMO tech. Total success if the wool is water proof, despite the fact the sheep now eat the shepherds……

          • Farmer Sue

            Wool has always been quite water repellent. What the heck are you talking about GE wool?? Documentation, please. Farmers who raise sheep are interested in your myth of alligator mixing with sheep. (are you smoking dope? That is entirely wacko)

          • That was an example of GMO gone mad, sarcasm if you will. The idea of crossing an alligator with a sheep for water ‘PROOF’ wool rather than water resistant and the side effects of the herd eating the shepherds and sheepdogs…… some things should simply not be tampered with. Apparently you didn’t read the entire comment.

        • Cassandra Biophilia

          I don’t know if you’re pro or con GMOs, but I will say this just because it’s good to know. If a person eats mostly real, basic food, most of it won’t have GMO products. I like lots of vegetables, fruit, rice, pasta, potatoes, fish, dairy and a bit of meat. Most sugar is from GM beets, but if you eat basic foods and don’t eat much sugar, most of your food won’t contain GM ingredients.

          • agscienceliterate

            What is “real, basic” food? Unfortunately, those words, along with “natural,” “simple,” and “healthy,” as modifiers for food, mean absolutely nothing except good advertising promo.

          • Cassandra Biophilia

            I thought I gave examples. I mean broccoli, lettuce, tomatoes, kale, asparagus, potatoes (yes, soon they might be GM) fish, eggs, milk, olive oil. I agree that those other words are ambiguous, which is why I gave earlier examples. I should have said fresh produce and raw meat that I cook myself, or unprocessed food. Is that acceptable yet?

          • agscienceliterate

            Much clearer, Cassandra. We have a brand in our store called “simple truth,” and those are just weasel words. And words that are used by activists all the time to describe what they falsely believe is healthier. Weasel words can help sell products, but they are not accurate descriptors of food.

          • Cassandra Biophilia

            I agree!

      • Tina Scarpelli McGugan

        You lost me at “a fast amount”. And I do not believe you are any sort of researcher.

        • alsoafakename?

          Her auto-correct likely changed vast to fast :-P

          • Just Saying

            ….it may have been autocorrect, but someone claiming to be a researcher should probably proofread a statement before posting it.

          • Mlema

            Because it’s appearing in a highly esteemed journal article that the world will be readin’?
            LOL

        • Kimmie

          If you’re going to nit-pick about typos, the original article has quite a few of them. Am I to assume you were “lost” reading it as well?

      • Bob Akimbo

        There is no serious scientist that thinks what we “know” is “gospel,” and no serious scientist that would make that assertion.

        • Dillon Stewart

          You haven’t met a lot of scientists have you? I’ve met with some scientists with high credibility in their field, but when questioned about their theory possibly being wrong, they get offended. Like, “Why don’t you believe what I’m telling you?” Even if the case in which, was not questioning belief or rather a flaw that may have been spotted in the theorem. Humans do things without thinking about what affects it will have on the future.

          Especially the ones who fund the scientists who want “Progress” over safety. This system has been around since we started to experiment.

          Someone discovers something it’s written down as fact, rather than to be questioned further. I know so many people who simply believe what they are told in the news, or from a “Credible” source and never have any of their own opinions to be placed into the topic. Just “Oh that’s interesting so it must be true”. The same will go for many scientists, or as you put it bob, “no serious scientist that would make that assertion”. But simply that being stated, shows that is ignorant nature in it’s own right.

          Science is the new religion, yes it’s a religion with “facts”, and more detailed descriptions of goings on. But it’s still a religion none the less. It has faith, it has belief, it even has study to learn more about said belief. Don’t take this as an insult as many science types will. But our society is built on belief, and that things are true. Even if they are not.

          • AllViews

            I agree with you in that science is more ignorant than it is knowledgeable. I agree that when quantum physics was hypothesized, everyone thought that “no serious scientist that would make that assertion”. Then people tested quantum theory, and it worked.
            But science is not a religion. You cannot follow science without understanding it. The “facts” and “beliefs” that you speak of are liable to change. I understand that if you question the theories of scientists with high credibility, many will become defensive, but not if you find something wrong with them.

          • B Green

            As a person of religious faith, I’m opposed to the statement that “But science is not a religion. You cannot follow science without understanding it.” Although that is true for a lot of people, but they will never benefit from it. Only those who truly understand what their faith is all about will gain anything from it. So, in that sense, it’s the same as science.

          • AllViews

            I should have been clearer. Thank you for replying to this, because I had forgotten about this post.

            Firstly, I should not have said, “But science is not a religion. You cannot follow science without understanding it.” It could have been worded less factually, because I believe this. Maybe I should have worded it like:

            “But I believe that science is not a religion, because the ‘beliefs’ are liable to change by carefully isolating parts of wholes to see exactly what they do, like in a mathematical equation.

            Also, the same goes with my statement ” I understand that if you question the theories of scientists with high credibility, many will become defensive, but not if you find something wrong with them.” I have no idea. Maybe they will become defensive, even if the questioning is justified. I just thought that seemed odd.
            In conclusion, I should have worded my post differently, and thank you for pointing this out.

          • And you don’t believe that ‘religion’ changes with the same parameters? Look at the proliferation of protestant faiths that all derived from closer examination of the actual texts as exposed by Martin Luther. Look at the rise of Islam from Jewish and Christian texts, and the myriad ways the words of Mohammed and other religions are distorted to suit a particular set of parameters.

            The only difference between ‘Science’ and ‘Religion’, is that science focuses on the physical world alone and religion adds the spiritual aspect. They both deal with hypothesis, observation, theory, testing, repeat-ability… and the results are passed on as knowledge.

          • AllViews

            How do they test? I am really curious. I do not know these things well at all.

          • EVAN EMERSON

            Good book written by a Jonathan Gray explores exactly that point, titled The Forbidden Secret. Also Dead Men’s Secrets but is mainly a list of archaeological finds that raise some rather interesting questions. Worth the read in my opinion if your honestly curious.

          • AllViews

            Thank you for recommending this book to me. It was interesting.

          • AllViews

            Now that I think about it, I do not need to reply. I know that you see testing there, and I shouldn’t question that for no reason.

          • Silverleaf Interconnect

            Testing occurs when a person speaks as if they have knowledge about the spiritual or metaphysical realms. If what they say is in compliance with all the other testimony about their point(s), even if they are not themselves spiritual, can be taken as truth. If what they say conflicts with previous testimonies, most likely suspect.

            History has been filled with the concept that 1st person witness testimony is valid enough. When you add the testimony of others, it becomes factual. Simple testimony has been enough to convict persons of crimes, solve forensics inquiries, and establish new directions for scientific enquiry. There is so much that science has claimed to prove, or disprove, and then later claim its juxtaposition, or completely omit portions that contradict their findings.

            An easy example would be the current stigmatization of smoking, all the while not bothering to reveal that the testing for 2nd hand smoke dangers is completely bogus, and that there are health benefits to smoking. Governments are using this as a means to punish smokers unfairly, with taxation no one has ever voted upon, with the frivolous spending of these tax dollars, and the complete avoidance of using these funds for something that would be a real benefit to the population, such as supplemental health care costs, or reduction of property taxes.

          • Michael Fest

            Here’s a good explanation of modern science and how it is used in conversations such as those on this page. You’ll see why you’re experiencing contradictions here.
            -http://www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html

          • agscienceliterate

            “Health benefits to smoking.”
            And you think GE foods are not safe.
            Your standards for reasoning are bogus, and your measurements of scientific reliability are bizarre.
            Go light up a cigarette and then tell us how your “testimony” shows fact.

          • Silverleaf Interconnect

            Medical studies have proven that one cigarette per day can reduce the incidence of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s by 40%. Yet not one study has shown that introducing the dna of a bacterium into food is safe.

          • joh2141

            LOL No you can reduce your chances of Alzheimer’s by sleeping 9-10 hours making sure you reach deep sleep. Smoking actually increases more degenerative brain problems as it cuts off circulation.

          • agscienceliterate

            Citation for that bizarre claim?

          • Silverleaf Interconnect

            You remind me of the old postulation: “If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, is there any sound?” The answer of course is NO. Simply because the very definition of sound requires an interpretive witness; in other words, testimony.

          • Silverleaf Interconnect

            Its truly amusing how emotionally charged your responses are. Is this a sign that you are losing this battle? I wager it is.

          • joh2141

            Religion does NOT deal with hypothesis, observation, theory, testing, and repeatability. You do not understand the meaning of those words.. Let me try to explain it as simple as possible..Since this is off the top of my head, this example isn’t really factual; just pay attention to the structure of scientific method and how it’s applied in real life.

            1. Observe + Question – Noticed people get very mad and rude when in cramped spots in the subway. You question yourself why is this? Is it instinct? genetics?

            2. Hypothesis – ever tried solving a Rubik’s cube? While doing it, did you ever think “I bet if I do this, I can do this and this side will match up?” That’s a hypothesis. It helps you ask questions to yourself in order to narrow down data and information to answer your question.

            3. This is the experimenting stage where you test your hypothesis by gathering data. This is where you test your theory. So you asked yourself with teh Rubiks cube “If I do this I can get this side the same color.” You actually DO that. Let’s say it fails the first time but your 2nd and 3rd attempts you do it instantly without fail. Every other time you try it, it works without fail. If so, you can conclude you are correct in your hypothesis which is the next step OR if the data not conclusive enough (like let’s say it worked 70% of the times) then you might have to shape a new hypothesis because that could be wrong.

            Science is not a book. You can’t compare science to religion. Religion is something people turn to in order to depend on something. Science is to answer questions you have pertaining to things you don’t yet understand but want to know. It is wrong to think “Science is fact.” It is better to think science is actually more like a tool to help you read better. It is a tool to help you understand the world better. Science is not there to guide you through life or to help you achieve your dreams. Religion can even if it is false. Science is to explain. To understand. To try to know.

            I hate it when people try to compare the two but I have NEVER heard anyone say religion does the same scientific method. Religion hates scientific method. If you applied scientific method to religion, conclusion is “religion is fake and is simply there to try to rationalize things we don’t yet understand.” You can do so by comparing current religion to religion in indigenous tribes. Religion evolves with humanity. Back when we understood little of the world, we had many gods and deities representing every little thing we knew nothing about. Now, we have 3 primary religions; all 3 mostly dealing with the afterlife which is one of few things we cannot prove with science. I come from a religious family so it is difficult for me to say this but religion probably solely exists to help guide people through both joy and suffering they do not understand. There prob isn’t an afterlife and religion is in place to maintain order in civilization. Religion prob did not exist prior to civilization existing.

          • Silverleaf Interconnect

            Are you really that naive? Religion is all about the hypothesis, theory, testing, and repeat-ability. Scripture repeats important points over and over throughout. Scripture presents ideas called parables, to simplify understanding. Scripture presents behavioral paradigms which can be observed on a day to day basis and tested for validity. Scripture deals with immeasurable forces, such as faith and love, and despite science, their existence cannot be denied.

            All scientific laws point to the existence of God, and throughout the Renaissance and Middle Ages mankind has attempted to merge science and religion. Just as Philosophy has attempted to create a rigorous methodology for presenting arguments akin to scientific and mathematics rules.

            To deny that religion, science, mathematics, and philosophy are intertwined is simple ignorance, or willful ignorance, and in the later case, this is the purest definition of stupidity.

          • Michael Fest

            There’s no naivety or willful ignorance on the part of anyone who views Science and Mathematics as tools designed to find answers by reducing human fallibilities such as cognitive and emotional bias. And I would be eager to see any scientific law or experiment that points to the existence of God.

          • Silverleaf Interconnect

            2nd law of thermodynamics states that: energy and matter are a constant, neither can be created nor destroyed, only changed in form.

            Law of inertia: an object at rest tends o remain at rest, an object in motion tends to remain in motion, until acted upon by an outside force.

            A black hole, containing all the universe is an object at rest. The outside force is God.

          • Michael Fest

            I’m not sure any of that qualifies as scientific evidence of proof of a supreme being.
            The first two laws stand on their own without the need of divine existence and the third part about black holes needs a bit more detail.

          • Silverleaf Interconnect

            of course it does. Something outside the universe caused the big bang.

          • Michael Fest

            Since we don’t have enough evidence to discover the origin of the universe doesn’t mean a divine intellect created it. It means we still have a long way to go to fill in the gaps of our understanding.
            Science doesn’t concede to speculation, it continues to test and evaluate, pushing towards verifiable proof.
            Science liberates truth from mystery. It accepts unknowns as incomplete knowledge rather than attempting to comfort our desires for answers with more mysteries.
            And that explains why there are people who disagree on this topic and many others. If you want to provide a form of proof that can be most universally acceptable to everyone, your best bet would be science. It offers verifiable evidence, not belief in the intangible.

          • Jason

            Tell that to the AGW alarmists. Their “science” is pure emotion, resting on non-repeatable, intangible speculation.

          • Michael Fest

            Do I understand you right that you believe that the consensus on anthropomorphic global warming is based purely on speculation and emotion?

          • Silverleaf Interconnect

            You do understand that climate shift is natural, and that all the pollution mankind has spewed into the environment during his existence is less than that of one volcanic eruption?

          • Michael Fest

            That would appear to be a popular misconception
            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

          • joh2141

            Yes climate shift is natural but this one in specific was pushed way ahead of schedule thanks to us.

          • Jason

            Not a belief. The movement is dead, killed by actual science.

          • Michael Fest

            Explain how the consensus supporting AGW isn’t actual science.

          • Jason

            Well, for starters, it defies falsification tests. In science, something happens or doesn’t. Law of gravity states that if a pencil, that is being held is released 100 times, it will fall 100 times. If it doesn’t, there is no law. AGW, on the other hand, happens regardless of any actual circumstances. Too hot, AGW. Too cold, AGW. No temperature difference for 20 years, AGW is in a pause. Also, every prediction that was made ten years ago, about storms, hurricanes, sea levels, ice shelf thickness, etc., has been completely wrong. Instead, we get cartoons of polar bears being dropped out of planes, when in fact 12 out of the 15 populations that are being studied have increased. So, if it is science, it’s bad science, at best.

          • Michael Fest

            Aside from a growing number of scientists agreeing with the concensus, what does this have to do with GMOs?

          • Jason

            The concensus was that scientists agree that climate change happens. I am in that concensus. What they don’t tell you, is that most scientists disagree with the idea that humans are causing it, and that it is catastrophic.

          • Michael Fest

            I’m only aware of a scientific concensus that strongly suggests humans are contributing to climate change. Do you have a source that statesstates otherwise?

          • joh2141

            Most scientists agree that humans ARE causing it… I don’t know what consensus you are using. 95% of scientists agree global warming is a legitimate thing. No one just calls it global warming anymore to avoid political affiliation as if you said GW, republicans would just sit there unresponsive. Instead they refer to it as climate change to try to avoid the drama. There is no changing the fact carbon emission DOES increase temperature of the atmosphere especially at such a rate.

            If you study science at all, the best way to regulate a healthy natural habitat is to have balance. Industrial revolution, while I don’t hate on it, completely ignores that balance. We are consuming more water and food than we can sustain. Think about it. We are having water crisis issues ALL AROUDN THE GLOBE. And you’re telling me it’s hard to believe we can cause global temperature change with massive amounts of carbon emission we put into the air?

            Energy is heat. Heat is life. Too much heat, it destroys life. Which is what we’re seeing with ocean temperature and the mass dying of coral reefs. Global Warming has already begun. Here you are arguing that it is simply a cycle… which does exist. But we pushed this one way ahead of schedule. By A LOT. That should tell you something. There is scientific evidence that supports all this. And again, 95% of scientists agree with this.

          • Jason

            Carbon dioxide is plant food. 100 percent of scientists agree. Also, while the 95 percent agree that GW is real, no where near that many believe it is catastrophic, nor caused mainly by humans. Even so, if you study science at all, you’d know any majority or concensus doesn’t translate to fact.

          • Jason

            Well, gmos are blamed for destroying the environment, no? Plus, what does evolution or the law of gravity have to do with gmos?

          • Michael Fest

            GMOS could actually help the environment by reducing the amount of farmland needed or eliminating the need to burn fossil fuels to apply insecticides.
            The discussion about gravity and evolution was brought up by another to demonstrate how they thought science works in general and there were several here explaining how science actually works.

          • Jason

            Thus your belief in AGW.

          • joh2141

            GMO’s aren’t blamed for destroying the environment. I’d like sources on where you’re getting your info’s. The only bad thing that came from GMO’s is corporate greed which forces small time farmers to repurchase seeds from them over and over instead of harvesting them off the crops they get because they have been modified as such. Since those seeds are so cheap and usually so consistent it is usually a smarter choice to continue purchasing GMO to grow.

            GMO simply stands for genetically modified organism. This doesn’t mean magically change the composition of the said item (ie. corn) into something else. it is still corn and still within the compounds of its DNA but in a more favorable DNA quality will be dominant. So for instance, for corn we’d try to recreate a bigger sized corn that grows faster in a shorter amount of time that can also be resistant to some kinds of disease.

            The anti-corporation groups began attacking GMO’s because of the disadvantages it gave poorer farmers. Also due to the resistant variations of some of the GMO crops, you have to use specific types of pesticides and other chemicals in replacement of what would have originally been used (still chemicals). Literally the only assurance you get when you eat a non-GMO food is the fact that it hasn’t been modified to resist certain common diseases.

            Also as a final bit; there is a facility where they literally create the “perfect strand” or whatever. Basically they make GMO (wrong way to describe, just easier to say) seeds here. If for whatever reason every plant in the Earth is destroyed and we need seeds that are resistant to disease/good for growing in tougher conditions/etc etc we go here. GMO’s might end up saving all life form originating on Earth. Companies behind GMO’s can be “bad” because they seek profit over balance. With GMO’s you can be the most efficient. Like using less land, less resources, less water, less time to harvest the biggest crop.

            If we were to 100% stop all GMO’s all around the world and only use organic seeds with organic methods, 80% of fresh produce in your supermarket would probably be deformed looking/smaller/ugly/unappealing/and in some specific circumstances just plain missing because of bad harvest. I know all this was boring but if you read till here congrats. Hope this was informative.

          • Michael Fest

            Farmers aren’t forced to repurchase seed every year. They can buy seed free from restrictions on replanting. Most hybrid crops won’t reproduce the same desired traits in subsequent generations and would result in inferior crops if the seed were saved and replanted.
            The extras expense of gm seed and repurchased seed can be offset by improved yields and each farmer, large or small, decides for themselves what would be more beneficial.
            It’s true that certain crops are designed to be resistant to pesticides, but that isn’t simply to sell more of s particular pesticide, it just allows use of a safer alternative in a more effective farming system. Other less effective and economical options are no longer necessary.

          • joh2141

            I didn’t mean to make it sound like they legit have no alternative; it’s just if let’s say you harvest majority of your crop from GMO seeds from one company; next year you need to get seeds. Do you get GMO’s which you know are consistent and will yield the harvest growth potential that you know you can get or take a risk with hybrids or ones that might not yield as abundant harvest? I feel like that’s sort of like “being forced to” though of course I didn’t mean they have no options whatsoever. It’s just illogical to pick other choices in a large scale and since small time farmers are a thing of the past now as there are way too little of them, most of the bigger farms would specifically pick GMO’s to ensure consistency and favorable traits like size

          • Kevin Sheets

            Because they didn’t perform any research into it. It is all peer review of published opinion pieces. The original motivation into the study of global temperatures started in the 60’s when we noticed a distinct cooling period that has been verified to have happened between 1940 and 1970. The initial impetus was a fear of another glacial advance beginning. With this were the first studies of the atmosphere of the planet Venus where the concept of green house gases was first observed. The geology field had been looking for ways to milk more money out of federal grants for a while, seeing the lions share continuously going to physics and chemistry research, so they proposed “Project Molehole”. They proposed drilling a hole through the crust of the earth to the mantle. They got millions but eventually found that the technology didn’t exist to drill that far down and the heat at depth kept frying the drill bits. It was a boondoggle for several years before being cut off. So, what can we do next to get our share of the grant money? The fear of another glacial advance precipitated funding for the initial studies and observing that the cooling period was a 30 year phenomenon followed by slightly moderating temperatures lead to the next cash cow. Serious study into global temperatures. Isn’t it funny that with all of the mass manufacturing that went on during world war 2, average global temperature went down? So global weather got it’s birth including serious federal grant money. Enter George Soros funding Al Gore and global warming was born. Is it warmer now than 1940 to 70? Yes but minimally so. What caused that cooling? I would theorize that it was all of the sulfur and hydrogen and sulfur dioxide blown into the atmosphere from the war. But the motivation for personal enrichment caused the global warming agenda to be pushed. And they haven’t given up. Two scientists from England and Germany got hacked and the emails revealed the statement that they would do everything possible to advance this agenda including falsification of data. That hack gave pause to the carbon credit scam and further evaluation has shown that the entire theory is a scam. As long as researchers can keep the idea alive, they continue he to milk more research money and justify their trips to Greenland, Antarctica, the Himalayas, and every other place on the planet where long term glaciers exist. It is a self sustaining pseudo scientific scam, nothing more. And new technology into solar studies looking down into the area of the Sun where solar flares are born are predicting another Maunder minimum in 2032. They are predicting global cooling to occur from then for 40 years or more. Solar maximums occur about every 11 years. The last one was 2011/2012 occiring slightly ahead of the ominous December 21, 2012 date ending the fifth cycle of the Mayan calendar. Played golf in Michigan in every month of the winter that year. If that was global warming, explain the record snow and cold of winter 2013 and 2014.

          • Kevin Sheets

            I’ll say yes for him. Read “the ICE CHRONICLES” for ice core analysis of 110,000 years of global weather. Then try to explain the middle age warming period absent any substantial existence of CO2 in the atmosphere. The GISP and GISP2 studies established distinct warming and cooling patterns of 500, 1,000, and longer cycles of warming and cooling and evaluated the amounts of carbon dioxide, sulphur, sea salt potassium, non sea salt potassium within the cores to try to isolate polar wind patterns and volcanic eruptions causing cooling, solar output from isotopes of oxygen and on and on. Look closely at the graphs and you will also conclude very LITTLE correlation between carbon dioxide and global long term temperature trends. The author will advocate some effects from CO2 but what keeps him working? Findings that will justify his continued research into the matter. In his final conclusions he states environmental quality as the main issue. Clean water, healthy soil, and clean air. He then lists secondary concerns and global cooling/warming well down on his list. Global temperatures are far to complicated to reduce to simple cause and effect arguments. Solar output, ocean currents and temperature, volcanic eruptions, and many other forces that interact to produce average global temperatures. All of the computer models created to make predictions have failed miserably and for exactly that reason. We have been in an ice age for over 3 million years since volcanos in Panama cut off the Pacific ocean currents from entering the gulf of Mexico. The glaciers have advanced and retreated over 20 times in that time period with the average span of retreat being about 8,000 years. We are overdue for another glacial advance which would do by far more damage than the moderate warm period that civilization developed in. Global warming is nothing more than a financial hoax where some rich people positioned themselves into the commodities market and then tried to get carbon as a commodity so that they could enrich themselves by selling and buying carbon credits on the market exchange. That is why George Soros gave Al Gore 10 million per year for three years to develop his global warming theory and sell it to the public. Read the manuscript with an open mind and you will conclude the same things that i did.

          • did you suggest as much to Seranili? he ran the same test as Monsanto did, just for a longer time frame. Cancerous tumors out the wazoo buckie! granted the rat species is known for them, but the control group didn’t develop them any where near as prolifically…..

          • Jackson

            but the control group didn’t develop them any where near as prolifically

            Yes they did. The highest treatment level for glyphosate actually had lower incidence than the controls. Do you then suggest that high levels of glyphosate protect against cancer?

            Just doing the same thing for longer isn’t necessarily an appropriate approach. I grabbed a plant leaf and did a PCR for NPTII, ran the gel for 30 minutes, and saw a band. I did the same thing, but this time I ran the gel for 3 hours and there was no band to be found! The gel that was run for 3 hours is 6 times longer, so it must be more accurate, right?

          • agscienceliterate

            Incorrect. The control group did in fact row as many or more tumors.

          • Kevin Sheets

            And I personally believe that primitive man created religion to accept things that they saw that were totally mysterious to their lack of understanding of the things they saw. Add in grief at deaths within their tribe and you have the comfort of an afterlife belief. Can’t count how many times I’ve heard he is in a better place at funerals.

          • agscienceliterate

            So? Why does that “something” have to be some kind of sentient being? Just because you don’t understand it (and no one does yet), do you need to put that unknown into a neat little category you call “god”? Why isn’t “We don’t know yet” good enough?
            That kind of reasoning leads to naturalistic fallacies around food. Keep religion out of it. Science does not depend on religion. And religion sure as hell does not rely on science.

          • agscienceliterate

            Or something inside the universe. So?

          • rebecca zhu

            The universe already existed, but space was still very dense. Then several density fluctuations caused the universe to rapidly stretch and expand, releasing a lot of energy which became muons, neutrinos, quarks, etc. which then gained mass. Then they cooled down into charged particles, resulting in a huge nebular cloud. Eventually the charged particles produced atoms, which collapsed to form stars and eventually planets.

            Get some sense. Religion is NOT the same as science.

          • Kevin Sheets

            The only conclusion that I can draw from your argument is that you believe the universe is eternal??? If not, where did this density come from? It’s circular and highly speculative. A poll of physicists found that almost half did not accept the big bang THEORY.

          • agscienceliterate

            Let’s see that “poll.”

          • rebecca zhu

            The “density” isn’t exactly mass density; it describes spacetime density. Since time has existed forever, (as most believe), and time is simply the fourth dimension of 4D space, then space-time must have existed forever. (Unless space came along later, which I haven’t covered.)

            Or you could just stick with the long-running-TV-comedy version of it…

          • Heavy Gravity theory, which encompasses all five variants of string theory quite nicely, suggests 13 dimensions. Wrap your mind around that one.

          • rebecca zhu

            Heavy Gravity and dense space-time are not exactly the same thing; dense space-time refers to the spacetime itself stretching (so it completely fits conservational theory) also, 4D space is a theory in itself.

            Too bad Silverleaf has multiplied -.-

          • get real. Evolution-ism is the same as atheism, a religion. Funny thing is, its been disproven.

            http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/

          • agscienceliterate

            Or something inside the universe itself. The fact that you or I do not know what this force is certainly does not imply a sentient being; that is fairy tale thinking.

          • Kevin Sheets

            St Thomas Aquinas. If energy created the big bang, where did the energy come from? Cause and effects and the first cause.

          • agscienceliterate

            Or something inside the universe. Your logic is appalling, and your conclusions are childlike.

          • Kevin Sheets

            Actually one does deserve further evaluation. According to E=MC2 it says that energy and matter are interchangeable. Matter can change to energy and energy to matter. IF our spirit is energy it continues to exist post death under the conservation of energy principle. However, the remaining question then becomes does it exist as a cohesive unit or just scattered energy? Now that we are into philosophy, I would refer to St Thomas Aquinas and his five proofs for the existence of God. Unfortunately if we can’t conceive infinity much less eternity we cannot begin to conceive of what God is. That doesn’t disprove his , her’s, or it’s existence but relegates it to the position of things beyond our ability to comprehend. I’m sure there are other ideas beyond our comprehensive abilities also.

          • the first example demonstrates why evolution theory is a lie. http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/

            Try this on for size.

            As for the black hole thing, haven’t you ever heard of the ‘Big Bang’? Well son, they have determined where it happened, when it happened, and can almost figure out everything about it, except for the first 4 milliseconds. Everything points to intelligent design.

          • agscienceliterate

            “….the outside force is God” …. And, um, you know this how?
            If the word “God” stands for “stuff we don’t understand yet,” then fine. If you mean some kind of supreme or sentient being, then that is nothing more than magical and wishful thinking. Just because you/we don’t know stuff yet does not a priori imply a god.

          • Aristotle disagrees with you.

          • agscienceliterate

            Nope. I have had a discussion with Aristotle. He and I are chill.
            Aristotle does not support magical thinking.
            But you can think god takes credit for all kinds of stuff you don’t happen to understand, if you want. It don’t change a thang.

          • joh2141

            LOL Aristotle doesn’t think like an ignorant person like you… Aristotle would basically support science, not religion. Religion is based on the fact that you assume everything is known because God is this great entity; which if true that’s great. But there’s nothing to prove that is true. The way you explain religion is everything Aristotle disagrees with you on.

            And I can actually speak about this in more detail than GMO’s or science because I actually studied philosophy in great detail. I have to tell you philosophy is not science. It is a method of thinking. And Aristotle teaches that we inherently know very little. People who presume to know all without facts behind them were the ones who were truly stupid whereas people who admitted they knew little constantly asked questions and sought answers. Here you are talking about how everyone should know GOD should be the one responsible for it when there is no proof.

            Science is not a phenomenon that says “This is the truth.” Science is simply a question. A question that is asked because we know little and our goal, with science, is to find answers to those questions. That’s why the “SCIENTIFIC METHOD” is inherently ask yourself an educated question and go on about trying to see if there are answers that answer your question.

            Aristotle might agree with you that religion is a philosophy, not a science which is what you’re making it out to be. There’s nothing in religion that makes you seek out answers to a question you need answering that helps you better comprehend the world. Religion has an already existing foundation where you can’t question it because all the answers are known and here in this book. It’s not a terrible way but no religion is scientific. The closest scientific religious notion I’ve heard of is balance in all things which is what Buddhist believe in which really isn’t a religion but more of an approach to life, like a philosophy.

          • rebecca zhu

            That outside force is somebody acting on it…

          • joh2141

            If this is your explanation any time someone asks you to prove God exists, you need to put down the crack pipe.

          • Then you explain the spontaneous violation of physical laws. Not just one but several simultaneously.

          • agscienceliterate

            Anything you do not personally understand you automatically attribute to a magical sentient being. Convenient, but not convincing.

          • Kevin Sheets

            Black holes are many things, my own theory being elements that we can only create for a microsecond, but certainly not at rest.

          • agscienceliterate

            You have no idea what a black hole is, or whether it is an “object at rest.” And your statement that “the outside force is god” shows your entirely predictable lack of imagination and need for a fairy tale to hang your unsupported beliefs on.

          • joh2141

            LOL I’m naive.. Just read what you said. You sound so brainwashed and crazy like a cultist. Let’s hear it; give me source for ALL scientific laws point to the existence of God. If you can give me proof that all scientific laws point to the existence of God I will literally donate all my life savings to you. Guarantee you can’t. But if you want to take up on that bet and you can’t, then you owe me your life savings. Put your money where your mouth is.

            The only “religion” that is somewhat scientific is the yin/yang aspect though that’s not really a religion but more of a mentality that balance is crucial and there is good/bad in all men and women. I know what parables are. You act like I’ve never read the Bible before. These topics you talk about like parables teaching you how to function as a society/fellowship; it is anthropology and sociology, not anything pertaining to some greater existence. These teachings in the Bible were not words from God but words from people. It was people who wrote it. You can say “it is the word of God,” but how do you know these people are telling the truth? It’s one thing to have faith in God but another to take a random stranger’s word for it whom you don’t even know. I mean for all you know I could say “God has spoken to me,” and claim ridiculous notions that aren’t true.

            But when someone who talks like they’re on drugs is calling me pure definition of stupid and willful ignorance, that’s pretty funny. I have given you nothing but explain what science is and science is a series/tool to help you answer questions. That’s it. Religion on the other hand does not deal with the scientific method or most of the old testament is void.

          • Silverleaf Interconnect

            2nd law of thermodynamics states that: energy and matter are a constant, neither can be created nor destroyed, only changed in form.

            Law of inertia: an object at rest tends to remain at rest, an object in motion tends to remain in motion, until acted upon by an outside force.

            A black hole, containing all the universe is an object at rest. The outside force is God.

            The location of the ‘Big Bang’ has been identified, and every moment after the first 4 milliseconds has been plotted. Those milliseconds is God’s will acting on all the matter of the universe, and, He has to still be here per the 2nd Law stated above.

            You owe me your life savings, all $20.

            How to know if the writings are the ‘Word of God’ is an exercise in understanding. These parables and lessons are coming from multiple cultures across a huge time frame, in a wide variety of languages and all saying the same thing. Pretty convincing since they didn’t have the internet.

          • joh2141

            Since you’re at least TRYING to rationalize God within the boundaries of scientific laws and theories that are accepted, I will stop being a jerk and start taking you a bit more seriously.

            With that said, you still haven’t really proven anything and I will give you better supporting info that might help you prove it better in your future.

            First things first, you seem to think since prior to the Big Bang since it was all in a point of singularity, it must be the same as black hole. After all, black hole absorbs everything into a point of singularity right? But they are not the same. First to define black holes; a black hole is a compact central mass; mass requires space/anything with gravity requires space one can even say. Black holes pull is so strong that nothing can escape its pull once it is within the event horizon. If you were to physically go through a black hole, people witnessing you from outside will view you to be be split atom by atom but never physically reaching the singularity; but for you, time will go extremely fast while everything outside the event horizon slows.

            The expansion of the universe itself is the expansion of space itself. Without the universe, there is no space for which to exist in. As far as we know it there is no “edge” to the universe. I mean what happens if you reach the edge, you come across a brick wall? But the point is the universe is expanding and it is in a seemingly infinite expansion… but is it? Could some of the recounts of the old testament like stories of Leviathan and Behemoth, and other various unworldly stories actually be stories of the cosmos? IF the universe expands infinitely, then we can also conclude that the Big Freeze scenario is the most likely outcome of the end-game of the universe since energy is not infinite. It cannot be created or destroyed.

            I’d like to lead my next paragraph by saying time is not REAL. Time is something we perceive; if we can accept that then you can truly say “God created everything in 7 days” even if it’s impossible. But realistically if you consider how flies and small insects experience time completely different from you (They experience things much faster aka everything around them is slower than we experience it). If we were to believe that there is something OUTSIDE the exterior shell of bubble of the supposedly infinitely expanding universe, then this would mean God is a giant in comparison to our universe and the universe as we know it is simply our inability to perceive greater light or exterior images outside of our dimension.

            Now that last paragraph seems like a bunch of nonsense but it’s important to this point; now everyone obsessed with this kind of topic claim should there ever BE a God or some supernatural being that guides us, He exists in the 4th dimension most likely. The universe has 10 dimensions AT LEAST. Human beings can only perceive up to the 3rd dimension.

            The reason why I mention all these is because these are all things we BELIEVE are facts but are actually something you merely perceive. For instance, you claimed the location of the Big Bang has been identified. This isn’t true. Because of dumbed down explanations, people believe the Big Bang is an explosion or expansion of the universe that has happened in even diameter from the center of the universe. There is no “center of the universe” technically which KIND OF negates my earlier example of “edge of the universe.” No matter WHERE YOU ARE IN THE UNIVERSE, from which you view the universe, you will be at the center. Just like time, you perceive what YOU perceive as reality and nothing else whereas someone else in different location can perceive as if witnessing from the center of the universe. So whether you view the surroundings of Earth and peer into space, you are viewing the center of the universe. Then a person who views the space around them if they were to live in the Orion Nebula (highly unlikely as there’s so many hydrogen gas and stars forming there), THAT location would be the center of the universe.

            The last paragraph simplified? Everywhere in the universe is the center of the universe. No matter what physical location you are in, it seems there’s something whether in higher dimensions (most likely between the 4th and 5th dimension). The only and best way I can describe this is simply by describing a person’s consciousness. For you, the center of the world revolves around your life. My loved ones who passed away don’t really matter to you but the loved ones you lost could have been devastating/maybe cathartic the same way it wouldn’t really matter to me. Best way to say you can prove God exists is to use the dimensional argument. That God could be an extra-dimensional being that doesn’t have direct impact on our world but might have indirect influence.

            So what exists in this world outside where there is no space, no mass, no gravity, no energy, no heat, nothing? Since we are using scientific laws to try to prove God, we cannot say “God is a greater being therefore we can’t comprehend his existence” even if it’s true. The purpose of our argument is not to describe God but whether we can prove it with science even if it is somewhat pseudo or at least can be explained by logic. For something to exist in the 3rd dimension outside the universe where there is no space… is impossible. One can only conclude that God exists WITHIN the universe in a different dimension or plane that we cannot perceive or comprehend. One can also conclude that something CAN exist outside the universe as long as it doesn’t exist on the 3rd dimension. The universe has up to 10 dimensions. it seems that universe can also be summarized or described via math or what some astronomers like to call it “cosmic accounting.” God or whatever cannot exist in the 3rd dimension.

            IF it were true that there was a regulating factor of the universe from the or simply the universe is regulating itself, then it wouldn’t be God; we’d just be chalking it up to be God simply because we don’t understand it (like if we’re an indigenous tribe and chalk up the sun to gods gift). We’d just be chalking up things we don’t understand like dark energy to God’s will.

            In conclusion you haven’t really proven that God exists. But here’s info you can use to support your point

          • Silverleaf Interconnect

            Now you are speaking of the relativity of time. This is also spoken of in the Bible. The parable concerning a sparrow sharpening it’s beak on a mountain, and when the mountain is a pile of sand, that is one day for God. Don’t you feel it interesting that time dilation is spoken of by beings that couldn’t even do proper math until ‘we’ invented zero? Or Ezekiel describing the orbits before the birth of Christ, which by the way is an historical proof of the existence of God.

            Isn’t it intriguing that scientific endeavor follows a logic path delineated by Aristotle, and the argument he used, following the SAME logic path concludes that God exists?

          • joh2141

            No I’m not talking about the relativity of time. You aren’t TRAVELING faster that’s causing you to experience time differently from something else that’s either much smaller or much bigger than you. This is called how much unit of data you take in. Obviously the smaller you are the faster you process (the actual explanation is long but regarding the whole flies experience the world in slow mo compared to our perception of time). This explains why and how bacteria and fungi colony can rapidly reproduce and flourish given the right circumstances going through myriads of colonies and generations of “lives” pass on and reproduce and so on. And how bugs have the lifespan of 1 day sometimes.

            I’m talking about how there is no such thing as time at all. Time is something you merely perceive. It wouldn’t exist outside of the world we live in. How we found out the equations for time and energy were done by math and simulation of what exists within our world. You’re just crazy and brainwashed; everyone else thinks you are too. Just about any RELIGIOUS people would think you’re out of your mind at this point. Keep arguing baseless bullshit. Honestly you’re spewing out about the same amount of logic as a person who’s on the verge of OD from heroin and LSD.

          • Silverleaf Interconnect

            So much bullshit from someone who claims logic as a weapon in their arsenal. Time most certainly exists. It is one of the myriad dimensions you claim to be unable to perceive.

            Postulate: if you were in a car, traveling at the speed of light, and you turn on the headlights, do they work?

            The answer of course is yes. Time dilation would cause you to see the light from your headlights ahead of your car. You claimed that particle sized ‘entities’ would experience time quite differently than we do; or insects etc, because they are smaller. How do you come to that conclusion? A day is a day… You also suggested that particle ‘entities’ would not know ‘light’ which is total crap since energy is energy and affects everything it contacts. there are thousands of tests that show a distinctive reaction, by particles, to the introduction of energy.

            Your theory on me being crazy? possible, but not likely. Perhaps I seem crazy to the Religious and the scientific’s, because I am in the center of both, and you extremists are screwed up and I am correct.

          • joh2141

            Sure and teh color is white because I’m the supremo White commando. You’re clearly a trolling retard for not seeing that they clearly prove supremo white commando exists.

          • Silverleaf Interconnect

            AS you noted, the universe is expanding, at the speed of light. as a galaxy moves towards or parallel to us the light it emits has a definitive red shift while those moving away shift spectrum towards blue. By measuring this spectral shift, the center point of the universe has most decidedly been located. As with most explosions, matter tends to ride the shock wave, expanding outward, while leaving a lack of substance near the center point. There is some of course, but not nearly enough to coalesce into stars. Also by measuring the spectral shift the furthest galaxy visible has been found. The calculations suggest that the big bang occurred 14.3 billion years ago. The ONLY thing preventing the Big Bang Theory, from becoming the Big Bang Fact, is the first 4 milliseconds for which no one can account for.

            Your suggestion that for God to have been outside the universe he would have had to be a giant is nonsense. A singularity is infinite mass in very finite space, theoretically smaller than your head (the first atomic bomb used two masses colliding each was smaller than 4 oz). The example of a stable mass of uranium suddenly compressed to produce a thermonuclear explosion suggests that a very small change could be enough ‘outside force’ to trigger the big bang. Further you postulate that humans only perceive 3 dimensions, yet time is a dimension. Your accounting of 10 dimensions suggests you adhere to ‘String Theory’ of which there are five viable and distinct variations, while Gravity Theory encompasses them all and actually designates 13 dimensions.

            Additionally, you haven’t even touched on the theory of a multiverse, where there is plenty outside our own.

            Then there are two forces, immeasurable but undeniable, at work in our universe. Faith and Love. Faith is not ‘belief’. Belief is the starting point for exercising Faith, just as Belief is the starting point of Love. The effects of these forces can be seen but not proven. Some actually propose that Faith is merely force of will. If true, then the next question must be: ” How bad do you want it?” And then; “How bad does God want it?”

          • joh2141

            There’s absolutely no proof to explain multiverse is real. We just speculate its existence because “time exists.” In the same exact way it’s ridiculous to claim that God could be a giant outside the universe is as ridiculous as it is to claim multiverse theory. On the atomic level of the world, it is a chaotic world (like our universe is) and you cannot perceive light as you would so if you were as small as an atom in OUR world, you wouldn’t be able to perceive light or certain things. You are again talking a bunch of facts then randomly tying all that to faith, religion, and love. Honestly though this is to a point where you’re basically brainwashed. At least when I talk about questionable things that aren’t proven or could be wrong, I always am cautious to not sound so “matter-of-fact.” What you’re doing is saying is legitimately “If people are poor, they must have been lazy/bad people. If they are rich, they must have worked hard and are good people.” There is no correlation between the two yet you keep linking them together like it’s supporting your point.

            Where does that mentality come in where you can’t accept that we COULD be tiny atomic beings in comparison to what’s outside the universe when you so blindly correlate scientific facts to religion and lose credibility? It’s the same thing. I have tried my best to explain this with logic as it isn’t a matter of opinion on the matter. You can’t prove God exists. It kind of defeats the whole purpose of faith. Again at the end of the day you just can’t argue with some crazy brainwashed person.

            If I’m explaining a play in football, does it make sense to mention something from a poker tournament; talking nothing about the play itself to show that it is the most efficient play in the sport? Because that’s exactly what you’re doing. We aren’t just attacking you simply because you’re religious. Plenty of people who can talk religion here without getting scorned.

            Also wtf is “The ONLY thing preventing the Big Bang Theory, from becoming the Big Bang Fact, is the first 4 milliseconds for which no one can account for.” What is this “no one can account for” thing you are talking about? Have you actually read the numbers done that found out the age of the universe, found out WHEN it started to expand at a faster much alarming rate? What 4 milliseconds are you talking about? You do realize it was rival teams who both got the exact same numbers both with expert cosmic accounting mathematicians and astronomers who did all this. They found the numbers. There’s no “unaccounted for.”

            There is no scientific proof of what happened or what caused the Big Bang. There is no 4 milliseconds unaccounted for. Where are you getting your sources first of all? It’s interesting you would never show sources.

          • Silverleaf Interconnect

            the first 4 milliseconds of the big bang are still not accounted for mathematically by particle physics. You reiterate my point each time you state that there is nothing that can explain what caused the big bang, in science as yet. However, there is a significant paradox that science cannot resolve…

            Law of inertia in conjunction with the 2nd LAW of Thermodynamics, as applied to those first four milliseconds of existence.

            Another paradox is the existence of DNA which cannot exist outside a cell, but a cell requires DNA to form…

            A related conundrum is the fact that all life is comprised of left handed protein architecture. A single right handed protein negates life despite its being an organic compound.

            Another is the development of species on the planet. Not a gradual one at a time survival of the fittest process, rather the sudden emergence of hundreds of species simultaneously, and THEN the effects of natural selection.

            Then you have the development of species genders, rather than continuing with the far more efficient reproductive process of mitosis. This of course would have had a drastic impact on the legal drinking age….. it may also have had a beneficial impact on the learning process as well.

            And with all this, you claim to be able to discount the probability of intelligent design.

            Heck, even Aristotle, the founder of the critical thinking process and developer of the scientific process, could find no logical argument to deny God’s existence.

          • Bedlambunny

            Yes, but just because science can’t account for it doesn’t mean it was god.I also kind of find it funny that people who believe in god cannot believe that maybe we were a fluke…a happy freak accident…if there is a god why does he have to be perfect?even his other creations and lifeforms, who are incapable of doom surely aren’t.

          • Bill

            I propose (for anyone to ponder) on the utmost simplest of terms (e.g.) if I were to design and build a firecracker and then set it off… I would be the someone or something you would most likely/logically begin searching for to learn more about the seconds, minutes or hours (etc…) prior to the firecracker going off. By not utilizing/exploring all leads and resources in your search for me (or automatically denying I exist) would be considered quite arrogant and foolish.

          • cesium62

            You believe the 2nd law of themodynamics? but it’s never been proven.

            “all saying the same thing”? And yet christians deny that they have the same god as the muslims.

          • Silverleaf Interconnect

            its called a LAW because it has been proven. dork.

            If you take a look at both faiths, you’ll see that Islam bases its beliefs on the Old Testament. Mohammed declares that it is the sworn duty of Islam to protect Christians…. Unfortunately, it also states that the only people qualified to interpret the text of the Koran are native speakers of Farce, and most of them seek power over others rather than the truth.

          • Ore_Kajero

            lol…. @all $20

          • Silverleaf Interconnect

            Old Testament is primarily 1st hand witness accounts, which are empirical arguments. It also contains a documentation of historical events. The fact that there are multiple witnesses from very divergent times and locations stating the same evidence lends credibility.

            On top of that is the physical evidence to support the testimony. The ship wreck on top of Mt Ararat, The Shroud of Turin, the supporting documentation from the periods.

            Then you have to consider the hundreds of thousands of the world’s greatest thinkers over the past several thousand years cannot successfully formulate an argument that can deny the existence of God. Not even the one’s that developed scientific theory and critical thinking. They were not debating the pros or cons of various beliefs, just God’s existence, and could not deny it.

          • Michael Fest

            1st hand witness accounts are anecdotal evidence, not empirical. Multiple versions of the same stories could be due to a common version passed down by word of mouth before it was documented.
            The ship has yet to be found, there’s no definitive proof of the shroudbeing what it is suggested to be.
            Science can’t be used to prove the existence of God since one of the basic tenets is that a hypothesis must be falsifiable. The notion that a creator could fashion the universe in any form desired precludes the possibility of falsification so science can neither prove or disprove such a thing. Trying to prove god doesn’t exist is not possible, attempting to prove a negative is an exercise in futility.

          • Silverleaf Interconnect

            You fail to recognize the distances, the diverse cultures, and language barriers for your ‘word of mouth’ scenario. keep in mind that they didn’t have the internet back then.

            The ship has been photographed, so your assertion of its mysterious nature are void.

            As to the Shroud, the chain of custody is solid, the testimonies are consistent.

            Witness statements are indeed empirical, not anecdotal as you suggest. No more anecdotal than your notes regarding your observations of an experiment.

            Do you intend to refute the existence of Christ Jesus? This is historical evidence of the existence of God. Do you plan to refute the occurrence of the flood and the story of Noah? or the Exodus? How about the parting of the Red Sea….yeah, a thousand people are going to lie about that, eh? Or the physical evidence of the flood.

            Have you noted that i have not once brought the tenets of any faith into this debate? I have simply connected the dots provided by science and faith into a conceptual whole. Solve one of the paradoxes I presented.

          • Michael Fest

            What you accept as empirical evidence doesn’t fit the description from a scientific standpoint. Testimony is anecdote, it’s not empirical because it can’t be validated through observation. Photographs are not solid evidence.
            I’m not refuting the existenceof a supreme being, I’m pointing out that science can’t be utilized to prove or disprove that.
            In conversations on topics such as this, or climate change, etc, humans tend to try to rationalize their confirmation bias via support from less tangible “evidence” from preconceived ideologies or faith. One way to discuss these topics is to stick to empirical evidence and science.

          • Silverleaf Interconnect

            Testimony IS observation, just not yours. Al Gore’s campaign to fight ‘Global Warming’ was found to be based on deliberately obfuscated data, in other words they lied for political agenda (big surprise here).

            Critical thinking and the development of the scientific process, a gift from such great minds as Aristotle, is indeed invaluable. Yet Aristotle believed in God, he could find no argument to disprove HIM.

            And yet you fail to address the many paradoxical evidences I postulated, Simultaneous Multi-species Emergence, DNA vs Cells which came first? First rain fall at the time of Noah…. (first reported rainbow which can only be created by precipitation. No prior rainbow means no prior rainfall)= climate shift. Particulate and carbon gas release form a single volcano vs total contribution of mankind throughout history. Spectral shift of galaxies showing relative direction from the Big Bang. Quantum entanglement… Gravity theory vs String theories(all 5)…. Historical evidence, such as the existence of the person of Christ, of Moses, of Noah, with supporting documentation of their existence (and others).

            And you still claim there is not enough evidence to support Intelligent Design?

          • Michael Fest

            Testimony is anecdote, not observation. I never claimed a lack of evidence to support intelligent design, I stipulated that the existence or non existence of a supreme agency is not falsifiable, has no null hypothesis, and is therefore not scrutable via the scientific method.

          • Silverleaf Interconnect

            sure it is. Christ is the result of a virgin birth. test the DNA of the artifact ‘Shroud of Turin’, if you find Josephs DNA you falsify the virgin birth.

            Even today you should be able to find descendants of Joseph and Mary. their genetic markers can’t be THAT difficult to locate.

          • Michael Fest

            Any intelligence capable of creating the universe in any form they choose could create the evidence or remove it. That obviates the null hypothesis.

          • Silverleaf Interconnect

            fortunately the evidence has been left there for you to find and interpret. If Mary’s DNA isn’t there you prove it a fake. One of the principle attributes of this creator is His penchant for truth. In fact, HE may have left the evidence there to make you a believer, HE’s done far more for/to others for nothing more than that.

          • Michael Fest

            It’s presence or absence is irrelevant since the premise is that it can been influenced by a creator. Science is the wrong tool to investigate such an assumption.

          • agscienceliterate

            OK, just for fun – – – just how would you identify any DNA as belonging to Mary? (Mary who?)
            And the major question: why the heck are you posting Christian religious beliefs on this science site? You really feel the need to proselytize? You think your Christian testimonials are welcome here? We get more than enough proselytizing from the organic anti-GE activists to last a lifetime. Your evangelism is unscientific, utterly irrelevant, and inappropriate. Go thump your bible somewhere else.

          • Ore_Kajero

            ….. and there!!! The Spirit Manifests itself!

          • agscienceliterate

            There is zero evidence to support a so-called “intelligent design.” Your fairytales certainly do not.

          • sounds perhaps that you may have been produced by mitosis, just like the rest of the nay-saying trolls who can’t produce a viable argument other than simple denial.

          • agscienceliterate

            Mutagenesis, actually. Just like your organic ruby red grapefruit.

          • Ore_Kajero

            There’s a cell phone in my hand’ how would you feel if I told you they just appeared from nowhere…. I guessed the chips and all were forrmed from the nitorgen from the air. Lmao!!!

          • joh2141

            You didn’t connect the dots provided by science. You’re just very delusional and naive. That entire part of you asking questions of “Do you intend to refute the existence of Christ Jesus?” Well I don’t deny that Jesus existed. Jesus is probably a real person like Moses was and was revered as a god for what he did. But just because a person shows up at your doorsteps and tells you “I’m the Son of God, Follow me children and you will be one with God,” tonight, would you believe him? Because that’s basically what Jesus did. There’s nothing to prove that he proves the existence of God. There’s nothing to prove that the flood was done by God and Noah was able to foil God’s plan for genocide because God spoke to him. There’s no proof Moses actually parted the Red Sea. In fact, they believed Moses simply waited for the tides to drop which would reveal land to cross over (the middle-east was more lush back then whicH I believe is common misportrayal)

            Literally everything you talk about doesn’t actually deal with evidence or science. Everything you talk about is word of mouth or something someone told you of. You provided no paradoxes because paradox is a controversy of two polar opposites. You didn’t present such scenario. Everything you said, someone can say “You’re full of shit” and still be more mature and more accurate than you ever will be to the truth because you keep telling lies. There’s nothing wrong with believing in religion but there’s something wrong with the way you think.

          • Dillon Hippard

            Photos can be manipulated, The shroud was created in 1400AD, All “Historical” documents were written nearly two generations after Jesus’ supposed(because people are guessing) death. All of which were created by people, who I don’t trust.

            When people are trying to make religions, they generally greatly exaggerate things.

            The Flood Didn’t happen, at least on the scale that is mentioned in the bible, physics wise – that much water isn’t possible, and there is no sedimentary proof of an entire year being underwater – as well as all the plant permanent death that would have happened.

            The red sea? a thousand people? O-o try 644000, men. They didn’t even specify number of women and childnre (Which would supposedly bring that population to around 1.5million) – Which is a human presence 3x larger than what we actually believe that entire area was possible of supporting at the time.

            What physical flood evidence? ._.

          • joh2141

            Michael guy sums it up perfectly. I’d like science to prove God was real. Would make this whole faith thing and dying less scarier. But there isn’t proof. There isn’t evidence. There is actually evidence suggesting God is probably not real or at least nothing like we expect God to be.

          • Bedlambunny

            Ok….how about proof that the people who wrote the bible actually got those messages from god? What if they were schizophrenic? I think the biggest problem your having debating with science minded people is that you continually use examples of ideas that can’t be proven or our have no evidence to support them

          • no evidence? A physical ship wreck on top of Mt Ararat isn’t evidence? the census records , which contain the recording of Jesus’ birth in the city of David for tax purposes, not evidence of his existence? The records in Rome about Jesus’ Crucifixion, trial, not evidence? 1st hand witness accounts, not evidence?

            And where exactly is the evidence to deny that existence?

          • joh2141

            There’s been no proof of a ship that’s been found. All “supposed” evidence of shipwrecks that might be Noah’s Ark were debunked as hoax or simple misperception.

            Also, there was research done to presume what the most likely location Noah should have beached on assuming all the stories were true in that the entire planet was engulfed with water; the answer? Madagascar.

            Then the research team went to Madagascar to conduct research whether there might have been evidence where water levels used to be extremely high here. And there was. Also there’s much of that story that is still very sketchy like use of motif themes and story-themes used in Gilgamesh and older writings. For instance, 3 day to revival, rest on the 7th day, Number forty to foreshadow mass destruction. Why is something so scientific and so well structurally founded following traditions from pagan-cultures and beliefs?

            If you really care about science and religion, you really should do more research on the matter. Just because you believe in science doesn’t mean you discredit God or don’t believe in God. I mean I personally don’t but even with all scientific understanding, it’s still weird we’re alive. Like why are we here if the universe began as this vast nothingness in a point of singularity. But that doesn’t mean you can start accepting every little bullshit people tell you. Or even accept some of the bullshit you conjure up in your own head. I’m not saying this to make you sound crazy. We all do this. Science is here to level us down and rationalize everything.

          • No one has said anything about religion having anything to do with God. Faith is about God. As for being on drugs, its seems to me you’ve cooked up a batch of something crazy and have been smoking it non-stop for years. Put down the pipe and wake up.

            Your ‘science’ has yet to even attempt to explain the shift from mitosis to bisexual reproduction. Theory of Relativity, doesn’t hold, String Theory, doesn’t hold, so what makes you think that bio-engineering horizontally can hold?

          • Michael Fest

            I hope my comments don’t come across as disrespectful like others i see aimed at you here. We may not agree on some things but i hope our dialogue doesn’t lose the appropriate level of respect.
            That being said, I’m curious how you believe relativity doesn’t hold. It’s actually part of many modern conveniences. GPS systems have to compensate for relativistic effects, computers and electronics are based on quantum theory which is intimately related to quantum mechanics. String theory is in its infancy as a mainly mathematically supported concept and doesn’t have the evidence (yet) to be anything useful. Microbiology and genetics is well understood and your apprehension about “engineering horizontally” is likely unfounded due to the knowledge and understanding of the experts in those fields. The species barrier of horizontal gene transfer isn’t a safety mechanism and does occasionally happen on its own.

          • agscienceliterate

            Oh yeah, scripture. Christian, right? Just Christians. On this one little planet. How convenient. And narrow. Just biblical stuff, right? Written hundreds of years after the life and death of Jesus Christ, by a bunch of old doddering white guys needing to establish control. Christianity and its scriptures are only 2000 years old. Buddhism is 500 years older than that, and doesn’t need any stinkin’ scriptures to define its essence.
            NO scientific laws point to the “existence of God.” Only the many things we do not know, and our stubborn unwillingness to admit we don’t know stuff yet, points to the need for a God to explain what we don’t know. (Yet)

          • Silverleaf Interconnect

            Are you really that naive? Or are you trying to get some point across, because you are unsuccessful at both. Scientific process was originally laid out by Aristotle. Maybe you heard if him.

            Perhaps you have heard of the philosophy of Scholasticism, which endeavored to reconcile the prevalent religions with science during the middle ages.

            More recently Darwin’s theory of evolution, the gradual change in life forms to adapt to their environment, survival of the fittest, ect.; has been shown erroneous. The fossil record indicates that at any given moment, THOUSANDS of new species developed, simultaneously. no gradual shifts. Survival of the fittest? ok, But not across the creative layers of Genesis. Sharks are how old? and still a dominant species. Cockroaches, humans, canines, some felines, and many others have proven their station as fittest in their niche; others are simply no more. And this is just an Earthly example.

            So many theories are found lacking when they regress to the ‘moment of creation’ A time pinpointed by science to have occurred 14.3 billion years ago. Hell…science can’t even explain why gravity doesn’t act like any of the other forms of energy in this universe. At least Faith in GOD has some definitive answers.

          • agscienceliterate

            Jeez. You are totally on the wrong website. You go ahead and do your little god thing, and I’ll do my science thing. Your anti-evolution Genesis thing is absurd, given all the evidence. Not gonna argue with you. You obviously need definitive answers. I, on the other hand, am interested in pure science. Get on your knees and pray.

          • Silverleaf Interconnect

            Science is the business of discovering definitive answers, yet there are so many basic questions that science fails to answer, such as ‘which came first, cells or DNA?’ When you recognize that neither could exist without the other, and the complexity of DNA you must recognize simultaneous creation with intelligent design.

          • Silverleaf Interconnect

            Your adherence to a disproved theory of evolution is quaint. Darwin expected his theory to be proven via the fossil record over time when exactly the opposite has happened.

          • agscienceliterate

            “…disproved theory of evolution…” “quaint” …..
            Take your religious woo elsewhere. You are way, way back in the 1600’s with your thinking. Go pray on it.

          • Silverleaf Interconnect

            and now you show that your religion is science, taking on faith that you can find all the answers

          • agscienceliterate

            I don’t argue with know it-all ignorant evangelistic anti-science fundamentalists. We are done.

          • Silverleaf Interconnect

            intriguing since i am not anti science, not ignorant, nor evangelistic. On the other hand you have shown that you are

          • joh2141

            Yes you are not one of those. You are all at once. And instead of anti, you’re just illiterate in all 3. Even religious people would find you to be a batshit insane.

          • Silverleaf Interconnect

            and another troll bites the dust

          • Ore_Kajero

            Wow….. impressed

          • agscienceliterate

            No, my “religion” is not science. My methodology for assessing the physical world is science. I do not take any scientific exploration on “faith.” You are garbled.

          • Silverleaf Interconnect

            let’s see… 2nd Law of thermodynamics….yep that was back then…. Law of inertia? sure Newton was back then…but hasn’t been updated or upgraded, so I guess it still applies….unless you have a new Law of inertia?

            Currently the fossil record shows that Darwinism is a secondary effect, after hundreds or thousands of species suddenly spring into being. Each geologic age has been marked by a huge insurgence of new life forms, many of which go extinct due to natural selection. If Darwin had been correct, we’d still reproduce via mitosis. maybe you did…would explain things some.

          • agscienceliterate

            No, “faith in god” does not provide definitive answers. It provides convenient stories for explaining to the incurious or intellectually incapable how things work, when they can’t wrap their minds around the true mysteries of the world and the universe and they lack the intellectual acumen to explore these phenomena.

          • cesium62

            rofl. What a moron you are.

          • Silverleaf Interconnect

            did you use both of your brain cells to come up with that?

          • Bill

            Hopefully it’s not stupidity, hopefully just ignorance, arrogance or foolishness!? Stupidity is a particularly unfortunate and tough problem to fix… however, ignorance, arrogance and foolishness can usually be resolved in time with some extra education and some humbling life experiences. I should know, I’ve definitely experienced all three ;)

          • Kevin Sheets

            It was a great argument until your final statement. Calling someone stupid is a simple fallacy of logic lacking true premises with a valid sound conclusion. Argumentum ad hominem (abusive rather than circumstantial) is a fallacy of reasoning. And you were going so strong until that conclusion.

          • I did not call you stupid, just naive. Ignorance can be cured, stupidity? not so much. Do a better job of researching your position.

          • agscienceliterate

            And this is why evangelists loathe the teaching of science. Lord forbid (pun intended) that their kids should learn about evolution, quantum physics, the nature of the universe — all things which have been, and still are, repelled by religious fanatics who have thought (still think?) that the world is a few thousand years old, that the earth is the center of the Galaxy, and so much more. People used to be killed for thinking otherwise. Women used to be burned at the stake if a neighbor’s cow dropped dead.
            Science is not based upon religion. Religion is certainly not based upon science.
            Thank god (pun intended again) that science strips away all that nonsense. We may not know everything, but it is ludicrous to attribute all the stuff we don’t know to some mysterious sentient being.
            And hence, the “naturalistic fallacy” relative to GE foods. And hybrids. And all crop advantages over the last 1000 years, but who’s counting?

          • joh2141

            I mean hey you can in evolution and that the planet is older than few thousand years old AND be religious. There are plenty of scientific Christians that I know of. And they do incorporate the current findings of science to God. A better explanation USING what we know in science is to say God is the universe, dark matter, etc and immediately Silverleaf would have way more credibility than he/she does.

            But I swear you can hear the hamster spinning that wheel. No point bothering. You can save people from stupidity sure but you can’t stop them from willful ignorance.

          • Kevin Sheets

            So your an agnostic like me. We at least know enough to know what we cannot know. I believe the implication of science as a religion implied that it is “regarded as such ” by some scientists. I believe that is true. At one point psychiatry was the new religion. Most scientists are very reluctant to accepting new theories. I will use Albert Einstein as an example. He refused to accept quantum entanglement, calling it “spooky action at a distance”. It has been verified and repeated too many times to argue against but not in his lifetime. New theories are rarily accepted by existing scientists. Those scientists die off and a new generations of scientists evaluate further with an open mind and many theories withstand the continued scrutiny and are adopted.

          • AllViews

            Also, now I see what you mean. Science is not as much the religion as people believing science is fixed makes a religion. Thank you for telling me this, and I am sorry for not understanding this sooner.

          • Kevin Sheets

            In reading a history of science book it was pointed out most existing theories do not change and new differing theories are rejected. The old theorists die off and a new generation evaluates new theories that are eventually adopted. Very few actually are adopted within the lifetime of the theorist, Einstein’s relativity theory being one of the few exceptions.

          • AllViews

            I guess in the end science does run on human beings interpreting things. Thank you for pointing this out.

          • Mr. A

            religion is blind faith. Science, theories can be proven or disproven.

          • AllViews

            Thank you. I also feel that is true.

          • so explain why relativity and the big bang have not yet been proven or disproven after so many decades. Or why there are 5 distinct ‘string theories’. Heck the Theory of Evolution is still being preached and has yet to be proven.

          • Mr. A

            I’ve proven you have a substandard IQ. A theory is a very well tested hypothesis. You’re welcome.

          • You have proven nothing. A theory is a well tested hypothesis that has yet to be proven. piss off.

          • agscienceliterate

            You seriously doubt the theory of gravity? You doubt that evolution is a fact?

          • Jason

            The law of gravity.*

          • agscienceliterate

            Yes! It’s a theory to Myr until she is pushed off the cliff. Then it becomes a law.

          • gmosaregood

            theories do not evolve into laws… a theory is not “higher” than a law; a law is something proven by math, while a theory is a something widely accepted and basically “proven” by a cast body of evidence. Also, a law is encompassed by a theory.

          • agscienceliterate

            Or until the theory of evolution, which Myr does not accept, results in evolution of some virus or other which turns her into a disease-infested puddle. Ignorance is bliss (but only to the ignorant).

          • Arec

            i think the best example is a theory is an answer with an unknown question.

          •   

            LAW 

            1) An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)

             2) A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979).

             3) A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).

             THEORY

             1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984)

             2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding (“explain”) a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984).

             3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).

             4) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]).

             5) An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995).

          • Mr. A

            let me guess, you believe in astrology?

          • agscienceliterate

            You don’t believe in the theory of gravity? You don’t accept the fact of evolution?

          • show one example of a species morphing into another. Can a species change within itself? of course. But not cross species. I’d dearly love to see a frog that feeds by photosynthesis.

            As to gravity, it does not obey the laws of any other energy. In fact, since the universe is EXPANDING, its fairly easy to say that gravity is NOT universal. Unless you want to concede that there is a force acting from outside the universe.

          • Michael Fest

            Gravity is a tricky one right now, but it certainly is universal as observed by astronomers. There are a number of possibilities to explore and explain the acceleration of the expanding universe but so far no reason to suggest the answer is “outside” the universe.

          • hmm…acceleration requires energy, does it not? so where is this energy coming ‘from’?

          • Michael Fest

            Someone is bound to figure it out. But a gap in knowledge isn’t proof of a higher power.

          • it is also no proof against a higher power. In fact, the concept of using a basic template that works to create diversity on, seems to indicate intelligence. Especially in the face that Evolution is a total lie.

            Show me one existing ‘transient’ life form in existence today, changing from one DNA constant to another. Have you seen evolution in progress? Show me one transient life form in the fossil record. You can’t because there are none.

            Darwin was convinced the fossil record would bear out his hypothesis. It doesn’t. In fact physicists agree that entropy would cause a ‘devolution’, organisms reducing in complexity to the bare level of survival, not increasing in complexity. Evolutionism is an atheistic religion that has zero foundation. Here’s something to check out: http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/

            The quotes are all from evolutionists. In case you can’t figure it out, its the big text in the document. If that forms the basis of your belief in ‘science’ what other lies have you bought into?

          • Michael Fest

            I see where you’re getting the idea that a gap in knowledge somehow translates to proof of a higher intelligence. The link you posted comes to the same conclusion multiple times.
            Morris makes a lot of claims to support creationism which don’t seem to hold merit as in this critique-
            http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/adam_eve_thermo.htm

          • Dillon Hippard

            I would say its fairly easy to say that Gravity IS Universal – One of the greater kinetic energy influences known to man. When the “big bang” occurred – things were sent spinning in all directions, with a massive speed (or velocity would be a better term for it), Gravity itself is and has always been pulling us towards other masses, but that pull is much smaller in comparison to the speed at which the planets and stars are already moving away from each other.

            As well as a force acting from outside the universe? I’ve heard tell of this idea that there is something called a “universal attractor” to which our entire galaxy is “slowly” (Millions of km/hr) moving toward. It’s a gigantic mass that is thousands of times larger than our own galaxy – and is only noticeable by the way it effects other masses around it.

            And I still don’t know why we call it a universe. Uni would imply one. Just because we haven’t seen light or proof from other “verses” doesn’t mean that there aren’t more of them. And when exactly does our universe end and another one start? Who are we as tiny human beings to call these shots?

            Any example of cross-pollination will refute the idea that species cannot change into another.

            And as far as a frog goes… I’m all out, but how about a slug? :)

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

            And the entire idea that evolution is unfounded is, I won’t say false, but unlikely. We as humans (particularly creationists) like to look at the 10k years give-or-take we’ve been keeping record and trying to be more self aware. And we look for evolution in our lives. We want big noticeable things. But that’s NOT how evolution took place.

            We’re talking 4.543 billion years of earth life.
            4,500,000,000 years
            That’s 0.00022222222% of the total years we can account for in earths creation. – If we were placed on a clock, our human time period would be the last second of the final minute before midnight of the 24 hour period in a day.

            Our existence is miniscule.

            If you like math (most don’t) It’s fun to look at probability to explain natural phenomena.

            I’m not atheist, but I’m not a believer either.

            There is a much higher probability that evolution is the guiding hand in our existence. Than that of a loving creator, who made us, set us on a path of self destruction and watches us suffer and kill each other. Without trying to truly help us. (for christian perspectives from which I come)

            All emotional arguements aside. The probability of there being a God is NOT ZERO. But it is a far smaller number than that of the probability of evolution happening on earth in order to create us and our ecosystems around us.

          • Andrew Sprague

            Relativity. It was proven. Over and Over again. Just recently Gravitational Waves were measured. This was predicted by Einstein. Einstein suggested that any Electro Magnetic wave would be bent by the gravity produced by the sun. We have seen light from distant stars as well as radio waves doing exactly that.

            Big Bang. We cannot prove it like relativity. But like all science we go with the theory that matches the evidence the best. One part of the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory is that it would produce a measurable radiation throughout the universe. This is called cosmic background radiation. Asking someone to explain why we cannot prove or disprove the big bang is like asking someone to disprove or prove God. Except we have no evidence of God. But in both instances it would be essentially impossible to actually observe the phenomena.

            String Theories. Quantum Mechanics is incredibly hard to study. These theories are normally based on mathematical models that explain the geometry of Sub-Atomic particles. Most scientific fields have many theories trying to explain phenomena that we don’t understand yet. Cancer is a good analogy. Is it Genes? Environment? Chemicals in the Environment? Bad Nutrition? Now we starting to find out it is all of the above.

            Evolution. Endo-symbiotic Theory. DNA in our Mitochondria/Cholorplast is incredibly similar to Bacterial DNA and is different from the rest of what we would call Genomic DNA. The DNA that makes you. Why? Because ancient microbes took in other microbes most likely as food but then developed a symbiotic relationship with them. This was so beneficial to these organism’s energy production it was passed generation to generation. Now every cell in a Human’s body or rather every single Animal and Plant on Earth is composed like this.

            Sequencing the DNA of Genes that code for specific enzymes such as Lysozyme (in Human Saliva and present in many organisms) or aminoacyl tRNA Synthetase (catalyzes Translation of mRNA to Protein which is present in every organism on Earth) shows conserved sequences of DNA. Meaning if we line up the Genes sequence from Bacteria to Humans with dozens of other organism in the middle that make up the Human evolutionary tree. We see sequences of DNA that are almost exactly the same. That the initial genes that coded for these enzymes were so successful they only changed in minute ways between Bacteria and Humans.

          • Bill

            “We cannot prove it like relativity. But like all science we go with the theory that matches the evidence the best” Interesting point you illustrated! Incidentally (to some of the other folks commenting here) That example/explanation (in quotes above) is exactly my point on how some parts of science overlap with theology and work on very similar principals!

          • Andrew Sprague

            “How is it that Science has such a vast capacity and yearning for everything else, but the moment spirituality or Biblical data enters the room or a critical discussion… most of the scientific community immediately slams the door shut?”

            The Bible is not a legitimate source. Bottom Line. I would urge you to pick a Intro To The Bible book. And skip to the sources part. Here you will find a discussion about who wrote parts of the New Testament. We don’t really know but we can make theories. That is the problem. We cannot rely on evidence that is suspect. But for Global Warming we are literally just looking at Temperature and CO2 concentration data. We know the people who measured, we can look at the data, other scientists have replicated it. There is a major difference.

            I do agree with you that Spirituality is often overlooked in science. And that dogma in Science is a huge issue right now. Exactly the same way the Catholics were from 1000-1600. That anything that goes against their beliefs is wrong. But often it is that one person who everyone thinks is crazy that is right. Semmelweiss, a Doctor during 19th Century, advocated hand washing before delivery of babies and after handing a dead corpse. He was laughed out the hospital because “Doctors know what they are doing”. Sound familiar?

          • Kevin Sheets

            Which is why the majority of our DNA is regarded as junk. It was necessary in lower life forms but obsoleted by later developing systems.

          • Relativity was actually DISproven by quantum mechanics. General Relativity holds true until you get to the sub atomic, but there, it falls apart.

          • Michael Fest

            Relativity is deeply intertwined with quantum mechanics. It has not disproved it. Relativistic effects are continuously observed in particle physics.
            Gravity still leaves some questions unanswered but relativity, as a whole, is still valid.

          • A Real Scientist

            Religion holds true until different religions contradict, what’s your point?

          • This is why evolution “theory” cannot legitimately be a “theory” by definition of theory, but it can be called a “hypothesis” in its literal definition.

          • I have to agree. Evolution theory is merely hypothesis that was supposed to be substantiated by the fossil record. Unfortunately for Darwin, the fossil record shows exactly the opposite. Massive numbers of diverse life forms simply seem to spring into existence in each of the fossil layers. Interesting that each of these layers corresponds to biblical accounts….

            Mind you, I do not ascribe to the bible account of creation. At least not as most theologians portray it. According to them the universe is just a few thousand years old. poppy-cock!

            However, there is a passage in the bible describing what a day is for God…..

            “A sparrow goes to a mountain to sharpen his beak once every thousand years; and when the mountain is a pile of sand, that is one day.” Gives a different perspective on What God time is like, eh?

            I find it truly amazing that my position, that science and religion are not mutually exclusive(Religion saying WHAT was done and WHY, and science trying to figure out and/or manipulate the HOW), comes under such fire from both sides of the aisle. Perhaps this onslaught is proof that I’m actually on the right track of things.

          • agscienceliterate

            The fossil record shows very conclusively that evolution has been going on for millions of years. You skipped your anthro and geology and science classes, I guess.

            And your sparrow thingie is a takeoff on an old Buddhist saying (and Buddhism has been around 500 years longer than Christianity). So much for your god thing.

            Ram Das quoting the Buddha: “Do you know how many times we have been born and died? Remember Buddha’s story: If you take a mountain six miles long and six miles wide and six miles high, that’s the distance a bullock walks in a day. And a bird flies over the mountain once every hundred years with a silk scarf in its beak and brushes the tip of the mountain. In the length of time it takes the scarf to wear away the mountain, that’s how long you have been doing this.”

          • the fossil record shows conclusively that a species can evolve, but that NO morphing from one species into another has ever existed.

            Perhaps the Buddhists said it first, I don’t care. Even the Buddhists believe in a universal force.

            Guess you skipped a few classes yourself.

          • agscienceliterate

            There is no scientific term for “morphing.” Evolution, yes. But “morph,” like a caterpillar morphs into a butterfly? You are very confused. Species do not “morph” into another species. They evolve through natural selection over many thousands of years, like modern horses have evolved from the family Equidae, over a time period of about 50 million years.
            Throw out the “morph” language. Pick up a good book on evolution and natural history. Put down the bible and learn some science.
            Origin of Species – Darwin
            Selfish Gene – Dawkins
            Ancestor’s Tale – Dawkins
            Your Inner Fish – Neil Shubin
            The Third Chimpanzee – Diamond

            And no, you are incorrect. Buddhists do not believe in a “universal force.” What crap have you been reading? Buddhists believe there is a knowable cause of suffering, and there is relief from suffering. That is all.

            Do you just make crap up to fit your rigid beliefs?

          • So you are saying that Homo sapiens sapiens evolved from a lower life form? Like perhaps chimpanzees which are 0.06% dna variant from us? Not.

            And yes Buddhists believe in a universal force. Stop denying it. Here…I give you the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

            As for your texts? All of them are suspect and filled with suppositions. Darwin was shot down the quickest.

            And you support creating new species with a test tube and needle and say “Its all good! We don’t need testing!” I tell you to your face, you haven’t a clue how your Frankenstein science will affect people. I hope you can live with the fallout.

          • agscienceliterate

            Geez, did you quit school in 5th grade? Yes, of course Homo sapiens evolved from a different species of hominid. Your ignorance is appalling.
            http://www.yourgenome.org/stories/evolution-of-modern-humans

            And don’t get your cheap Buddhism from Wiki. Read the words of the Buddha. Buddhists certainly do not believe in a “universal force.” That is not what the Buddha taught.

            GE foods are the most rigorously tested of all foods in the planet.

            Fear the fallout, little ignorant Myr. Fear Frankenstein’s monster. (Frankenstein was the scientist, by the way; are you also ignorant of literature?). Eat organic. Eat nonGMO certified. Believe in intelligent design, although ironically you do not represent any evidence of that, either.

          • little ignorant Myr recognized the correlation between the increase in cancers and autism as it relates to the emergence of GMO foods. Granted Correlation does not confirm causation, but it is a heck of a good place to start looking. Perhaps you blame it on Bill Gates’ vaccination program?

            Where is any evidence of a genetic divergence in species? there is none.

            Rigorously tested? BULL! There is no testing, no tracking, and no evidence that GMO crops are safe for human consumption. What sort of test are you talking about? does it act like the real thing when you bake with it? or maybe…it’s supposed to be corn, so yeah, it’s yellow. Even Monsanto’s own site declares that there has been no long term testing of GMOs on humans, not even studies done on human reactions. Stop lying through your teeth (tooth?)

            You can believe you are descended from some primate no longer in existence if you like, but I won’t. Ignorant Myr suggests you get help for your delusions.

            And finally, explain why , of all companies in the world who want their brand shouted from the rooftops, so people will know, why do the GMO companies hide?

          • agscienceliterate

            It is impossible to try to educate someone so totally unschooled in the basic sciences. Let’s just leave it at what you call yourself: Ignorant Myr.

          • Oh no Mr. Imbecile, you labeled me ignorant, yet you cannot answer a single point. You can’t educate because all you say are lies and half truths.

          • agscienceliterate

            I can’t possibly attempt to educate you about the evolution of species, the origin of the universe, astronomy, human biology, geology, and anthropology. You have missed out on years and years of education, and it is someone else’s turn to try to educate you.

          • you can’t possibly attempt it, simply because you tell lies. I have yet to miss out on education, it is one of my passions and has been for 5 decades. You can’t educate because you don’t have a clue, and simply troll for your personal pleasure. My pleasure is exposing trolls for what they are. Smile, you’re on troll camera.

            Why not try to answer a single point I postulated. The answer is easy, its because you can’t.

          • Glarn Boudin

            “Evidence of Evolution”
            Lenski Affair. Done.

          • try this out for evolution: http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/

            as for the rest? they all follow this one.

            Get it through that thick skull of yours, evolution is a lie, species adaptation is another matter altogether.

          • hmm…gone silent again have you? Hard to win a battle against someone that has your back to the wall from the word ‘Go’ isn’t it.

          • David Roberts

            Bottom-line: We have a thirty year history of safe use of gm crops.

          • Peter Olins

            Please be specific, Myr. Which cancers, what country, over what period of time?

          • What? no snappy comeback? I saw you typing away and then….poof…you canceled.

          • agscienceliterate

            I see you eagerly await my answer. Sometimes it takes a while to formulate a response that even a scientifically ignorant closed minded bible thumping simplistic evangelist such as yourself can easily understand. But my comments are well worth waiting for, if you only had the curiosity and scientific acumen to learn. Alas, I see that is not the case.

          • David Roberts

            The word “day” in the Bible means “period”. The creation occurred through periods of time,

          • #who cares

            I guess we all shall see for ourselves when we die what is real and what isn’t, the only thing that matters in life is where you are going when you leave this place. But I guess some people think they are going to live forever, or maybe they will come back as a pig but personally I would rather believe that there is a God then live my life as if he doesn’t exist. Personal opinion!

          • agscienceliterate

            Your beliefs are your choice, of course. I won’t see anything for myself when I die. Know why? ‘Cuz I’ll be dead.
            And there is certainly a lot more in this life to focus on than where I “go” after I die. I ain’t “going” anywhere except back to the earth. That I don’t worry about at all. Trump and planet destruction? Now, THAT I worry about.

          • joh2141

            Myr Silverleaf believes 2nd law of thermodynamics is proof God is real because there’s like 4 seconds unaccounted for before the Big Bang or some shit. Don’t even bother with this lost cause and just don’t smoke crack.

          • 2nd LAW says that whatever caused the Big Bang, is still here. Since the LAW of inertia dictates that an object at rest remains at rest unless acted upon by an “OUTSIDE” force, something had to act to create the universe.

          • A Real Scientist

            Yes, a spontaneous “packet” of energy, appearing from the Multiverse field.

          • Kevin Sheets

            Relatively has been proven in every experiment performed on it.That includes time dilation.

          • No…Relativity is a theory that holds true in the visible world, but when applied to quantum mechanics, it falls apart.

          • Michael Fest

            In particle accelerator experiments, relativistic effects are obvious. Moving subatomic particles close to the speed of light makes them readily apparent.

          • BenDrinkin

            Science has definitely taken on a religious feel. Why, don’t you “believe” in global warming?

          • Victor Wiedemann

            watch this. I think it will answer to your statements about religion and science.

            , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N57g6i-2BYo

          • agscienceliterate

            Nope. Not even close. You are confused because you keep trying to infuse a god into scientific methodology. It does not work. I will take science over an imaginary being any day.

          • Bill

            Always found it interesting that science tests theories and hypothesis in a fascinatingly similar way as spirituality attempts to test reasons for our existance, or as Bible based religions test faith, as well as written records against historical and anthropological fact.

            Kinda strange how Science still completely and vehemently denounces anything with a spiritual potential, yet, will (through “theory” & ” hypothesis”) pursue everything else under the sun and beyond… with (in many cases) a fervor of reckless abandon.

            How is it that Science has such a vast capacity and yearning for everything else, but the moment spirituality or Biblical data enters the room or a critical discussion… most of the scientific community immediately slams the door shut?

          • agscienceliterate

            To answer your last question, it is because religious doctrine does not meet the rigorous criteria of scientific observation and testing:
            http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/scientific-method6.htm

          • Peter Olins

            Great site!

            It also includes several sections that are relevant to testing the safety of GMOs discussed in the original article.

          • Bedlambunny

            There are quite a few scientists that still have faith and believe in god..one percent of that are elite scientist. Niel DeGrasse Tyson also have a lecture urging other scientists not to dismiss faith and belief staying until the scientific community could understand our disprove their reason for this belief.
            I know you did say”most”but by the overall tone of your post….

          • ClaudeL

            “There are quite a few scientists that still have faith and believe in god..one percent of that are elite scientist. Niel DeGrasse Tyson also have lecture urging other scientists not to dismiss faith and belief stating until the scientific community could understand our disprove their reason for this belief.”

            You’re probably not understanding what Tyson said, or meant. It’s clear English isn’t your first language, so I can be forgiving in that regard.
            I will state that it’s 100% irrelevant how many scientists are theists, or how ‘elite’ those scientists are. You’re committing a logical fallacy called ‘appeal to popularity’.

            Here is an actual quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson regarding theism and science:

            “Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn’t understand, and now we do understand. If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on – so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem.”

          • AllViews

            I am sorry, sir. I do not know how to answer your questions, because I do not know which specifics you are talking about. In fact, I have forgotten to whom I wrote the post.
            Also, I have noticed that Mr. A said that someone had a “substandard IQ” because that person said that the theory of evolution “has yet to be proven”. I do not agree with that.

          • AllViews

            You know, I really should not have said what I said. That person who I responded to may have been right. The only reason I said what I said was because I thought that it would be indecent for people to behave like that. I know better now.
            Also, I don’t think that science tests theories. I think that It’s more like people look at stuff in the environment, then make an explanation, and then wait until something in the world contradicts it. If they can explain what might cause the explanation that they saw, then it is called a theory (Theory of Evolution). If they can’t, then it’s called a law (Law of Gravity). But don’t trust me on that. You can probably answer the question better than I can.
            As to the answer to your question, I don’t know. If people are fair, they’ll accept things unless people say something else using evidence. But they might not be fair.

          • BiologyReality

            I know, and have worked and studied with, many scientists and uni lecturers. Overwhelmingly, they are humble and encourage challenges. It’s why they are in science – to encourage critical thinking and questioning.

            I think you’re conflating the science with human fallibility. Humans get offended when their integrity is questioned, science does not. I have had many professors over my years of study who fit into both categories, however most senior scientists, when questioned, will ask ‘what leads you to that conclusion?’. I’ve only ever come across one or two who actually take offense at anyone questioning their hypotheses.

            Generally, in my 25+ years experience in academia and scientific fields, those who hold ‘religious-like’ beliefs are generally those with the most extreme or least supported views. Seralini, Carmen, Latham/Wilson, et al. – those that hold onto their views despite a mountain of conflicting evidence.

          • Silverleaf Interconnect

            funny you should mention ‘critical thinking’ a very Philosophical point of view, found in metaphysics from the Socratic era of Western Philosophy. the very foundation which concluded the existence of God.

          • Mr. A

            The theory of gravity is just a theory. What is the fact of gravity?

          • Cassandra Biophilia

            I’ve met and worked with hundreds of scientists and, yes, the personalities and levels of vanity have the whole range, but my scientist friends welcome new information as a general trait, and they change their minds on things as they get new information. Honestly, no scientist could make headway in any research field without curiosity and a willingness to find out if each new hypothesis can be disproven. After all, that’s what science is about, right?

          • Silverleaf Interconnect

            So as a hypothesis, has God been disproved?

          • agscienceliterate

            You can’t disprove a fantasy. You can’t disprove that unicorns and flying monkeys exist, either. The fact that something intangible cannot be disproved is not a proof of its existence, and you are guilty of incredibly lazy thinking.

          • Josh

            Science absolutely can be religious and have dogma in it. To claim it can’t is religious itself. It’s funny people can’t see the irony in the way they present this.

          • agscienceliterate

            Please give an example where you think science has been “religious….” and where it has “dogma” in it.

          • Josh

            The dogma is with the scientist. Human beings who implement the scientific method are only capable of being objective and skeptical within certain constraints. They are all human and susceptible to various cognitive biases and limitations. Since they are carrying out the science, any dogma they put in to it can make science have dogma. I mean, I can give you examples, but of course they are due to the human element. Humans can be religious and can inject that into anything. To make claims that something can’t have dogma, no matter what it is, is dogma in it’s purest form.

            Take a look at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) program, that ran for 28 years at Princeton University if you want a specific example.

          • joh2141

            It’s funny because scientific method is created to try to limit and decrease amount of biases and limitations. In the beginning of the paragraph you basically scorn people for being objective yet basically say biases are a flaw and limits us. That’s a real paradox and a clear cut case why you don’t listen to this idiot.

          • Silverleaf Interconnect

            please try to give an example where it has not. this would be far easier.

          • Silverleaf Interconnect

            touche!

          • Arec

            Sounds like dealing with being a wrong is less about being a scientist and more about integrity. I know people dirt stupid and get pissy for being wrong.

        • Josh

          Scientists get more dogmatic and more brainwashed every day.

          • Mr. A

            Our entire civilization and society is built on science, engineering and technology. Would you prefer to still be living how humans did 100,000 years ago? With no human created fire and no wheel and no agriculture? The rest of us wouldn’t.

          • humans did not create fire, they simply learned how to harness and reproduce it.

          • Mr. A

            which proves that I’m right and you’re wrong

          • Mr. A

            how many machines and animals have done that? Science is discovering. Technology is practical application of science. Humans have the monopoly on both. Blind faith and hope in magic is limited to fools and animals.

          • Josh

            I’m sure believing that’s what I think makes you feel right but to extract that from what I said? I mean, really? It’s not surprising though, this is the typical response I get. It’s pointless even discussing this with someone like you, you will just continually interpret things the way you want to support your own argument.

          • Cassandra Biophilia

            How do you know this? Any examples? What field are you in? Are you lumping all fields together?

          • Josh

            way to frame the discussion the way you want it to be to engineer the results you’re looking for. You’re obviously not open to even discussing this, you just want to be right. I’m sure then you’ll fire back with “they were just questions”. It’s not even worth my time to explain it to you, you’re just too dense and brainwashed.

          • Cassandra Biophilia

            You made a sweeping judgement and I honestly wondered what it was about. I especially wondered what field or time frame you were thinking of. I don’t have anything to be “right” about in this issue. I don’t have any reason to think scientists are different now than when I was involved in research, but I thought you had a point to make about it. Now I see you’re not really into discussion, you’re into judging people. Sorry I bothered to ask.

          • Josh

            I don’t know, the countless articles I read that hold up peer reviewed studies as the word of god, the sheer arrogance displayed suggesting that we have everything figured out and paradigms will most likely never shift, the dismissal of thousands of years of trial and error like it is snake oil, the list goes on and on. The vast majority of science these days shares one common result, it is engineered to produce profits.

          • gmoeater

            “…science is engineered to produce profits….” Wrong, Josh. Science is the study of phenomena. It doesn’t care whether you believe in gravity, global warming, the spread of viruses ,or anything else. You have a very strange perception of the scientific process, and of scientific discovery.

          • Josh

            That’s the way science should be. It’s not the way it’s currently being used.

          • Cassandra Biophilia

            The funding for basic informational scientific research gets slimmer and slimmer, from what I gather. This is one reason that businesses partner with research departments of universities.Once you “use” science, you’re actually getting into technology. So, your issue is that you’d rather see more technology developed for the common good, right? I think more people agree with you than you realize.

            I agree it’s sad we don’t have more exploratory research such as medical research without any proprietary claims on the results. But it takes money. It’s frustrating.

          • Josh

            I think it’s even deeper than that. Just one example. My doctor laughed at me for asking about herbal remedies. I then said I took spirulina for headaches just as a test to see how brainwashed he was. He called it quackery. I asked him if aspirin was quackery too. He advised it’s scientifically proven that aspirin works for headaches. He was never even taught that aspirin is derived from spirulina in school. I mean, seriously? How are these people medical experts when they are specifically only taught to prescribe drugs and they don’t even understand what they are? This is not a conspiracy it’s pretty much in front of your face all the time if you choose to question it.

          • Cassandra Biophilia

            Aspirin is made of a substance found in willow, traditionally. There’s salicylic acid in willow bark. In fact, the first part of the species name of willow is Salix. I’m talking off the top of my head, so I may have spelled something wrong. Are you sure it can be made from spirulina? I never heard of that. Off to look it up now…

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Little wonder the doc tooked at you funny. Your doctor must have been miffed to hear all that professional education had been a waste of time!

            Well, that is unless it might be useful to know aspiring was not discovered in or derived from spirulina, or unless it might be useful to know the potency of a drug and the appropriate dosage to have a reliable effect. A few bits of trivia doctors find useful on a daily basis.

          • Josh

            Of course, because you can’t get anywhere near the right dose with a natural remedy. of course you have to take their pill that that makes profits. Yeah…right.

          • hyperzombie

            Hate to interupt, but the supplement industry is far more profitable, than Pharm. Just look it up.

          • Josh

            I’m not sure what that matters?

          • hyperzombie

            of course you have to take their pill that that makes profits. Yeah

            Then why did you bring it up? Buying willow bark from the local shaman also leads to profits, well unless you are eating the willows in your back yard.

          • Josh

            Ok, I do not eat willow bark. I use meadowsweet tea for the spirea. Sorry I had the name mixed up in my head. I guess I should double check these things first. I still don’t understand why it matters that grocery stores make more profit but I digress. Yes, that is exactly the point, I can grow meadowseet myself. Also, the cost of buying a pill is unbelievably higher.

          • hyperzombie

            ” meadowsweet tea”
            Careful with this as well, never give it to a pregnant woman, it can in rare cases cause spontaneous abortions.
            “Also, the cost of buying a pill is unbelievably higher.”
            Well of course it is, a pill is the pure refined product. Just like distilled water is more expensive than tap water which is more expensive than drinking rain out of a bucket or puddle.

          • Josh

            Where is the actual source for meadowseet causing miscarriages?

            I’m still not sure where you going with all of this. I don’t see how that means greed is not impacting their decisions.

          • hyperzombie

            Meadowsweet contains salicylates (not salicylic acid) and it has been shown in studies to cause uterine contractions, leading to a miscarriage.
            I am not trying you how to live your life or what products to ingest, but one thing that I have noticed about people that take supplements is that they never look up the adverse effects of the supplement, like they would with a med.

            Both Pharma and supplement are greedy, it is the nature of the game.

          • Josh

            Where are these studies?

          • hyperzombie

            How many do you want? Will you actually read them?

          • Josh

            I will but I will be honest and up front about thinking there may be a classic case of correlation does not imply causation going on with them.

          • hyperzombie

            Well if you are going to prejudge the studies I will not waste my time posting them. Thanks for the heads up…

            But you do know that there is a salicylates support group for people that have issues with particular chemical.

          • Josh

            Just because they made a support group for it doesn’t mean they got it right. I’m not saying it would never happen (anything is possible under the right circumstances) but to claim it’s “dangerous”, I would like to see actual numbers on it and how they determined that exactly for me to see it as something to actually worry about.

          • hyperzombie

            Well there is nothing to worry about if you’re not allergic or a pregnant woman, but don’t drink too much or it may make your ass bleed.

          • hyperzombie

            And I never said it was dangerous, i said that you should be careful with it, it is not explosives.

          • hyperzombie

            “Ok, I do not eat willow bark.”
            Good, because that is a major nutrient source for Moose in the winter. No one likes the look of a skinny Moose, well except for folks that are about to hit one with their car.

          • Peter Olins
          • Farmer with a Dell

            In the case of a headache, what’s the harm in trial and error if it’s your own head, what better chance of enjoying a satisfying placebo effect? If a doctor is prescribing for someone else’s head, it becomes important to improve one’s odds of getting it right. When prescribing for heart failure, diabetes, serious stuff the placebo effect and a hit or miss dosage just doesn’t cut it. The “right dose” takes on real value in its own right.

            Bottom line — quack remedies are great if you’re not really sick, modern medicines are better when you are really sick. And both the quack and the doctor take a profit, as do the manufacturers of the remedy & the medicine. What makes you think the profit motive only applies to science-based endeavors? Quacks like Joe Mercola and Dr. Bonner are awash in profit, so much they can easily donate millions of dollars to GMO labeling campaigns in state after state.

          • Josh

            Interesting you brought up diabetes. That is one thing we have so wrong that it’s literally becoming an epidemic. I was diagnosed with type 2 10 years ago. My a1c was 13 and my doctors told me, “it’s irreversible, maybe you can eat this diet (full of carbs) and exercise but you need to take these pills as there is no other way to treat it.”

            I took no pills. I went on a full blown ketogenic diet. 10 years later my a1c is perfectly normal. Now, people are finally starting to wake up about. Too bad the medical industry is STILL DOING THE SAME THING.

            And I agree, there is profiting and bad science on both sides. To act like the pharmaceutical companies are better is laughable.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Your personal anecdote is truly amazing. Not inspiring. Not believable. Not interesting. Not worth a plugged nickle. But it’s your belief and it’s amazing you think we don’t see through your snake oil sales pitch. Like you said, laughable.

          • Josh

            Yep, this attitude is exactly what I’m talking about. It’s not simply a personal anectdote. There is loads of scientific evidence to support it. You do understand what type 2 diabetes is right? You do understand the simple concept that NOT EATING CARBS WILL REDUCE YOUR NEED FOR INSULIN? I mean it’s basic science.

            It’s not even like that is debated for the most part, although there are still many that think I’m just very lucky when I’m really not. There is just a load of misinformation out there about eating low carb in general.

            So yeah, you will choose to disbelieve anything that isn’t spoonfed to you by the medical establishment. I get that. You are part of the reason why diabetes is out of control.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Why are you suddenly preaching to me about carbs? Now that you mention it I eat carbs and my insulin is fine. I eat fat and protein too, and my insulin is fine. I’ve been eating all my life and I don’t have diabetes. So my personal anecdote is that eating, carbs or not, does not cause diabetes. But that’s not scary or sensational enough to get a best selling book out of, so who cares?

            No thanks Josh. I will stick with science when it comes to nutrition, medicine and just about everything else. I won’t tell you how to eat if you don’t try to tell me, fair enough?

          • Josh

            You brought up diabetes, that’s what we were talking about. You’re just deflecting now. In now way did I say that not eating carbs was right for you. You do realize the diabetes epidemic we’re facing in this country don’t you? You’re claiming it’s dangerous for that specific disease to not follow the status quo from the medical establishment when it’s pretty apparent to any rational person that it’s not working.

          • hyperzombie

            “You are part of the reason why diabetes is out of control.”
            Nope, humans have eaten mostly carbs for thousands of years. The Romans lived of nothing but bread and pasta for 1000s of years.

          • Josh

            Nothing but bread and pasta? Are you serious? That is just not true. Just eating a portion of bread and pasta is nothing compared to the amount of carbs the average person consumes these days. It’s the over consumption that can cause damage. The real damage are the options the typical doctor will give you for treatment though once you develop it.

          • hyperzombie

            Well it was an unfair comparison on my part, most Romans died in the early 30s and unless you were very wealthy you might make it to the early 70s or 80s if you are lucky.

          • Andrew Sprague

            Just make sure you eat a good amount of non-starch vegetables. Like I said in my previous comment do not trust doctors when it comes to nutrition. There is an insane gap between people like me who study the Biochemistry of Nutrition and Medical Doctors.

            Your biggest problem with a full blown Keto diet will be

            1) the overproduction of acidic bio-chemicals with a Ketone functional group. This will be very obvious if it becomes a problem because your breath will literally smell like acetone.

            2) Glucose is the main source of energy for your brain. So low blood glucose levels will lead to mental impairment. But eating lots of veggies can counteract this easy enough. Also B vitamins are co-factors in almost every step of glucose metabolism. So ensuring high levels of B vitamins everyday will lead to efficient metabolism of carbs.

          • Josh

            I’ve been on keto for 10 years now. Your body can function perfectly normal without any carbs, it produces the glucose you need from protein. I’ve never had any issues with my breath. Both of those things are a myth as far as I’m concerned.

          • Andrew Sprague

            If you eat any vegetables, dairy, nuts at all you are getting carbs and your body wouldn’t need to go into ketogenesis to get all of it’s energy. I highly doubt you eat just meat.

          • Josh

            I go into ketosis when I eat below 50g carbs a day. I typically eat less than 20, though. Yes, I eat greens. I do not eat any dairy or nuts. There is nothing wrong with ketosis though and your body does not need it for all of it’s energy. Your body can product glucose without any carbs.

          • hyperzombie

            “In the case of a headache, what’s the harm in trial and error”
            Well there is bleeding from the ass, death if you are allergic, miscarriage if you’re a woman, and unknown effects if you are breast feeding. but besides that, you’re good to go.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Yep, and when it’s Josh’s ass I’m mostly OK with it.

          • Josh

            I have not seen any scientific proof of that. Oh, looks like I’ve struck a nerve. I’m not very good at explaining logic to stupid people, it usually makes them angry.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            I’m amused Josh. Same way I’m amused by slapstick comedy. If you were making my ass bleed, on the other hand, then I would be angry.

          • hyperzombie

            I don’t get these folks, the risk of ass bleeds and spontaneous abortions are OK if it is Natural, but skin irritation is unacceptable with a synthetic, Freaking crazy.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Yep, and when it’s Josh’s ass I’m mostly OK with it.

          • Cassandra Biophilia

            Forgive me, but you’re mixed up about aspirin. There’s no established medical use for spirulina (blue green algae). I can’t find anything that says you can make aspirin from it, either. Aspirin, as I said, works because of salicylic acid, which was discovered from willow bark, ages ago. Please show me where you saw that you could make aspirin from spirulina. Maybe I’m missing something.

          • hyperzombie

            Spirulina, is not a herbal remedy for headaches, but is a good source of protein and iron. Maybe a lack of iron was giving you headaches.

          • Josh

            sorry, yes willow bark. I had that mixed up in my head. I think it’s because Spiraea was in my head. Point is that a lot of doctors don’t even understand that the chemical composition of these drugs is derived from natural remedies.

          • hyperzombie

            Be very careful where you buy your Spirea from, it naturally absorbs heavy metals. Recently Asian Spirulina had over 60x more lead and mercury than was allowed in any food. Only buy supplements from reputable sources.

          • Peter Olins

            Good point about the dangers of toxic samples of Spirulina, HZ.

            But then you went and spoilt it all by using the words “supplements” and “reputable” in the same sentence. Now I have a headache.

          • hyperzombie

            LOL, I am trying to be nice. I was banned from ECOwatch today for being nasty about poor senile Dr Huber, Oops, I mean rich lying Dr Huber… F’ it he is a con man.

          • Peter Olins

            It’s really sad how some highly accomplished people can suffer from a dramatic mental decline late in life—but even sadder that other people continue to treat them as though nothing had changed. I have never figured out whether folks like Huber actually BELIEVE what they say, or whether they are too ashamed to retract something that they now know is false.
            (Linus Pauling — vitamin C; Luc Montagnier — water memory; James Watson — racism)

            BTW — Don’t worry about being banned from EcoWatch: your work is done. (Too bad that the Cletus clan of sockpuppets is still viable).

          • hyperzombie

            “I have never figured out whether folks like Huber actually BELIEVE what they say”
            I think in the case of Dr. Huber, he truly believes in what he says, or he is one hell of an actor. It doesn’t change the fact that he is still 100% wrong.
            I heard of another one that lost touch with reality in old age, Dr Heimlich, inventor of the Heimlich maneuver and the Heimlich chest valve, saving 10s of thousands lives, maybe more. Now he claims that the heimlich maneuver can cure asthma, and Malaria can cure Aids.
            I hope when I get old, and go all batcrap crazy, i come up with something that is at least entertaining. Building Houses out of used satellite dishes to reflect all the evil alien mind control rays back into space, or sell Red Bull enemas kits to dumbasses as a Sleep Aid. Cause if your going to go nuts, GO Big or Go Home.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Interesting ideology emerging here. Certainly most of the science that’s getting done these days is funded by interested parties with a business motive. Why are philanthropic forces not funding science of interest to them?

            How will bashing science funded by businesses increase science funded by Samaritans or by the scientifically curious? Isn’t there room for more science overall, must directed science be beaten back to accomplish your altruistic goals? Just step up your preferred funding, maybe even dominate the field, just do it.

          • Cassandra Biophilia

            I agree about regular news articles you read on anything controversial, for the most part, from either side, and that’s a big problem for me when I want to share them with friends. I can’t share snarky articles about vaccination issues with my anti-vax friends, and I can’t share a lot of articles about genetic engineering because they’re so dismissive of anti-GM folks. That just loses the audience immediately.

            But truly scientific journal articles should be simply informational. To me they seem to usually start out by saying something like “The mechanism of X is not well understood, so we explored the effects of …. by doing blah, blah, blah.” Review articles don’t start like that, of course, but if a scientific article sounds arrogant, then the author has done a very unprofessional job.

          • Josh

            I feel the same way about the articles claiming that GMOs are 100% safe and infallible.

          • Cassandra Biophilia

            A scientist wouldn’t write “100% safe and infallible.” about GMOs. Where did you see those words? What scientists keep saying is that the foods produced by genetic engineering have no more tendency or reason to be unsafe than crops improved by other methods. So far the crops on the market are as safe to eat as other crops. There’s always a chance something could go wrong with anything. Infallible isn’t a scientific word.
            I don’t understand why they don’t do the same testing required on GM crops on the crops produced through radiating the DNA and doing real damage to the genomes such as with mutagenic chemicals. There are lots of crops produce with mutagenesis, like red grapefruits, rices, etc and they don’t have to be tested, they get to go right on the market and it’s been that way since the mid-1900s (or earlier?).

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Trial and error can take you only so far, then you need to be able to model a situation accurately enough to recognize and manage inherent risks. That’s a role science can play. For example, developing countries who entertain nuclear intentions seem, for the most part, to access just enough science to prevent total disaster with the inevitable trial and error testing. Even politically ambitious hacks understand the limitations of trial and error. Likewise, the bumbling shade tree mechanic assembling a nuclear device appreciates the value of an accurate and precise understanding of what’s being tinkered with. Some situations simply cannot indulge your “thousands of years of trial and error” superstitions, or more recent urban myths and snake oil. Those are quaint but dangerous when put to the test.

          • Josh

            I am not in disagreement with most of that, I see it too often where trial and error is dismissed as unscientific, though. I am not saying trial and error is king or that it is the method for every application, I’m not sure where you got that from.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            I think most of us, when we dismiss trial and error do so because it is unreliable and possibly dangerous. We prefer good science when we can get it. More progress with fewer colossal messes to clean up. That’s why many business entities are intrigued enough to invest in science when the chips are down. Those businesses are easy to tell apart from the one’s whose CEOs habitually take the trial and error route.

          • Josh

            And this really brings us to a topic related to this article when it comes to GMOs. My stance is I trust natural selection and billions of years of evolution over some company making profits off their product to be so arrogant as to claim that Frankensteining my food is somehow better than that and they know everything about nutrition and science and anyone who questions them doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

            I want my food in it’s natural evolved state. I trust that.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            How many “natural” mutations do you suppose succeed to finally become your “naturally evolved food”? How many don’t make the cut? In breeding trials it takes a lot of tries and a long time to finally get the desired result. Often that result is elusive after years of work. Not very accurate or reliable. Modern genetic engineering simply cuts to the chase and improves the odds of finally getting the desired result. Excellent precision.

            Actually modern science does have a pretty good grasp of nutrition…and toxicology…and ecology. I think anyone who asks redundant questions should at least have some basic science literacy and an open mind to avoid appearing argumentative and arrogant, themselves.

          • Josh

            This is where we differ on a pretty substantial level. I do not think science has a good grasp at all of nutrition. I’ve improved my health in every way by doing the exact opposite of what the ADA guidelines tell me to do. High fat, low carb, high sodium. All my numbers are perfect and I’m in the greatest shape of my life. However, it’s the minority. I read study after study scaring me that what I was doing was dangerous, that it would lead to serious health conditions, blah blah blah. It did the exact opposite. Then I start meeting thousands of people doing the same thing and having the same result. Is there science that supports this? Sure. I mean, you can find a study to support anything you want to believe these days. The majority of nutritional science out there will tell you it’s incorrect, though.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            The human body is remarkably durable, it can absorb a lot of abuse — that’s how homo sapiens has prevailed. Science simply maps out relationships of body function to nutrients, drugs, exposure of various sorts. It essentially calculates the odds of a particular response, rather like knowing how hands are ranked and understanding the odds in a card game. You can defy the odds, even ignore the cards you’re holding, just raise, call and plunk ’em down and sometimes still win a pot or two but you can’t repeat that success. For your own entertainment it’s great fun to gamble recklessly, it’s a huge rush. When you prescribe that for others it becomes problematic. At minimum it damages your credibility. Usually ends up a big mess.

          • Josh

            So your argument is to listen to the medical establishment and trust they know what’s best for you. Then, you proceed to paint the picture that anything other than that is dangerous (fear tactics).

            The odds are your body will respond incredibly better if you do not follow the ADA guidelines. I mean I’m pretty convinced of that at this point. I’ve seen it time and time again. It’s not like my body was resilient, it’s more like it was damaged and what I did healed it.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Oh, I believe you are damaged. Yep, you got a supporter for that theory. Even in reversing them I think you place too much importance on the ADA guidelines. They are only guidelines, after all. It’s not like an operator’s manual for the space shuttle or anything.

          • hyperzombie

            “It’s not like an operator’s manual for the space shuttle or anything.”
            Come on, the space shuttle OP manual is less than one page… Light the rocket, hold on….

          • Farmer with a Dell

            That’s right! All the rest the pilot can figure out by trial and error. I mean, what else is there to do with all that free time. It’s probably mostly intuitive anyway. Easy as running a skid steer once you get the hang of it (‘course the paddock gate, the bed rails on the truck and the passenger door on milk inspector’s car will never be quite the same afterward)

          • hyperzombie

            “All the rest the pilot can figure out by trial and error.”
            Yep the all natural way, if you give him instructions from the corporation’s it will lead him astray, */All natural rockets*

          • Josh

            I don’t know how me saying that trial and error is discounted as being snake oil is translated into that. This type of mentality is so ridiculous. You want to argue with someone and discredit them by completely concocting in your head what they are saying. It’s not accurate, it’s completely delusional, and you’re a moron.

          • Josh

            There you go concocting delusions in your head again to support your argument.

            My method was as follows.

            1. I heavily researched insulin resistance and sought to understand it (the ada guidelines played no part in this)
            2. I questioned a very large amount of people who had diabetes and had success without medication.
            3. I put all my work into practice. I saw results as expected.
            4. After the fact and as an afterthought I noticed how screwed up the ada guidelines and the dietary advice from the diabetes association was.

            Thanks for asking though.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Don’t underestimate step 5

            5. I lucked out this time. Didn’t have diabetes at all, misunderstood the doc, just a false alarm.

          • Josh

            was it a double blind study that told you that or the pill you took that made you hear the voices tell you that must be it?

            Oh, childish discussion, sort of entertaining I guess but already getting bored of it.

          • hyperzombie

            “All my numbers are perfect and I’m in the greatest shape of my life.”
            Did your new diet include exercise?

          • Josh

            No increased exercise. I’ve always exercised though.

          • hyperzombie

            Are you sure?

          • Josh

            If anything I exercise less because I’ve spent a lot more time focusing on my diet. I’m 100% sure. This is not abnormal, diet plays a huge role in overall health and as far as weight loss and diabetes goes, exercise is not even that important.

          • hyperzombie

            well my hypothesis is that once people get bad health news, they get more active on average, improving their health….

          • Bill

            Actually that’s a great thought process. Incidentally, I’ve had a similar nutritional experience as josh posted and have also not increased the amount of exercise I get through out the week, nor has my sedentary desk job/career changed in the past 15 years.

          • agscienceliterate

            You sound like a perfect candidate for diabetes. You also sound very young. One day, these patterns of high fat, high sodium, and low exercise will catch up with you and your numbers won’t look so hot. But whatever floats your boat.

          • Josh

            It’s amazing how many assumptions people make that are so dead wrong about this. I hope you never go into the scientific field, you are a disgrace to what science should be.

            1. I became a type 2 diabetic 11 years ago. I was eating low fat and low sodium
            2. I have always exercised.
            3. My blood sugar is completely normal for 10 years now on a high fat extremely low carb diet.
            4. There is loads of research to support high fat/low carb is the way to deal with and to avoid diabetes.
            5. Very young is 42 years old? I actually look 15 years younger now since I switched by diet 10 years ago.

          • agscienceliterate

            Terrific! Keep doing what you’re doing. Don’t listen to any doctors, by the way. Obviously you believe you know better. Check back in 20 years and tell us how this is working out for you.

          • Josh

            Same thing people told me 10 years ago, just wait a few years it won’t work. It will never matter to people who have no ability to challenge the status quo.

            My primary care physician has actually changed her stance on diabetes after seeing my success. She has since advised me she sees the same results in her other patients. She says what you just said to me in a non sarcastic way, keep doing what you’re doing. There are many doctors who are seeing the light these days. It’s only a matter of time before flatworlders such as yourself are obsolete.

          • agscienceliterate

            Whatever. You’re a grownup. You’re capable of making your own decisions, whether they’re good ones or bad ones. Whatever you do is your own choice. Your own choice. Best of luck.

          • Bill

            Excellent point… if we are to have “our own choice” then GMO’s should be clearly labeled so everyone can choose and have a choice.

          • agscienceliterate

            As I said, whatever floats your boat.

          • Andrew Sprague

            First, I would say you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how to view Peer Reviewed research. You cannot read one paper or study and claim something. We do not presume causation even after a dozen studies.

            Second, Nutrition is incredibly variable, it is different for every ethnicity of humans. One of my goals for my PHD thesis is to create a DNA-Protein Marker-Nutrition Analyzer. (I have undergraduate degrees in Biochemistry and Microbiology). What this would do is similar to testing for allergies, but it would also test for any antigen proteins, inflammation markers, genes, native micro flora that would lead to negative responses from certain foods. Then suggest what foods to cut out of your diet. This to me is such an obvious route to take for nutrition. Why are Northern Europeons not lactose intolerant but most the world is?

            Never trust anything from the ADA or the FDA. The best advice you can get are PHD’s in the fields of Biology, Biochemistry, Chemistry etc… I even find M.D.s to have pretty bad advice. For example my Botany professor once told us a story about being in a Graduate program in the 1970’s. His Chemistry buddy told him to avoid trans-fats. It took 30 years before that was the general adopted stance among the population and the government.

          • joh2141

            No I think they have the right to be skeptical about you. Because you have no idea wtf you’re talking about from what I’ve read thus far.

        • mason

          Bob, the P.hd Scientist that coined into this argument was over flowing with the sort of myopic pride and ignorance Id expect from these absolute GM proponents-either you’re
          ‘right’ or ‘left’ anti GM or pro GM an extreme stance on either side in reality is stupid.

        • hyperzombie

          Really, so gravity is a figment of our imagination? The sun may or may not be at the center of the solar system, Lead can float in the atmosphere? Water is not wet?

          • Josh

            I think the point is, yes, it could be a figment of our imagination. If you want to say there’s a 99.999999999999999% probability that it’s not a figment is much more acceptable to a lot of us. I understand that’s probably the way you mean it but there is an strong stench of arrogance and infallibility that comes across sometimes and I’ve seen it influence the scientific method.

        • justjoseph

          How about 20 years of widespread public consumption? Still no link to GMP’s causing any health problems

      • Rosalind Dalefield

        What is a ‘biochemical researcher’ doing working at a boxing center?

        • research?

        • dfgsdgdgsdf

          It’s obvious from her comment history she is a liar.

      • Kayellebee

        Thank you Crissy, it was good reading your point of view.

        I am so confused about GMO issues. I want answers but there doesn’t seem to be any that are totally conclusive. Although I am not happy with my position of sitting on the fence, that’s where I’ll stay because there is not enough proof for me to totally agree with one side over the other.

        I belong in the ‘scientifically illiterate’ catagory. I am far from studied in the area of science but I am deeply concerned by the anti-GMO info that I’ve read. I don’t necessarily believe all that I have read but I can’t forget it either, what if it is true? I honestly try & ‘research’ the other side of the story but it only confuses me more.
        I definitely lean more towards anti-GMO, I guess I feel it’s better to be safe than sorry.

        I am grateful for the time that people spend on getting their educated point of view out there for the benifit of a more informed society.

        Still confused but happy I am learning.

        Kayellebee

        • lf

          Kayellebee… how can any logical thinking person be confused by the GMO issue when there are so many studies that shows the safety of GMO ?
          why don’t people just admit to it and simply say “we do not believe the scientific community (for whatever reason) and we chose to ignore the evidence” this is a kind of honesty not seen in the anti GMO groups , instead they continue to try contradict science with opinions passed as studies, lies, bad science and skewing of data to prove something that doesn’t exist…
          This attitude doesn’t work well when you try to fight science you’ll always look like a fool when trying to fight science with fluff.. this is no different than that Saudi cleric who recently claimed the hearth doesn’t revolve around the sun, he used some kind of phoney scientific argument to prove his point

          • Kayellebee

            If…..
            I feel like copying & pasting my earlier comment because you clearly didn’t conprehend where I stand on this issue. You straight up pigeonholed me into one of ‘those anti-GMO groups’.

            I am not putting forward an argument or ‘fighting’ the scientific community on this issue, far from it. I simply shared my perspective as a consumer, a consumer with very little understanding of science. Which I might add does not define my logical thinking ability but it does give reason to my state of confusion with all things GMO.

            If a comment is not inline with your own view point, don’t automatically presume it comes from a negative angle. You should try reading things more objectively before you reply to them. You may look foolish if you post a reply that is full of irrelevant fluff….just saying.

            Kayellebee
            :-)

          • lf

            I thought my reply was very clear and relevant
            it is obvious that i didn’t pigeonholed you in any group, maybe you need to re read it

          • Bobbylob

            I read your response several times, and yes, you did. You laid out a generalized comment without fully understanding what you were replying to. The very thing those in the scientific community are complaining about with people who are anti-GMO. If you happen to be one of those scientists, it’s no wonder people are confused.

          • dfgsdgdgsdf

            Anti-GMO activists are ignorant liars and agenda driven professional manipulators.

            Watch this if you want to know how much harm they cause in the third world:

            https://www.ted.com/talks/pamela_ronald_
            the_case_for_engineering_our_food#b05g17t20w15

            https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/01/26/10-studies-proving-gmos-are-harmful-not-if-science-matters/

          • gads you are such a troll, can’t even put up a name better than stroking of a few left hand keys at random. The fact that GMO corn takes so much less time to mature should sure indicate why it is only 20% the nutritional value of conventional corn. Add to that the increased levels of glycosphate and the complete lack of Human testing and it’s small wonder why people are concerned.

            Its also why you won’t see GMO corn on the cob. the crop is so horribly disfigured and gross looking, no one would buy it.

          • Actually, Bt sweet corn takes the exact same time to mature as non GMO corn and has none of the worms and aflatoxins (mycotoxin) that inflict organic and conventional corn. Organic corn is a huge killer in Africa because of mycotoxins. Organic fungicides are far more toxic than synthetic ones, which increases the danger to humans. Bt sweet corn sses few chemicals..about 90% less than organics…and is overall far healthier and sustainable.

          • You do realize how many contradictions your post contains? even your choice of words shows a lack of believability. Not ‘inflict’ but rather ‘affect or infect’. And you assertion of statistical information is also questionable regarding the toxicity of organic fungicides.

          • Farmer Sue

            Wow. That would be nice if it did grow in less time! But it doesn’t. And nutrition? Tell that to my cattle-raising friends whose cattle are fat, healthy, and productive.
            GE sweet corn (when you can find it) is delicious, without corn borer mycotoxin residue that Jon refers to below (you don’t want to eat that, believe me, and it is rampant in organic corn), and totally as beautiful as “regular” corn.
            Where do you get your utterly bizarre ideas??
            Please talk to a farmer. Educate yourself. Pick up the phone and call your state’s farm bureau. Tell them what you just posted. When they quit laughing and wetting their pants, they will patiently explain all the corrections to your interesting, but totally offbase, misconceptions.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            I come from a family with a large farming operation. We feed our corn to hogs and have for close to 100 years. Before 1996 all the corn was non-GMO, now it is all GMO. Feeding efficiency is just as good. We would know if feeding efficiency dropped 5% let alone 80%. I run the combine and I can tell you without doubt that maturity dates are unaffected by transgenes. So, please provide citations to the misstatements you typed above.

          • if there were any mistatements I would gladly provide additional info….unfortunately, for you, they are all truth.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            Yes. Provide facts with documentation.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            Also, there is GMO sweet corn and the ears look just fine. Field corn ear appearance is not affected by transgenes either. Again, provide evidence for your misstatements.

          • There are hundreds of links already posted in this thread, I see no reason to reiterate them. Simply because you choose not to peruse them is not my concern. You have a keyboard, use it to do real research and don’t demand I do it for you.

            As to your ‘sweet corn’, out of 71 samples gathered there were only 2 that tested positive. the article is here: http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/93/27/b/3321/Sweet_Corn_Report_final.pdf Granted this is proof of your assertion that ~some~ GMOs can actually fool people; but these are rare.

            That being said, with 93% of the US population demanding proper labeling and testing, why should Monsanto and Syngenta refuse? After all, people still consume ‘Nutrasweet’ but I doubt they know its a toxic crystal grown in the waste matter of a GMO… gah…even cockroaches won’t touch the stuff…

            Then we get into the ‘legal’ aspects of Monsanto’s ‘intellectual property’ rights. Since when is it right and just to sue someone because you contaminated them? This has been happening for nearly 2 decades. Thousands of US farmers sued because of cross-pollination. Justice would be in making Monsanto fields prevent such from happening, but according to ‘law’ it is currently the responsibility of the non-Monsanto growers, who happen to be in the path of GMO pollen, to prevent.

            There are so many issues that favor these corporations that are simply insane….

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            I don’t understand your rationale for asking me to look up information that you say is true. Please clarify this for me. Again reference to main stream refereed literature is our currency.

            You might be interested in knowing that the ability to legally protect plant material goes back to 1930 and was signed into law by President Hoover. But more importantly, no seed company has ever sued a farmer for accidental pollen or seed contamination.

            I am fine with labeling just as long as people who want it labelled are willing to pay for it. Voluntary labeling works for me even though it implies an intrinsic danger that simply does not exist. But then again, why not just buy organic or GMO-free labeled foods and leave those of us who do not want to pay extra for our food alone?

            In the future, please use your real name.

          • incorrect Larkin. Monsanto has filed better than 1000 suits for intellectual property theft by neighboring farmers; and current regulations are demanding that non GMO farmers are the ones held to prevent cross-pollination.

            Labeling is also called marketing and advertising; and mandatory labeling has been in effect for decades. Labeling in and of itself does NOT imply hazards, it is simply information that consumers are entitled to have. I presume you have seen ingredient lists on products? It would be criminal to conceal the inclusion of peanut products knowing that there are a small portion of the people that are allergic and could die. there are many many ingredients that have been included in food, only to discover later that they pose health risks: MSG, Aspartame, Saccharin… other products found to have detrimental effects after years of use: DDT, Dioxin, Lead…

            And…if GMOs are so safe, wouldn’t advertising their presence be profitable?

            As to you request that I repost links to information already in this thread… my rationale is that you can simply click on any number of posted links here, refereed material, and I won’t be badgered into copy pasting them for your convenience.

            And what exactly makes you believe this isn’t my real name? Not my problem if you haven’t skill enough to find me.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            Actually Myr I follow these saved-seed cases closely, from the Bowman fellow from Sanburn Indiana whose case went to the Supreme Court to the very large Scruggs case in Mississippi. If neighboring farmers are intentionally saving seed for replant to use the patented technology, then they should be sued. Again, there is not a single case of a farmer being sued for accidental contamination. If you think I have erred, please provide the name of the farmer and I will look into it.

            As I mentioned I am fine with voluntary labeling of GMO foods. Hence, I am not sure what your point is. I note that GMO is a process, not a product and all GMO foods are tested for the presence of new allergens, etc.

            Again, please use your real name. I really don’t have time to hunt you down.

          • Farmer Sue

            Larkin, I agree. Why should honest farmers pay premium prices for GE seeds, while our sleazy neighbor is stealing GE seeds by saving them for replanting? That violates contracts with the seed companies. That just hurts all farmers. The infrequent suits, entirely justified, help prevent that.

          • No Larkin….not ‘Saved Seed’ cases. We are discussing Monsanto bringing suit against farmers they contaminate via cross pollination for theft of intellectual property; saved seed would be ‘breach of contract’. And yes Larkin, there are more than 1000 cases filed. And yes, the current regulation has put the mandate on the non GMO farmer to provide protection against being contaminated instead of GMO farmers having to prevent it from happening in the first place. Such a regulation would not exist had the issue not occurred.

            http://www.rt.com/usa/monsanto-patents-sue-farmers-547/

            It also appears that many of the studies that originally support GMO safety have now been retracted:

            http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/03/11/retracted-gmo-studies.aspx

            And the rebuttal condemning Seralini’s work, and the political maneuvering used to have his study removed from “The Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology” Guess the pre publication peer review was too lackadaisical for their new Monsanto bred editor.

            http://www.gmoseralini.org/category/critics-answered/

            I also need to correct you on another point:

            Genetic modification is a process

            Genetically modified organisms are the product.

            And? this is my real name:

            Myrissa Silverleaf

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            I am willing to look into your claim of Monsanto suing farmers, but I need specifics. Please provide names and I will look into it.

            There are many problems with the Seralini study (lab rat used was bred to produce tumors, controls had tumors, small population sizes, no significant differences between the test and control lines) but the biggest issue is lack of predictive power. If what Serelini says is true, farmers’ livestock would be developing tumors at very high rates. After nearly 20 years of animals eating these feeds, there is no evidence for adverse effects on their health.

            Again, I am willing to continue this discussion, but I need specifics.

          • the link I provided has all the specifics you need, including footnotes. Serelini was NOT testing for increased cancer rates, rather the increased toxicity in these test animals; also in the links I provided. The original thread which our current thread is supposed to refute, contains dozens of additional links to studies and results that show GMOs are not proven safe. WHY are you insisting I repost what is already available throughout this thread; refuting the claims of GMO supporters, even though the original studies SUPPORTING GMO safety have been withdrawn? One state, and I can’t recall at the moment which (blame my memory or whatever),and an additional 20 states are or have passed GMO labeling law…. people have the RIGHT to know what is in their food.

            So why have SOME food stuff producers and seed producers spent $27.9 MILLION to prevent it? Coca-cola, Pepsi-co, Monsanto, Dupont, others…. Surely they have already spent more to stop labeling, than it would cost to add three letters to an ingredients list….

            The truth is, the average person doesn’t WANT GMO food replacements. AND the science DOESN’T matter. Remember Beta vs VHS ? Beta was demonstrably superior, but the public chose VHS. GMO hasn’t even been able to demonstrate equality, let alone superiority; at least not yet.

            As I have maintained all along, I am NOT anti-GMO. I believe at some point, with proper testing, GMO could be a solution for the future. I DON’T believe in sneaking it into people’s diets unawares, which is the current situation. I DON’T believe in the laws that license such seeds, even though the laws were passed in the 1930’s… OBVIOUSLY they did not include franken corn in their deliberations.

            And this is just the science side of the equation…. The entire conglomerate approach has forced the smaller local farmers into bankruptcy on a global scale. This entire approach is a death knell to humanity, to diversity, and to the economy, all to feed Monsanto’s obese shareholders. The ‘science’ is secondary to power.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            I am trying to be helpful here. Let’s focus and stick to the task at hand. You stated that there are thousands of cases of Monsanto suing farmers for accidental GMO contamination. I have a particular
            interest in cases in which Monsanto sue farmers and I have fairly detailed records on ~30 such cases. In all of these, the farmer was intentionally saving the technology and using it for financial gain. I asked you for the name of just one of the thousands of cases of a farmer being sued for accidental contamination and said I would be willing to look into it. Just give me one name and I will look. Promise.

            You then introduce the report of Serelini.
            In my last mailing, I pointed out the fatal flaws in these studies. But the big problem is the lack of predictive power. Extrapolation from the work of Serelini et al would say that farm animals eating GMO feeds would be sicker than farm animals not eating GMO feeds. The classic work of Liz Van Eenennaam (Van Eenennaam, A.L., and A.E. Young. 2014. Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock populations. Journal of Animal Science.2014 Oct; 92(10): 4255-78. Epub 2014 Sept 2 doi:10.2527/jas.2014.8124. (Link))
            definitively shows that this is not the case.

            In this response, you now introduce food labeling. I am all for voluntary food labeling. If people want it, let them have it. But they are the ones who should pay for it. I don’t need GMO labels on my food and mandatory labeling will raise the price significantly. I do not want to pay for
            the extra, in my view, unnecessary costs.
            But if you think about it, people who don’t want GMO foods can simply buy organic. They have that option now, so why bother with a bunch of unnecessary legal stuff. But you and I both know that the true catalysis behind this is putting a label on foods that implies an intrinsic danger; a danger that is simply not there.

            Please appreciate that many many people, including those of us in academe, do genetic engineering and provide genes that keep foods prices in this country as low as
            possible, reduce the carbon footprint,the need for pesticides and soil erosion
            and can be used in developing countries to feed people. This is far from being just Monsanto. That is why people everywhere, including this country, need this technology.

          • Farmer Sue

            Myr, 93% is a false number. Look at the overwhelming defeat by voters in the last two elections. You can throw out that old falsehood.

            And “thousands” of US farmers are certainly not sued for any inadvertent cross-contamination. (and, just because you need to know, conventional and GE farmers certainly do NOT want cross-contamination from neighboring organic fields, either.)

            You want to talk about insanity? Insanity is believing the same old hype, over and over, long after you have been shown that this hype is not true.

            If you want to know how farmers farm, what pesticides they use, patents, contamination lawsuits, and the rest of your fantasies, please talk to a farmer. Call your local farm bureau and ask your silly questions. They will laugh till they wet their pants, but they will answer your off-base farming presumptions with accuracy about modern farming.

            To keep coming back here over and over again with the same old misleading crap about farming, without even bothering to talk to farmers, is an insult to hardworking farmers and ranchers all over this country.

          • J. Randall Stewart

            Reconsider your sources. Your information is not only wrong, it is so wrong it is funny,

            Where did you get that this: 20% the nutritional value of conventional corn and iIts also why you won’t see GMO corn on the cob. the crop is so horribly disfigured and gross looking, no one would buy it

            This show an extra level of gullibility and naivety on your part to even consider this. Who told you that?

          • stop being such a Monsanto Shill…. The documentation is out there, and your choice to refute it simply shows your allegiance to big corp.

            Have you not heard? the major supporting studies FOR GMOs have been withdrawn. We all know GMO food replacements are a scam. People don’t want them. period.

          • J. Randall Stewart

            When quoting and emphasizing your words, that is obvious I’m talking about corn nutrition specifically. I have hundreds of nutritional tests, and have been feeding GMO’s to my own cattle for nearly 20 years.

            60,000 dairymen and 9 million dairy cows can’t tell a difference. This past year US dairy’s produced more milk per cow than ever in history. Our milk in this country also tested cleaner by every metric used, and my results are consistent with national trends.

            Please relay your expertise or personal experience.

            You are horribly misinformed when you claim “disfigured” ears and lower nutrition. You are gullible and naive. Again, who told you this stuff? You obviously got it from a prankster or someone else who is horribly misinformed.

          • agscienceliterate

            Tell consumers and farmers that, Myr. “People” are just fine eating GE foods, and have been for 20 years. On the planet Earth, anyway.

            Please do list the studies you refer to that have been “withdrawn.”

          • I’ll wager that being a GMO troll is part of the contract you signed to get a discount on frankencorn. Read the original thread this entire discourse is about.

          • J. Randall Stewart

            I jumped in when you claimed “disfigured” GMO corn and that GMO corn nutritional value is 1/5th of other corn, and that is what I’m asking you about.

            Those statements are ridiculous. Think about it. Why would anyone want it if you’re right, yet GMO is the fastest adopted ag technology ever.

            Again, where did you get the “disfigured” myth? I know where the “stunning corn comparison” comes from.

          • GMO crops…fastest adopted ag tech? Not by the American consumer, 93% of which are demanding proper labeling. Sound technology or not people DON’T want it. Corporations, mass food producers, livestock farmers might; but not the average person in the grocery store.

            Despite any argument you may have for safety or reduced costs, GMO products are not generally considered safe by the populace.

            The information I related is already posted in various places in this thread. People don’t trust franken corn, or rBST, or Glycosphate in their diets. The Golden Rice fiasco and statistics have shown that GMO crops do NOT produce better or safer yields than conventional farming methods; and the rapid growth of some GMO strains, intended to produce more food, have been shown to be extremely deficient in food value.

            Additionally, such prolific use of Glycosphate has been shown to actually destroy beneficial micro-organisms in the fields where GMO crops are grown, thus an additional source of food value reduction.

            In short, people don’t want GMO garbage in their diets. 21 states have alreay drafted mandatory lableling despite the $27 million spent by the food manufactures and seed produces to lobby against it (which would be 4 to 5 times the cost of compliance).

          • J. Randall Stewart

            Nothing you wrote addressed my question.

            Again, you said 20% the nutritional value of conventional corn and iIts also why you won’t see GMO corn on the cob. the crop is so horribly disfigured and gross looking, no one would buy it

            Can you answer a simple question: Where did you get this information?

            I know you are wrong when you make the “deformed” and “nutrition” claims. I know it because I have 30 years of farming experience as an adult, and I raise both GMO and non-GMO crops. We have a dairy where we do nutrition tests for each feed. I have literally hundreds of nutrition tests of all types of feed, including GMO and non-GMO crops.

            The best corn we’ve ever raised is GMO corn. I’ve never sprayed an insecticide on Bt-trait GMO corn. Attached is a picture of a student holding some GMO sweet corn I donated to a local school group. They sold out about 12,000 ears in one afternoon. This corn had never been sprayed with any insecticide. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c7f8ee804e9f738a888b5fd653a906722c2467723729ab9abb0f912d6ed03758.jpg

            Where do you get your information? I’m really interested in reading that “deformed” stuff.

          • so instead of listening and understanding that the links and data are already posted in this thread, and taking the time to do your own homework, you are asking me to do it for you.

            I don’t post maybes or what ifs. If I post it I have found it and read it and the data makes sense to me. SO, I will reiterate; links to the data is already posted in this thread.

            You claim to raise both GMO and Non GMO crops…. Doesn’t that mean you have violated your contracts with Monsanto? You claim to have ‘literally hundreds’ of nutrition tests of ‘all types of feed’. AND you claim that you have never sprayed glycosphate on your crops, which is the sole intent and purpose of a GMO crop… more insecticides. Lets see a good sampling of those test results posted here.

            Then again I have to wonder, do you know the difference between a GMO and a Hybrid? OR have you bought into the lie that the two are synonymous.

          • Farmer Sue

            Farmers raise GE and non-GE all the time. Not in the same field at the same time, duhhhh. And most do it through rotation of both GE and non-GE crops. This does not violate contracts with any seed companies in any way, as long as buffers are maintained, and farmers are not re-using patented seeds (which have been patented since 1930, by the way).

            And GE corn is in no way “grossly disfigured.” Where the heck did you get that nutso idea? And of course people buy it … you think we grow it for fun?

            Why do you think that “spraying” glyphosate on crops is the “sole intent and purpose of a GMO crop” ? It certainly is not. There are many GE traits, and roundup-ready is just one. And what do you mean, “more insecticides”? Glyphosate is a weed pesticide, not an insecticide.

            Where do you get your totally erroneous information? Obviously not from a farmer. Please talk to a farmer before reposting here. Call your local farm bureau and repeat what you have said above. They will wet their pants laffing, but then after that, they will patiently explain GE farming to you.

          • funny that you mention ‘buffers’ which legally are the responsibility of the non GMO farmer. I know, a totally backwards idea. And the entire ‘patented seed’ thing? was intended for hybridization, not infusing unnatural genomes across species.

            NONE of the non glycosphate GMO strains has produced any increase in crop yields. None of the supposed break-throughs have actually done anything more than line the pockets of the collective ‘seed corps’ take Golden Rice as an example. a diet of 27 bowls a day ? get real.

            You keep pushing me to repost the data on disfigured crops not gonna do it, you can find it just as easily as I did. And the primary purpose of GMO crops is to sell more glycosphate. Its poison, call it an herbicide or insecticide or flat out humanicide, its poison; poison we don’t need to add to the world and only adds more profit to Monsanto.

            Still waiting on all those nutritional evaluations you have.

          • Farmer Sue

            Nope. Wrong yet again. It is part of the contract with seed companies that GE farmers have their own buffers, or insect refuges. Where do you get your misinformation

            Of course there are crop yield increases! Do you think farmers pay more for GE seeds, just because they’re stupid? In my area, GE sugar beet growers get a 40% higher yield. Talk to a farmer.

            Disfigured crops? Nope, there are none. You claim it; you prove it.

            Nope, purpose is not to sell more glyphosate. As I said, there are many GE traits, and not just RR. Did you not read what I said

            You are ignorant, and arrogant as well. Talk to a farmer. Talk to your local farmer’s union. Get off your urban yuppie ignorant high horse and learn something about the food we produce for you. You act like an entitled spoiled brat.

          • J. Randall Stewart

            You are misinformed. I can usually track down the misinformation, but that “GMO is disfigured” one I don’t know where that comes from. Did you make that up, or did you hear that somewhere?

            Doesn’t that mean you have violated your contracts with Monsanto?

            No, it does not. You are again misinformed.

            I have never claimed to “have never sprayed glycosphate on your crops,” I spray glyphosate on my RR-trait crops. Glyphosate is not an insecticide, it is a herbicide. I have never sprayed an insecticide on a Bt-trait crop.

            do you know the difference between a GMO and a Hybrid

            Yes, I do.

            I’m attaching a sample for silage corn and alfalfa harvested as haylage.

            Again, for the third time, where did you get the “GMO is deformed” information? Did you make that up, or where did you read that?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cef7eb4a296b4b61f01b7a34c72ae9fce16a497294512ce9484228e73fc6b688.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/77eaa7d94c601fd81741bdbca34f34f911cc3b90e0105764739e7e0258a43cd3.jpg

          • J. Randall Stewart

            Did you ever remember how you came up with the ‘deformed’ accusation. That was really strange, and you are mistaken.

          • Farmer Sue

            I know! Hahahahha! Deformed corn! Deformed by corn borer infestation, maybe.
            Wait, that’s an organic corn problem. Hahahaha!
            Poor little Myr is a
            Very.
            Slow.
            Learner.

          • Farmer Sue

            Myr, once again, you are wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
            Many farmers grow GE, conventional, AND organic. Sometimes at the same times in different fields. Sometimes in rotation.
            Of course this doesn’t “violate” contracts with Monsanto (or any other seed company, and there are many) as long as insect refuges and buffers are maintained correctly by the GE farmer, and the farmer does not violate patent provisions. And patents have been around since 1930. That’s 85 years.
            Wait, I’ve told you all of this before.
            You are a
            Very.
            Slow.
            Learner.

          • Farmer Sue

            I love GE sweet corn! None of the mycotoxins left behind from the corn borer, which can cause significant neurological effects if eaten.

          • Farmer Sue

            And people have almost unanimously voted against labeling. Labeling got squashed in the last 2 elections in several states.

          • really? then why does Vermont have labeling laws ..without the need for any other ‘trigger’ to go into effect, and 20 other states that are planning to have labeling laws on the ballot soon?

            93% of Americans don’t want GMOs in their diet. You stay with Monsanto and you will wind up losing your lands to Monsanto. This is what they want. Why would food producers and seed producers want to hide GMOs in the grocery market? Why would they spend $27 million to stop labeling (roughly 3 times what compliance would cost). Are you that naive? Are you willing to wager everything you have worked for to benefit Monsanto?

          • Farmer Sue

            I am not directing this answer to Myr, as she has repeatedly shown she does not care what farmers or scientists say, and ignores all evidence that does not fit her narrow preconceptions.

            However, for other readers interested in the answers to the questions posed above:

            1) Vermont’s legislature, not voters, approved the labeling provision (which is being appealed for violation of compelled-speech prohibitions and other reasons).
            2) 93% is a figure from a push-poll, ostensibly representing those who wanted labeling (not at all having to do with “gmos in their diet”. That 93% figure is incorrect. The last two ballot initiatives on labeling, in Oregon and Colorado, failed to get voter approval, and did not pass, showing that 93% figure to be a sham.
            3) Irrelevant question. Farmers buy seeds from many different companies.

          • Farmer Sue

            If you don’t want garbage in your diet, stay out of Chipotle’s,

          • thanks for the heads up…also have to avoid all pepsico and coca cola products, any meat or dairy from livestock that has been fed GMO grains, any farmer who uses rBST, Aspartame (which is a crystal grown in the fecal mass of a gmo, that even cockroaches won’t touch) and many more….don’t feed your infants ANY soy products….etc etc…..

          • Farmer Sue

            You have been reading Food Boob. Your attributions are word for word Fake Boob.

            Your sentence about aspertame being “grown in the fecal mass of a gmo” is so Fewd Boob. “Fecal mass” of what, specifically? Genetic engineering is a process, not a “thing” that poops fecal mass for crystals to grow in. Don’t be as ignorant as False Boob. You can learn. She can’t – her income depends on feeding you garbage like that, for “only $17.99 a month!!!”

            Your quoting Fool Braud says it all. Who you read indicates your belief system, and yours is waaaaaay off base.

          • Farmer Sue

            Myr, you shouldn’t believe any old thing you read on the internet. Including Fewd Boob.
            Here is info about this misinformation you’ve been giving, and are spewing out here:
            By: Cathleen Enright, Former Executive Director of the Council for Biotechnology Information on Thursday, 10/10/2013 5:00 pm
            I’ve seen this false assertion all over the internet. Louis Pasteur must be turning over in his grave! Bacteria do not produce feces as we know it. They do excrete by-products of their metabolism such as carbon dioxide, however, I believe at the heart of your question is the use of bacteria or other microorganisms to produce food ingredients, including aspartame.

            It would be hard for us to find much to eat without microorganisms. Bacteria, fungi and algae—all have been used in food production for a long time, even before humans knew why their role was so critical. They are used to make hundreds of the foods we eat, including bread, yogurt, wine, beer, cheese, vinegar, meats, chocolate, coffee, tea, tofu, ice cream, mayo, fish, sausage, pickles, olives, butter, juices, some vitamins and other supplements, and many, many more.

            The roles of these microorganisms in food production are varied. They can be used to improve nutritional value (some essential nutrients added to breakfast cereal are produced by bacteria), for fermentation (beer is brewed with yeast and/or bacteria), to add taste or flavors (ice cream, margarine, jelly; this is also yeast’s role in bread making in addition to leavening and gluten production), to thicken, emulsify or stabilize food (e.g., bread, chewing gum, soft drinks, peanut butter, cakes, frozen desserts, sauces, mayo, even toothpaste, although I haven’t eaten that in a long time). These microorganisms can be GM or non GM.

            In the manufacture of some foods, whole microorganisms are used. In others, the food can contain purified products made by microorganisms. The latter is the case in the cereal example above, and for enzymes, colors, flavors, and sweeteners including aspartame. Again, these microorganisms can be GM or non GM. The precursor to aspartame is produced by bacteria, isolated, purified, and chemically combined. The final product (aspartame) is subject to further purification. Whether the manufacturer uses GM or non GM bacteria to make aspartame, or any other food ingredient, no trace of the bacteria is present in the final product. A good description of the aspartame production process can be found at http://www.madehow.com.

            It’s important to note that the process of exploiting bacteria’s metabolic capabilities to produce the products we want is not limited to the production of foods. Pharmaceuticals we use every day—vaccines human insulin, human growth hormone, antibiotics, certain anti-cancer drugs and more—are made in a similar fashion, largely from GM microorganisms. Microorganisms are also used in many other sectors, including forestry, textiles, cosmetics, energy, pulp and paper, mining and waste treatment.

          • no problem with the role normal micro organisms play in food. We’d not be able to digest our own food without the help of flora in our gut.

            However, even as we humans don’t completely digest what we eat, neither do they. How many recently discovered pathogens are spread in such waste matter?

            It really doesn’t matter what you want to call DIGESTIVE WASTE products, after all BEER is a product of yeast digesting grain and sugars, and cheese is milk after bacteria digest it. It is the engineered organism that is the issue.

            The point is, we are being led to believe that a toxic crystal grown in the waste of a GMO is ‘safe’ when several studies have shown correlation to increased incidence of maladies such as diabetes, disruption of human intestinal flora, and others. And without doubt, Aspartame is a GMO product. How long did it take and how many lives were cut short before we figured out that Saccharin was carcinogenic? Shall we repeat history?

            Pull your cranium out of your rectum, wake up and smell the coffee, or what ever other idiom you understand to get your mind right, do it, before you lose what you struggle so hard to build.

          • Farmer Sue

            What does that mean? Are you slamming farmers who choose to buy (and pay more for) GE seeds? Are you so insulting of hardworking farmers and ranchers all over the country? We feed your family, and you throw out troll insults? You are an insult to all farmers.

          • actually? yes. I am slamming farmers who buy into big agro. Am I insulting farmers who produce our food? absolutely not. Feeding big agro is the problem. If GE seeds cost more? THEN STOP USING THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE LYING TO YOU.

            Truth is, people don’t want franken corn on their tables, nor in the feed of the animals used for food. The current science doesn’t mean anything. People don’t want stuff surreptitiously hidden in their diets, and GMO is being force fed to the people who don’t want it. Stop supporting unproven tech by feeding your livestock what people don’t want.

            Is that too difficult an idea for you?

          • Farmer Sue

            Nope. You are wrong yet again. You never tire of your old, erroneous ideas, do you?
            Many livestock farmers buy GE corn. Suck it up if you don’t like it. Buy organic or non-gmo. You have choices, unless you are a whiney little girl who has to have people tell her what to do.
            Franken corn? You are so 1990, girl.
            Science doesn’t mean anything? Really? You definitely are on the wrong site. Perhaps Food Babe would welcome you. Science doesn’t mean anything to her, either.
            GMO being force fed to the people who don’t want it? What, you don’t have a choice and are being forced? Grow up.
            We’re done here, girlie. Your idiocy is too much to continue to read.

          • Peter Olins

            Randall, Myr frequently posts bizarre claims, but I have never seen her support them with evidence. While it’s tempting to respond to them, I fear it only encourages her. Normally, I try to steer away from ad hominem remarks, but in this case, my suggestion is to let her bubble of absurdity burst on its own.

          • Farmer Sue

            I think you’re right, Peter. She has a mind so locked up in misconceptions and errors, she will never change, and she will never even look at evidence. I’ll join you in letting her spoiled little ego bubble of absurdity burst on its own, as you suggest. This chick isn’t gonna learn anything, and isn’t interested in learning anything. A ditz.

          • hyperzombie

            You are just itching, to call her out?

          • J. Randall Stewart

            I think the probability of this being someone just having a fun trying to get a rise is the most likely.

            I view it as a time to share simple facts. If Myr is who she claims, I’ll never influence her, but someone else may have questions answered.

          • Peter Olins

            Agreed. This is the reason that I, also, continue to respond to Internet wackos who have no interest in learning. To me, the conflict is between sharing a potentially useful perspective versus giving the wackos a platform to spread woo. Probably there is no right answer. Perhaps the best approach is to respond to outrageous claims with actual information, while removing the oxygen from folks who simply sling insults and one-liners by ignoring them.

            Personally, I have learnt a lot from your comments on different threads, so keep them coming!

          • agscienceliterate

            Randall and Peter, I agree with you both, and am wondering whether a less direct approach as you suggest, might serve better. Perhaps ignore the activists, since many of them don’t change their tune and keep saying the same old erroneous things over and over again no matter how much evidence is presented. And then instead, respond directly to readers with facts that correct the errors, rather than responding to those who really don’t care about science and accuracy.
            I may try this, to avoid the irritation factor that makes me want to bang my head against a bookcase of science texts, which doesn’t serve my head, my bookcase, or readers here who can recognize hype when they see it, and who are interested in logical responses to some of these absurd and undocumented claims.

          • agscienceliterate

            Really? Here is just one seed company (Not Monsanto, which makes you shake with fear, I know) that sells GE sweet corn.

            http://www.ruppseeds.com/#!rrsweetcorn/c14v1

            Disfigured? Hardly.

            Your allegation? Utterly baseless.

          • Farmer Sue

            Do you really think farmers would grow GE corn for livestock, if it had “only 20% the nutritional value of conventional corn”? Who has lied to you about that? And why do you come here and spew such nonsense? Every point in your post is absolutely false. Talk to a farmer if you want to learn something about farming. Otherwise, your idiocy glares through and shows that your brain is closed up tighter than a hog’s ass at fly time.

          • Hi Sue,

            Yes, I do believe farmers would grasp at promises unfulfilled to feed their live stock. Most GMO crops have far too short a lifespan to achieve full nutritional valuse. I did not say ‘ALL’ Gmo corn is this deficient, but much of it falls short of even conventional standards.

            Built in pesticides, glycosphate tolerances…faster yields….. Sounds like fairy tales. Human testing non-existant…nothing longer than a 90 day rat trial? ALL GMO supporting documents retracted?

            Prove anything I have posted is a lie.
            ANY farmer who buys into the lies of the seed corps concerning GMO crops deserves to have their lands taken, which will be the result. Mandatory labeling is coming….do you want to owe Monsanto for something people don’t want?

          • AllViews

            I will tell you this: the problem with a lot of arguments about “GMOs” is that GMOs are varied. Some GMOs cause bad side effects, and some don’t. The ones that do are never sold, obviously, because that would be a waste of money. The ones that don’t cause side effects are sold, and you can eat them.
            I hope this doesn’t seem biased.

          • Excuse My Ignorance

            Everyone is entitled to opinions. Just like you just stated your opinions. You clearly don’t “understand” the anti gmo side. Take walk in their shoes for a while. Read some books and come back. We were never ready for gmos and we still aren’t. Time to wind the clock backwards and do it right.

          • Daniel Mosco

            Crissy Dobson gave a humbling answer as a scientist and is entitled to her opinion. Although correlation doesn’t imply causation and natural products also have their fair share of side effects, many people I know feel healthier when treating their ailment with an herb rather than a pharmaceutical. So for GMO each to his own. Both sides are trying to make money and will fight science with science and do whatever possible to influence and confuse the masses.

            lf To answer your question to Kayellebee, a logical person should be confused and question everything. An intellectual should never take something at face value. Quantity does not equal quality and scientific studies are no exception.

            If you don’t believe me you should read this: According to Stanford University professor Dr. John Ioannidis we know that about $200 billion — or the equivalent of 85 percent of global spending on research — is routinely wasted on poorly designed and redundant studies. We know that as much as 30 percent of the most influential original medical research papers later turn out to be wrong or exaggerated. We also know that a lot of medical evidence is contradictory and unreliable, such as those studies that purport to show that just about every food we eat either causes or prevents cancer. http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

            If you think peer reviewed makes a difference think again. According to Dr. Richard Smith “we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.”
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

          • Most of the human population do not think logically (they think emotionally) and even worst they don’t understand science. Most of the human population relate better to sensationalism that address their fears. The GMO debate simple comes down to understanding the science or not. Those of us that are science literate understand the 2000 studies demonstrating the safety of GMO, those that don’t understand the science relate to the 10 studies that claim GMO’s are unsafe – but sensationalize it better then the real science. We all love a good drama. It should also be noted that many of the studies claiming GMO’s are unsafe are published in Pay for Play Journals (they will publish almost anything for the right price). But the general public knows nothing of these types of Journals. If the research was so poor it couldn’t get published in a reputable Journal they turn to these low quality journals or they go to non-peer review.

          • IF? Even Monsanto admits that there have been NO human trials of the effects of GMOS. NONE NADA ZILCH ZIP ZERO…. clear enough? there is NO evidence of the ‘safety’ of GMOs in our diets.

            Funny thing is? I’m NOT anti-GMO, I believe that there could be huge benefits over time, but we aren’t there yet. TEST TEST TEST! or you could be the one to find out they missed something…

          • lf

            GMO isn’t a medication or a new compound if you understood what a GMO is you’d realize that it sounds so silly , GM foods are tested for all known allergens and other specific various combinations
            it is totally unnecessary testing on humans something that is already known to be harmless and compatible .. they do not introduce new unknown DNA into food in fact in many cases they simply turn existing genes on or off.. it’s DNA and DNA is in all living organisms

          • lf

            we aren’t there yet ?? LOL oh yes we are we’ve been modifying genes in agriculture for thousands of years

          • Terry Hill

            But Myr, there is also NO evidence of ‘HARM’ from GMOs. NONE NADA ZILCH ZIP ZERO from over 2000 studies on everything from pigs to chickens, in vitro and in vivo, and environmental impact (on soils, plants, animals).

            Your ‘keep testing’ hypothesis is null. How much would ever be enough for you?

            And on that track, has ANYTHING EVER been proven safe? Absence of harm is the best science, and humanity, can hope for. So, what the studies have shown, overwhelmingly – and these have been conducted by independent universities, government agencies, medical and food research laboratories around the world (not just in the US), mostly without corporate (bio-ag corporate) money – and have found what is known as ‘substantial equivalence’.

            What that means in lay-men’s terms, is that for all intents and purposes, from every test standpoint, the GM version is identical to the non-GM plant (nutrition, digestion, metabolisation, environmental impact).

            Can you see that? GM foods are THE MOST TESTED FOOD ON THE PLANET. No other foods have ever been tested as much. And we eat foods now that are far more dangerous to our health.

            Did you know that there are over 76 million cases of food poisoning, and 5000 deaths from food poisoning in the US every year (According to CDC research)?

            And not ONE was related to GMOs.

          • hyperzombie

            “has ANYTHING EVER been proven safe?”

            I used to think bedsheets were safe, till I read the mortality stats. 350 people die per year in NA getting tangled in bedsheets, scary… And 250 people die from falling out of bed (most likely trying to escape the killer bedsheets). When is this Madness going to stop! Ban all bedding and beds!

          • Monsanto itself has stated that there have NEVER been ANY human trials. And yes, the rat study that was retracted? was REPUBLISHED showing tumor growth in lab animals fed GMOs. The reason for the initial retraction was not ‘invalid studies’ but an assertion of ‘inconclusivity’ and a payout.

            How long did it take to determine the link between saccharin and cancer? That would be long enough.

            As to your impressive stat concerning food poisoning? irrelevant since most direct food poisoning is due to improper preparation or storage. How many cancer cases have occurred in people that eat GMO food in the USA? 100% just as irrelevant since there are many carcinogens out there.

            How many cases of diabetes have developed due to consumption of aspartame? How many people suffer from an imbalance of their gut flora due to the toxins included in a daily diet? The answer is…there has not yet been enough testing.

            The general public overwhelmingly demands proper labeling of GMO products (93%). DO IT.

          • Terry Hill

            Myr – please read Number 4 in the article above. The ‘journal’ Seralini re-published in is NOT peer reviewed for content, and is a ‘pay to play’ – like a paid infomercial, it accepts any article if you pay for it. No scientific journal of any credibility would accept it. No, literally hundreds of independent university professors and scientists with ZERO affiliation to any AgriChemical company attacked the study for it’s sloppiness and that it was designed purely to deliver a pre-determined outcome.

            If you have the slightest CLUE about science, you can see it for yourself. Go to the study and look at the raw data – now on Seralini’s site. The most basic understanding of statistical data actually shows a HIGHER mortality rate in non-GMO fed rats over the course of the study. Is it any wonder that one of the main points raised by scientists was that no statistical analysis of mortality was done? If rats die sooner, they have less chance of developing tumours (as this species of rat ALWAYS develops tumours – that’s why their bred!).

            I put your own ridiculous assertion back to you:
            How many cancer cases have occurred in people that eat GMO food in the USA? 100% just as irrelevant since there are many carcinogens out there. – EXACTLY.

            “How many cases of diabetes have developed due to consumption of aspartame?” – NONE. “How many people suffer from an imbalance of their gut flora due to the toxins included in a daily diet?” – NONE. The answer is…there has not yet been enough testing.

            How much testing will be enough? GMOs are the most studied foods on the planet. You are more likely to die (hence my point about food poisoning) from a THOUSAND other sources… but you’re attacking a technology because you choose to remain ignorant of science. Oooh, scary GMO!

            “The general public overwhelmingly demands proper labeling of GMO products (93%). DO IT.” – so overwhelming public ignorance becomes a reason to legislate? (Oh, and it’s actually closer to 80% in the US, but much less in better educated nations)

        • Kayellebee, read my post below to get a better understanding of the GMO debate. The fact that you understand you don’t understand the science puts you one step closer to understanding the science. There really is no debate for those that understand the science. Good luck.

        • oliiviaxxo

          I respect you a lot. Truly. You are admitting to being scientifically illiterate, yet are open to suggestions in your underlying issues with GMOs. Good for you! Learn away!

      • smithmm

        Crissy doesn’t know what she is talking about. She must be a shill, not a researcher, afraid and ignorant of modern molecular biology, basic metabolism and gene therapy.

        • Excuse My Ignorance

          Crissy Dobson has a really good point. Clearly, you don’t understand what she is talking about. You have to communicate to both sides and put the puzzle pieces together to truly understand her and many other anti GMOers

          • smithmm

            No, she doesn’t have a good point. She is ignorant of the science of GMO food products and gene therapy, as well. I was a molecular biologist working in gene therapy and the researchers know exactly what works and what does not and why.

          • Excuse My Ignorance

            This statement means nothing. So how do you guys test in vivo on human studies per gmo?

          • Solutions not judgements

            I’ll answer my own question… “Simulated gastric fluid” and a “degrading time” also known as the michaelis – menten rate law… Please correct me or feel free to rebutted if what I say lacks information which is more than likely. I’ll be back

          • boogy bear

            You’re a sheep, how can you call someone who discredits something ignorant lol? There are proven studied that people who stopped eating gmo’s lost weight after switching to a fully organic meal plan. I hope you enjoy the glyphosate in your blood and new born child. Yes there was a study that proved to find glyphosate in a new born and in a mothers breast milk. Its a poison not a vitamin

          • smithmm

            Nothing was discredited. What does glyphosate, an herbicide, have to do with anything related to GMOs or dieting? You are conflating disparate topics. Another nutjob. . .

          • Bear Jay

            First, your study finding glyphosate in an infant and breast milk was sponsored by organic backed groups was not peer reviewed and has several obvious flaws in the data. Second, your claim of “loosing weight after switching to a fully organic meal plan” is meaningless. As a farmer I am not anti organic. If you wish to pay the premium that is fine. I question why people that push for an organic diet feel that conventional farms that feed the majority of the world cannot co-exist with organic. As for loss of weight? that also happens with lack of nutrition or trace minerals and your body begins breaking down muscle mass. Loss of weight also can happen from eating a more balanced diet. Organic or conventional! If you are going to make the effort to buy only organic you are more likely to also eat differently. Furthermore I have read the peer reviewed facts about glyphosate and know that even if you used it as a salad dressing (not suggested) the worst it would do was “intestinal irritation” while they have not paid people to study its effects people have inadvertently and intentionally consumed large amounts of concentrate and few have died. Those that died were not from toxicity but it is extremely acidic Even the cases that tried committing suicide and did not die had almost immeasurable levels in their system after 72 hours. (the moral is if you want to kill yourself , do not use glyphosate, drink organic vinegar instead)

      • Excuse My Ignorance

        My big question right now is… If it’s bad for bugs, how could I not assume it’s not bad for me? Especially when they have standards such as LD 50. How the heck do they truly determine a LD when we don’t even have the technology to even know the truth…..?

        • I Wont Excuse Laziness

          Please read the article before commenting…

          This is mentioned in the article with a specific example that chocolate is toxic to dogs, but not humans.

          If you don’t understand WHY things are toxic for some living creatures but not others, take the time to research it. Don’t just ask someone in a comment section. Are you serious?

          • Excuse My Ignorance

            We don’t test in vivo for humans…. Thanks for the attempt to give advice. I’ve read enough articles to know why… Thanks again…. None of it makes complete sense. Take care now. Don’t assume. Cause you know what that does

          • boogy bear

            Lol have you realized that Monsanto literally pay people to go out and support gmo’s and to discredit anything that has something to do with gmo’s being harmful… You’re all sheep honestly… So if you go and eat round up in a larger quantity and it unhealthy why would a little bit not be harmful? the answer it is, regardless if its a deathly amount or a withstand-able amount. There’s still a negative reaction with the body. But honestly i’m probably responding to someone being paid off anyways but i thought i’d put my two cents out there.

          • Jeff Petersen

            Rather like water… or salt… or any number of perfectly natural substances? We shouldn’t consume any amount of them because a gross amount is lethal?

            I’m not a big fan of consuming Roundup, but your argument is empty.

          • Peter Olins

            You make an interesting claim, b b, “…have you realized that Monsanto literally pay people to go out and support gmo’s and to discredit anything that has something to do with gmo’s being harmful…“. Do you have any evidence, or are you just making it up? Please prove me wrong, but I bet you won’t respond.

            BTW I would expect more for “two cents”.

          • atheistlibertariancriminalassh

            i will gladly shill for their side (or yours) for a living wage. i don’t think it’s really a job. if it is could use the money. just sayin…

      • dfgsdgdgsdf

        Nonsense

        “Biochemical Researcher”?

        LMAO

        You copy/paste the same bu&%&& all over the internet. Learn how to hide your comment history before shilling.

        We have used far worse/uncontrrolled methods for genetic modification (yes organic farmers use chemical and nuclear mutagenesis) for decades now. Not a single case of harm for any consumer.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding

        “Somewhat controversially,[19] several organic food and seed companies promote and sell certified organic products that were developed using both chemical and nuclear mutagenesis. Several certified organic brands, whose companies support strict labeling or outright bans on GMO-crops, market their use of branded wheat and other varietal strains which were derived from mutagenic processes without any reference to this genetic manipulation. These organic products range from mutagenic barley and wheat ingredient used in organic beers[20] to mutagenic varieties of grapefruits sold directly to consumers as organic.[21]”

      • RealityBites

        As a scientist, you should already understand that the only things seen as fundamental truths are called laws and very few exist. Otherwise everything else fits into a spectrum between true and false depending on the varying degrees of evidence provided. We choose to trust things that have a higher likelihood of being known as true. This keeps us from being indecisive and stunting progress in society. I find it very amusing that people who would get into a vehicle, which is proven to be a likely factor of harm, would protest GMOs which have enough current evidence to support their safety in consumption.

      • Pogo333

        If as a scientist you know that scientists are ignorant of their own ignorance, then how do you know, as a self-proclaimed scientist, that what you just claimed about ignorance is an informed statement, since you are among that group that is unaware of its ignorance? Talk about a logical conundrum! Or are you among the enlightened few who can see the ignorance in others without succumbing yourself?

        I agree that science changes, but the vast majority of scientists I know and work with are keenly aware of the gaps in their knowledge and that in 100 years much will likely change as new tools and knowledge emerge. However, much of science is not subsequently “disproved”, but rather built upon and amended with new knowledge. Some of our explanations may be incorrect, but the underlying data, if gathered correctly, remain valid. You may want to read some good history of science books to learn more about the process of scientific growth.

      • SCIENCE LIES….that’s a bottom line you cannot get away from. Due diligence researching subjects like illegal human experimentation, dangerous pharmaceuticals, DDT, Asbestos, PCBs, and other highly toxic substances the American and world public was told is “safe.” Bill Gates funds HUGE vaccine programs, administering live plague shots to millions. But the science isn’t there to back up what’s being injected. Doctors and nurses at vaccine centers were being murdered because the Gardisil shot disabled or killed over 40,000 teen girls in India. The parents defense for these heinous crimes: “They’re trying to murder our children.

        Doctors lie all the time. Obama assigned an attorney from Monsanto (the GMO company) to head up the FDA. HOW IS THAT LEGAL? How will the American people get legitimate, unbiased representation for what is good food and what is not? Then worse still, they allow Monsanto to run it’s own studies; of course they always declare their products as ‘safe.’ But would the courts have allowed Al Capone to preside over his own trial?

        This site is an abomination to genetic truth: basic rules of genetics are simple…if you want to mutate the DNA of one mammal you must COMBINE a virus WITH DNA to penetrate the host’s DNA. Which is exactly what GMO foods are. The re-combine the DNA of say a fish, with BT toxin (lab created bacteria), then splice that into corn DNA and throw in a little Round-up. The foods created ARE NOT RECOGNIZED BY YOUR DNA.

        Your DNA has been programmed over thousands of years via every one of your ancestors to all the DNA on the planet. So when you eat mutated DNA of say an orange YOUR DNA WON’T RECOGNIZE IT, and that’s when the rejection starts. These are facts these genetic sites NEVER mention.

        So while articles and studies have you running in circles arguing the validity, you’re completely missing the REAL information. While you’re looking left Monsanto is hitting right and getting lobbyists, politicians and presidents backing their every move BECAUSE THEY’RE BEING PAID OFF. But you’re not. The only payouts you’ll make are to hospitals and doctors when your immune system breaks down due to DNA mutation/damage you’re receiving from these “safe” foods.

        Look up the work of Arpad Pusztai. He was paid to research this information and went public with the results. What he discovered is nothing short of devastating. He lost his job, his home, his career, and they tried to imprison and kill him. Please read his work, look at the pictures of the lab animals that ate these foods; riddled with cysts, tumors, gastric necrosis, and STERILITY (after 3 generations). Then if you still think they’re safe, have at it. Less toxic food for the rest of us to worry about.

        EAT ORGANIC…and keep your health. Here are some pics from a 1993 Department of Health memorandum regarding results from GMO ‘flavor saver’ tomatoes. Refute that–

      • A Tufts University study, totally, agrees with your thinking:

        Half of the Studies Find Cause For Concern … The Other Half Are Studies By the GMO Food Industry itself.

        Tufts University’s Director of the Research and Policy Program at the Global Development and Environment
        Institute (Timothy Wise): There is no … consensus on the safety of GM food. A peer-reviewed study of the research, from peer-reviewed journals, found that
        about half of the animal-feeding studies conducted in recent years found cause for concern. The other half didn’t, and as the researchers noted, “most of
        these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible of commercializing these GM plants.”

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21296423

        Also: view pictures of lab animals fed GM-corn (developing tumors, organ malfunctions) at
        http://www.DrHans.org

        • Peter Olins

          Tufts?

          Laboratory of Toxicology and Environmental Health, School of Medicine, IISPV, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Sant Llorenç 21, 43201 Reus, Catalonia, Spain

          Table 1 of the reference you cited shows a series of results, typically starting with phrases such as: “No adverse effects…”
          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21296423

          This paper is well worth reading (especially if you are going to cite it, Hans). The text you quoted was taken from the website “nakedcapitalism”, not a peer-reviewed journal.

          • Come on Peter! So clearly distorting facts to defend your beloved GMOs?????
            Quoted:

            !) Clearly Tufts University: who cares who quotes it? It’s still Tufts U!!!

            2) CLEARLY, again, Norway Governm. study.
            Sustainability Assessment of Genetically
            Modified Herbicide Tolerant Crops The
            Case of IntactaTM Roundup Ready TM 2Pro Soybean Farminging Brazil in light
            of the Norwegian Gene Technology
            Act . Author:Georgina Catacora Vargas,
            GenØk Centre for Biosafety
            This report was commissioned by the
            Norwegian Environment Agency GenØk Centre for Biosafety, Forskningsparken
            i Breivika, Postboks 6418, 9294
            Tromsø, NoNorway.

            THE PROBLEM THAT I HAVE WITH GMO SUPPORTERS IS THAT – – – THE REPORT IS SO CLEARLY, DEMONSTRATING GMO RISKS – – NONE OF THE GMO LOVERS DARED TO REALLY READ IT AND COMMENT.

            Maybe finding a comma in the wrong place would justify denying its, clearly demonstrated, value as scientific paper????

            The reasons – – often quoted for denying a GMO-rtisk-demonstrating paper, coming from the GMO lovers – – are jokes in themselves.
            Don’t you think people see that?

            At first – – because of the possibility of making Embryonic-type SCs via genetic modification (Hayakawa, Nobel Laureate) – – I was quite open-minded to GM foods, but the (almost hysterical) efforts by the GMO industry (denying me to simply know WHAT is in my foods) made me suspicious and taking a closer look opened my eyes.

      • We need experiments and unbiased studies to determine if GMOs are actually safe.

        Usually what happens is that any research showing negative things about GMOs is heavily attacked, criticized, or thrown out.

        Looks like corporations are out to attack any research showing negative things about GMOs.

        The type of criticisms on this article of the anti-GMO studies can be said about almost any study.

        Have any of you ever read anything in peer-reviewed journals?

      • Jim

        A consistent pattern with new technologies is that the initial safety testing is grossly inadequate because the nature of the tests are based on PAST technologies and not properly adapted for the new technology. With both Xrays and microwaves the model used was a non living model of heat absoption. And every shoe store had an Xray machine that you could stand on and see the bones in your feet withing the outline of the shoe (while the huge amount of radiation (from the early technology) shot straight up directly into the genetic material of all the kiddies who stayed on the machine playing around far longer than the intended use. (The mind boggles). And it’s been pretty much the same with all new technologies. Nuclear releases (what gets discussed in the media) is mainly about RADIATION released ( which conveniently drops as the square of the distance and lasts only a short time) and, to a much lesser degree discusses the radiation released from radioactive particles that are deposited locally (which conveniently mostly won’t penetrate clothing anyway, is confined to local hotspots and relatively easy to clean up. BUt they ignore the question of radioactive GASES released which can travel thousands of miles by which point their concentration is far less due to dispersal BUT WHICH ARE THEN RECONCENTRATED BY THE FOOD CHAIN.

        And exactly the same thing is going on with Genetically Modified Organisms. They completely ignore that it’s inevitable that the genes will escape into the environment into wild species and other related crop species as well (contaminating organic and heirloom varieties with all the rest). AND, THERE IS NO POSSIBLITY OF EVER “RECALLING” OR CLEANING UP THE RELEASES>

        And the potentially very powerful and extensively disruptive environmental effects of having genes transferred into species totally unrelated to the species they were taken from (because the species they came from can be totally different from the crop species into which they were originally inserted) and not being tested or even considered in any way whatsoever. The problem there is that we really know nothing in this area and clearly the GMO industry strongly prefers to not know and with the laws against labeling INSISTS on NOT knowing should any problems arise.

        Even people who don’t know much of the science at all, know enough to realize that there is something astonishingly wrong with this and that there is a clear wanton disregard for critical safety issues.

        It does not take much intelligence to realize that if the same person that is assuring you that something is safe also is insisting that there BE NO RECORD of where and when it was done, there is a very serious problem.

      • Rena Baker-Bowie

        Well said chrissy

      • Nerdsamwich

        The largest animal feeding study ever done, spanning close to ten generations of farm animals eating over a trillion meals, 90% of which contained at least mostly biotech ingredients, showed no long-term effects. Do you still think there’s not enough data?

      • Kevin Sheets

        Very well thought out response. Only time will tell and noting how complicated this issue is are right to the point. You can get some “scientists” to find just about anything that you pay them to find. Only very long term studies can separate the wheat from the chaff.

      • Damo

        You are no scientist, who are you fooling.

      • Ctaj

        As a biochemical researcher, you’re probably in a position to buy all the food you need. GMOs have made it possible for more people to have food who are not in your position to be picky. As the old adage goes, the perfect is the enemy of the good. How many people should we allow to starve before we achieve the perfect?

    • Joe Campbell

      Time reveals TIME! Hybrid plants such as broccoli have been around for over 2000 years! They have been proven to be healthy. Hybrids are still completely organic. Your pathetic GMO’s are but 20 years in the making and are mutated. Look at the countless cases of digestive disorders, cancers, the list goes on and on…..The number is staggering. Where is your Science now smart guy? The health issues surrounding GMO’s are staggering! The amount of digestive disorders are skyrocketing. These high cancer rates were unheard of 20 years ago. You truly are what you eat. I’m sticking with organic. The rest that support GMO’s you can be the lab rats. Take your GMO’s and gimme a big smile while your chewing them. Tell me how your kids turn out. By the way, if GMO’s are so safe in all your glorious scientific knowledge then why not label them? In addition, why have 60 other countries across the globe banned GMO’s? If you’re so intelligent then answer me how the human body will react to this constant abuse 30 years from now. That’s right you can’t that’s because science can’t speed up time to find out the answer and I’m not going to be that lab rat pal. We’ve all decided that you will be that lab rat. If you support it than YOU eat it. Tell me how that works out for ya big guy.

      • BioChicaGMO

        1) “Hybrid plants such as broccoli have been around for 2K years”. What about the pluot? Or broccoflowers? Or those orange cauliflowers? What about the ruby red grapefruit, which is under the USDA-Organic label, but is a product of mutagenesis?
        2) “I’m sticking with organic”. That’s your right and if that’s what you’re comfortable doing, go right ahead. The Organic label already excludes all GMOs, so why do you need another label?
        3) “If GMOs are so safe… then why not label them”. Because labels convey risk, and there are plenty of studies that have shown consumer risk perception relative to labels. Labels also add cost to the food chain, which I don’t want to pay for just because you want an unnecessary label.
        4) “60 other countries across the globe have banned GMOs”. No. Most countries have regulations in place surrounding GMOs. Even countries that do not grow GMOs allow them to be imported. There is only one country that has a ban on GMOs: Kenya. http://gmoanswers.com/ask/why-are-gmos-banned-so-many-countries
        5) “How will the human body react to this constant abuse 30 years from now”. I’m not sure what you mean by “constant abuse”.

        • Joe Campbell

          “constant abuse”=Putting something that is “unnatural” into your body repeatedly over time and happily watching the effects.
          Either yourself or someone else partaking in this process will eventually bask in the various forms of digestive problems, wonderful different flavors of cancer, Amazing forms of Autism….ADHD…..The list goes on and on. It’s wonderful…..it’s like Christmas you just don’t know what you’re going to get! Behind that delicious GMO is an array of unknown wonderfulness!
          “unnatural”=NOT FOUND IN NATURE….just in case you might need a bit more clarification.
          Brought to you by Monsanto….the wonderful makers of the bought and patented synthetic form of Biotechnology……Pardon me I meant “food”. Cheap and abundant! Now at your local grocery store. Hurry now while supplies last…..oh never mind, just kidding, we have an abundant supply that will keep you and your family fat dumb and happy for years to come!
          Once again thanks for all of you who support GMO’s! You help to keep the hospitals nice and full, and make healthcare a multi billion dollar industry! Because hey! Who wants to eat natural stuff when you can buy cheap GMO’s. So what if I get sick…the hospital is right around the corner, I get out of work for free, and they serve FREE food! And I get FREE medication I get to take for the rest of my life! Come on this is America baby!!!! We are the fattest sickest nastiest and one of the dumbest corrupted nations on earth and we don’t want to lose that title. Without GMO’s we never could have earned this title and be #1 for the sickest nation on Earth! Yay for us! The American food supply is the greatest! Thanks GMO’s!

          • Good4U

            Joe: Go have a beer & relax. Oh, sorry, you can’t have beer. It isn’t “natural”. Mother Nature doesn’t brew beer.

          • actually? mother nature DOES brew beer, all the original ingredients are natural and highly regulated for thousands of years. the original processes of brewing are all natural, resulting in purified water (much safer than the crap from your tap) complex carbohydrates (much less addictive and safer than refined sugar, and far less toxic than artificial sweeteners like aspartame), dietary fiber, natural antioxidants, silicates for bone health and preventing loss of bone mass in women and reduction of kidney stones in men… point being, the frat party image of guzzling BUD is the bad guy, the truth of the matter is that real beer is actually good for you, in moderation.

          • Good4U

            Myr, I agree. I like beer, and drink it. I even made some once. I was being facetious to Joe. I think he should relax, and if beer helps, hey, go for it. It’s still not natural though. It’s brewed by humans. No more natural than GMO technology.

          • can’t imagine the first brew being devised by man…. had to be like some sort of dare concerning spoiled bread or something, and discovering that it wasn’t bad! kinda like ‘love apples’ which were thought to be toxic, but we all know today that tomatoes are actually good.

            and because the ‘original beer’ ie, the very first fermentation, WASN’T by man, it had to be natural.

          • Good4U

            Myr, your speculation on the “original beer” is probably right, just like the “first GMO” that I’m referring to. In case you are interested, the processes of gene transfer from one species to another, and even between plants and animals, is taking place every minute of every day, and none of those processes are in the least bit controlled by humans. Viruses splice genes from one organism to another as they enter cells and begin their replicative processes. Some viruses are themselves mutagenic, i.e. cause gene changes in their hosts (people, animals, plants). Bacteria also carry DNA from one organism to another as they spread from one host to another. All of this is completely natural, and no one can predict the outcome. We only discover the outcome after the fact.

            Trying to say the beer we drink today is “natural” is like saying the foods that we eat are natural, even those from “organic” farms. They are not “natural” in any sense. Humans have been transferring genes from one species to another since the beginnings of agriculture. Many of the types of plants that we eat today were generated by chemical or radiational mutagenesis, meaning that their genes were changed intentionally by plant breeders using highly artificial methods (not “natural” in any sense). They simply selected the best ones for deployment. You & I eat them all the time.

            I’m as healthy as I could ask to be at this stage in my life, and have survived many illnesses due to the intervention of human endeavor, including the use of transgenic organisms. The fact that most of us in highly developed countries are living longer than ever before in the history of the human species is testament to the efficacy of technology to raise our standard of living. That includes improvements in human nutrition via plant (and animal) transgenics.

          • unfortunately, some natural things are assuredly not good for us; but I can’t see eating corn that produces it’s own pesticide as being healthy, or plants that are more resilient so more toxic chemicals can be applied. I also find it disconcerting when growth hormones are found in elevated levels in the milk supply and have been associated with increased risks for cancer.

            I’m not saying that all GMOs are bad for us, just that there has not been enough testing to be certain one way or the other.

          • Good4U

            Myr, I appreciate your dedication to this topic. It is clear that you have given it a lot of thought, so thanks for your views. All I’m saying is that nothing that we humans eat, or smear all over our bodies, or use to power our lives, is natural. It’s silly to believe that one is leading a “natural” life when he or she is spending hours every day banging on a computer, with a full belly, and in decent health, all due to the technology that humans have developed for the past 10 thousand years or more. In the developed world, nobody is natural. If you want to find something resembling “natural” humans, you will have to travel to very remote parts of the world where indigenous peoples remain, usually in jungle areas. You will find extreme poverty, disease, slavery (men consider women and other men to be sexual property), barbarism (they kill and maim each other readily), and very short lifespans. Women begin having babies as soon as they reach puberty, very few live beyond the age of 20, and an old man is maybe 30. Airy-fairy publications on the internet would have you believe that such people lead pristine lives, fully in touch with their environment. I’ll grant that they are, but the other 7 billion people on this planet are not natural in any sense of the word.

          • Now I see where our point of contention is. ‘Natural’ does not mean ‘Original’ it means:

            1.existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial ): a natural bridge.

            2.based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.

            3.of or relating to nature or the universe:
            natural beauty.

            4.of, relating to, or occupied with the study of natural science: conducting natural experiments.

            5.in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land.

            6.growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, as vegetation.

            7. having undergone little or no processing and containing no chemical additives:

            natural food; natural ingredients.

            Nature does evolve over time. And yes, man has discovered remedies that occur naturally. Many processes we use replicate the natural ones. Hybridization, selective breeding, and the occasional cross species melding (such as horse and donkey to produce a mule, a docile non reproductive work animal) have been done on a grand scale, but were already possible in nature.

            As how this pertains to beer, living yeast (selectively bred for the purpose) digests grain which was grown as a crop, with flower buds called hops added, and water. All these things are found in nature. Beer is one of the waste products from the action of the yeast eating the grain. many breweries use CO2 injection to carbonize their beer, but I much prefer the bottle conditioning method, which is a second feeding of the yeast of sugar, again another digestive process.

            By the descriptive reasoning you kindly provided, not even the primordial original living organism touted by evolutionists would be considered ‘natural’

          • Good4U

            Quite right. See my post above (4 days ago), the process of transgenics (genetic engineering) has been going on naturally since the beginning of life on this planet. It is quite natural in the sense that you describe natural. In fact, one type of bacteria, called Agrobacterium tumefaciens, is one of the mechanisms that bioengineers utilize in order to intentionally transfer a gene from one organism to another. It’s a completely natural occurrence, done by natural means, just as natural as any beer I have ever made or drunk.

          • then you don’t believe the finding that an unnatural protein has been created and introduced into some GMOs? After all, all life on this little rock of ours is comprised of exactly 147 left hand proteins.

          • Good4U

            Myr, there’s no such thing as an “unnatural protein”. Transgenic organisms (GMOs) produce proteins that are just as natural as those in the organism from which they came. That’s the whole point. They haven’t been “created and introduced” any differently than those which have been introduced by viruses and bacteria since the beginning of life. The fact is, transgenics is happening all around you, and even inside you, every minute of every day. You don’t control any of it. If you only knew the magnitude and ubiquity of it, you would be astounded.

          • so a 148th left hand protein would still be considered ‘natural’ even though no living organism has ever had it prior to GMOs?

          • Good4U

            Transgenics means moving a gene from one organism to another. That means that the gene, and the protein that it coded, were present in the donor organism; so yes, the protein is natural. Your premise is false.

          • you misunderstand my postulate. there are far more proteins in nature than the specific 147 left-hand proteins which comprise all life on the planet. This is fact.

            In the creation of GMOs, some of them have had a different, never before in living organisms, added into their structure; a 148th left-hand protein, found in the world, but never before found in living organisms. This may be because the genetic coding required this to make the new organism (GMO) viable, but that is speculation.

            However, since this particular protein has never before been in our food supply, would you not agree that it is potentially threatening and deserving of extended testing BEFORE putting it on the shelves of our markets?

          • Malc

            147 left-hand proteins…Humans alone have ~20 000. I am just curious where you got your information to seem so confident in yourself. Perhaps you mean amino acids? I don’t see how such a polymer can have left designation, but am curious so inform me please.

          • only 20 amino acids, 40 if you count both the left hand geometry and right hand… include a single right hand amino acid in a protein it becomes worthless. an average protein would chain about 400 amino acids together, that chain also has a left hand geometry.

            A situation similar to the left-handedness of amino acids also exists with respect to nucleotides, the smallest units of the nucleic acids, DNA and RNA. In contrast to proteins, in which only left-handed amino acids are chosen, in the case of the nucleic acids, the preferred forms of their nucleotide components are always right-handed.

            Your ‘estimate’ of how many proteins exist in a human is actually a bit low, its closer to 50k; however 147 of them are essential to life, and they are all purely left handed.

          • smithmm

            There is no such thing as a left-hand protein. That is alchemy, not biochemistry. You don’t know what you are talking about.

          • smithmm

            You should stop trying to be a biochemist or nutritionist. You are an embarrassment.

          • smithmm

            There is no such thing as a “left-hand” protein.

          • SageThinker

            Yes, indeed, life has a “handedness” — it’s a form of chirality, reads about it. I don’t know about other claims by Myr but this is real thing. (link in next comment)

          • SageThinker
          • smithmm

            Again, there is no such thing. You clearly can’t read a lay article, since there is no mention of “handedness” in proteins, which are polymers, not chiral molecules, only L-amino acids. Try not discuss chemistry, if you are not a chemist.

          • SageThinker

            The handedness would be in the amino acids.

          • smithmm

            That’s not what you said, nor did you make any point at all.

          • SageThinker

            I assumed that you would understand that proteins are made up of amino acids. My text was in a separate comment, as sometimes comments with links get delayed. Here is my text to the comment for your reference: “Yes, indeed, life has a “handedness” — it’s a form of chirality, reads about it. I don’t know about other claims by Myr but this is real thing. (link in next comment)”. A fun fact about chirality — it was the key to the problem with thalidomide. One more example of “better living through chemistry” gone awry because of the simple fact that humans are fallible and cannot think of everything. And the same story repeats today.

          • smithmm

            Right, I’m a molecular biologist and specialized in genetic engineering and gene expression. I am not a lay person and understand far more than you about chirality and the like. Anyone who talks about “handedness” in biological molecules, like you, is operating at an elementary, Biochemistry 101 level.

          • SageThinker

            Wow. What a superiority complex. So are you saying that there is not a “handedness” to some biological molecules, and that life has not settled on one handedness and not the other? How can you characterize me as operating at a 101 level from this? I think *you* were the one castigating Myr when s/he said something about handedness of life, and i was simply pointing out that she is correct in this regard. Way to pull rank. Want me to pull rank too? I could tell you where i’ve worked and in what field relating to this topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(chemistry)#/media/File:Chirality_with_hands.svg

          • smithmm

            Dude, molecules have NO hands!

          • SageThinker

            Are you saying that chirality does not exist? That would be an odd thing for a molecular biochemist to say. It sometimes makes all the difference.

          • Captain Moonlight

            You have no scientific training and clearly suffer from the Dunning–Kruger effect; “a cognitive bias wherein unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate.” Tell the truth, little man.

          • SageThinker

            You fail to answer the question at hand, and resort to a personal attack. And by the way, i am actually right about chirality of many of life’s molecules, as well as that of thalidomide. Your answer shows a poverty of position.

          • Captain Moonlight

            You pretend to be a scientist but you are just an old man with grey hair and liver spots who delights in spreading falsehoods. Poor old thing.

          • SageThinker

            Ditto here. Empty repeated identical comments would equal “spam” in my book of definitions. If banning someone for spam is a policy then here may be a case where a mod would ban a user.

          • SageThinker

            You’re really losing it, Captain. You’re posting this exact comment on my last 100 comments. Real good way to engage in dialog. You lose all credibility in the eyes of everyone who can see.

          • Captain Moonlight

            You pretend to be a scientist but you are just an old man with grey hair and liver spots who delights in spreading falsehoods. Grow up.

          • SageThinker

            Once again, sire Jon Entine, you will notice that a minion has encountered a glitch in his programming and has entered into a behavioral loop that is not beneficial to the system.

          • smithmm

            That is a really ignorant and erroneous contention.

          • disputing it is the ignorant and erroneous position.

          • smithmm

            What the hell are you talking about? Playing biochemist? You can’t fool a real one. . lol

          • Please don’t egg her on—it just encourage more silliness. She’s obviously doing a good job at distracting from the topic of the thread. This is the price we pay for un-moderated forums.

          • fortunately, your ‘poo-pooh-ing of fact has shown you aren’t a biochemist either. Fortunately I am a researcher, which you are obviously not, and have more than one or two friends that are biochemists. in fact one just graduated recently in Minnesota, something they call a university, ever been to one?

            Personally my degree is in computer science. tons of math, something you have yet to demonstrate, and the ability to use modern tech to locate information, something else you have failed to demonstrate. Funny thing is, chemistry and algebra? very closely related…

            So I suppose we are back to my speculation that you are just some sort of Monsanto lackey, probably paid to throw your negativity into public discussions against GMOs. All the while knowing that what you are ‘supporting’ is stupid. I presume you are part of the massive cover-up and are attempting to misdirect peoples concerns with your company line rhetoric. May you eat your GMO based artificial foodstuffs and die a horrible death from the cancers it might cause.

          • smithmm

            You’re just hilarious with your buffoonery and boasting of biochemist friends. Thanks! And as for your silly death wish, I’m sure you’d claim to be a humanitarian and a Christian too.

          • Actually? my religious beliefs are none of your concern. I do believe that people should get what they deserve, which is why proper labeling of GMO products is such an issue. People have the right to know what they are eating.

            Silly death wish? Hardly. Humanitarian? You betcha! If your defense of GMOs leads to you getting what you deserve? call it Karma or whatever you want, you will have earned it. This doesn’t mean I want you dead today. But perhaps your suffering could save countless other lives. Lives saved by exposing the facts behind GMOs, through proper testing.

            Obviously Smithmm, you aren’t going to go against your paycheck from Monsanto, enjoy your cancer.

          • smithmm

            You’re a sociopathic moron.

          • You best get your definitions corrected you Monsanto dupe. Being such a puppet makes everything you say suspect.

          • Has anyone noticed that Smithmm has not refuted my claim of him being on Monsanto’s payroll? How can anything he says be trusted?

          • BioChicaGMO

            Regarding “a corn that produces it’s own pesticide”.
            I recently wrote an article about this; please see: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/12/09/myth-busting-are-synthetic-pesticides-used-with-some-gmos-more-dangerous-than-natural-ones/

          • Mlema

            BioChicaGMO, you’ve popped in to the conversation here and there to correct misunderstandings of the science. Why don’t you correct the misunderstanding above: “…the process of transgenics (genetic engineering) has been going on naturally since the beginning of life on this planet.”?

            This is why people don’t trust GMO industry advocates. They claim they’re just “communicating the science”, but they don’t really explain anything and allow false generalizations about the technology to be repeated over and over – even perpetrating them themselves – as long as it supports the industry’s cause: winning public approval.

            The whole point of transgenics is to breed plants that can’t be bred in nature. I don’t care that it’s natural or not. Anything can be called natural or unnatural. I care that the science is being misrepresented.

          • smithmm

            “The whole point of transgenics is to breed plants that can’t be bred in nature.” That is absolutely false. The point is to better develop plants that are undesirable to breed by other slower and painstakingly crude methods.

          • Mlema

            You’re right, in some cases. However, billions of plants producing multiple Cry toxins ain’t gonna happen in nature. It’s an easy way to dispense pesticide-in-plant. Bt plants wouldn’t exist in “nature”. So-called “science communicators” are misrepresenting this technology.

          • smithmm

            How do you know there has not been enough testing?

          • I quote from Monsanto:

            ‘There are not currently any human clinical trials used to test the safety of GM crops. This is not unusual; no existing food or ingredient – GM or otherwise – has been the subject of human clinical trials. However, there is broad global agreement among food scientists, toxicology experts and regulatory food safety officials on how to evaluate the safety of GM foods. We follow these expert recommendations.’

            the article goes on to mention how they ‘test’ for protein digestability, but not in humans, how they only look at the ‘introduced’ portion as needing to be examined, dismissing the interaction between the introduced element(s) and the host elements…

            Really a fascinating read.

            Next thing you know they’ll splice chimpanzee genes into soybeans so they can be trained to pick themselves….

            Doesn’t it make sense that if they want to be able to patent the seeds they should have to test them for safety first?

          • smithmm

            You knowledge of biochemistry is lay level, at best. Test *what* for safety? They are not drugs that go through clinical trials. It’s just food. Food is not tested for safety and there is no need to do so.

          • food no….but are GMOs actually food/ reasonably close to other food? Lead is ‘reasonably’ close to gold, both are metals and only one step apart on the periodic table… but i’d bet you wouldn’t want your dental work done in lead.

            Test that the interaction of the host plus the introduced genome in combination are actually safe for human consumption.

            We have chlorine and ammonia in our blood streams, granted they are typically found locked in compounds that keep them from interacting with each other… but just as an experiment why not take a gallon of bleach and add it to the same quantity of ammonia in a bucket in your room and take a deep healthy inhale of the result. Specific interactions are what are unknown with GMOs.

            GMOs should be TREATED as drugs

          • Kitty Meow

            I don’t think enough time has passed for us to label it entirely safe. When a big change is made, sometimes it takes more time to see the big picture. History has proven that to be true. It would be one thing ifwere eating a few GMO foods for now. A small experiment. But Monsanto has made this such a big deal, they want their hands in everything we eat. I’m obviously not so learned and erudite and know almost nothing about the science behind this, but folk wisdom tells us not to put all our eggs in one basket and that’s a pretty reliable practice. I’m not necessarily against GMO foods, I just think when there’s a small non GMO company doing well, they should be left alone, not taken over, so what’s the big deal with letting people have some options? At least until a few generations go by and it’s obvious nothing negative has transpired before you take over our entire food supply.

          • smithmm

            Again, what is the basis for your “feeling”, other than ignorance or lack of understanding of the current state of the art?

          • smithmm

            There has been plenty of testing and you are woefully uninformed if you think there is any evidence that any “GMO’s are bad for us”. You have no understanding of plant genetics, nutrition or gene expression.

          • According to Monsanto’s own press release there has been no human trials of GMOs what-so-ever. The ‘classification’ of GMOs as ‘FOOD’ has circumvented any tests, unfortunately, Monsanto, the FDA, and the EPA regularly swap personnel amongst themselves. To simply state that it closely resembles the regular variety of the plant isn’t ethically enough, albeit legally enough for profit hungry corporations to pack the shelves with an untested product. It should not be treated as ‘FOOD’ GMOs should be required to do testing as any other man made product is. I have never stated that GMOs are categorically unsafe, but it makes logica sense to prove safety before putting GMOs in the food supply rather than waiting for long term exposure to prove otherwise.

          • smithmm

            No, it makes no sense, logical or otherwise, to treat food as other than food. That is idiotic and ludicrous on its face. There is nothing different about these products that anyone can test for. You have no idea how a clinical trial is performed and they are not performed with food products that are not drugs.

          • it’s not food…its a food substitute…

          • As to evidence, granted it is all circumstantial, but then again, how would you suggest proving they are unsafe, except with testing.

            There are a number of correlations that indicate that ‘something’ has happened to increase cancer, reduce the average life span in the USA (as shown by a drastic reduction in the number of persons over 65 receiving Social security benefits), and an increase in the number of other disease instances since the advent of GMOs in the food supply.

            All this despite the reduced number of smokers, the relocation of manufacturing industries overseas, reduced automotive emission levels… Something doesn’t add up.

            The very fact you believe there has been testing shows just how ignorant of the facts you are Smithmm. All that has been done is a bunch of bureaucrats saying ‘looks close enough to me’.

          • smithmm

            Your premise is flawed, biased and unscientific (anecdotal): “How would you suggest proving they are unsafe, except with testing.” Things are tested to demonstrate safety not the lack thereof. Compositional testing of GMO products HAS demonstrated no difference from conventional strains. There are no disease correlations as you erroneously suggest.

          • I’m curious about what your definition of ‘natural’ is.

          • lf

            if i remember correctly “beer or mead” was created by accident when people stored their liquids in sheep stomach and the enzimes in the stomach started the fermentation process, something that is definitely a natural process but couldn’t have happened without human intervention.. not much differently than genes manipulation .. btw the original “beer” contained honey a higly refined carbohydrate

          • beer was discovered by various peoples around the world. ‘mead’ is a relatively new concoction in comparison. I would check your memory as it doesn’t have the facts, If. You can check out the history of beer at: ambersuds.com

          • lf

            i stand corrected about the origin yet irrelevant , my point is still valid
            the ingredients are found in nature but it takes human intervention (or an accident caused by human intervention) to combine them and produce a drink , the same way GM is done

          • Seriously? That’s like comparing the discovery of fire to a moon launch; and we all know the safety record of space flight. Next thing we’ll be hearing is how safe it is to splice alligator genes into sheep because it makes them more water tolerant.

          • lf

            sorry i don’t understand the moon launch/fire reference.. as far as splicing alligator genes into a sheep you might be onto something

          • if you don’t fathom the difference between observing and replicating natural events vs 22,000 parts built by the lowest bidder with no consideration between potentially incompatible applications then you’re just stupid, or trying to elicit an emotional response from me. Either way you show your indifference to the truth.

            Alligators and sheep…hmm..waterproof wool! SUCCESS! Unfortunate side effect is that the sheep keep eating the shepherds, the sheepdogs, other livestock; but still its a resounding success!

            Just like the FDA approved use of aspartame, a wonderful non calorie non sugar sweetener that even cockroaches won’t touch, totally safe for human consumption despite the lack of long term studies… do you really want to risk your health on frankencorn or zombiesoy?

          • Mlema

            GMO yeast is used in wine, beer and other industries.

          • ria

            Yes but the ingredients to make that beer were not made by nature. i.e. they have been modified/bred to produce higher yields and suchlike…

          • They absolutely were made by nature. Crossbreeding and the like could not have been accomplished without natures co-operation. Gene splicing on the other hand completely ignores natural selection and imposes artificial design.

          • RonPK

            That’s not true either. Fermentation happens in nature also, but the flies laps that up I the very least, not enough for harvesting.

          • Good4U

            Ron, you have to read my responses to Myr thoroughly in order to get the point. I already said that her “original beer” idea, which addresses your point as well, is probably is true. But the beer that I drink is no more natural than the GMO corn, soybeans, etc. that I also eat.

          • hey Ron?

            Most craft brewers tend to stay away from GMO barley, since it’s characteristics are different than real barley. Beer has nothing to do with corn or soybeans which are the primary focus of the ‘engineers’… pretty